Search results

This paper debates the key concepts of fair value, value in use and existing use, as they relate to the valuation of owner‐occupied property assets. Changes to the professional body regulatory and advisory frameworks (International Valuation Standards Committee (IVSC), the European Group of Valuers’ Association (TEGoVA) and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)) controlling the valuation of fixed assets for balance‐sheet have taken place. These, it argues, require valuers to re‐appraise the role of existing use value (EUV) as an acceptable valuation concept. The treatment of owner‐occupied property differs with the IVSC no longer recognising EUV, which it holds to be contrary to the principles of fair value, as enshrined within International Accounting Standards. Yet, the basis is still recognised by TEGoVA, which also espouses fair value, whereas the RICS prefer the value to the business model. The crux therefore lies in the interpretation of fair value. This paper argues for the abandonment of EUV in UK and European standards, to fall in line with International Standards. It is contended that, if market value or value in use is the only acceptable approach to accounting valuations, this will have implications for corporate entities and may give their advisers some practical problems. If EUV is abandoned, it also calls into question the appropriateness of DRC (depreciated replacement cost) as a valid surrogate of market value or EUV. The paper contends that fair value embraces both value in exchange and value in use. It argues that EUV fulfils little useful purpose and calls for its abandonment and for the development of an agreed methodology for establishing value in use. In the quest for this it suggests that there would be merit in re‐exploring the notion of going concern value, which was effectively written out of UK practice with the introduction of RICS guidance.

The study aims to measure the fair value (FV) regulation convergence and to present its determinant factors and effects.

An empirical approach is used based on the content analysis of the accounting and valuation referentials, and of the similarity and dissimilarity measures.

The study attests the materialisation of the IASB and FASB objective regarding the FV accounting convergence and underlines certain dissimilarities concerning the guidance quality and the application extent of FV. In comparison with some theses in the literature on the quality of the fair value measurement, it states that certain measurement solutions, especially the focus on exit value and the preference for the seller's perspective, cannot cover all the situations that imply FV accounting and discriminate the users of accounts in favour of the financial statement providers. As to the relation between accounting standards and valuation standards, a smaller convergence degree was determined, namely in the case of IASB FV exposure draft. The main causes of this dissimilarity are related to the insufficient adaptation of IVS to the financial reporting requirements for measurement details and for FV disclosure.

In addition to some recommendations for the accounting standard setters, the paper draws attention to the need to improve the collaboration between IASB and IVSC by developing a joint document regarding technical guidance.

The study undertakes a comparative analysis of the accounting and valuation standards on fair value, based on an empirical approach, discusses the causes and suggests improvement measures for referentials including the atypical cases concerning elements of the financial statements, the market and the economies.

The recent coronavirus pandemic created uncertainty across most markets. This has resulted in many valuations being reported with caveats warning that they are uncertain. However, many valuers and their clients remain unclear as to what these warnings are supposed to convey and why they are required by many valuation standards, including the International Valuation Standards. The purpose of this paper is to explain how recognition of the need for uncertainty disclosures has developed over the past 25 years and how such disclosures can enhance overall trust in valuation.

The author has been involved in the development of the guidance issued by both the International Valuation Standards Council and Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which included extensive consultation with financial regulators and valuation users alike. He has also examined the wider economic theories of risk and uncertainty and how these need to be clearly distinguished in valuations.

This paper identifies the situations under which valuation uncertainty can occur, and steps that a valuer can follow to determine whether it is sufficiently material to require an appropriate caveat to be issued alongside the valuation. It also examines the merits of different ways in which material uncertainty can be disclosed.

The paper should provide valuers with a better understanding of the reason why uncertainty disclosures are required and the circumstances in which they are required. It also provides principles to help them formulate disclosures that are appropriate in different circumstances.

This is an abridged version of a Valuers' Briefing “Valuation Uncertainty – Reporting the unknowable” by the author and published as either an eBook or paperback available from Amazon.

Since the global financial economic crisis hit the world markets in 2007/2008, the role of property valuation has been under greater and greater scrutiny. The process of valuation and its quality assurance has been addressed by the higher prominence of the International Valuation Standards Council (IVSC). This is a significant initiative worldwide. However, there has been little written on the appropriate use of valuation approaches and methods in market valuations. There is now a hierarchy of valuation definitions. In order, there are valuation approaches, valuation methods and, as a subset of the methods, techniques or models. The purpose of this paper is to look at the importance of identifying the appropriate approach to be adopted in market valuations and the methods, techniques and models that should be applied to determine market value.

This practice briefing is an overview of the valuation approaches, methods and models available to the valuer and comments on the appropriateness of valuation each in assessing market value.

This paper reviews the IVSC-recognised approaches and prompts the valuer to be careful with the semantics involved so that they are better placed to provide an unambiguous service to their clients.

The role of the valuer in practice is to identify the appropriate approach for the valuation of the subject property, choose the right method and then apply the correct mathematical model for the valuation task in hand.

This provides guidance on how valuations can be presented to the client in accordance with the International Valuation Standards.

