In accordance with the FSO. (Federal standards of appraisal.) The final value of the value of the appraised object is the value of the appraised object, obtained as a result of the generalization of the results of calculations of the value of the appraised object, justified by the appraiser, using various approaches to appraisal and appraisal methods.
There are three generally accepted approaches according to valuation standards:
Cost approach as a set of methods for assessing the value of an object, based on determining the costs necessary to restore or replace the object of assessment, taking into account its wear and tear;
Comparative approach - as a set of methods for assessing the value of an object, based on a comparison of the object of assessment with similar objects in respect of which there is information about the prices of transactions with them;
Income approach - as a set of valuation methods based on the determination of expected income from the object of assessment. All three approaches must be applied (or justify not using any of them). The appraiser, on the basis of the results obtained within the framework of each of the approaches to the assessment, determines the final value of the value of the appraisal object. It must be expressed in rubles as a single value, unless otherwise provided in the valuation agreement (there may be an interval). The appraiser chooses the ways of deriving the final value of the cost independently, it cannot be the arithmetic average of three digits. The evaluator assigns a weight to each of the approaches, depending on collected information, its accuracy, reliability, reflection of the market situation, the number of amendments, etc. and calculates the weighted average. Other more complex statistical methods for averaging are widely used - Hierarchy analysis method - Sauty matrix, etc.
The purpose of harmonizing the results obtained using the methods used is to identify, within the framework of the problem being solved, the advantages and disadvantages of each of them, and thus, to determine a single cost estimate. The advantages (disadvantages) of each method in assessing the value of an object are determined by the following criteria:
- 1. Ability to reflect real intentions potential buyer or seller.
- 2. The quality and breadth of the initial information on the basis of which the analysis is carried out.
- 3. The ability of the methods used to take into account market fluctuations and the cost of funds.
- 4. The ability to take into account the specific characteristics of the object of assessment.
The process of summarizing the results obtained by different approaches leads, taking into account additional adjustments, to the establishment of the final cost, which achieves the goal of the assessment.
The weighted average total cost is calculated using the formula
S P = V Wed S Wed +V zat S zat +V doh S doh , where
S cf, S zat, S doh - the cost of the object - obtained using the comparative, cost and income approaches, respectively;
V av, V zat, V doh - the weighting factor of the result obtained using the comparative, cost and income approaches, respectively, and
V cf + V zat + V doh \u003d 1
In this work, the ranking procedure (hierarchy analysis method) was used. Ranking is the arrangement of the evaluation results obtained using different approaches (methods), in ascending order of their quality. For ranking, first of all, it is necessary to formulate quality criteria by which the evaluation results will be compared using different approaches (methods).
Moreover, it is not approaches (methods) as such that are subject to comparison, but the results of using these approaches (methods).
Quality criteria are formulated for all three approaches.
It is important to note that it is simply impossible to avoid subjectivity in the reconciliation of results, as well as throughout the entire evaluation process. It is only possible with the help of some methods, techniques, procedures to try to reduce the degree of subjectivity, including when coordinating the results.
The appraiser chose a system of four factors. For each factor, each of the methods used is assigned:
- 0 points - if this method does not meet the criteria of this factor at all;
- 1 point - if this method satisfies the criteria of this factor to the extent that the Appraiser may consider insufficient, below average, worse than usual, not quite sufficient for ordinary confidence in the result of this method;
- 2 points - if this method satisfies the criteria of this factor to the extent that the Assessor can consider quite acceptable, average, normal, sufficient for ordinary confidence in the result of this method;
- 3 points - if this method completely satisfies the criteria of this factor.
- 1. Compliance with the type of calculated cost:
It is assumed that the comparative approach always corresponds to the market value - 3 points.
The cost approach in non-construction markets is not real alternative purchase of objects already available in a sufficient number.
The weight of the cost approach for this criterion is 2 points.
