Low back pain during pregnancy is a common complaint of women in position ....
General concepts and terminology
Depreciation is characterized by a decrease in the usefulness of a property, its consumer attractiveness from the point of view of a potential investor and is expressed in a decrease in value (depreciation) under the influence of various factors over time. As the object is operated, the parameters characterizing the structural reliability of buildings and structures, as well as their functional compliance with the current and, moreover, future use associated with human life, gradually deteriorate. In addition, the value of real estate is equally influenced by external factors due to changes in the market environment, imposition of restrictions on certain uses of buildings, etc.
Depreciation (I) is usually measured as a percentage, and the depreciation value is impairment (O).
Depending on the reasons causing the depreciation of the property, the following types of depreciation are distinguished: physical, functional and external.
Classification of depreciation of real estate objects
Each type of wear is characterized by its subdivision: disposable and irreparable. In the most general case, removable wear is called wear, the elimination of which is physically possible and economically feasible. At the same time, the economic feasibility lies in the fact that the costs incurred to eliminate this or that type of wear should contribute to an increase in the value of the object as a whole.
When all the indicated types of depreciation are identified, they talk about the total accumulated depreciation of the property. In value terms, the cumulative depreciation is the difference between the replacement cost and market price of the evaluated object. Based on the essence of these definitions, it can be argued that the total accumulated wear is, first of all, a function of the object's lifetime. Considering this circumstance, let us consider the essence of the main evaluative concepts that characterize this indicator:
Physical life buildings (FJ)- is determined by the period of operation of the building, during which the state of the load-bearing structural elements of the building meets certain criteria (structural reliability, physical durability, etc.). The physical life of an object is laid down during construction and depends on the capital group of buildings. Physical life ends when the object is demolished.
Chronological age (XB) - this is the period of time that has elapsed from the date of commissioning of the facility to the date of assessment.
Economic Life (EJ) - is determined by the operating time during which the object generates income. During this period, the improvements made contribute to the value of the property. The economic life of an object ends when the operation of the object cannot bring income, indicated by the corresponding rate but comparable objects in this segment of the real estate market. At the same time, the improvements made no longer contribute to the value of the object due to its general wear and tear.
Effective age (EE) - is determined on the basis of the chronological age of the building, taking into account its technical condition and the economic factors prevailing at the date of the assessment that affect the value of the object being evaluated. Depending on the characteristics of the building's operation, the effective age may differ from the chronological age up or down. In the case of normal (typical) building operation, the effective age is usually equal to the chronological age.
Economic Life Remaining (OSER) a building is the period of time from the date of appraisal to the end of its economic life.
The subjectivity of determining such indicators as economic life and effective age requires an appraiser to have a sufficiently high qualification and considerable practical experience. Depreciation in appraisal practice must be distinguished in meaning from a similar term used in accounting (depreciation). The meaning of depreciation in accounting is the regular distribution of the initial investment in the object (book value) for the entire period of its operation in accordance with the norms of depreciation for the "complete" restoration of fixed assets. Estimated depreciation is one of the main parameters that allows you to calculate the current (actual) value of the asset as of a specific date.
Physical deterioration
Physical deterioration is a gradual loss of the technical and operational qualities of an object originally laid down during construction under the influence of natural and climatic factors, as well as human life.
There are the following methods for calculating the physical deterioration of buildings:
regulatory (for residential buildings);
cost;
lifetime method.
Normative method for calculating physical wear and tear
The normative method for calculating physical wear and tear involves the use of various normative instructions of the intersectoral or departmental level. An example of such instructions is the "Rules for assessing the physical deterioration of residential buildings" VSN 53-86 Gosgrazhdanstroy (State Committee for Civil Engineering and Architecture under the USSR GOSSTROE. Moscow, 1990), used by the Bureau of Technical Inventory in order to assess the physical deterioration of residential buildings in technical inventory, planning overhaul housing stock regardless of its departmental affiliation.
These rules provide a characteristic of the physical wear and tear of various structural elements of buildings and their assessment.
The physical deterioration of the building should be determined by the formula:
Ff =
,
where Ff- physical deterioration of the building, (%);
Fi- physical deterioration i-go structural element (%);
Li- coefficient corresponding to the share of replacement cost i-th structural element in the total replacement cost of the building;
n- the number of structural elements in the building.
The shares of the replacement cost of individual structures, elements and systems in the total replacement cost of a building (in%) are usually taken according to the enlarged indicators of the replacement cost of residential buildings, approved in the prescribed manner, and for structures, elements and systems that do not have approved indicators, according to their estimated cost.
The described technique is used exclusively in domestic practice. For all its clarity and persuasiveness, the following disadvantages are inherent in it:
due to its “normative nature”, it initially cannot take into account the atypical operating conditions of the facility;
laboriousness of application due to the necessary detailing of the structural elements of the building;
inability to measure functional and external wear;
subjectivity of specific weighting of structural elements.
Cost method for determining physical wear and tear
Physical wear and tear at the time of its assessment is expressed by the ratio of the cost of objectively necessary repair measures that eliminate damage to structures, an element, a system or a building as a whole, and their replacement cost.
The essence of the cost method for determining physical wear and tear is to determine the cost of recreating the elements of the building.
The described technique makes it possible to calculate the wear of elements and the building as a whole at once in value terms, which is more preferable in comparison with other methods of calculating physical wear. In addition, since the impairment is calculated based on the reasonable actual costs of bringing the worn-out items to a “near-new condition”, this approach can be considered reasonably accurate. Among the disadvantages inherent in this technique, it is necessary to note the mandatory detailing and accuracy of calculating the cost of repairing worn-out building elements.
