Search results

Enhanced business reporting (EBR) seeks to address the information needs of investors when making company valuations for investment decisions. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relevance for market valuation of EBR disclosures that are directly related to firm valuation (value-based reporting (VBR)).

Data are hand collected from annual reports of German publicly listed companies over five years. The content analysis is based on the valuation-related disclosure framework of the German Schmalenbach Society of Business Administration. A 2SLS approach accounts for potential endogeneity.

Share-based compensation, leverage, corporate size, and share volatility are significant determinants of VBR. The level of VBR is significantly associated with market values and provides additional market value explanatory power, indicating its relevance to investors in the process of valuation and decision making. Also, the relevance of book value and earnings for explaining market values increases for firms with better VBR. The findings are robust to the exclusion of banks and assurance companies and to alternative model and variable specifications.

The research contributes to the literature on voluntary disclosures by testing an EBR framework explicitly derived from valuation theory. The results provide indirect evidence of the investors’ use of respective valuation techniques in decision making. A contribution is made to the value relevance literature by showing that valuation-related disclosures constitute a suitable proxy for “other information” in the Ohlson’s (1995) model. Such disclosures complement traditional accounting metrics, i.e. book value and earnings, as basis for valuations. Potential caveats relate to the content analysis of annual reports and the endogeneity of voluntary disclosures.

This paper informs the debate on further developments of EBR in helping to identify important components thereof.

This research investigated Australian property valuers' identification and consideration of physical climate change risks in valuation practice.

Thirty Australian valuer members of the Australian Property Institute from a variety of specialisations were interviewed. The semi-structured interviews explored climate change risks and the extent of risk investigation and consideration in valuation practice. The analysis utilised the Moser and Luers (2008) climate risk preparedness framework as a lens to evaluate current valuation practice in Australia.

The analysis reflects that while physical risks are easily identified and engaged with by valuers, correspondingly, there is a lack of understanding of and engagement with, climate change risks. This supports the need for better information sources and guidance to inform valuers of climate change risks and the development of specific mechanisms for the consideration of such risks to be included in valuation processes, practices and reports.

The research was limited by its sample size and qualitative approach. Therefore, the research is not a representative opinion of the Australian profession; however, the analysis provides the perspective of a range of valuers from across Australia with different valuation specialisations.

This research has established that valuers have the potential to be prepared to address climate change in their professional capacity, as described by Moser and Luers (2008). However, they are constrained by information communication, access and detail and subsequent market awareness of information on climate change risk exposure on properties. There is a need for further support, guidance, information and tools, as well as awareness-raising, to enable valuers to accurately identify and reflect all risks affecting a property in the process of valuation.

This research provides the first investigation into the consideration of climate change in valuation practice. Property stakeholders—owners, investors, financiers and occupiers—are escalating their climate change risk analysis and reporting for property portfolios and organisations. This research suggests that valuers also need to be aware of the changing dynamics of market reporting and decision-making related to climate change risks to ensure appropriate reflection in valuation practice.

The monetary valuation of cultural heritage of a selection of 16 major public, not-for-profit Australian cultural institutions is examined over a period of almost three decades (1992–2019) to understand how they have responded to the paradoxical tensions of heritage valuation for financial reporting purposes.

Accounting for cultural heritage is an intrinsically paradoxical practice; it involves a conflict of two opposite ways of attributing value: the traditional accounting and the heritage professionals (or curatorial) approaches. In analysing the annual reports and other documentary sources through qualitative content analysis, the study explores how different actors responded to the conceptual and technical contradictions posed by the monetary valuation of “heritage assets”, the accounting phraseology of accounting standards.

Four phases emerge from the analysis undertaken of the empirical material, each characterised by a distinctive nature of the paradox, the institutional responses discerned and the outcomes. Although a persisting heterogeneity in the practice of accounting for cultural heritage is evident, responses by cultural institutions are shown to have minimised, so far, the negative impacts of monetary valuation in terms of commercialisation of deaccessioning decisions and distorted accountability.