2. Reliability and sufficiency:
AT comparative approach The appraiser has analyzed a sufficient amount of market data. These data, based on the sources of their receipt, were quite reliable. Taking this into account, 3 points were set for the results for this factor.
The cost approach for objects in the conditions of the predominance of supply over demand is significantly less reliable compared to the other two approaches.
As a result, the weight of the cost approach for this criterion is 3 points.
3. Ability to consider pricing factors:
In valuation theory, it is believed that the comparative approach fully reflects the structure of pricing factors. Considering that we assessed the reliability of the market data themselves earlier, within the framework of this factor it is necessary to evaluate only the fundamental property of the approach to reflect the market. Therefore, the comparative approach was given a weight of 3 points.
In the period when supply prevails over demand, the cost approach reflects the structure of market pricing factors to a much lesser extent, the weight is 2 points.
4. Ability to consider motivation:
The comparative approach is the most obvious benchmark for market participants - 3 points.
The cost benchmark in the limited volume of actually ongoing construction is not quite adequate in terms of taking into account the motivation for the price of objects -2 points.
Table 5
RESULTS OF GENERALIZING THE FINAL COST OF THE OBJECT OF ASSESSMENT AND AGREEING THE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS
|
Comparative |
costly |
Profitable |
||
|
The result of the calculation, rub. |
Not used |
|||
|
Application of the approach in calculations |
||||
|
Reliability and sufficiency of information on the basis of which the analysis and calculations were carried out |
||||
|
The ability of the approach to take into account the structure of pricing factors specific to the object |
||||
|
The ability of the approach to reflect the motivation, actual intentions of the typical buyer/seller |
||||
|
Compliance of the approach with the type of calculated cost |
||||
|
Total rank |
||||
|
Weight coefficient, % |
||||
|
Weight of the calculation results of the corresponding valuation method, rub. |
||||
|
Agreed value of the market value of the appraisal object, rub., incl. VAT |
As a result of the analysis and calculations using existing valuation methods, the Appraiser determined the final value of the market value of the VAZ 21213 car, which, after rounding, amounted to:
58000 (Fifty eight thousand) rubles
Conclusion: the total value is within the market range defined for the appraisal object in the Market Analysis Section.
Appraiser's judgment about the possible boundaries of the interval in which, in his opinion, the market value may be.
The assessment of the market value, no matter how accurate and reliable methods it is obtained, always contains some uncertainty (fuzziness, ambiguity) and cannot be considered as the exact value of the market value. In most cases, in practice, the appraiser operates with a certain sample of market prices, without having information about the entire volume of offers (especially transactions). In these cases, the "true" value of the market value (that is, the value of the population statistic we have chosen) cannot be determined because the population of prices is not available for analysis. It is in such situations that the problem arises of estimating the value of the statistics of the general population based on a sample of its representatives (that is, part of this population). And this task does not exact solution. It is impossible to determine the "exact" value of the mathematical expectation as the average value for the entire general population without analyzing this population. It is in this sense that market value in most practical tasks unobservable on the market.
From the point of view of mathematical statistics, the cost, as a random variable, is calculated on the basis of the values of the prices of analogous objects xi, i=1,…,n, understood as n of its independent observations. The general population is the prices of all objects in the market segment under consideration, and the value of the appraisal object is obtained as a result of processing a sample of values available to the appraiser from the general population.
The theory and practice of evaluation in most cases use its mathematical expectation as an indicator of RS, the estimate of which is obtained by calculating the sample mean, usually accompanying it with an estimate of accuracy in the form of confidence interval boundaries. However, the definition of RS mentioned above speaks of the most probable value, which in general case corresponds to another statistic of the random variable - the mode. And only for symmetric unimodal distributions of random variables, which, in particular, is the normal distribution, the values of the mathematical expectation and the mode coincide.