Determination of physical deterioration of buildings by the method of life
Based on the essence of the previously considered basic evaluative concepts that characterize the total accumulated depreciation of a building in terms of the time of its operation, it can be argued that physical depreciation, effective age and economic life are in a certain ratio. This ratio can be expressed by the following formula:
I (%) = (EV / VF) (100 - (EV / OS + OSFJ)) / 100, (1)
where AND(%)- wear in percentage;
EV- effective age, determined by an expert based on the technical condition of the elements or the building as a whole;
VF- typical length of physical life;
OSFJ- remaining physical life.
In this case, physical depreciation can be calculated both for individual elements of the building with the subsequent summation of the calculated impairments, and for the building as a whole. Sometimes, for approximate calculations of wear and tear, assessors can also use a simplified formula that takes into account the relationship between chronological age and the physical life of a building:
I (%) = (XV / VF) / 100 , (2)
where AND(%)- wear in percentage;
VF- the typical length of physical life.
The use of this formula (2) is also relevant when calculating percentage adjustments for wear in compared objects (comparative sales method), when it is not possible for the appraiser to inspect the selected analogs to determine the indicators used in the calculation formula (1).
The percentage of depreciation of elements or the building as a whole calculated in this way can be converted into value (impairment):
O = BC * (I / 100),
where AND- wear in percentage;
Sun- replacement cost.
As noted earlier, physical wear is subdivided into removable and irreparable. In addition, in practice, structural elements that have removable and irreparable physical wear are divided into long-lived and short-lived.
Short-lived elements- elements that have a shorter lifespan than the entire structure as a whole (roof, plumbing equipment, etc.).
For long-lived elements, the life expectancy is comparable to that of the entire structure (foundation, load-bearing walls, etc.).
Removable physical wear and tear of short-lived elements
The reason for the occurrence of removable physical wear is the natural wear and tear of building elements over time, as well as careless operation. In this case, the selling price of the building is reduced by the corresponding impairment, since the future owner will need to make “previously postponed repairs” in order to restore the normal operating characteristics of the structure (maintenance of internal premises, restoration of sections of leaking roofs, etc.). In this case, it is assumed that the elements are restored to a "practically new" state.
So, removable physical depreciation in monetary terms is defined as "the cost of deferred repairs", i.e. costs of bringing the object to a state equivalent to the original.
Irreparable wear and tear of components with a short life span
Unrecoverable physical wear and tear of elements with a short lifespan is the cost of restoring these high-wearing components and is determined by the difference between replacement cost and the amount of removable wear, multiplied by the ratio of the chronological age and the duration of the physical life of these elements.
Eliminate physical wear and tear of elements with a long lifespan
The removable physical wear and tear of elements with a long life in value terms can be determined by a reasonable cost of its elimination, similar to the removable physical wear of elements with a short life.
Unrecoverable physical wear and tear of elements with a long lifespan
Fatal wear and tear of elements with a long lifespan is determined by the difference between the replacement value of the entire building and the amount of removable and irreparable wear and tear, multiplied by the ratio of the chronological age and the physical life of the building.
Functional wear
Signs of functional wear in the assessed building, as a rule, are the non-compliance of its volume-planning and / or structural solution with modern standards, including various equipment necessary for the normal operation of the structure in accordance with its current or intended use.
Depending on the physical possibility and economic feasibility of eliminating the causes that caused functional wear, it is divided into removable and irreparable. The value expression of functional wear is the difference between the cost of reproduction and the cost of replacement, since the calculation of the latter, based on its definition, deliberately excludes functional wear from consideration.
Removable functional wear
Recoverable functional depreciation is usually determined by the cost of the necessary reconstruction, contributing to a more efficient operation of the property.
Recoverable functional wear is believed to be caused by:
disadvantages requiring the addition of elements,
shortcomings requiring replacement or modernization of elements,
super-improvements.
The disadvantages requiring addition include building elements and equipment that are not present in the existing environment and without which it cannot meet modern operational standards. Depreciation due to these items is measured by the cost of adding these elements, including their installation.
The disadvantages requiring replacement or modernization of elements include positions that still perform their functions, but no longer meet modern standards (water and gas meters, etc.). Depreciation for these items is measured by the cost of existing elements, taking into account their physical deterioration, minus the cost of returning materials, plus the cost of dismantling existing ones, and plus the cost of installing new elements. In this case, the cost of returning materials is determined as the cost of dismantled materials and equipment when used at other facilities (revised residual value).
Superimprovement includes the positions and elements of the structure, the presence of which is currently inadequate to the modern requirements of market standards. Recoverable functional depreciation in this case is measured as the current replacement value of the “over-improvement” items minus physical depreciation, plus the cost of dismantling and minus the salvage value of dismantled elements.
An example of over-improvement is a situation when the owner of a house, adjusting it for himself, made any changes for his own convenience (investment value), which are not adequate from the point of view of a typical user. These include, for example, the redevelopment of the usable area of the premises for a specific use, due to the hobbies of the owner or his occupation. Removable functional wear in such a situation is determined by the current cost of the cost of bringing the changed elements to their original state. In addition, the concept of over-improvements is closely related to the segment of the real estate market, where the same improvements can be considered both appropriate for a specific segment and redundant from the point of view of a typical user.
Fatal functional wear
Fatal functional wear is usually caused by outdated space-planning and / or structural characteristics of the assessed buildings relative to modern building standards. First of all, the economic inexpediency of spending on the elimination of these shortcomings makes it possible to judge the sign of precisely unrecoverable functional wear. In addition, it is necessary to take into account the prevailing market conditions at the date of the assessment for the adequate architectural conformity of the building to its purpose.
At the same time, depending on the specific situation, the cost of unrecoverable functional depreciation can be determined in two ways: both capitalized loss in rent, and capitalization of excess operating costs necessary to maintain the building in a proper manner. To determine the necessary calculated indicators (rental rates, capitalization rates, etc.), corrected data on comparable analogs are used.In this case, the selected analogs should not have signs of unrecoverable functional deterioration identified in the object. In addition, the total income brought by the property complex (building and land) as a whole and expressed in rent must be respectively divided into two components. To separate the part of the income attributable to a building, you can use the investment balance method for the building or the method of analyzing the ratio of the value of the land plot to the total selling price of the property complex.
