Search results

The main stakeholder of any valuation is the commissioning party and the outcome of the valuation process will determine for the commissioning party the value of the asset. The second key stakeholder is the valuer. Often, however, there is third stakeholder group, the lending institution. Lending institutions often provide financing to the buyer and the financing decision is often based on the hotel's valuation. Based on a questionnaire survey of hotel valuation stakeholders this study reports the findings as to the perceived suitability of the discounted cash flow (DCF) valuations in respect of hotel property. The findings reported here suggest that the majority of respondents supported the view that the DCF method was the most suitable method in relation to hotel valuations. However, there are indications that the recommended practice of the need for using supporting valuation approaches might not be widely observed or understood. In addition, there was a view among a significant minority of respondents that the DCF method was only applicable for those properties operating at the higher market levels.

The majority of institutional investors in Germany use the German income approach (GIA) while investors abroad prefer the discounted cash flow (DCF). The debate around the two methods has been largely theoretical, lacking large-scale empirical evidence. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

The analysis consisted of a performance comparison and hedonic regressions based on ordinary least squares. Fitted GIA and DCF values were obtained for all observations in the data set in order to eliminate distortions caused by different property characteristics in the two valuation sub-samples.

The research hypothesis, stating that the two methods result in statistically identical estimations of value, was rejected. The performance analysis showed that GIA valuations displayed smoother total return performance due to less volatile capital growth in comparison to DCF valuations. Comparing the fitted values obtained from the regressions showed that GIA valuations were on average lower than their DCF counterparts. The difference was small and both methods resulted in very similar fitted values. The difference between fitted values was not constant over time and decreased toward the end of the analysis period.

The research adds empirical arguments to the ongoing debate between GIA and DCF valuations. So far empirical proof has been scarce or one-sided.

This analysis is the first large-scale empirical comparison of the DCF and the GIA within the same market.

The increasing complexity of investment properties has necessitated the application of more advanced valuation and analysis techniques. Following the property cycle of the 1980s/1990s, and the recommendations of several reporters, the DCF method has been promoted in Australia for certain income‐producing properties. The Australian Property Institute disseminated an information paper in 1993 that discussed DCF and suggested a performance approach to its application. Following this, a practice standard was produced in 1996 that was highly prescriptive but which contained a number of confusing passages. With the benefit of hindsight, its publication was premature and it was withdrawn from circulation. A rewrite was commissioned and an exposure draft was circulated in early 1999. It has been prepared as a performance standard in which the valuer is called on to follow a method while disclosing the specifics. However, a number of considerations remain to be finalised, for example, the application of the term cash flow to net operating income, income after finance and income after finance and tax. The preparation of standards is an evolutionary process and the present coverage of the DCF practice standard reflects the market in which it applies.

Strategy is ultimately aimed at creating shareholder value. We examine the relationship among intrinsic (DCF) value, market value, and the value of growth options using a “perfect foresight” model. Our findings suggest that Kester's (1984) initial assessment of growth option values may not hold under alternative valuation models. We highlight important issues in the valuation of growth options related to market expectations, modeling assumptions and estimation methods. The findings suggest that the firm's growth option value depends on three factors, each of which impacts investor expectations: (1) the macroeconomic environment; (2) the industry in which the firm participates; and (3) firm specific factors.

A preceding paper by Baum examined the valuation of reversionary freehold interests, distinguishing between conventional and modern approaches. This paper applies the same approach to the valuation of leaseholds, and falls into two parts. Part 1 examined conventional leasehold valuations and the criticisms that may be made, concluding that both dual rate and single rate conventional valuations should be abandoned except in limited circumstances. Part 2 identifies three alternative modern approaches — real value, rational model and DCF — and compares their use in three general variations of leasehold valuation. The results are compared, and recommendations for their use are made. Finally an overview of the application of modern approaches to investment property valuation is presented.