At the same time, the procedure for selection by the appraiser of analogues of the object being evaluated is not, strictly speaking, a procedure for random selection from the general population and cannot guarantee the homogeneity of the sample. It is also impossible to exclude the possibility of appraiser's errors in the formation of a sample of market data on the prices of objects-analogues. Taking this into account, it should be recognized that the hypothesis of the normal distribution of a sample of market data cannot be considered as automatically accepted, which means that it must be tested.
Confirmation of the hypothesis of normal distribution of sample data on the prices of analogues is also required for the correct application of correlation-regression methods in determining the value of the object of assessment, taking into account its differences from analogues in one or more influencing characteristics. It is known that the presence of optimal properties of the least squares method used in the construction of regression dependencies is closely related to the normal distribution of the resulting parameter (sample of market prices) and the absence of gross errors in the sample. Another condition for ensuring the correctness of the constructed regression is the normality of the distribution of errors, which must be checked at the final stage of the regression analysis.
To check the sample of analogs for compliance with the conditions of normal distribution and homogeneity, the coefficients of variation and oscillation, the skewness coefficient, the kurtosis coefficient, the standard error of the skewness and the standard error of the kurtosis were calculated, and the sample was also checked for the absence of outliers.
The coefficient of variation V characterizes the relative measure of the deviation of the measured values from the arithmetic mean:
V = H 100%, where
V - coefficient of variation;
y - standard deviation (function STDEV);
a - arithmetic mean (AVERAGE function).
The greater the value of the coefficient of variation, the relatively greater the scatter and the lower evenness of the studied values. If the coefficient of variation is less than 10%, then the variability of the variation series is considered to be insignificant, from 10% to 20% refers to the average, more than 20% and less than 33% to significant, and if the coefficient of variation exceeds 33%, then this indicates the heterogeneity of information and the need excluding the largest and smallest values.
Checking the sample for the absence of outliers was carried out during the evaluation process. According to the results of calculations by a comparative campaign, the coefficient of variation is within 24.69%
Conclusion: The possible boundaries of the interval in which the market value can be located can be within + - 24.69% of the market value determined by calculation.
The final stage of the assessment is the coordination of the results obtained by various methods within the framework of the approaches used. The purpose of such an agreement is to obtain the final final value of the cost. The final value of the property being appraised is an expert, impartial and justified judgment of a qualified, professional appraiser about one or another type of value of the appraised object, fixed in the appraisal task. In accordance with the requirements for the report, the value is given in the form of a single ruble amount, representing the point value of the assessment.
Coordination- this is the analysis of alternative conclusions obtained by applying three different approaches to valuation, in order to determine a single (agreed) value of the estimated value.
The appraiser should not simply average the three values. The final estimated cost is never the result of an average, it cannot be obtained by adding up all the estimated costs and then dividing this sum by the number of approaches used. Averaging the results of different methods does not guarantee the correct conclusion about the assessment, since in this case it is assumed that when performing the assessment, each approach gave an equally reliable result, which is extremely rare in practice.
In an ideal (open and competitive) market, all three classical approaches should lead to the same value. However, most markets are imperfect, supply and demand are not in balance. Potential users may be misinformed, manufacturers may be inefficient. For these and other reasons, approaches can give different indicators of value, which the appraiser compares with each other during the approval procedure.
The evaluator should take into account that the client usually requires an explanation of the reasons for the discrepancies in the results and justification of the reconciliation process. Professional appraisers in the United States consider a 10% spread in values obtained by applying various incomes to be acceptable. If, when agreeing on any of the cost indicators, it differs significantly from the others, then the appraiser must definitely find out why. If the reason is not due to mathematical or other correctable errors, then the assessment report should indicate what led to such a discrepancy, and perhaps less reliance on the result obtained based on this approach in the Reconciliation.