Several problems arise from the current valuation standards and guidance in relation to the replacement cost method and they can be classified as definitional and methodological. Definitional problems include confusion over the precise meaning of the terms cost, price and value and clarification of the economic concepts of substitution and “highest and best use” in the cases of market‐based and replacement cost methods. Methodological problems include the difficulty in finding market‐derived inputs, particularly when estimating depreciation, and the need to make end adjustments. These matters raise the question as to whether a replacement cost method is compatible with a market basis of value. This paper aims to address this issue.

The paper reviews academic literature and professional practice guidance in relation to the replacement cost method of valuation and the market value basis of valuation.

Defining replacement cost as a method of estimating market value rather than a separate basis of value blurs the distinction between cost and value. This paper argues that market value assumptions do not hold in the case of the replacement cost method.

The paper seeks to stimulate debate on the current professional guidance for the use of the replacement cost method of valuation.

The proliferation of environmental rating tools over the past two decades has endeavoured to assist the industry in measuring sustainability. Recent changes to the International Valuation Standards (IVS) have directed valuers to consider ESG. The purpose of this study aims to examine how commonly utilized sustainability tools, which have been employed to communicate building sustainability credentials, align with the IVS categories of ESG.

The research utilises the IVS categorisation of ESG and maps sustainability tools adopted at scale by the Australian Commercial Real Estate market. The approach identifies the various attributes within the commonly utilised rating tools that align with IVS defined ESG criteria.

The mapping provides insights into the coverage of the IVS ESG criteria in the mainstream tools used in Australia. Further, the research identifies existing sustainability criteria that are relevant to the built environment, that have not been clearly identified by the IVS, but have an important role in evaluating the sustainability of commercial real estate.

For investors, occupiers and valuers, this research provides insights on how the current, commonly utilised sustainability rating tools align with the IVS-defined ESG metrics. This research assists in providing greater clarity regarding the relationship between ESG criteria and existing rating tools, which have been recently identified as key considerations in valuation practice and help to provide transparency and understanding for property stakeholders.

The importance of monitoring, reporting and enhancing transparency in ESG disclosures has emerged as a central issue with significant implications for the property industry. This research provides the first evaluation of how existing sustainability rating tools map against ESG criteria as directed in the IVS.

Market value is an estimation of price in the market. It is value in exchange. The valuer's role is to determine the appropriate approach, the method and use the right model to achieve this aim as best as possible. However, underpinning all valuations and property analysis are valuation standards and definitions. This paper looks at the definition of market value and how some market participants may misunderstand or even misrepresent it. This is particularly true when there is a downturn in the market.

This practice briefing is an overview of the role of market value as a definition of price and how it is often misused by stakeholders in the property market.

This briefing is a review of the valuation definitions clarifying what they mean and what they do not mean.

The role of the valuer in practice is to use the appropriate definition for the task in hand. The understanding of those definitions is central to the valuation process.

This provides guidance on how valuation definitions can be presented to the client in accordance with the International Valuation Standards.

In January 2005, the International Valuation Standards Committee (IVSC) published the International Valuation Guidance Note No. 8 entitled The Cost Approach for Financial Reporting – (DRC). This guidance note provides background to the use of depreciated replacement cost (DRC) in connection with International Valuation Application 1 (IVA 1), Valuation for Financial Reporting and suggests that the valuer reports the result of a DRC valuation as market value subject to the test of adequate profitability or service potential. This suggestion has caused a lot of debate and consternation in the UK where the DRC approach has always been considered as a method of last resort and not a market valuation. However, in continental Europe the cost approach (DRC) is often the principal method of valuation and has always been considered to produce market value. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the impact of this change to valuation practice in the UK.

In this paper, we discuss the concept of market value and its relationship to DRC in an attempt to identify the principal areas of concern in the UK and, through the use of an Italian case study, show how the DRC approach can be adopted as an appropriate method (not basis) for calculating Market Value.

It is probable that most valuers will still provide the DRC valuation using exactly the same calculation as they did before. They are likely to provide the same (relative to the valuation date) figure; the difference is that they will feel less easy about the robustness of that figure

It is argued that the UK market has, for too long, hidden behind DRC being a basis of value that UK valuers now feel uncomfortable in reporting DRC as market value. They are uncertain with the valuation figure. However, this uncertainty can be addressed in other ways and a suggested “solution” to help the valuer overcome their discomfort with the market valuation is proffered.

This paper considers the development of national and international standards for valuers. Examines in outline the variations in market practice arising from variations in law, culture and custom while noting the general acceptance internationally of the underlying meaning of “market value”.

The globalization of trade and markets requires international standards governing accounting and associated activities including valuation. The EU Financial Services Action Plan and the revised banking supervision rules both spotlight the need for consistent standards. Valuation standards exist at the international (IVSC), European (TEGoVA) and professional (RICS) levels. Differences of tradition and approach nevertheless still exist covering fundamental issues such as bases of value. Traditional valuation practice in many EU states therefore faces a process of swift harmonization. This paper examines, for one EU country, the degree of variation between valuation standards and current practice. Results are presented of the first ever survey of the professional practice of Portuguese valuers. Survey results reveal a largely part‐time profession, which appears to be poorly equipped to meet the challenge outlined above.