External (economic) wear
External depreciation is the depreciation of an object due to the negative influence of the external environment in relation to the object of assessment: the market situation, easements imposed on certain use of real estate, changes in the surrounding infrastructure, legislative decisions in the field of taxation, etc. External depreciation of real estate, depending on the causes that caused it, in most cases is unrecoverable due to the unchanged location, but in some cases it can "remove itself" due to a positive change in the surrounding market environment.
The following methods can be used to estimate external wear:
capitalization of losses in rent;
comparative sales (paired sales);
term of economic life.
The calculation of external depreciation by capitalization of losses in rent is carried out in the same way as the calculation of functional irreparable depreciation.
Determination of depreciation of a property
The total cost of reproduction or replacement is the sum of the cost of reproduction (replacement) of a new building in prices in effect at the date of the valuation. Therefore, it is necessary to take into account the differences in the characteristics of the new property and the property being evaluated.
Wear in appraisal means the loss of utility, and hence the value of the subject of appraisal for any reason. Depreciation (as a loss of value) can be expressed in absolute and relative units. If depreciation is expressed in absolute units (monetary units), then it is deducted from the total cost of reproduction.
V rep = Vp rep - I or V substituted = Vp substituted - I, (6.5)
where SV is the cost of reproduction of the object;
V substitution - the cost of replacing the improvements to the object;
Vp reproduction - the total cost of reproduction of the object;
Vp replacement - full replacement cost of the object;
And - depreciation of the object of assessment, expressed in monetary units.
If depreciation is expressed in relative units (percent), then the following formula applies:
Vp rep = V rep (1 - I), (6.6)
where And - depreciation of the object of assessment, expressed in relative units.
There are two ways to determine wear:
- · Method of life span;
- · Method of splitting into types of wear.
Depreciation, as a loss of value, can be expressed both in relative terms (in relation to the full replacement cost or total replacement cost) and in absolute terms.
Wear life calculation
Wear is a function of the object's time.
Determination of the depreciation of buildings by the life-cycle method is based on an examination of the buildings of the assessed object and the assumption that the effective age of the object relates to the typical period of economic life as the accumulated depreciation to the cost of reproduction (replacement) of the building.
When calculating wear by the life-time method, the following concepts are used:
Physical life of a building (T n) - the period of operation of the building, during which the state of the load-bearing structural elements of the building meets certain criteria (structural reliability, physical durability, etc.). The physical life of an object is laid down during construction and depends on the capital group of the building. Physical life ends when the object is demolished.
Chronological age (T fact) - the period of time that has passed from the commissioning of the facility to the date of the assessment.
The effective age (Teff) is calculated based on the chronological age of the building, taking into account its technical condition and prevailing at the date of the assessment of economic factors affecting the value of the appraised object. Depending on the characteristics of the building's operation, the effective age may differ from the chronological age up or down. In the case of normal (typical) building operation, the effective age is
Rice. 6.1. The periods of the building's life and the estimated indicators characterizing them
Indicators of physical wear and tear, effective age and economic life are in a certain ratio, which can be expressed by the formula
I = (Teff / T n) 100%, (6.7)
where And - wear,% .;
Teff - effective age, determined by an expert on the basis of the technical condition of the elements or the building as a whole;
T n is the typical duration of physical life.
I = (T fact / T n) 100%, (6.8)
where Tfact is the chronological age.
Application of formula (6.8) is relevant when calculating percentage adjustments for depreciation in compared objects (comparative sales method), when it is not possible for the appraiser to inspect the selected analogs to determine the indicators used in formula (6.7).
Example. Determine the value of the property being appraised. A plot of land with a structure built in 1980 is being evaluated. The standard service life of the building is 150 years. The market value of the land plot was determined using the sales comparison method and equals 4.5 million rubles. The total replacement cost of the building was determined using the comparative unit method at 11.4 million rubles. The evaluation date is January 30, 2010.
The chronological age of the building is 30 years. To calculate the deterioration of the structure, we use formula (6.8), since the effective age is not given.
I = (T fact / T n) 100% = 30/150 * 100% = 30%.
To calculate the cost of the appraised object, apply formula 6.2.
V = 4,500,000 + (11,400,000 - 0.3 * 11,400,000) = 12,480,000 rubles.
Thus, the value of the appraised object, calculated within costly approach, amounted to 12,480,000 rubles.
Depreciation calculation by splitting into types of wear
The most common method for calculating wear is method of splitting into types of wear.
Depending on the factors that reduce the value of real estate, depreciation is divided into physical, functional and external (economic). Physical and functional wear and tear can be removable and irreparable. External wear is usually irreparable.
Rice. 6.2. Classification of depreciation of real estate objects
The sum of all possible types of depreciation is the accumulated depreciation of the property.
Physical deterioration reflects changes physical properties real estate object over time (for example, defects in structural elements). Physical wear and tear can occur under the influence of operational factors or under the influence of natural and natural factors.
Functional wear they call a decrease in the value of a real estate object associated with a discrepancy between structural and planning solutions, building standards, design quality, material of manufacture, modern requirements for these positions.
External wear- this is a decrease in the value of a real estate object, due to the negative influence of the external environment in relation to the object of assessment: location, market situation, easements imposed on certain use of real estate, changes in the surrounding infrastructure and legislative decisions in the field of taxation, etc.
Depreciation is considered removable if its elimination is physically possible and economically feasible.
Physical removable wear is determined by the cost method, calculating the cost of the necessary work to replace and improve individual structural elements of the building.
Cost method is to determine the cost of restoring elements of buildings and structures. The cost method is used to determine the removable physical wear and tear.
An example of calculating physical depreciation using the cost method is shown in Table 6.5.
Table 6.5.