Weighted averaging is considered to be the most preferred option for carrying out the procedure for reconciling the results obtained in order to obtain the final value of the cost. The appraiser weighs the extent to which one or another approach corresponds to the purpose of assessing the object under consideration, whether the calculations are supported by market data, whether they contradict them, and in the final conclusion relies more on the value indicator that was obtained on the basis of the most ideal of all points of view of the approach. The solution of the question, which valuations to give more weight and how to weigh the result of one approach or another in relation to the results of other approaches is the key to final stage estimates.
The appraiser must prove that the data set used is sufficient to make the assessment from the point of view of all market participants.
The calculation of the final value of the cost should be preceded by a comprehensive control of the evaluation procedure. The appraiser needs to make sure that the information used, the analytical methods applied, the assumptions and the logic of justification have resulted in adequate and comparable real estate value results. The methods of analysis used should correspond to the purpose of the assessment, the type of value determined, the method and stage of cost calculation.
The appraiser must identify and analyze inconsistencies in the analytical conclusions on which valuation decisions and calculations are based in various valuation approaches in order to eliminate inconsistencies. For example, is the residual life of a building considered in determining its physical wear and tear in the cost approach, the return on investment period, on the basis of which the rate of return of capital was calculated to determine the capitalization ratio, in the income approach.
For determining specific gravity(in percentages or fractions of a unit) for each result of applying each approach, it is necessary to conduct a quantitative and qualitative analysis, taking into account the following factors:
The purpose of the assessment and the intended use of its results;
Applied type (standard) of value (for example, reasonable market value or investment value);
- the nature of the property share being assessed;
— the quantity and quality of data supporting the application of the method;
- the level of control of the considered share of ownership;
- the level of its liquidity.
Taking into account all these factors makes it possible to weigh and ultimately draw a final conclusion.
The appraiser determines the relative importance, applicability, and validity of each value measure based on criteria such as adequacy, quality of information, and amount of evidence.
Adequacy. Based on this criterion, the evaluator determines the degree to which each approach fits the purpose and purpose (use) of the assessment. The adequacy of the approach, as a rule, is determined by the type of property and market activity. For example, valuation of residential real estate gives the most objective results using the comparable sales method, special-purpose properties are focused on a cost approach, which may not be useful when valuing obsolete buildings. In practice, it is possible that the evaluator should give preference to not one, but two results, but their significance may be unequal.
Information quality. The reliability of the assessment results depends on the volume and reliability of the data used in the course of calculations, adjustments, analytical judgments and conclusions (for example, the sufficiency and relevance of information on rental rates necessary to calculate and make adjustments to the price of an analogue for the location of the property, or reliability data that serve as a source for determining the magnitude of functional and economic obsolescence). Criteria reflecting the relevance and quality of the information used should also be considered in relation to the type of property being valued.
Estimation Accuracy is measured by the appraiser's confidence in the correctness of the assumptions (forecasts) and calculations made within each approach. The valuer has the right to trust the accuracy of the data and calculations used in different approaches to a different extent.
The amount of evidence. The adequacy and quality of the information in the reconciliation is considered in conjunction with the amount of evidence involved in a particular approach. The proof in calculating the value of real estate lies in the use of market information for various judgments and calculations, taking into account the territory, purpose of real estate and other characteristics of the property being valued and its analogues. Regardless of the amount of evidence available, the actions of the appraiser are not limited to operations with numbers, since the calculation of the value must correspond to the type of value specified in the valuation task. An important part of the evidence is the stability or volatility of the market situation, since evidence obtained by comparing the sales of previous transactions may characterize a situation that does not correspond to the date of the assessment.
Example 15.1. An appraisal of a commercial property was made (year of construction - 1914), and the following value indicators were obtained:
cost approach $1,800,000;
comparable sales approach $1,600,000;
DCF analysis $1,650,000
The appraiser, when agreeing on the cost, came to the following conclusion:
1. There is virtually no new construction in the market at the valuation date, so the cost approach alone cannot be considered best applied to a particular valuation case. In addition, the object was built a long time ago, therefore, it is rather difficult to accurately assess the accumulated wear and tear. The property is commercial and the purpose of buying it is likely to be to generate income, therefore, the buyer is more interested in results that reflect the ability of the property to generate income, and not in the costs of its construction.