In applying the theoretical lens of paradox theory in the context of the financial reporting of heritage, as assets, the study enhances an understanding of the challenges and responses by major public cultural institutions in a country that has led this development globally, providing insights to accounting standard setters arising from the accounting practices observed.

Prior studies document a positive relation between stock prices and tax-related contingent liability, unrecognized tax benefits (UTBs) and interpret the finding as evidence that investors reward tax aggressiveness. The purpose of this paper is to explore the nature of this puzzle finding by considering a link between UTBs and financial reporting strategy and propose that financial reporting conservatism may explain the positive association between UTBs and stock prices.

To estimate the incremental valuation weights on UTBs, the authors employ the Ohlson (1995) valuation model and regress stock prices on UTBs and its interactions with the proxies for financial reporting conservatism and tax aggressiveness. Further, the authors adopt a UTB estimation model to decompose its balance into the predicted and unpredicted components.

The authors find that the reporting conservatism has a positive effect on the market valuation of UTBs. The authors also find some evidence that tax aggressiveness increases the valuation weight of UTBs. When UTBs are decomposed into predicted and unpredicted components, the authors find that the effect of financial reporting conservatism is more pronounced for the market valuation of predicted UTBs. Collectively, the evidence suggests that conservative financial reporting is a major driver of the positive valuation of UTBs and that tax aggressiveness plays a less significant role in investors' valuation decisions.

While prior studies focus on how UTBs are associated with stock prices, this paper is the first attempt to explain why UTBs are positively valued by investors.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the level of discrepancy in the valuation process adopted by valuers in the study area with a view to provide solution.

The study is based on both structured questionnaire and content analysis of valuation reports. In total, 185 (41 percent) structured questionnaires were randomly distributed to practicing estate surveying firms; out of 450 firms in Lagos, 173 were retrieved and used for analysis. However, the content analysis was based on 54 valuation reports on plants and equipment to investigate the extent of compliance to valuation process, standard and best practices among practitioners.

The findings from the study show that most of the practitioners lack the expertise to carry out plant and machinery (P&M) valuation, and there is evidence of poor application of methodology and lack of adherence to standards.

The findings from this study will reinforce the need for specialization and enforcement of standard in plant and equipment valuation practice, which will enthrone consistency, uniformity and reliability.

This study is the first to deal with methodology lapses in plant and equipment valuation in the study area. Ashaolu (2016) worked on the inter-disciplinary nature of plant and equipment valuation, whereas Otegbulu and Babawale (2011) worked on valuer’s perception or potential sources of inaccuracy in P&M valuation in Nigeria.

The purpose of this paper is to value the patents of pharmaceutical companies using discounted cash flows, and compare the value-relevance of these assets against alternative intangible asset measures such as reported intangible assets and R & D capital.

The study values pharmaceutical intangibles using three methods: an income method; the sum of unamortised R & D expenditures; the firm’s reported intangible assets. Value-relevance tests use ordinary least squares regression and Vuong and Clarke tests.

First, the study finds that the discounted cash-flow valuation of pharmaceutical patents is value-relevant. Second, the value of pharmaceutical patents explains market value better than reported intangible assets but not R & D capital. However, the valuation of pharmaceutical patents is more consistent with the risks of R & D than the valuation of R & D capital which assumes recovery of R & D expenditure.

This is the first known study that values patents using an income method and compares those valuations with reported intangible assets and R & D capital valuation models.

An understanding of uncertainty has always been an integral part of property valuations. No valuation is certain, and the valuer needs to convey to the user of the valuation in the degree of uncertainty pertaining to the market value.

This practice briefing is a short overview of the importance of understanding uncertainty in valuation in normal markets and the particular difficulties now with the material uncertainty created by the COVID-19 pandemic.

This paper discusses how important it is for the valuer and the client to communicate and understand the uncertainty in the market at any point of time. The COVID-19 has had a significant impact on property values and the importance of clarity within valuation reports.

This paper looks at the importance of placing capital and rental value changes due to material uncertainty in valuation reports.

