Search results

The purpose of this paper is to comment upon the on-going debate about the preferred use of implicit models of valuation vs their explicit counterparts. The last few decades have seen changing complexities in UK leasing structures, and there is a suggestion that the implicit models are incapable of dealing with these complexities. This paper looks to address the issues and concerns with implicit models.

This education briefing is an overview of the pros and cons of both models and collates comments from industry to give an indication of the use of each model.

This paper analyses the appropriateness of implicit models of valuation and the areas in which they prove useful. Although the explicit models prove to be more useful in certain situations, the implicit models are also proved just as useful. The appropriate model needs to be used as appropriate to the property type.

Rather than seeing implicit and explicit models as “rivals”, they should be seen as two sides of the same coin. Both have advantages and disadvantages. The role of the valuer in practice is to choose the correct model for the valuation task in hand.

This is a review of existing models.

The purpose of this paper is to show that distinguishing between gross and net tax shields arising from interest deductions is important to firm valuation. The distinction affects the interpretation but not valuation of tax shields for the famous Miller’s (1977) model with corporate and personal taxes. However, for the well-known Miles and Ezzell’s (1985) model, the authors show that the valuation of tax shields can be materially affected. Implications to the cost of equity and optimal capital structure are discussed.

This paper proposed a simple tax shield clarification that distinguishes between gross and net tax shields. Net tax shields equal gross tax shields minus personal taxes on debt. When an after-tax riskless rate is used to discount shareholders’ tax shields, this distinction affects the interpretation but not valuation results of the Miller’s model. However, when the after-tax unlevered equity rate is used to discount tax shields under the well-known Miles and Ezzell’s (1985) model, the difference between gross and net tax shields can materially affect valuation results. According to the traditional ME model, both gross tax shields and debt interest tax payments (i.e. net tax shields) are discounted at the after-tax unlevered equity rate. By contrast, the proposed revised ME model discounts gross tax shields at the unlevered equity rate but personal taxes on debt income at the riskless rate (like debt payments). Because personal taxes on debt are nontrivial, traditional ME valuation results can noticeably differ from the revised ME model to the extent that after-tax unlevered equity and debt rates differ from one another.

For comparative purposes, the authors provide numerical examples of the traditional and revised ME models. The following constant tax rates and market discount rates are assumed: T_c=0.30, T_pb=0.20, T_ps=0.10, r=0.06, and ρ=0.10. Table I compares these two models’ valuation results. Maximum firm value for the traditional ME model is 7.89 compared to 7.00 for the revised ME model. At a 50 percent leverage ratio, equity value is reduced from 3.71 to 3.49, respectively. Importantly, the traditional ME model suggests that firm value linearly increases with leverage and implies an all-debt capital structure, whereas firm value stays relatively constant as leverage increases in the revised ME model. These capital structure differences arise due to discounting debt tax payments with the unlevered equity rate (riskless rate) in the traditional ME (revised ME) model. Figure 1 graphically summarizes these results by comparing the traditional ME model (thin lines) to the revised ME model (bold lines).

Textbook treatments of leverage gains to firms or projects with corporate and personal taxes should be amended to take into account this previously unrecognized tradeoff. Also, empirical analyses of capital structure are recommended on the sensitivity of leverage ratios to the gross-tax-gain/debt-personal taxes tradeoff.

Financial managers need to understand how to value interest tax shields on debt in making capital structure decisions, computing the cost of capital, and valuing the firm.

The valuation of interest tax shields in finance is a long-standing controversy. Nobel prize winners Modigliani and Miller (MM) wrote numerous papers on this subject and gained fame from their ideas in this area. However, application of their ideas has changed over time due to the Miles and Ezzell’s (ME) model of firm valuation. The present paper adapts the pathbreaking ideas of MM to the valuation framework of ME. Students and practitioners in finance can benefit by the valuation results in the paper.

No previous studies have recognized the valuation issues resolved in the paper on the application of the popular and contemporary ME model of firm valuation to the MM valuation concepts. The new arguments in the paper are easy to understand and readily applied to firm valuation.

This research paper has two objectives. The first is to shed light on the consistency in and quality of the applied valuation models. The second objective is to analyse uniformity on important valuation input variables throughout 1994‐2002.

More than 150 original valuation reports are retrieved and qualitatively checked on model consistency, for example on discounting methods. The impact of the inconsistencies on the end value were calculated by using a dummy discounted cash flow model (DCF). The uniformity of the input variables net yield, discount rate and exit yield are quantitatively determined: is there a decreasing standard deviation through time?

There appears to be little consistency: the Dutch appraisers use a variety of methods within the DCF method. Cash flows are discounted quarterly in advance, yearly in arrear and averaged over the year, only three of the ten most frequent used appraisers use a flexible inflation scenario, etc. These different approaches can have a large impact on the appraisal value. As for the uniformity, the standard deviation for all three variables has not decreased through time.

The conclusions and recommendations of this research have been used by the valuation committee of the ROZ/IPD Netherlands Property Index to improve and extend the valuation guidelines.

Valuation models, which are the foundation of benchmarks, have never been researched on a large scale due to confidential issues. This research appears to be the first to actually analyse valuation models of many different appraisal companies in one country, The Netherlands. The participants of the ROZ/IPD Netherlands Property Index own 85 per cent of the €38 billion institutionally invested value in real estate in The Netherlands. Their policy decisions are partially based on the comparison to the Dutch benchmark. Therefore consistency and uniformity of the valuation models is critical.

