Ah, the age-old question of what makes an asset 'real' in the eyes of the economy. I'd go with D - all those criteria ensure it has substance, not just smoke and mirrors. Though I suppose you could argue intangible assets are just fancy vapor anyway.
Option D is the way to go. You need the full package - legal status, clear identification, and private ownership rights. Anything less and it's just a figment of your imagination. Or a government conspiracy, depending on how you look at it.
I think B is the key one. If you can't specifically identify and describe the asset, how can it be considered legitimate from an economic standpoint? Ownership and legal protection are important, but recognition is fundamental.
Definitely D - all those attributes are essential for an intangible asset to exist. You can't have an invisible, state-less asset, can you? That would be like trying to sell the air we breathe!
Amie
2 months agoTiara
15 days agoCatina
17 days agoElsa
19 days agoHubert
25 days agoGearldine
27 days agoTammy
1 months agoClarinda
2 months agoFrancesco
2 months agoKenny
19 days agoKattie
22 days agoLashawn
1 months agoLeonida
2 months agoHelaine
2 months agoEleni
22 days agoJaclyn
23 days agoApolonia
23 days agoJose
1 months agoMakeda
2 months agoBulah
2 months ago