Search results

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.

The purpose of this research is to ascertain the extent to which the income capitalization approach reflects the pattern of emerging rental income in Enugu property market.

The survey research design was used in this study. Data from the field was gathered through a data collection pro forma administered to 40 valuers in Enugu metropolis in the manner of conducting interviews. This study used key valuation details of 54 sampled income generating properties valued by the respondent valuers between 2015 and 2022 using the income capitalization approach. The same sampled properties were then revalued by the researchers using annuity due assumption/formulas of the income capitalization approach. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data.

The study revealed that the income capitalization approach used by most valuers in Enugu does not reflect the property rental income pattern prevailing in Enugu property market where rents are paid in advance. The study further shows that the application of the income capitalization approach for valuation of annually in-advance property rental income cash flow results in a higher capital value of 3.49% in Enugu property market.

The limitations to this study are that past valuation done by valuers were used in the analysis instead of actual property sales and a relatively small number of sampled valuers and properties are used in the study The implication of the study is that ordinary annuity assumptions or formulas is inaccurate and not suitable for valuation of income generating property in an emerging market like Nigerian where timing of cash flow is annually in advance. Based on the result of this study it seems that ordinary annuity approach negate the principle of estimating value using income capitalization method by converting future cash flow from income generating property into an estimate of property value.

The study advocates the adoption of the use of annuity due formulas in the valuation of income generating properties in Nigeria as its practice standard to avoid undervaluation as this assumption is logical and provides more accurate value due to prevailing lease structure and rent payments patterns in the country. The implication of the study is that the use of ordinary annuity assumptions or formulas is inaccurate and not suitable for the valuation of income generating property in an emerging market like Nigerian where timing of cash flow is annually in advance.

This is one of the very few empirical studies carried out in Nigeria to ascertain the extent to which the income capitalization approach used by valuers reflects the rental income pattern that prevails in the Nigeria property market.

The purpose of this paper is to re‐visit the problems of taxation consequences of sinking fund in the UK and to look at what is believed to be the only rational reason for using the dual rate adjusted for tax method variant.

The structure of this paper is: valuing a freehold and a leasehold interest by the single rate gross and net of tax approaches to show the logic that works with freehold valuation interest may not work with leasehold valuation; exploring the tax impacts on sinking fund; resolving the taxation issue of sinking fund; demonstrating the solution to the “double sinking fund problem” by the Greaves method and the single rate net of tax approach; and exploring the future of the dual rate theory.

The paper confirms that the traditional method is not satisfactory, even after the modifications made by the various methods mentioned above. The single rate net of tax approach is proved to meet all expectations and can be regarded as a more rational approach to the dual rate method.

Valuers of the “UK School” might consider that not only should dual rate valuation be regarded as defunct, but also that the more appropriate approach might be to move to a net of taxation approach.

This paper is the original work of the authors.

The causes of valuation inaccuracy, the approaches, basis and procedures used for value estimation were not profoundly identified in Ethiopia. Particularly, the causes of property valuation inaccuracy for court decisions have not been assiduously studied by scholars. Hence, the ultimate goal of this study aims to identify the determinant variables of valuation inaccuracy, the approaches, basis and procedures used for court execution purposes.

This study employed both qualitative and quantitative approaches. The target populations of the study were the courts at the federal and regional levels. A purposive sampling technique was employed to undertake this study. The survey data was analyzed using the Relative Importance Index (RII).

The finding of this research revealed that courts have not outshined and uniform valuation manuals and guidelines that clearly state the approaches, procedures and bases of valuation. As a consequence, courts execute based on the opinion of value determined by other institutions. The insignificant numbers of independent valuation institution with the lack of uniform standards in the country prejudice the implementation of the decision of the court and faced injustice. The finding also reveals as there are several causative variables for real property valuation inaccuracy.

To alleviate the problem, the government should strengthen the valuation sector by creating an independent institution for advancing valuation regulation and policymaking.

This study was the first of all and could be a pointer for different government and non-government bodies regarding the limitations of valuation for judgment execution purposes.

The purpose of this paper is to compare the value outcomes of the cost approach to the DCF profits method when valuing specialised property under different scenarios as a test for choice of method or model uncertainty; and to quantify valuation uncertainty under each scenario and to argue for an increasing adoption of the profits method of valuation.

A qualitative case study approach was used to analyse four physical valuations performed in practice under four specific scenarios, namely, a business-as-usual scenario, an underperforming business scenario, an expanding capacity scenario and a combined business-as-usual funding a start-up joint venture scenario.

The cost approach relative to the DCF profits approach consistently under-values specialised property under business-as-usual and business expanding scenarios while it over-values in instances of underperforming business scenario.