Surprisingly little is known of the various methods of security analysis used by financial analysts with industry-specific knowledge. Financial analysts’ industry knowledge is a favored and appreciated attribute by fund managers and institutional investors. Understanding analysts’ use of industry-specific valuation models, which are the main value drivers within different industries, will enhance our understanding of important aspects of value creation in these industries. This paper contributes to the broader understanding of how financial analysts in various industries approach valuation, offering insights that can be beneficial to a wide range of stakeholders in the financial market.

This paper systematically reviews existing research to consolidate the current understanding of analysts’ use of valuation models and factors. It aims to demystify what can often be seen as a “black box”, shedding light on the valuation tools employed by financial analysts across diverse industries.

The use of industry-specific valuation models and factors by analysts is a subject of considerable interest to both academics and investors. The predominant model in several industries is P/E, with some exceptions. Notably, EV/EBITDA is favored in the telecom, energy and materials sectors, while the capital goods industry primarily relies on P/CF. In the REITs sector, P/AFFO is the most commonly employed model. In specific sectors like pharmaceuticals, energy and telecom, DCF is utilized. However, theoretical models like RIM and AEG find limited use among analysts.

This is the first paper systematically reviewing the research on analyst’s use of industry-specific stock valuation methods. It serves as a foundation for future research in this field and is likely to be of interest to academics, analysts, fund managers and investors.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

This paper aims to examine the valuation precision of composite models in each of six key industries in South Africa. The objective is to ascertain whether equity-based composite multiples models produce more accurate equity valuations than optimal equity-based, single-factor multiples models.

This study applied principal component regression and various mathematical optimisation methods to test the valuation precision of equity-based composite multiples models vis-à-vis equity-based, single-factor multiples models.

The findings confirmed that equity-based composite multiples models consistently produced valuations that were substantially more accurate than those of single-factor multiples models for the period between 2001 and 2010. The research results indicated that composite models produced up to 67 per cent more accurate valuations than single-factor multiples models for the period between 2001 and 2010, which represents a substantial gain in valuation precision.

The evidence, therefore, suggests that equity-based composite modelling may offer substantial gains in valuation precision over single-factor multiples modelling.

In light of the fact that analysts’ reports typically contain various different multiples, it seems prudent to consider the inclusion of composite models as a more accurate alternative.

This study adds to the existing body of knowledge on the multiples-based approach to equity valuations by presenting composite modelling as a more accurate alternative to the conventional single-factor, multiples-based modelling approach.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Does target firm shareholders excessively paid or adequately rewarded or stumpy compensated? To address this query, the study aims to remix valuation parameters for better combination of mixture so that it represents fair deal value in merger and acquisition (M&A) negotiation process. The purpose of the study is to redesign the existing valuation methods, craft new models and compare them to suggest perceptive guidelines for “valuation governance”.

This research reconstructs discounted cash flows (DCF) and net asset valuations (NAV), originate NRR‐APB approach, MCF‐RS and MCF‐ES and finally compare all seven methods for each select company in the respective industry/sector. Exclusively, estimating the forecasting hurdle rate (FHR) is a core competence of valuation process.

Among the valuation models, all seven methods for select companies have been reported diverse values, however NRR‐APB approach describe factual enterprise value for bargaining the value of target firm in structuring M&A deals.

Due to petite sample, study has limited scope to validate the proposed conceptual models for valuation governance. Particularly, models have developed under the Indian accounting regulations, standards and reporting mechanism. Though, it can be practiced in other accounting standards on trail and error basis.

Valuation practitioners, governments, consultants, M&A advisory, market research and academia may implement these business valuation techniques, guidelines and implications in particular sector/industry to protect the interest of target firm shareholders and justify the consistent value for acquirer/bidding firm. Accordingly, stakeholders' interest could also be sheltered.

The paper intends to introduce NRR‐APB approach, MCF‐RS and MCF‐ES, reengineering DCF and NAV and compare these valuation methods on three companies each in select two industries, auto ancillary and hotels and resorts. Further, it would be adding a token of contribution to the notable area corporate finance. Hence, this article is the first study to argue on valuation governance and recommend state to enact immediately in India.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

In capital market, share prices of listed companies generally respond to accounting information. In 1995, Ohlson proposed a share valuation model based on two accounting indicators: company residual income and book value of net asset. In 2000, Zhang introduced the thought of option pricing and developed a new accounting valuation model. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the valuation deviation and the influence of some market transaction characteristics on pricing models.

The authors use listed companies from 1999 to 2013 as samples, and conduct comparative analysis with multiple regression.

The main findings are: first, the accounting valuation model is applicable to the capital market as a whole, and its pricing effect increases as years go by; second, in the environment of out capital market, the maturity of investors is one of important factors that causes the information content of residual income less than that of profit per share and lower pricing effect of valuation models; third, when the price earning (PE) of listed companies reaches certain level, the overall explanation capacity of accounting valuation models will become lower as PE gets higher; fourth, as for companies with higher turnover rate and more active transaction, the pricing effect of accounting valuation model is obviously lower; fifth, the pricing effect of accounting valuation models in a bull market is lower than in a bear market.

These findings establish connection between accounting valuation and market transaction characteristics providing an explorable orientation for the future development of accounting valuation theories and models.