The question in this paper is whether the inclusion of intangibles is meaningful in a credit decision context. To examine this issue we conducted an experiment with forty loan officers. The loan officers were presented with a situation of a company that required a credit of 5 million Swedish kronor. Half of the loan officers were given a traditional annual statement in which intangibles were treated as costs while the other half received a balance sheet in which brand, R&D and education were capitalized. The loan officers were asked to give their opinion regarding the credit decision and the importance of extra information. They were also confronted with four short cases where extra information about the company appeared. Statistical analysis revealed that none of three hypotheses relating to the statement that ‘accounting for intangibles does not matter’ could be falsified. Still, the acquired qualitative data that emerged from the study makes it possible to suggest another finding. The study shows that accounting for intangibles is accepted if the accounts were seen as reliable. The conclusion is that if it is possible to create reliable data about intangibles, accounting for intangibles is meaningful for credit decisions.