2. In the comparative approach, five analogues were used, none of which can be fully recognized as comparable in relation to the object being evaluated. The degree of accuracy of the adjustments is quite relative, since it was not possible to obtain accurate data on the transactions carried out.
3. The income approach seems to be the most adequate and gives the most reliable results for the evaluation of this object. rental information and operating expenses have been obtained from reliable sources and are believed to be reliable. As already noted, the object is commercial, which indicates the importance of assessing based on the analysis of its ability to generate income.
As a result of the analysis, the evaluator gives weight to each of the approaches:
- cost approach 25%;
- comparative approach 25%;
- income approach 50%.
Then the final cost estimate is:
1,800,000 x 25% + 1,600,000 x 25% + 1,650,000 x 50% t 450,000 + 400,000 + 825,000 - $1,675,000
Quite recently, such a variant of coordination would have been quite enough. Today, the logic of the approval procedure requires a clear identification of a number of criteria, according to which a comparative study of the compliance with them of each of the applied assessment approaches should be carried out.
We offer appraisers the following fairly complete system of criteria that can be used when applying the matching methods described below.
The problem of formalizing the procedure for agreeing on the results of real estate valuation obtained using various approaches can be solved both in the traditional way using the expert method and by considering the agreement procedure as a multi-criteria decision-making problem.
Valuation of a real estate object is a methodically sound opinion of an expert on the value of a real estate object, or the process of determining the value.
Coordination of the evaluation results is carried out by 3 different approaches: comparative, costly, profitable.
The comparative approach to real estate valuation is based on information about recent transactions with similar objects on the market and comparison of the property being valued with analogues.
The advantages of the comparative approach are:
the simplest approach;
statistically valid;
suggests correction methods;
provides data for other approaches in valuation.
The disadvantages of the comparative approach are:
requires an active market;
comparative data are not always available;
requires amendments, a large number of which affects the reliability of the results;
based on past events, does not take into account future expectations.
Cost approach - a set of methods for assessing the value of a property based on determining the costs necessary to restore or replace a property, taking into account its depreciation. The cost approach is based on the principle of substitution, which assumes that a reasonable buyer would not pay more for a property than the cost of building a property that is similar in utility to the property being valued.
Advantages of the cost approach:
When evaluating new objects, the cost approach is the most reliable.
This approach is appropriate or the only possible one in the following cases:
technical and economic analysis of the cost of new construction;
justification of the need to update the existing facility;
appraisal of special purpose buildings;
when evaluating objects in the "passive" sectors of the market;
land use efficiency analysis;
solution of object insurance problems;
solving problems of taxation;
when agreeing on the value of the property obtained by other methods.
Disadvantages of the cost approach:
Costs are not always equivalent to market value.
Attempts to achieve a more accurate assessment result are accompanied by a rapid increase in labor costs.
The discrepancy between the costs of acquiring the property being valued and the costs of new construction of exactly the same property, since accumulated depreciation is deducted from the cost of construction during the valuation process.
Problematic calculation of the cost of reproduction of old buildings.
Difficulty in determining the amount of accumulated wear and tear of old buildings and structures.
Separate valuation of land from buildings.
Problematic evaluation of land plots in Russia.
The income approach to real estate valuation reflects the motivation of the typical buyer of income property: expected future returns with the required characteristics. Considering that there is a direct relationship between the size of the investment and the benefits from the commercial use of the investee, the value of real estate is defined as the value of the rights to receive income from it.
The main advantage that the income approach to real estate valuation has in comparison with the market and cost approach is that it reflects the investor's idea of real estate as a source of income to a greater extent, i.e. this quality of real estate is taken into account as the main pricing factor. The income approach to valuation is closely related to the market and cost methods.
