目的
评估通常用于确定房地产开发项目的财务可行性,用于多种目的。残差估值法通常用于评估此类项目,本文的目的是检查从业者使用的财务可行性决策规则 (FVDR)。
设计/方法/方法
定性研究方法基于案例研究调查策略,其中从互联网访问了来自伦敦 37 家皇家特许测量师学会注册公司的 48 份发展评估报告,并进行了严格审查。
发现
出于规划目的的特定地点和区域范围的开发评估在报告中占主导地位。确定了 5 个 FVDR。如果满足以下条件,开发项目在财务上是可行的:(i) 以百分比回报表示的计算剩余利润等于或大于确定的市场基准风险调整后回报;(ii) 以百分比回报表示的计算剩余利润为正;(iii) 计算出的剩余土地价值高于公开市场土地价值或基准土地价值;(iv) 计算出的剩余土地价值为正;以及 (v) 当包括土地成本加上开发商利润津贴在内的评估成本变量从开发总价值中扣除时,存在盈余。在一些报告中,发现一些评估成本变量被排除在外,而另一些则被不当处理。
实际意义
第一个和第三个 FVDR 是合理的,而其余的则充满问题,使用它们可能会使财务上不可行的开发项目变得可行。此外,排除相关成本变量并不适当地低估了评估成本组成部分,从而导致不正确的财务可行性结果。这些可能会导致关于财务可行性的错误建议,从而对从业者的客户产生负面影响。用于规划目的的开发评估的主导地位表明,开发评估在英国规划系统中继续发挥着重要作用。
原创性/价值
据作者所知,这是英格兰首次系统地调查发展评估中的 FVDRs,并得出新的实证发现和论点。
"点击查看英文标题和摘要"
Financial viability decision rules in residual valuation method of property development appraisal: case study of London, England
Purpose
An appraisal is normally conducted to determine financial viability of property development projects for several purposes. The residual valuation method is normally used to appraise such projects and the purpose of the paper is to examine its financial viability decision rules (FVDRs) used by practitioners.
Design/methodology/approach
The qualitative research approach was adopted based on the case study strategy of enquiry where 48 development appraisal reports from 37 Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors registered firms in London were accessed from the internet and critically reviewed.
Findings
Site-specific and area-wide development appraisals for planning purposes dominated the reports. Five FVDRs were identified. A development project is financially viable if: (i) computed residual profit expressed as a percentage return is equal to or greater than a determined market benchmark risk-adjusted return; (ii) computed residual profit expressed as a percentage return is positive; (iii) calculated residual land value is greater than open market land value or benchmark land value; (iv) computed residual land value is positive; and (v) there is a surplus when appraisal cost variables including land costs plus allowance for developer’s profit are deducted from gross development value. In some reports, it was discovered some appraisal cost variables were excluded whilst others were inappropriately treated.
Practical implications
The first and third FVDRs are reasonable whilst the remaining are fraught with problems and using them can make development projects that are financially unviable to be viable. Also, excluding relevant cost variables and treating some inappropriately understate the appraisal cost component resulting in incorrect financial viability outcomes. These can lead to wrong recommendations about financial viability being proffered that negatively affect the practitioners’ clientele. The dominance of development appraisals for planning purposes shows the important role development appraisals continue to play in the English planning system.
Originality/value
To the best of the author’s knowledge, it is the first time FVDRs in development appraisals have been systematically investigated in England with resultant new empirical findings and arguments.