This provides guidance on how professional bodies are advising their members, around the world, on how to report valuations and market value in the context of material uncertainty.

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.

The research investigates valuers' understanding of the value of sustainability in property and its' consideration in valuation practice in Australia. This paper explores valuers' perceptions of the relationships between sustainability and market values, sustainability and valuation variables, and the value influence of industry sustainability certification schemes. Further, this paper tracks prevalence of certified buildings in Australian commercial markets and the evolution of valuers' knowledge of sustainability certifications used in Australia.

This paper reports on the next rendition of a longitudinal study examining valuers’ practice in Australia. This research explores the evolution of Australian valuers' perception and knowledge of sustainability in valuation practice. The survey data has been periodically collected from practising valuers from 2007 to 2021. The survey questions investigate valuers' knowledge development, understanding, reporting and consideration of the relationship between sustainability and market value.

The results have identified the evolution of the influence of normative research on valuers' perceptions of the relationship between sustainability and value; with a clearer understanding emerging over time of where the value relationships are identified in valuation variables. Greater alignment between empirical Australian studies and valuers' perceptions of the influence of sustainability ratings on value, demonstrate the value connection for higher rated buildings under NABERS (energy rating) and Green Star. Whilst only 41% of the study's participants are including sustainability in their valuation reports, they include a higher level of commentary on building descriptions and initiatives, building ratings, and reporting of owner and tenant objectives, than in previous studies. Knowledge development relating to sustainability certification tool, NABERS was identified. This is likely linked to the introduction of mandatory disclosure legislation. This has also led to increased awareness and valuers' knowledge of the differences between the two key rating tools used in Australia.

The research has several limitations: firstly, recruitment of valuers and the number of valuers' responses has varied over time; secondly, due to collection methods respondents have a greater likelihood of having an interest in and knowledge of sustainability creating potential for positive bias; thirdly, respondents may have responded to the survey in different years, but due to anonymity there has been no ability to track this. The results provide insights into the Australian valuation profession but may not be fully representative of the profession overall in Australia.

The broader agenda of net zero, climate change, mitigation and carbon requirements, whether driven by market forces or government legislation, are generating changes in property markets as investors' reconsider their positions and model the implications of carbon emissions on their bottom lines. Introductions of policy and legislation over time in the Australian context have led to changes in valuation practice and increasing consideration of energy efficiency and ratings in the valuation of assets. However, further guidance and research still is required in Australia to assist in the knowledge development of valuers, and their ability to consider the emerging effects of sustainability, net zero and other market driven objectives including legislation, and how these may affect or influence their evaluation of market evidence and thus property values.

The research has tracked valuers' understanding, knowledge, and consideration of sustainability and energy efficiency in valuation practice since 2007. In that time the research has found that, as the market has evolved and more rated buildings are built (or retrofitted), so too has valuers' knowledge and consideration in valuation practices evolved. Valuers are more engaged with industry rating tools such as NABERS. This suggests that the Australian mandatory disclosure policies have contributed to changes in the market, which are then interpreted by valuers and reflected in their perceptions and consideration of energy ratings in valuation practice.

The literature on appraisal smoothing and valuer behaviour contains frequent references to the “political pressures” faced by valuers. However, the vast majority of these are either unsubstantiated or based on anecdotal evidence or media reports. Recent research focusing on the issue of pressure similarly suffers from either a lack of formal evidence that particular sources of pressure (e.g. client) actually exist or preconceptions concerning the effect of such pressures. This paper reports on the results of a study which seeks to redress these shortcomings by identifying the non‐methodological factors that affect the values reported to, and ultimately accepted by, clients. The study consists of a series of individual in‐depth interviews with senior New Zealand Registered Valuers addressing the topic of “non‐methodological factors affecting reported values to clients”. Our results indicate that the primary factors affecting the degree to which clients influence valuations, are the type of client, the characteristics of valuers and valuation firms, the purpose of a valuation and the information endowments of clients and valuers.