The Intellectual Property Office of Viet Nam (Ministry of Science and Technology) reported that in 2024 alone, it granted more than 53,600 protection titles and received nearly 153,000 applications. In reality, the number of intellectual property (IP) assets owned by enterprises and citizens in various forms is steadily increasing. However, the acceptance of IP assets as collateral remains very limited.
Barriers to pledging intellectual property assets
Although it is a pretigious technology enterprise in Viet Nam, BKAV Group has faced great difficulty in expanding its scale because it has virtually been unable to raise capital from banks.
Nguyen Tu Quang, Chairman of the Board of Directors and General Director of the Group, pointed out a major “bottleneck” facing his corporation as well as many other technology enterprises: the inability to value assets and obtain credit guarantees.
“Another major barrier for technology enterprises is access to capital for large-scale production expansion. Technology companies have invested very large sums, but cannot obtain bank loans because their assets are technology (intangible assets), which are neither valued nor accepted for credit guarantees,” Quang shared.
Commenting on this reality, Vu Ngoc Lan, Deputy Head of the Legal Department of the State Bank of Viet Nam, said that although IP assets can have substantial value, they are difficult to use as collateral due to four main risk groups.
First is the risk of overvaluation and strong value volatility. The value of IP assets depends on the technology life cycle, the level of application, and market response, and therefore fluctuates constantly. IP assets can quickly become obsolete after just one technology cycle. Without common valuation standards or sufficient market data, both enterprises and banks struggle to determine a reasonable collateral value.
“While the law allows parties to agree on valuation or hire an appraisal organisation, valuation standards for intangible assets under Circular No. 37/2024/TT-BTC are still largely based on the comparative method, which is hard to apply because IP assets are inherently unique,” Ms Lan noted.
Second, the State Bank representative also emphasised the risk of low liquidity when handling collateral. IP assets are closely tied to the production and business activities of the owning enterprise, making them difficult to resell on the market when bad debts arise. In cases where the enterprise becomes insolvent, the bank can hardly liquidate patents or software quickly to third parties. Many IP assets are co-owned or linked to partial value chains, making disposition even more complex and time-consuming.
Third, although the Civil Code and Decree No. 21/2021/ND-CP allow the use of property rights arising from intellectual property to secure obligations, the current Intellectual Property Law still lacks specific provisions on registration and handling of assets when pledged.
As a result, collateral transaction registries are uncertain, banks fear disputes, and enterprises do not know whether their assets will be recognised when bad debts are handled. When enterprises operate across borders, legal differences between jurisdictions further heighten risk.
Fourth, banks currently lack teams of experts capable of analysing and valuing IP assets. Hiring independent consultants drives transaction costs up sharply. In addition, information asymmetry — where enterprises hold more data than lenders — forces banks to conduct extensive cross-checks, increasing both costs and processing time.
For these reasons, even though the law does not prohibit it, IP assets remain far “less attractive” than real estate, machinery, or inventories — tangible assets with more stable values and active secondary markets.
In practice, many banks are willing to consider loans based on future cash flows generated by technology products, but accepting IP assets as collateral is a different story. This is explained by the lack of data, lack of standards, and absence of transparent trading markets.
“Unlike real estate, which has reference price lists, or working capital backed by invoices, IP assets lack standardised input data. Viet Nam has yet to establish a nationwide IP trading platform or an open valuation database for banks to consult. This makes risk assessment difficult for banks.”
Although the Law on Credit Institutions allows banks and clients to agree freely on forms of security, there are still no detailed regulations ensuring legal safety when collateral is realised. Decree No. 94/2025/ND-CP on the banking sandbox also does not mention pilot schemes for lending based on IP assets.
In the context of latent bad debts, if IP — a type of asset that is hard to value and illiquid — is accepted as collateral, the risk will be transferred directly to banks’ balance sheets. As a result, the mentality of “doing the easy things first, difficult things later” remains widespread.
Reducing risk while unlocking capital flows for IP assets
In reality, many countries have recognised early the role of IP assets in the digital economy and have developed specialised financial models.
In the UK, intangible assets account for 70–80% of total enterprise value, but the traditional credit system once focused mainly on tangible assets. The UK Government issued its 2025 Industrial Strategy, committing to removing barriers for IP-driven enterprises, and launched programmes supporting banks in valuing patents, data, and software.
One typical example is EarthSense, an enterprise using air-quality monitoring solutions, which secured a 264,000 GBP loan from NatWest. Thanks to a valuation-support framework and partial risk guarantees from State agencies, the bank was confident to disburse.
Similarly, Singapore has established a credit-guarantee mechanism covering 50–70% of loans secured by IP assets, and built a professional valuation team under the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS). It has also issued the IP ValueLab valuation standard to harmonise valuation methods.
As a result, pledging IP assets has become feasible, transparent, and trusted within the credit system.
In Viet Nam, the draft law amending and supplementing the Intellectual Property Law paves the way for the use of IP assets as collateral. However, according to National Assembly deputies, the legal framework remains insufficiently clear, making it difficult to apply in credit practice.
National Assembly deputy Nguyen Hoang Bao Tran (Ho Chi Minh City delegation) said that allowing owners to independently compile lists and self-value IP assets is a step forward, but “overly broad” if it does not require proof of valuation bases, standards, or minimum methodologies. This loophole can be abused to inflate values, create transaction risk, and make it difficult for banks to appraise loan applications.
She proposed adding principles on explanation and transparency in valuation methods, and clarifying the prerequisites for IP assets to be pledged — from valuation standards and documentation establishing rights to mechanisms for asset disposal when bad debts occur.
It is therefore clear that freeing up capital flows for enterprises owning IP assets will not only expand growth space but also drive a shift from a resource-based growth model to one driven by knowledge.
However, to achieve this, beyond efforts from the banking system, there must be coordinated involvement from regulators, valuation organisations, enterprises, and the technology market. Once barriers are removed, IP assets can truly become “precious capital”, helping Vietnamese enterprises break through in the digital economy era.
National Assembly deputy Pham Van Hoa (Dong Thap delegation) proposed that IP assets should only be recorded on accounting books after ownership rights have been established by a competent authority, in order to avoid “inflating” values for the purpose of borrowing, issuing securities, or attracting investment.
