Search results

This study utilizes an expected utility framework to conceptualize the risk‐adjusted valuation of cash versus share leases for farmers and landowners. Farm‐level data then are used to empirically estimate the rental spread between these leases in Illinois, and to econometrically evaluate how these spreads are related to risks and other farm characteristics. The results indicate that non‐risk factors likely are the primary determinants of the magnitude and sign of the rental spread. In particular, high cash rent may be a bidding strategy to control additional leased acreage and thus expand farm size.

It is apparent from the empirical studies in the UK and USA that incorrect approaches are frequently used to evaluate finance leases. Sykes (1975), Hull and Hubbard (1979) and Drury and Braund (1989) in the UK and Ferrara et. al., (1980) in the USA have expressed concern regarding the methods which companies use to evaluate finance leases. For example Sykes (1975) found that only 19% of UK companies used DCF methods to evaluate leases. Hull and Hubbard (1979) observed that many companies used the implied rate of interest quoted from the lessor's leasing tables and compared this with the borrowing rate. However, these tables did not include tax cash flows and were therefore only applicable to a permanent non‐taxpaying organisation. In the most recent study Drury and Braund (1989) found that 41% of the 300 firms responding to a questionnaire used the wrong discount rate to evaluate finance leases and a further 14% used non‐discounting methods. The objective of this article is to explain how the lease or purchase decision should be evaluated. It will be shown that leasing should be compared with borrowing and three different methods of correctly evaluating the lease or borrow decision will be presented and reconciled.

This chapter focuses on the IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers and IFRS 16 Leases in the airline industry considering the case of Air France – KLM (AF-KLM). This airline timely adopted IFRS 15 and early adopted IFRS 16 for the year 2018 and restated its 2017 financial statements using the full retrospective method so that the 2018 financial statements of the airline provide comparative financial information during the transition phase from IAS 18 to IFRS 15 as well as from IAS 17 to IFRS 16. In the first part of the chapter, liquidity, solvency, and profitability ratios along with cash flow ratios were used to analyze the cumulative effect of IFRS 15 and IFRS 16 using 2017 and restated 2017 financial statements. In this context, results indicate that the liquidity ratios decreased, and the solvency ratios increased in general. In addition, the cumulative effect of IFRS 15 and IFRS 16 created an upward change in general on profitability ratios based on the several performance parameters that should be considered during the transition from IAS 18 to IFRS 15 and from IAS 17 to IFRS 16. Overall, IFRS 15 has minor effect and IFRS 16 has major effect on the financial statements of AF-KLM. In the second part of the chapter, the compliance level of the mandatory disclosures requirements of the airline was examined from the lessee standpoint and the research pointed out that the airline fully complied with these disclosures at its first adoption of IFRS 16 and provided some voluntary disclosures as well.

The monograph examines firstly the magnitude of demand for capital investment in individual items of distribution equipment—ships, aircraft and motor vehicles, It then concentrates on financing motor transport, examining the objectives of acquisition analysis and the relative importance of the company controlling its own fleet. Alternative methods of distributing the product are examined to show how transport involvement can be minimised according to the marketing strategy adopted. The monograph considers, in some detail, alternative approaches to commercial vehicle acquisition. The broad principles of the subject are discussed and three common methods presented—outright purchase, hire purchase and leasing. Worked examples are shown for each method, using discounted cash flow techniques and the net present costs of the alternatives compared. The final section of the paper examines the changing demand for capital in the company for transport from its launch as a one man operation through to the mature large organisation.

This paper aims to examine the status and implications of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and International Accounting Standards Board’s (IASB) forthcoming standard on leases. The proposal arose from concern that many lease obligations are unrecorded on the balance sheet and that current accounting for lease transactions does not represent fully the economics of many lease transactions.

On September 20, 2012 and September 25, 2012, the Boards decided to account for some lease contracts using an approach similar to their proposed 2010 leases exposure draft (interest and depreciation) and to account for some leases using an approach that results in a straight-line lease expense. On May 13, 2013, the Boards decided to continue to account for some lease contracts on a straight-line basis, and others on an amortization basis separate from interest expense. Identification of the type of lease requires a two-step process at lease commencement, and all leases are recorded identically at inception. The subsequent measurement gives rise to differences. Some concerns are that an increase in assets and liabilities may result in debt covenant breaches that will require renegotiation and adjustment.

While understanding that many financial users, preparers and auditors favor retaining the current and long-standing leasing standards, the FASB and IASB should recognize many unexpected consequences of its new proposals, including the changing of many long-held financial ratios and the resultant violations of many bank loan covenants.