Financial institutions that predominantly uses or accepts the cost approach for valuing specialised property should consider adopting the DCF profits approach as the default approach when valuing for mortgage lending purposes. Business owners of specialised properties should contract practitioners knowledgeable and skilled in the application of the DCF profits method.

This paper quantifies choice of method or model uncertainty of four different scenarios of specialised properties where both the cost approach and DCF profits methods of valuation were employed. It suggests the adoption of the DCF profits method as the default method of valuation for specialised property.

Aims to examine a comprehensive approach to combine several simple multiple valuation, so as to improve the valuation, accuracy of the simple multiple valuation technique.

In order to combine several simple multiple valuations, the equity value is estimated by a weighted average of the valuation outcomes obtained from several simple multiple valuations. To calculate the weight of each valuation outcome, the out‐of‐sample price‐deflated regression of stock prices on several simple multiple valuation outcomes is conducted. Next, the alternative hypothesis of whether the composite approach yields a higher valuation accuracy than the simple multiple valuation is tested, using the actual stock price of the valued firm as the benchmark to measure the valuation accuracy under the assumption of market efficiency.

It was found that combining several simple multiple valuation outcomes of a firm, each of which is based on a stock price multiple to a historical accounting performance measure of the comparable firms (historical multiple), improves the valuation accuracy of the simple multiple valuation using a single historical multiple. However, further analysis shows that the combination of the simple multiple valuation outcomes based on a stock price multiple to analysts’ earnings forecasts of the comparable firms (forward earnings multiple) and several simple multiple valuation outcomes based on historical multiples does not improve the valuation accuracy of the simple multiple valuation using a forward earnings multiple.

One caveat of this study is that only the linear combination of the simple multiple valuation outcomes is considered. Non‐linear combination of the simple multiple valuation outcomes based on both forward earnings multiple and historical multiples may be able to improve the valuation accuracy of the simple multiple valuation using a forward earnings multiple. This possibility is still an open question.

The findings imply that a historical multiple contains incremental information not captured by other historical multiples, which is useful for the improvement of the valuation accuracy. However, the historical multiples may have no incremental information beyond a forward earnings multiple.

The forward earnings multiples as well as the historical multiples for the equity valuations of broader firms are considered. Given the previous finding that forward earnings multiple presents the highest valuation accuracy among the valuation multiples, it is further investigated whether the composite approach using forward earnings multiple and historical multiples can improve the valuation accuracy of the simple multiple valuation using a forward earnings multiple. In addition, the potential problem of selection bias in the previous study is addressed, which examines only the equity valuations in the tax court.

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 examines 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.

Valuation is the process of determining Market Value. Property valuation, as with the valuation of all assets, is an estimation of price in the market. It is value in exchange. The valuer role is to determine the appropriate approach, the method and use the right model to achieve this aim as best as possible. It is a combination of analysing the market and determining the critical variables for the valuation method/model. The method is separate from the valuation process which should be followed (according to the International Valuation Standards Council Valuation Standards) regardless the valuation method chosen. There are valuation approaches, valuation methods and, as a subset of the methods, techniques or models.

This practice briefing is an overview of the Valuation Methods and Models available to the valuer and comments on the appropriateness of valuation each in assessing Market Value for specific property types.

This briefing is a review of the valuation methods and models and models that can be applied to determine market value.

The role of the valuer in practice is to identify the method of valuation 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.

The approaches used by valuers in assessing the market value of investment property are explained with reference to a survey of practising valuers in Australia. The survey examined the profile of the valuers, their interpretation of market value in a volatile market and details of the valuation methodology used for urban investment property. Identifies the cross‐tabulations between valuation qualifications, experience and methodology. The need for greater market research and a specialist group of valuers with sound cash flow analysis skills to undertake major urban investment valuation are proposed.

This chapter addresses the general process of determining the value of a particular company, with additional detail on how valuation processes might be adapted to produce credible value conclusions of emerging technology ventures. There are three primary approaches to business valuation. There is the income approach, which indicates that value is a product of expected future cash flows – cash flows that are discounted to equate them to dollars in-hand (present value). There is the market approach, which attempts to draw conclusions of value based on the market prices of similar companies in the public and/or private markets. Finally, there is the asset approach, which indicates that the value of a company is equal to the sum of the values of its net assets. Specific adjustments are appropriate with respect to each of these approaches where the value of an emerging technology company is concerned. Professional valuation standards require that all of these approaches be considered in the valuation, even if the available information does not permit their credible application. Often, multiple approaches and techniques can be applied. The results of applying multiple techniques often do not overlap, and it is the analyst’s very important task to reconcile differing valuation results, or to decide which result or results should be discarded.