The weighted average value of the value of the property (V) is taken as its market value.
Significance coefficients of real estate valuations obtained by cost, comparative and income approach, respectively;- total cost of the property being valued according to the cost approach, thousand rubles; - the total value of the property being valued according to the comparative approach, thousand rubles; - the total value of the property according to the income approach, thousand rubles.
With regard to these coefficients, the equality must be satisfied:
Thus, the weighted average value of the property value (V) is:
V \u003d (203232.4 * 0.2) + (61149.06 * 0.3) + (103654.05 * 0.5) \u003d 79892.21, thousand rubles.
CONCLUSION
Offer on the service market
supply market The housing issue, perhaps, has been and remains relevant at all times, however, unlike the ordinary housing issue, the question of temporary shelter in a foreign city is somewhat ...
Open Joint Stock Company Dom
A business plan is a document containing the main aspects of a future business venture. It analyzes the problems that an entrepreneur may encounter, and also identifies ways ...
Economic calculation of works on hydraulic fracturing
Hydraulic fracturing is the most common method of influencing the bottomhole zone. The essence of this process is to inject fluid into a permeable formation under pressure...
Different valuation methods using different approaches can give different results in determining the value of a business. In an ideal market, all three approaches should lead to the same value, but in practice, the values obtained by different methods can vary significantly (from 5 to 50% or even more, especially when valuing a business). In this regard, the Federal Valuation Standards of Russia and the International Standards put forward requirements for summarizing different results within the framework of the “final value of the value of the object of appraisal”.
The final value of the value of the appraisal object- the value of the appraised object, obtained as a result of the appraiser's justified generalization of the results of calculations of the value of the appraised object using various approaches to appraisal and appraisal methods. To bring together disparate cost values obtained by classical approaches to valuation, the results are harmonized.
Reconciliation of valuation results is the receipt of the final valuation of the property by weighing and comparing the results obtained using different valuation approaches.
To agree on the results, it is necessary to determine the "weights", according to which individual previously obtained values will form the final market value of the property, taking into account all significant parameters based on the expert opinion of the appraiser. Coordination of the results obtained by different assessment approaches is carried out according to the formula:
where С total - the total cost of the object of assessment;
With zp, With cn, With dp - the costs determined by costly, comparative and profitable approaches;
To zp, To cn, To dp - the corresponding weight coefficients selected for each approach to the assessment.
With respect to these coefficients, the following equality holds:
Upon agreement, when determining the weight of each approach, the following are taken into account (expertly): completeness and reliability of information; purpose fit; advantages and disadvantages of approaches in a particular situation, etc.
The weights selected for each valuation approach are rounded to the nearest 10% (less commonly 5%) for the purpose of using these weights for reconciliation. Based on the rounded weights, the agreed value of the property being valued is calculated. The resulting value is rounded off.
Table 1.2 provides a comparative analysis of traditional approaches to enterprise valuation.
Table 1.2
Comparative analysis of approaches to enterprise valuation
|
Advantages |
Flaws |
|
|
costly |
It takes into account the influence of production and economic factors on the change in the value of assets. Gives an assessment of the level of technology development, taking into account the degree of depreciation of assets. Calculations are based on financial and accounting documents, i.e. assessment results are more justified |
Reflects past value. Does not take into account the market situation at the valuation date. Does not take into account the prospects for the development of the enterprise. Does not take into account risks. Static. There is no connection with the present and future results of the enterprise |
|
Profitable |
Takes into account future changes in income, expenses Takes into account the level of risk (through the discount rate). Takes into account the interests of the investor |
Difficulty in predicting future results and costs. It is possible to use several rates of return, which makes it difficult to make decisions. Does not take into account market conditions. Labor intensity of calculations |
|
Comparative (market) |
Based on real market data Reflects the current practice of selling and buying Takes into account the influence of industry (regional) factors on the company's share price |
It does not clearly characterize the features of the organizational, technical, financial preparation of the enterprise. Only retrospective information is taken into account. Requires a lot of amendments to the analyzed information. Does not take into account the future expectations of investors |
Based on these data, we can conclude that none of them can be used as the main one. Therefore, in order to determine the final value of the company's market value, the advantages and disadvantages of the approaches used and the quality of the information obtained are analyzed with the assignment of a weighting coefficient to each approach.