An example of calculating removable physical wear and tear
Removable physical wear and tear according to table 6.5 is 333,500 rubles.
To calculate the physical irreparable wear and tear, the expert method or the life-time method is usually used.
The most accurate and most time consuming method is expert. It involves the creation of a defective statement and the determination of the percentage of wear of all structural elements of a building or structure.
The calculation of the physical deterioration of the building as a whole will be carried out according to the formula:
And nat =? [And physical i I i] (6.9)
Iphiz i - physical wear and tear of a separate i-th structural element (%);
I i - specific gravity i-th structural element;
n is the number of structural elements of the evaluated building.
The calculation of the physical deterioration of the building is shown in Table 6.6.
Table 6.6. Depreciation calculation
|
Structural elements of the building |
Share in the total cost,% |
Actual physical element,% |
The share of physical deterioration of the element in the total physical deterioration of the building,%
|
|
Foundation |
|||
|
Walls and partitions |
|||
|
Overlapping |
|||
|
Roof and roof |
|||
|
Sanitary and electrical devices |
|||
|
Other works |
|||
|
Physical deterioration of the building |
Lifetime method is used to calculate physical and physical irreparable wear and tear, this method is discussed in detail above.
Normative method.
The standard method is used to calculate physical depreciation or physical irreparable depreciation. If the physical removable wear is calculated, then there is no need to take into account the factors that were taken into account when calculating the physical removable wear.
Determination of physical deterioration is carried out using a breakdown of the building by component. The amount of physical wear and tear of the assessed object was determined on the basis of the "Rules for assessing physical wear" VSN 53-86 (p). The total physical wear is determined by the formula (6.9), when the weights of structural elements and the amount of physical wear of these structural elements are determined.
Functional wear they call a decrease in the value of property associated with the inconsistency of structural and planning solutions, building standards, quality of design, material of manufacture with modern requirements for these positions.
Reasons for functional wear:
- · Disadvantages requiring the addition of elements;
- · Shortcomings requiring replacement or modernization of elements;
- · Superimprovement.
Functional wear can be either removable or irreparable. Recoverable functional wear is most often calculated using the cost method.
Depending on the functional wear, it can be determined in the following ways:
- · Based on excess operating costs;
- · Based on paired sales.
Market data is used to determine the required calculation indicators (rental rates, capitalization rates, etc.).
At the same time, the selected analogues should not have signs of functional wear identified in the assessment object. Below is an example of calculating functional wear (Table 6.7).
Table 6.7. Calculation of functional depreciation based on rental losses
|
Estimated indicators |
Average indicators by analogs |
Indicators for assessed |
|
Leased area (S), m 2 |
||
|
Loss factor from underload (Kp),% of LDPE |
||
|
Potential gross income, RUB in year PVD = Sar _ S |
||
|
Actual gross income, RUB in year DVD = LDPE _ (1 - Kp) |
||
|
Net operating income, RUB in year CHOD = DVD - OR |
||
|
The cost of the property, rub. |
||
|
Building cost, rub. Vzd = V _ (1 - dz) (in these calculations, the share of the land plot is taken by experts 25%) |
||
|
Functional wear,% |
(3656 250 - 3178125) / 3656250= 0.13 or 13% |
Functional wear can be calculated based on the excess operating costs to maintain the building due to functional wear. Consider an example of calculating functional wear based on excess operating expenses in table 6.8.
Table 6.8. Example of calculating functional depreciation based on excess operating costs
|
Estimated indicators |
Average indicators by analogs |
Indicators for assessed |
|
Annual rent (Car), rub./m 2 |
||
|
Rentable area for rent (S), m 2 |
||
|
Coefficient of losses from underutilization, determined according to the average market data (Kp),% of LDPE |
||
|
Operating expenses (OR), rubles / m2 |
||
|
Market capitalization rate (R),% |
||
|
The share of the land plot in the value of the real estate object (dzu),% |
||
|
Potential gross income, RUB per year LDPE = Sar _ S |
||
|
Actual gross income, RUB per year DWP = LDPE _ (1- Kp) |
||
|
Net operating income, RUB per year CHOD = DVD - OR |
||
|
The cost of the property, rubles V = CHOD / R |
||
|
Building cost, rub. Vzd = V _ (1 - dz) |
||
|
Functional wear,% |
(182813-164062.5) / 182813 = 0.10 or 10% |
External wear- depreciation of the object, due to the negative influence of the external environment in relation to the object of assessment: location, market situation, easements imposed on certain use of real estate, changes in the surrounding infrastructure and legislative decisions in the field of taxation, etc. Though external wear more often it is unrecoverable, sometimes it can “remove itself” due to a positive change in the surrounding market environment.
The following methods can be used to estimate external wear:
- · On the basis of losses in rent;
- · On the basis of excess operating costs;
- · On the basis of paired sales;
Consider an example of determining external depreciation based on price information for recently sold similar items (pair sales). The objects of the pair sale differ from each other only in the external wear and tear identified and correlated to the object of assessment.
Example. It is necessary to assess the external deterioration caused by the decrease in the investment attractiveness of the office building due to the relocation of a chemical plant in the immediate vicinity of it as part of the program for the withdrawal of industrial enterprises from the center of Moscow. On the real estate market, a pair sale of objects A and B of a similar purpose was revealed. The value of land in this area is about 25% of the total value of a typical property. The calculation of external depreciation by the method of paired sales in table 6.9.
Table 6.9. Example of calculating external depreciation based on paired sales
|
Indicators |
The quantity |
|
|
Selling price of object A, located far from large industrial enterprises, rubles |
||
|
Sale price of object B located near large industrial enterprises, rubles |
||
|
Selling price of the building of object A, rubles (the share of the land plot is 25%, the share of the building is 75%). |
7500000*0,75=5625000 |
|
|
Selling price of the building of object B, rubles |
6900000*0,75=5175000 |
|
|
Difference including: |
||
|
* in value due to physical differences between objects A and B, rubles |
||
|
* in the cost caused by the proximity of the clothing market, rubles |
||
|
Loss of value due to the presence of a factor of external wear and tear, rubles |
||
|
External wear,%. |
450,000 / 7,500,000 = 0.06 or 6% |
Depreciation can be calculated in percentage terms and in value terms, depending on the chosen method.
