Search results

Develops and compares a number of alternative discounted cash flow (DCF) approaches to the appraisal of over‐rented property. The transparent nature of DCF techniques makes them more suitable than traditional techniques for the appraisal of over‐rented property, but the different DCF approaches reveal the essential risk characteristics of over‐rented property, including option characteristics similar to those of convertible bonds. This suggests that even more complex appraisal techniques used in other investment markets may be more appropriate.

Examines the valuation of property investments let at rents in excess of their estimated rental values. Summarises the conventional and contemporary approaches to market valuation. Exposes the limitations of the models via an examination of some actual valuations taken from the UK property market. Concludes that future rental growth prospects must be dealt with explicitly in these valuations.

The majority of investment property is valued at a point after the original letting or agreed market rent (MR) at review. This briefing aims to look at the valuation of “over‐rented” property. That is the term used to describe a property where the current rent passing exceeds the current market rent.

This briefing looks at the valuation of over‐rented property by discounted cash flow and provides an example of setting up a flexible template by spreadsheet.

The spreadsheet template allows the valuer to value the over‐rented cash flow by modified or full DCF.

The flexibility of the template allows the user to change the length of the lease, the rent reviews and it calculates the term until the rent passing is exceeded by the estimated market rent.

The technique is not original but the spreadsheet template helps to explain the profile of the cash flows derived from over‐rented properties.

Between 1981 and 1994, the UK commercial property market (IPD) delivered a total return of 9.9 per cent each year, 4.2 per cent each year in real terms. Over the same period, the real return on UK equities and UK gilts was 11.6 per cent and 6.9 per cent respectively, it is important to account for the poor performance of property. Other than a model which attributes performance to income return and capital return, there are few models that attempt to account for this. This model is simply descriptive. The responsiveness of the return on commercial property to inflation is crucial to pension funds, the liabilities of which are often wage‐linked. Establishes auto‐regressive expectations of real ERV growth and inflation. Presents a model of the simulated lease structure of the IPD. States the main cause of the under‐performance was the increase in the required return on property over the period. Between 1980 and 1994, long‐term expectations of inflation fell. Concludes by stating the existence of over‐rented properties, after the decline in rents in the early 1990s, had a large impact on he relative influence of inflation and real ERV growth. Over‐renting increases the impact of unexpected inflation and changes in expected inflation and reduces the impact of unexpected real ERV growth and changes in expected real ERV growth. In fact, the impact of unexpected inflation in an over‐rented environment is bigger than the impact of unexpected real ERV growth.

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.

Describes an analysis of a City of London office building in 1993. Attempts to show how the pricing process should be affected by a greater understanding of the purchaser′s view. Based on a real case.

In the last 40 years, the UK valuation profession has relied heavily upon the “hardcore” or “layer” method for valuing reversionary properties (under‐ and/or over‐rented). This approach is not used elsewhere in the world and, prior to the rent freeze of the 1970s in the UK, it wasn't a principal method in the UK. However, valuers today, particularly in London, use this method exclusively despite it producing erroneous answers in certain cases (over‐rented; non‐normal cash flows). This paper seeks to address these issues.

This paper undertakes an indicative pilot study of valuation models used in the valuation of reversionary properties in the downturn of 2008‐2012. The study, whilst small, provided an insight into the techniques chosen by valuers to look at properties where the risk of falling rents, voids and prolonged vacancy is relatively high.

The paper looks at approaches, methods and techniques for property valuation. It identifies that the determination of the UK valuation profession to cling to familiar valuation models, no matter how inappropriate, may lead to mis‐valuations. Alternative, more appropriate, implicit and explicit models are suggested.

It is the opinion of this paper that the UK property market is now so different from the market that prevailed when the layer model was introduced that it no longer has a place in the valuers' armoury of methods to use. This paper looks at a number of case study examples and offers other (more appropriate) options for valuing reversionary interests. In particular, the findings from the study will be useful for valuers to be better able to identify the critical points in the expected cash flow and thus be better able to reflect the appropriate risk in the valuation figure provided.

There have always been situations where tenants, for one reason or another, have paid rents in excess of open market rental value. The position today, due to the downturn in the letting market, is that many more tenants are now in this position. This poses a problem for valuation surveyors when asked to express an opinion on value for sale, negative or reverse premiums, and on value for asset valuation purposes where negative values must be specified. A further point for consideration is the issue raised by the Accounting Standards Board of charging future rent obligations as a single lump sum to profit and loss accounts. Explores these challenges in relation to leasehold valuation methodology and suggests approaches.

Examines the valuation difficulties that have arisen as a result of the falls in rental value in the UK property market during the early part of the 1990s. Considers overage cases being caused by the rent passing being above rental value on a normal rent review pattern because of a letting on an abnormal review pattern. Comments on the straightforward case of a fall in rental value since the last rent revision. Concludes that the growth explicit model is a better and more consistent methodology for the market valuation of investment property.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.