According to researchers in the field of business valuation Esipov V.E., Makhovikova G.A., Terekhova V.V., Damshakov A.N., the direct application of classical methods in Russia is difficult due to objective reasons:
1. Underdevelopment of the Russian securities market.
2. Informational secrecy, leading to the difficulty of using, first of all, a comparative approach.
3. The need to make a large number of adjustments related to the lack of transparency of financial statements. For evaluation, management should use management accounting data, which must be adapted for the purposes of evaluation.
4. Uncertainty with long-term planning in Russian conditions(as a rule, activities are planned in Russia for one year) leads to difficulties in applying income valuation methods. Mostly retrospective data for past periods is used.
5. The accounting valuation of assets is significantly underestimated compared to the market, which leads to an underestimation of the value of net assets. A market revaluation of all fixed assets and intangible assets is required.
6. Traditional evaluation methods give a "point" result in time, which cannot be used for operational or strategic management of the enterprise. None of the situations that are mandatory for evaluation suggest the possibility of further monitoring.
7. Difficulty in finding information and cumbersome calculation. The use of business valuation on a regular basis should be as simple as possible and the result visible.
Thus, of the existing approaches to valuation, the income method most accurately reflects the value of a company as a business, that is, a working mechanism that makes a profit. However, the use of predictive data raises doubts about the accuracy of the calculations. The sources of information for using the comparative method are very limited. Russian market corporate control (bankruptcy and mergers and acquisitions) operates mainly outside the organized stock markets, and the volume of redistribution of shares in the economy (industry) of Russia, taking place outside the organized markets, is in principle difficult to assess. As a result, in Russian conditions, the property approach to the valuation of enterprises is often the most relevant. This is primarily due to the availability of reliable and accessible initial information for calculations (since the main information base of the property approach is the balance sheet of the enterprise), as well as the use of well-known, traditional for the domestic economy cost approaches to assessing the value of an enterprise. But the main disadvantage of the property approach is that it does not take into account the future possibilities of the enterprise in obtaining net income. In addition, the calculation of cost based on the cost approach does not make it possible to identify sources of value creation, and, therefore, excludes their management.
Thus, most valuation specialists come to the conclusion that the methodological basis for business valuation is imperfect. “Methodologies that offer one weighted estimate of the value of a business can be used solely for the purpose of selling a business in one form or another.” But what if the value of the business is needed by managers not for sale, but for the formation of a strategy and the adoption of managerial decisions aimed at implementing a cost approach to management? At the same time, the methods of business valuation for making managerial decisions, proposed by Western economists Modigliani, Damodaran, Copeland, do not find their application in Russia, as well as in other countries with emerging and inefficient markets, which are characterized by a number of similar problems, such as high the degree of dependence on foreign investment and borrowing against the background of, as a rule, considerable domestic and / or external debt, the weakness and instability of the financial sector due to the burden of banks with significant bad debts of enterprises, the underdevelopment of infrastructure, the imperfection of the regulatory framework, the lack of development of the system of financial reporting of issuers or its inconsistency with international standards and their associated information opacity and high level of risks, information opacity, where there is no developed stock market, and, consequently, there is no market value the enterprises themselves. And due to the low degree of market efficiency in the arsenal of domestic companies, there are no fully adapted methods of business valuation.
Quality requirements
Peat resources Milling peat extraction
Closed Joint Stock Company Transtelecom
Setting up Wi-Fi equipment
Pasteurization drawer for the selection of "heads" during rectification