The only limitation is that this manuscript is not based on primary empirical data. There are no implications for the study’s purpose is an update of a proposed FASB/IASB standard, an analysis of the empirical impact studies that have been done, a questionning of whether a new standard is really needed or that the current standard is not being implemented properly, and guidance for the implementation at transition and on-going for the proposed standard. This study gives a reader a compact update, implications, ramifications and guidance for preparation of a new standard if it is passed.

The new rules will alter many key financial metrics that investors use to determine company valuations and credit agencies use to determine credit worthiness. Some items will improve, such as gross margin, cash flow from operations and earnings before interest and taxes. Reported interest coverage and return on assets will be lower under the new rules. Industries that make extensive use of operating leases such as transportation, banking, telecommunications, retail and real estate will be most affected.

In the best case scenario, the new standard would destroy approximately 190,000 US jobs. US gross domestic product (GDP) would be reduced by $27.5 billion annually. In the best case, the household earnings would be reduced by $7.8 billion annually. In the worst case, this decrease is $135.2 billion a year. The apparent liabilities of US publicly traded companies would increase by $1.5-$2 trillion, the equivalent gross state product of 20 states. Approximately $1.1 trillion of this would be attributable to balance sheet recognition of real estate operating leases, while the remainder would come from recognizing equipment and other leases as liabilities.

The value of this research is the unique analysis of the proposed lease standard, and in looking at why the previous models did not work or did they? Is it the current requirements that are wrong or their implemenation? The reader is given a detailed overview of the proposed standard, its economic and social impacts, an update of the proposed standard, what companies must do now to get ready for the transition and on-going requirements, and a discussion of the tremendous opposition to any proposed changes in the current lease requirements from what they are.

The purpose of this paper is to survey the lease vs buy coverage in leading managerial finance textbooks and to clarify the impact of tax rates and borrowing rates.

The survey uses “plain vanilla” lease vs buy scenarios to critique and clarify particular issues in the textbook presentations.

The survey finds: a lone text shows that there can be a gain from leasing if the lessee’s tax rate is higher than the lessor’s, which challenges the “conventional wisdom” maintained in all the other texts; some textbook examples attribute an overall benefit to leasing to the tax rate difference, but the benefit is actually due to a borrowing rate difference, and borrowing rate differences may be a more important source of leasing benefits than tax rate differences.

The survey provides insights that are not well known and should be useful to instructors and practitioners.

This study seeks to evaluate the impacts of land rental arrangements on crop insurance and grain marketing decisions.

The analysis is conducted in an Illinois corn‐soybean setting in which optimal marketing and crop insurance decisions are estimated for a risk‐averse producer under typical cash rent and share rent agreements using numerical simulation methods.

Results indicate that the availability of crop insurance impacts the intensity of use of put options under both cash and share rent arrangements. Similar to previous work in this area, revenue insurance is found to cause a substitution away from marketing using put options, while yield insurance is complementary to price risk management alternatives. However, while insurance and marketing play a role under both types of land tenure arrangements, shifting from a cash rent to a share rent agreement provides a relatively greater degree of risk reduction.

The results suggest that additional research is needed to explain trends in land rental contracts. Crop insurance and other federal programs may provide incentives to switch from share leases to cash rent arrangements. Changes to the design of these programs could facilitate risk management for producers more efficiently.

The unique contribution of this study is the comparison of insurance and marketing decisions under both cash rent and share rent agreements for crop land.

Real estate investment analysis is an organised investigation of the various factors and elements which affect the current and the future value of a particular property and consideration of the relationship of those factors and elements to an investment decision.

With the decline of US net farm income from $123.8 billion in 2013 to $71.5 billion forecasted for 2016, concern has developed regarding the future path of agricultural land values. The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between net farm income, cash rents and land values in the state of Kansas and provides insight regarding future land values.

This study estimates partial adjustment models for cash rent and land values and uses those results to infer long-run capitalization rates and earnings multipliers. These models are used to forecast Kansas land values through 2018 and also the long-run price of farmland given 2016 expectations.

Land adjusts to changes in Kansas net farm income slowly with a one-year elasticity of 6.7 percent. The long-run elasticity is 96.9 percent which is very close to the 100 percent suggested by the theoretical income capitalization model. The long-run multiplier for income in Kansas is 21.71 which implies a capitalization rate of 4.61 percent. The estimated results suggest that Kansas land values would peak in 2016 and begin to slowly decline. If market conditions were to remain the same, land values would ultimately decrease to $1,171 per acre, a 28 percent decline from current levels.

Declines of the magnitude in estimated land values could negatively affect the financial condition of the sector. Factors such as a change in the long-run capitalization rate or unexpected supply or demand shocks for agricultural commodities globally could certainly alter the long-term prospects. However, current expectations as of March 2016 suggest that farmers will face difficult conditions over the next few years.