EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Controversial Aspects in the Valuation of a Hotel's Intangible Assets

Sorin V. Stan

The Valuation Journal, 2016, vol. 11, issue 1, 82-100

Abstract: Valuation of complex real estate such as hotels must comply with input consistency among the valuation methods used. This article is dwelling on a number of key consistencies in hotel valuation and aims to support real estate, personal property and business valuers in their correct understanding of how necessary analyses influence value, on the one hand, and of the numerous judgements this type of valuation requires to ensure mandatory data consistencies, on the other hand. We have now reached a consensus as to the approaches and methods applied in individual trade related property valuation, but there is still controversy over "component values analysis", i.e. the allocation of the total value of a hotel among traditional classes of assets, namely, real estate, personal property and identifiable and non-identifiable intangible assets (goodwill, according to IFRS). The author's points of view of the subject, i.e. hotel valuation, are presented as a list of assertions (principles or postulates) followed by concise explanatory descriptions.

JEL-codes: G32 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations Track citations by RSS feed

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:vaj:journl:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:82-100

Access Statistics for this article

The Valuation Journal is currently edited by Anamaria Ciobanu

More articles in The Valuation Journal from National Association of Romanian Valuers Contact information at EDIRC.
Series data maintained by Radu Pantelica ().

 
Page updated 2018-01-18
Handle: RePEc:vaj:journl:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:82-100