/;Seven of the 10 top 50 brands that fell in value in the year to June were banks. Between them their names lost more than $10bn (£5.5bn) of their cachet, according to the annual Interbrand survey, which uses future income estimates, the role of the brand and overall customer loyalty assessments to build its league table.”

I interpreted “cachet” as “market value”. Sorry. I won’t make THAT mistake again.

Here is their methodology:
http://interbrand.com/best_global_brands_methodology.aspx?langid=1000

Maybe I’m not looking closely enough?

If they did, who knows what rationale Interbrand used to justify adjusting a brand’s value based on its stock price? Who knows, for that matter, what their definition of brand is. I could speculate about their rationale for this calculation, but I’m reluctant to engage in a proxy debate on Interbrand’s behalf. Maybe they think shareholder confidence strongly correlates to — or even reflects — a company’s brand stature? But to really answer this question, you’d have to ask them. Even better, you’d get to look at their formula.

I wonder what weighted significance the calculation gives to share prices? And I wonder what this system of measurement would mean for someone like Navy FCU, who has no stock?