If all types of depreciation are calculated in monetary terms, then the basic formula of the cost approach (6.2) should be used.
If were calculated different kinds depreciation in value and percentage, then the cost of reproduction (replacement cost) is calculated by the formula:
Vspr = (Vp vocr - And physical device - And function device) _ (1-I physical) _ (1-lb.nu) _ (1 - And ext), (6.10)
And pound device - disposable functional wear, monetary units;
And physical well - physical wear and tear,%;
And physical well - functional wear and tear,%;
And vn - external wear,%.
When determining wear and tear, the most important thing is to identify signs that reduce the value of a building. Physical wear and tear is present in most buildings, however, for modern buildings in large Russian cities, external and functional wear is often absent. In this case, the formula is simplified to the following form:
V vospr = (Vp vospr - AND function device) _ (1-I physical), (6.11)
Where V vospr is the cost of reproduction;
Vp vocpr is the total cost of reproduction;
And physical device - disposable physical wear, monetary units;
And physical well - physical wear and tear,%.
After calculating the full reproduction cost (full replacement cost), as well as the accumulated depreciation, the value of the land plot and the property being evaluated as a whole is determined.
To determine the market value of a property, calculated within the cost approach, it is necessary to use formula (6.1).
Assessment methods land plots
METHODS FOR ESTIMATING THE COST OF LAND PLOTS
Rice. 6.3 Land valuation methods
The valuation of land plots is carried out on the basis of Guidelines for determining the market value of land plots approved by the order of the Ministry of Property of Russia dated 06.03.2002 No. 568-r or on the basis of other methods presented in the educational literature, since the guidelines are not binding.
Among other methods in the educational literature for calculating the value of land plots, the method of reimbursement of infrastructure costs, the method according to standard investment contracts, is used.
External (economic) deterioration of property complexes of industrial enterprises. Calculation methods.
P.V. Kartsev
Depreciation as loss of property value
There are several methods for calculating depreciation, as the total loss of the value of an object under the influence of various factors. There are two main methods: the method of breakdown and the method of the remaining economic life. Partitioning method assumes a breakdown of depreciation into 3 components: physical depreciation, functional (moral) depreciation and external (economic) depreciation. The total (accumulated) depreciation is calculated in accordance with the following formula: Physical wear is caused by the physical aging of the property, the signs of which are loss of strength, accuracy, decreased performance. Here the actual state of the property is compared with the state of the same new object. Functional(moral) deterioration can be caused by a number of factors: more modern analogs of property, which provide greater productivity; increased consumption of resources in the production process of the assessed object in comparison with modern counterparts; higher cost of creating the object itself in comparison with analogues; for buildings - the inconsistency of planning solutions with modern requirements and many others. External(economic) depreciation - there is a loss of value due to the influence of external factors. It can be caused by a number of reasons, such as general economic or intra-industry changes, including a decrease in demand for a certain type of product and a decrease in supply or deterioration in the quality of raw materials, labor, auxiliary systems, structures and communications; as well as legal changes related to legislation, municipal ordinances, zoning and administrative orders. Economic Life Remaining Method involves taking into account all the factors of wear and tear in one indicator - the remaining period of economic life. Depreciation is calculated here using the formula:
Methods for calculating external wear
Very often in appraisal practice, the first method of calculating depreciation is used. If there are not many problems with determining physical wear and tear, since in Soviet times a fairly large normative base for construction and mechanical engineering, depreciation rates and other indicators that can be used to assess the physical condition of an object, then there are much more difficulties with determining the remaining two components. At the same time, in our time, the decline in the value of property built in Soviet times has occurred more under the influence of economic factors, therefore, special attention should be paid to the correct assessment of external (economic) wear and tear. Currently, there are practically no ways to determine the external wear and tear in our country, unconditionally accepted by the entire appraisal community. At the same time, there are several ways that deserve the most attention. Option 1. Breakdown into micro and macroeconomic components. Many agree that the external wear and tear of property complexes arises as a result of the impact of macro- and micro-factors. Macro factors are the general state of the industry, the reasons for which are a decrease in demand for products, a decrease in government subsidies and other factors leading to a decrease in profitability in this industry. The same can be said about the economic situation in the region. The situation in the industry as a whole may be quite good, but in the local industry, in industries such as Agriculture, food industry, clothing industry, etc. (in relation to small and medium-sized enterprises) certain regions may be in crisis. Businesses work for local markets. A decrease in effective demand in this particular region affects the profitability of these enterprises, and, accordingly, their value. Micro-factors can be recognized as inconsistency with industry, regional indicators of capacity utilization and profitability at a particular enterprise. In the comparative and income approach, this is taken into account through the appropriate industry ratios or directly through the income stream of a particular enterprise. In the cost approach, this should be taken into account through external wear. Macroeconomic factors can be taken into account through the difference in the level of income of the population of a particular region in comparison with the national average. Profitability by industry usually correlates well with average wages for these industries, so the industry component can also be taken into account through this indicator.
| And Int.Macro% | ||
| RFP Country | average salary in Russia, rubles; |
|
| ZP Region | average salary in the region, rubles; |
|
| RFP Branch | average salary in the industry, rub. |
|
| And Int.Macro% | macroeconomic component of external wear,%; |
|
| F Enterprise | return on assets at the appraised enterprise, rubles; |
|
| F Medium | average capital productivity in the region acc. industry, rub. |
|
Example for calculating external wear
for a poultry farm for egg production
Perhaps, if it is necessary to obtain not only the value of the value of the entire production complex, but also the cost of its individual constituent elements, take into account the degree of utilization separately for the groups of property included in the complex. The following example shows how this was done in real appraisal practice when appraising an agro-industrial enterprise consisting of three egg-based poultry farms. External wear is calculated separately for the main production equipment (cage equipment and incubators), main production buildings (poultry houses) and other production fixed assets. Such a calculation of external depreciation is associated with varying degrees of loading of these asset groups. External deterioration of the main production buildings (poultry houses) Exterior wear of poultry houses is calculated based on the degree of utilization of these buildings, which is influenced by: - the degree of utilization of buildings as such, is used or not used in the production process (the proportion of non-working poultry houses in the total number), the degree of utilization of the equipment installed in the building (the ratio of the actually used number of poultry places to the normative), the level of production (the ratio of the actual egg production to the normative).
