Search results

The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the application of standard environmental accounting practices for estimating long‐term discount rates is likely to lead to the rejection of biodiversity‐sensitive projects that are in the greater societal good.

The authors combine estimates of marginal ecosystem damages from two forestry case studies, one local, one global, with ten different term structures of discount rates taken from both the academic literature and policy choices to calculate present values.

Standard environmental accounting approaches for estimating the long‐term discount rate result in the under‐valuation of projects that are sensitive to biodiversity conservation.

This paper is set within a full cost accounting (FCA) framework, and therefore has the limitations that generally follow from taking this approach to biodiversity problems. Recommended extensions include looking at broader ranges of biodiversity costs and benefits.

Unless environmental accountants engage with environmental economists over the issue of intergenerational discount rates, then it is likely that socially responsible managers will reject projects that are in the greater societal good.

The paper introduces both normative discount rates and declining discount rates to estimates of shadow environmental provisions within FCA and contrasts these with current environmental accounting practices. It also provides two detailed case studies that demonstrate the extent to which biodiversity‐sensitive investment choices are likely to be undervalued by managers who follow current accounting recommendations concerning the appropriate choice of discount rate.

The essence of discounted cash flow valuation is simple; the asset is worth the expected cash flows it will generate, discounted to the reference date for the valuation exercise (normally, the day of the calculation). A survey article was written in Parker (1968), where it was stated that the earliest interest rate tables (use to discount value to the present) dated back to 1340. Works from Boulding (1935) and Keynes (1936) derived the IRR (Internal Rate of Return) for an investment. Samuelson (1937) compared the IRR and NPV (Net Present Value) approaches, arguing that rational investors should maximize NPV and not IRR. The previously mentioned works and the publication of Joel Dean’s reference book (Dean, 1951) on capital budgeting set the basis for the widespread use of the discounted cash flow approach into all business areas, aided by developments in portfolio theory. Nowadays, probably the model with more widespread use is the FCFE/FCFF (Free Cash Flow to Equity and Free Cash Flow to Firm) model. For simplification purposes, we will focus on the FCFE model, which basically is the FCF model’s version for the potential dividends. The focus is to value the business based on its dividends (potential or real), and thus care must be taken in order not to double count cash flows (this matter was treated in this case) and to assess what use is given to that excess cash flow – if it is invested wisely, what returns will come of them, how it is accounted for, etc. (Damodaran, 2006). The bridge to the FCFF model is straightforward; the FCFF includes FCFE and added cash that is owed to debtholders. References: Parker, R.H. (1968). “Discounted Cash Flow in Historical Perspective”, Journal of Accounting Research, v6, pp58-71. Boulding, K.E. (1935). “The Theory of a Single Investment”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, v49, pp479-494. Keynes, J. M. (1936). “The General Theory of Employment”, Macmillan, London. Samuelson, P. (1937). “Some Aspects of the Pure Theory of Capital”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, v51, pp. 469–496. Dean, Joel. (1951). “Capital Budgeting”, Columbia University Press, New York. Damodaran, A. (2006). “Damodaran on Valuation”, Second Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York.

All information is taken from public sources and with consented company interviews.

Opportunities for value creation may be found in awkward and difficult circumstances. Good strategic thinking and ability to act swiftly are usually crucial to be able to take advantage of such tough environments. Amidst a country-wide economic crisis and general disbelief, José de Mello Group (JMG) saw one of its main assets’ (Brisa Highways) market value tumble down to unforeseen figures and was forced to act on it. Brisa’s main partners were eager in overpowering JMG’s control of the company, and outside pressure from Deutsche Bank was rising, due to the use of Brisa’s shares as collateral. JMG would have to revise its strategy and see if Brisa was worth fighting for; the market implicit assessment about the company’s prospects was very penalizing, but JMG’s predictions on Brisa’s future performance indicated that this could be an investment opportunity. Would it be wise to bet against the market?

This study is excellent for finance and strategy courses, at both undergraduate and graduate levels. Company valuation and corporate strategy are required.

The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the fact that the certainty equivalent coefficient net present value criterion, CEC(NPV), in disregarding a fundamental requirement for the calculation of cash flows for purposes of discounted cash flow analysis, invalidates this capital budgeting criterion from the perspective of sound research methodology. The paper also investigates the impact of the UK Companies Act of 2006, the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002, and important reviews such as the Turner Review of 2009, the Walker Review of 2009, and the Review of the Combined Code of 2009 on this operationally invalid capital budgeting criterion, as well as its impact on the process of financial managerial decision making.

The CEC(NPV) as a discounted cash flow capital budgeting criterion was examined from the perspective of the axioms of cash flow estimation as well as from the definition of the cost of capital in order to ascertain the contribution of this criterion to financial management. The relevant sections of the UK Companies Act of 2006, the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002, the Turner Review of 2009, the Walker Review of 2009, and the Review of the Combined Code of 2009 were studied in order to establish whether the CEC(NPV) was able to satisfy the requirements of this legislation and these important reviews.