Following the publication of the Mallinson Report in March 1994, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors undertook a survey of Valuation Practice in the UK in accordance with Recommendation 25 of the report. In January 1995 questionnaires were sent out to a cross‐section of practitioners in the market. The responses represented a wide range of experience, geographical location and type of work. The majority of respondents spent more than 50 per cent of their time undertaking valuations. The questionnaire distinguished between valuations undertaken for pricing (asset valuations, sale/purchase advice, CPO, etc.) and calculations of worth, where the role of the valuer was to analyse the investment for a specific purpose for a specific client. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they tended to adopt a “traditional” model or a “DCF” model for the valuation of a number of different types of investment. These were rack‐rented freeholds, reversionary freeholds, over‐rented property, short leaseholds and long leaseholds. In the replies there was a consensus opinion that, when undertaking calculations of worth, the DCF method should be used as the principal method but tempered with the use of traditional techniques alongside. Conversely, when pricing property the traditional method was considered to be the appropriate tool, although many respondents said that they would also use DCF techniques on the more “unusual” interests such as over‐rented. With regard to the actual method adopted, most valuers using traditional methods favoured the use of an all‐risk/equivalent yield approach using layered income flows. Those using DCF preferred the short‐cut approach with a reversion to a sale price after the first change of income. Clearly suggests that there is a greater understanding of explicit techniques than anecdotal evidence had previously suggested.

The question that inevitably surfaces in practice, and certainly in lecture halls, is which equity valuation method is superior. Popular opinion holds that academia and investment practitioners may have different preferences in this regard. This article investigates which primary minority and majority equity valuation methods are advocated by academia, and how well these preferences are aligned with the equity valuation methods that investment practitioners apply in practice. The research results reveal that, contrary to popular belief, academia and practice are fairly well aligned in terms of preferred equity valuation methods, with notable differences in their respective approaches.

The purpose of this study is first to evaluate whether real options analysis (ROA) is suitable for valuing green building certificates, and second to calculate the real option value of a green certificate in a typical office building setting. Green buildings are demonstrated as one of the most profitable climate mitigation actions. However, no consensus exists among industry professionals about how green buildings and specifically green building certificates should be valued.

The research design of the study involves a theoretical part and an empirical part. In the theoretical part, option characteristics of green building certificates are identified and a contemporary real option valuation method is proposed for application. In the empirical part, the application is demonstrated in an embedded multiple case study design. Two different building cases (with and without green certificate) with eight independent cash flow valuations by eight industry professionals are used as data set for eight valuation case studies and analyses. Additionally, cross-case analysis is executed for strengthening the analysis.

The paper finds that green certificates have several characteristics similar to real options and supports the idea of using ROA in valuing a green certificate. The paper also explains how option pricing theory and discounted cash flow (DCF) method deal with uncertainty and what shortcomings of DCF could be overcome by ROA. The results show that a mean real option value of 985,000 (or 8.8 per cent premium to the mean property value) was found for a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Platinum certificate in the Finnish property market. The main finding of the paper suggests that the contemporary real option valuation methods are appropriate to assess the monetary value and the uncertainty of a green building certificate.

This is the first study to argue that option-pricing theory can be used for valuing green building certificates. The identification of the option characteristics of green building certificates and demonstration of the ROA in an empirical case makes questions whether the current mainstream investment analysis approaches are the most suitable methods for valuing green building certificates.

The aim of this paper is to use rent and price dynamics in the future cash flows in order to improve real estate portfolio valuation.

Monte Carlo simulation methods are employed for the measurement of complex cash generating assets such as real estate assets return distribution. Important simulation inputs, such as the physical real estate price volatility estimator, are provided by results on real estate indices for Paris, derived in an article by Baroni et al..

Based on a residential real estate portfolio example, simulated cash flows: provide more robust valuations than traditional DCF valuations; permit the user to estimate the portfolio's price distribution for any time horizon; and permit easy values‐at‐risk (VaR) computations.

The terminal value estimation is a core issue in real estate valuation. To estimate it, the proposed method is not based on an anticipated growth rate of cash flows but on the estimation of the trend and the volatility of real estate prices.

Reconsiders some of the market issues surrounding the over‐rented property valuation problem and extends the discussion to the valuation of self‐financing properties where the market yield exceeds that of long‐dated stocks. Emphasizes the problem of using long‐term implied growth rates in market conditions where short‐term conditions of no growth or indeed continuing decline may have significant impact on value. Concludes with the suggestion that those who support a DCF approach to valuation have still to convince the market of their case. There is also a need for further study in all areas associated with implicit valuation and explicit DCF valuations in particular in relation to the determination of all risk yields, determination of target rates, assessment of market rental value and the degree to which the market can accept valuations based on the judgement, intuition, or experience of a valuer in times of minimal comparable market evidence.