- the degree of loading of the equipment installed in the building (the ratio of the actually used number of poultry places to the standard), the level of production (the ratio of the actual egg production to the standard).
| № | External wear calculation | Total | Branch number 1 | Branch number 2 | Branch No. 3 |
| Exterior wear for poultry buildings | |||||
| By the number of working poultry houses | |||||
| 1 | Total poultry houses | 79 | 29 | 23 | 27 |
| 2 | of them does not work | 31 | 5 | 11 | 15 |
| 3 | The proportion of non-working poultry houses,% | 39% | 17% | 48% | 56% |
| On the use of poultry places | |||||
| 1 | 57% | 58% | 51% | 61% | |
| 2 | Capacity utilization for young growth,% | 33% | 24% | 26% | 60% |
| 3 | 43% | 38% | 35% | 61% | |
| Third component of external wear | |||||
| By egg production of a bird | |||||
| 1 | 270 | 245 | 250 | 287 | |
| 340 | 340 | 340 | 340 | ||
| 2 | Compliance with the norm,% | 79% | 72% | 74% | 84% |
| Total exterior wear for buildings | 80% | 77% | 86% | 77% | |
| External wear for equipment | |||||
| The first component of external wear | |||||
| On the use of poultry places | |||||
| 1 | The utilization rate of poultry places by adult bird | 57% | 58% | 51% | 61% |
| 2 | The utilization rate of poultry places for young stock | 33% | 24% | 26% | 60% |
| 3 | Total utilization rate of poultry places | 43% | 38% | 35% | 61% |
| Second component of external wear | |||||
| By egg production of a bird | |||||
| 1 | Egg production, eggs per year from one laying hen (average) | 270 | 245 | 250 | 287 |
| Egg production rate, eggs per year | 340 | 340 | 340 | 340 | |
| 2 | Compliance with the norm,% | 79% | 72% | 74% | 84% |
| Total external wear for poultry equipment | 66% | 73% | 74% | 49% | |
| External wear and tear for other buildings and equipment | |||||
| By use design capacity by number of poultry places | |||||
| 1 | Production capacity, poultry place | ||||
| - | Layers | 982 | 350 | 272 | 360 |
| - | Young growth | 1073 | 360 | 382 | 331 |
| - | Parent flock | 209 | 76 | 61 | 72 |
| Total | 2264 | 786 | 715 | 763 | |
| 2 | Actual herd size, heads | ||||
| - | Layers | 488 | 204 | 131 | 153 |
| - | Young growth | 238 | 77 | 63 | 98 |
| - | Parent flock | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 726 | 281 | 194 | 251 | |
| 3 | Power utilization for hens,% | 50% | 58% | 48% | 43% |
| 4 | Capacity utilization by total livestock,% | 32% | 36% | 27% | 33% |
| Total external depreciation for buildings and equipment | 68% | 64% | 73% | 67% |
Page 16 of 27
Methods for calculating physical depreciation
Several methods can be used to assess accumulated physical wear and tear.
are the most common.
1.
2. Determination of wear by the method of the life of an object and its elements.
4. Determination of wear by the volume of repair work required to restore worn out structural elements and devices.
5. Expert method.
6. Probabilistic method.
1. Inspection of the actual state of the object as a whole, its structural elements and engineering equipment devices (normative method).
Using normative calculation method physical wear is calculated in proportion to the ratio of the actual and standard service life of the property as a whole or for its structures and elements separately. The actual service life of structures and elements is determined from the date of commissioning of the object of assessment or from the date of repair (replacement). The standard service life can be taken into account for two types of structures and elements: long-lived and short-lived.
Long-lived elements include building structures that form the load-bearing frame of a building. The standard term of their operation coincides with the standard life of the building as a whole. Short-lived elements include building structures that must (or can) be replaced several times over the life of the property.
This method assumes the use of various regulatory instructions at the intersectoral or departmental level. For example, "Rules for assessing the physical deterioration of buildings" departmental building codes of the VSN. These instructions (rules) are widely used in the BTI in order to assess the physical deterioration of residential buildings. These rules provide a characteristic of the physical wear and tear of various structural elements of buildings and their assessment.
The identification of physical wear and tear of structural elements, engineering systems is carried out by visual and instrumental examination of the building and is assessed by comparing the identified signs of physical wear with their quantitative values, which are given in the VSN.
2. Determination of physical wear and tear by the method of life.
For this method, there is a certain conceptual apparatus: the term of physical life, the term of economic life, effective age, standard life.
Effective age Teff Is the age shown by the state of use of the building. The effective age may be less than the actual age if the building has been maintained at a high level or has been renovated. Conversely, if a building has been poorly maintained, its effective age may be greater than the actual age. The effective age is established on the basis of a visual inspection of the item being assessed and is based on the experience and judgment of the expert appraiser.
Standard service life T standards - the normatively established duration of operation of the building and its elements, subject to the rules and terms Maintenance and repair.
The amount of wear is expressed by the formula:
This method has several disadvantages:
Differences in the economic life of the building as a whole and the physical life of short-lived elements are not taken into account;
Determining the effective term and term of economic life is subjective on the part of the appraiser.