The CEC(NPV) is construct invalid and does not measure what it purports to measure: it over‐states financial viability. As a consequence, it does not meet the requirements of sound research methodology and therefore is at odds with the UK Companies Act of 2006, the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002, and falls foul of the Turner Review of 2009, the Walker Review of 2009, the 2009 Review of the Combined Code issued by the Financial Reporting Council. As such it cannot be endorsed by the Financial Services Authority.

The paper usefully shows that the CEC(NPV) denies financial managers application of Fisherian analysis for resolving conflicts in the rankings of mutually exclusive projects, and, the comparison of project cost of capital with their respective internal rates of return. Comparisons of the internal rate of return, not with the risk‐free rate (that is assumed to be a constant and which exhibits minimal variability in comparison with the cost of capital), but with the cost of capital cost of capital, are a sine qua non for managerial decision making, especially capital budgeting.

Explains that three approaches to valuation under leverage are found in the financial economics literature: weighted average cost of capital (WACC); flow‐to‐equity (FTE) or residual equity income (REI); and adjusted present value (APV). Although both the WACC and the FTE methods have been extensively used in real estate investment analyses, it appears that the APV has received little attention in the real estate literature. This is surprising because the reasons that render the APV preferable to the other two methods exist in most real investment situations. Provides an introduction to the APV method and illustrates it with a numerical example. Discusses potential applications of this method in different real estate investment problems.

This paper aims to show that the accuracy of real estate portfolio valuations and of real estate risk management can be improved through the simultaneous use of Monte Carlo simulations and options theory.

The authors' method considers the options embedded in Continental European lease contracts drawn up with tenants who may move before the end of the contract. The authors combine Monte Carlo simulations for both market prices and rental values with an optional model that takes into account a rational tenant's behaviour. They analyze how the options significantly affect the owner's income.

The authors' main findings are that simulated cash flows which take account of such options are more reliable that those usually computed by the traditional method of discounted cash flow.

Some limitations are inherent to the authors' model: these include the assumption of the rationality of tenant's decisions and the difficulty of calibrating the model given the lack of data in many markets.

The main contribution of the paper is both by accounting for market risk (Monte Carlo simulations for the prices and market rental values) and for accounting for the idiosyncratic risk (the leasing risk).

The adoption of several basic financial management practices is examined for a group of New York dairy farms. The study provides estimates of the extent to which various business analysis and control, investment analysis and decision making, and capital acquisition practices have been adopted. Many practices, such as net present value analysis, are not widely adopted by farmers. The relationship between the adoption of financial management practices and farm profitability is also examined. Results suggest that the adoption of financial management practices, such as using investment analysis techniques, significantly impacts farm financial performance.

To address formally the issue of uncertainty in valuing real estate.

Monte Carlo simulations are used to incorporate the uncertainty of valuation parameters. The probability distributions of the various parameters are constructed using empirical data and a simple model is suggested to compute the discount rate.

The central values of the simulations are in most cases slightly less than the hedonic values. The confidence intervals are found to be most sensitive to the long‐term equilibrium interest rate being used and to the expected growth rate of the terminal value.

Further research should focus on the stability of the model when other portfolios are used and for different periods of the real estate cycle. It would also be fruitful to dig deeper in the relation between capital expenses and property values.

Risk can be assessed by valuers as they can measure the probability that the value of a property be less than a given threshold.

By incorporating uncertainty, the analysis does not yield merely a point estimate of the property's value but rather the entire distribution of values. Also this paper constitutes a contribution to the debate about valuation variation and the margin of error in valuing properties.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the assessment process for goodwill impairment. The paper evaluates compliance with goodwill impairment tests required under the Statement of Financial Accounting Standard 142 and International Accounting Standard 36, highlighting challenges encountered in complying with these standards. The paper explores areas in which improvements might be made in both goodwill‐impairment compliance and disclosures and identifies areas for future research.

The method is exploratory in nature. A combination of data collection, analysis, and interpretation is employed.

The research highlights a number of features of the impairment testing and measurement process that make implementation a challenge. Triggering events are many and vary greatly in significance and severity. Different valuation models are used and there is little conformity in the selection of discount rates. In some cases, though not consistently, control premiums are used to enhance the indicated market values of reporting units. Some firms may even deny the need for an indicated impairment charge. In all of the cases examined, the paper notes the need for judgmental estimates and the possibility that these estimates might be managed to alter or avoid goodwill impairments, limiting the comparability of results across firms.

The findings will provide feedback to standard setters and practicing professionals in an effort to improve practice. For investors and creditors, the results should prove helpful in evaluating the likelihood of goodwill impairments. For researchers, the paper identifies certain questions that may provide fruitful avenues for further investigation.

The findings are based on an examination of a large sample of current filings of public companies that has yet to be performed. The observed richness and variation in the practices employed and disclosures provided both broaden and deepen our understanding of goodwill impairment accounting.