Author
Listed:
- Neil Dunse
- Norman E. Hutchison
- Goodacre Alan
Abstract
Guidance Note 1 of the Red Book (RICS, 2003) states that the valuation of an operational entity includes four components: the land and buildings; the trade fixtures and fittings; the trading potential, excluding personal goodwill; and the benefit of any transferable licenses and consents. While four separate components of value are identified, the market value figure reported to the client is invariably a global sum, which is not disaggregated. However, values may need to be apportioned for a number of reasons, most notably for stamp duty and balance sheet purposes. Accounting changes in recent years have increasingly recognised the importance of intangible assets such as intellectual capital and goodwill. Similarly, recent tax changes demonstrate the governmentÌs acceptance of the importance of such items in achieving and maintaining business competitiveness. This paper has two key objectives: first, to analyse the application of the Red Book to traderelated valuations, paying particular attention to the treatment of goodwill and second, to critically evaluate the accounting treatment of goodwill and in particular the application of Financial Reporting Standard 10. In order to understand the workings of the market, the corporate hotel sector was used a case study. The key findings of the research are that valuers expressed considerable unease with the apportioning of market value between tangible assets and goodwill, There was no consensus on how (or if) goodwill could be measured reliably. Second, that the valuation methods adopted are, to a degree, na‘ve. While explicit changes are made to the cashflow projections, there is insufficient appreciation of the changing risk profile that might lead to an adjustment to the earnings multiplier. The accounting difficulties and inconsistencies concerning goodwill arise largely because of inadequate valuation methods. Recent tax changes also point to the need for a robust and defendable valuation methodology. Application of one such theoretically sound approach to valuing goodwill (the bridge model) is illustrated in this paper. While the research focused on the corporate hotel sector, the findings have wider implications for other sectors of the market where operational entities are valued with regard to their trading potential.
Suggested Citation
Neil Dunse & Norman E. Hutchison & Goodacre Alan, 2003.
"The cat, the dog and the rabbit: Goodwill and trading-related valuations,"
ERES
eres2003_147, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
Handle:
RePEc:arz:wpaper:eres2003_147
Download full text from publisher
More about this item
JEL classification:
- R3 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Real Estate Markets, Spatial Production Analysis, and Firm Location
Statistics
Access and download statistics
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arz:wpaper:eres2003_147. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Architexturez Imprints (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eressea.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.