3. Determination of wear by splitting into types of wear.
Applying this method, the disposable and irreparable physical wear and tear of short-lived and long-lived building elements should be considered.
Separate calculations are made for the wear of short-lived and long-lived elements with subsequent summation.
To apply the breakdown method in determining the accumulated depreciation, it is necessary to have data on the cost of new construction, broken down by structural elements, as a calculation base.
Removable physical wear and tear usually attributed to poor performance, hence it is also called delayed repair. It is assumed that the typical purchaser will make immediate repairs to restore the structure to normal operating characteristics (redecoration, repair of leaking roof sections, repair of engineering equipment, etc.), while it is assumed that the elements are restored to a new or almost new condition. The amount of correctable physical wear and tear is equal to the cost of restoring a building element to a state of normal operation.
Fatal physical wear and tear corresponds to positions, the correction of which is currently almost impossible or economically impractical. The amount of this type of depreciation is determined on the basis of the difference between the full replacement or replacement cost and the amount of removable physical depreciation.
For the purposes of calculating wear and tear, structural elements that have unrecoverable physical wear are divided into long-lived and short-lived.
For long-lived elements, the expected residual life coincides with the residual economic life of the entire structure. Short-lived elements have less residual economic life than the entire structure.
To assess the unrecoverable physical wear in short-lived elements, the difference between the total replacement or replacement cost of the element and the sum of the correctable wear of the element is multiplied by the ratio of the actual age to the total physical life of the element.
In this case, the overall physical life of an element is determined by reference data, taking into account periodic repairs and maintaining normal operational characteristics.
After determining the values of removable physical depreciation and the sum of the replacement cost of short-lived elements with irreparable physical deterioration, it is necessary to subtract these values from the full replacement or replacement cost to determine the basis for calculating the irreparable physical deterioration in long-lived elements.
The cost of irreparable physical wear and tear in long-lived elements is calculated as the ratio of the actual age of the building to the total physical life of the building, multiplied by the residual replacement or replacement cost of the long-lived elements (previously determined baseline).
The overall physical life of a building is determined depending on the type of basic structural elements for different categories of buildings in terms of durability.
4. Determination of physical wear and tear by the volume of repair work.
This method is also called the cost method. Its essence lies in determining the cost of recreating the elements of the building. Briefly, this can be expressed in the form of a formula:
where С р - the full replacement cost of the elements of the building being repaired, determined by the estimate for construction and installation works or according to the UPVS;
With rem - the cost of the repair, determined by the estimate for the repair.
This method is rather laborious.
5. Expert method.
The main difference expert method from the normative is that withRocks of service (percentage of wear) of elements and the building as a whole are assigned according to expert data.
6. Probabilistic method.
Probabilistic method calculation allows you to find the parameters of physical wear in conditions of uncertainty of the initial data. The computational algorithm simulates certain input parameters as random variables for each implementation. The choice of the number of realizations depends on the required precision of the results.
The following can be chosen as simulated random variables:
Service life of short-lived elements;
The service life of the building as a whole;
The percentage of item wear.
Determination of functional wear
Signs functional wear in the assessed building, as a rule, there is a non-compliance of its space-planning, constructive solution with modern standards, including the equipment necessary for the operation of the building (structure). Functional wear is divided into removable and irreparable.
The main methods used in assessing functional wear:
– breakdown method;
– capitalization of losses in rent;
– capitalization of the excess operating costs required to maintain the building in good order.
TO removable functional wear includeloss of value as a result of non-compliance of the project, materials, building standards, design quality with the modern market requirements for these positions. Similar to recoverable physical wear and tear, recoverable functional wear is measured by the cost of repairing it.
Eliminable functional wear is caused by:
Disadvantages requiring the addition of elements;
Disadvantages requiring replacement or modernization of elements;
- "super-improvements".
The disadvantages requiring addition include positions that are not in the existing structure, and without which the structure cannot meet modern standards. A quantitative measure of the removable functional wear due to deficiencies requiring addition is the difference between the cost of performing the required additions at the time of assessment and the cost of performing the same additions if they were performed during the construction of the object of assessment.
The disadvantages requiring replacement or modernization of elements include positions that still perform their functions, but no longer meet modern market standards. Recoverable functional wear due to items requiring replacement or modernization is measured as the cost of existing elements, taking into account their physical deterioration, minus the cost of returning materials, plus the cost of dismantling existing ones and plus the cost of installing new elements. In this case, the cost of returning materials is defined as the cost of dismantled materials and equipment when used at other facilities.
To "super-improvements" include positions and elements of the structure, the presence of which is currently inadequate to the modern requirements of market standards. Recoverable functional wear due to "over-enhancements" is measured as the current replacement cost of the over-enhancement item, minus physical wear, plus the cost of dismantling, and minus return of materials, if any.
Superimprovement is closely related to a segment of the real estate market, where the same improvements can be deemed appropriate to a specific segment or redundant from the point of view of a typical user.
The economic inexpediency of spending on the elimination of the shortcomings of space-planning, design solutions allow us to judge the signirreparable functional wear.
is determined by the replacement cost of missing, obsolete or redundant elements, on the one hand, and losses from them, on the other. Loss refers to either a net loss of income or additional operating costs.
Fatal functional wearcalled:
Disadvantages due to items not included in the cost of new construction, but which should be;
Disadvantages due to items included in the cost of new construction, but which should not be;
- "super-improvements".
Fatal functional depreciation from items not included in the cost of new construction is measured as the net income attributable to this deficiency capitalized at the capitalization rate for buildings, minus the value of the items if they were included in the cost of new construction.
The calculation of unrecoverable functional wear due to shortcomings does not depend on whether the replacement or replacement cost will be taken as a basis.
