Abdulai, R T (2025) Financial viability decision rules in residual valuation method of property development appraisal: Case study of London, England. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 30(1), pp. 154-173. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
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.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | financial viability decision rules; London; property development appraisal; residual valuation method |
| Index terms: | land cost, strategy, profit, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, qualitative research, methodology, practitioner, appraisal, valuation method, England, development appraisal, case study, financial viability, London, land, property development, internet |
| Subjects: | real estate economics, computing systems, value management, research design and methodology, data collection methods, management, economic analysis, business management, professional institution, practitioner, Geography, research methods, economic development, factor and component analysis |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Project Management, Digital Applications, Urban Studies, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here