Fatal functional depreciation due to items that are not included in the cost of new construction, but which should not be, is measured as the present value of the new, minus the related physical depreciation, minus the value added (that is, the present value of additional costs associated with the presence of this item).
Extreme functional obsolescence can significantly affect the value of the property being valued.
Determination of external (economic) wear and tear
Economic (external) obsolescence or obsolescence due to the environment , is caused by factors external to property, and is always considered unrecoverable, since the magnitude of the potential cost makes it irrational to buy surrounding objects and remove corresponding harmful elements only to increase the value of one affected object.
Economic wear and tear determines the decrease in the utility of the property as a result of changes in external factors. Such factors can be congested streets or an industrial plant located in a residential area or nearby. This could be the location of the object. Economic obsolescence is unavoidable, since the cost of it is many times greater than the value of the increase in value after the elimination of external factors. But economic depreciation can also be temporary, for example, a decline in activity in the real estate market.
External wear is inherent exclusively in real estate due to the fixed location. The impact of the property's environment on its value can be measured through the appraiser's intuition through the effective age of the building. But the most reliable result of the magnitude of economic depreciation can be provided by a direct measurement of the market reaction to changes in the property itself and its environment. Methods can be used to assess economic wear:
Capitalization method for rent losses
Applying this method requires data on rents (annual rent) for comparable properties. The sequence of analysis is as follows.
1. The amount of rental losses is determined as the difference in rent under stable and changed external conditions.
2. From the obtained value, the share of rental losses attributable to the building is allocated. Here we mean that part of the rent falls on the land plot.
3. The allocated share of rental losses is capitalized (divided by the capitalization ratio), based on the prevailing capitalization rate for such buildings.
Comparative sales method
The comparative sales method is based on an analysis of available pricing information for recently sold similar items (pair sales).
The algorithm for applying the comparative sales method is as follows.
1. Determined comparable objects to the evaluated object.
2. Differences in objects are corrected, excluding external factors.
3. The difference market values after adjustment is attributed to economic depreciation.
In some cases, the method of comparative analysis of sales makes it possible to determine the total accumulated depreciation, as a rule, of a typical object of appraisal. In practice, this method is used only in the presence of reliable information.
Lifetime method
This method can be used if there is a tendency for a sharp reduction in the remaining economic (physical) life of the property due to demolition. An example would be the demolition of real estate for the construction of a bridge, highway, redevelopment. When calculating the total accumulated depreciation, the predominant share is given to economic depreciation caused by external factors. The share of other types of depreciation will be small, so there is every reason to interpret the total accumulated depreciation as economic depreciation.
Technical Director of LLC "Severnaya Korona", Khabarovsk
Let's dot the "i" right away. Within the framework of this article, methods for determining physical wear and tear will be considered. only by buildings ... It is possible to apply the material of this article to specific categories structures, but only to those that, by virtue of their design solutions, can be divided into short-lived and long-lived elements. Naturally, to everything that flies and swims (in the terminology of people in vests - "walks"), everything that is considered within the framework of this article cannot be applied.
Currently, so many textbooks and articles have been written on real estate appraisal that at first glance this topic does not seem worth a damn — you open the textbook, read it carefully and use it in practice. Just do not forget to refer to the source of information in the report - so that you cannot be accused of violating the requirements of clause 10 of the FSO No. 3.
Nevertheless, the question of choosing a method for determining physical depreciation can be very serious, especially in the case when the appraiser is forced to refuse to perform calculations by a comparative and profitable approach. In this case, the accuracy of calculations for every the stage of implementation of the cost-based approach becomes not only essential, but also decisive.
For example, the cost of building a facility is 200 units. The first appraiser substantiated the depreciation at 90%, and the second at 95%. At first glance, the 5% difference "fits" into the typical error range. But what does this lead to? Accordingly, the first appraiser will have a cost including depreciation in the amount of 20 units, and the second - in the amount of 10. This exaggerated example shows that with a significant amount of depreciation, even a seemingly small error or inaccuracy (90 or 95%) can globally affect on the calculation results. The difference is 2 times - from 10 to 20 units. And this is already very serious.
We will not dwell on the options for functional and economic wear - this is a topic for a completely different conversation. We focus only on the methods for determining physical wear and tear.
Let's try to figure out what we can use and what result we can get.
Let's start by finding out what we are armed with.
In the literature on real estate appraisal, 5 methods for determining physical wear and tear are usually considered in one combination or another from different authors:
- Cost compensation method (compensation cost method);
- Chronological age method;
- Effective age method;
- Expert method;
- Breakdown method.
At the same time, the authors of the textbooks do not analyze the advantages and disadvantages of each of the methods. And it is right. The task of the textbook is to give basic knowledge and, if necessary, explain in numbers the mechanism for implementing a particular calculation method. If in the textbook you begin to greatly detail each possible stage of the assessment, then this will inadvertently divert attention from the main (basic) points and the main task of the textbook will simply not be completed.
And within the framework of this article, we will try to figure it out in more detail.
Cost compensation method. The amount of physical wear and tear, in general, is equal to the cost of its elimination.
Advantage of the method:
1. Excellent substantiation of the economic essence of the value of physical wear and tear. It is simply impossible to come up with counter-arguments.
Disadvantages of the method:
1. In some cases, additional justification is required for the need to perform repairs for a particular element. For example, near front door inside the large office, the top layer of linoleum has worn off, and throughout the rest of the area it is in excellent condition. How to proceed? Replace only a piece of 2-3 m 2? But technically, it is impossible to do this in such a way that the place of repair is not striking - linoleum has such qualities as shrinkage in the initial period of operation and, albeit slight, but the fading of the pattern over time. It is undignified to carry out such repairs for a self-respecting company. Replace the entire area? Expensive.
2. The complexity of practical implementation:
a) It is necessary to accurately determine the physical volume of repairs for each item;
b) Choose a suitable calculation base (single estimated prices, data from price lists of repair companies, aggregated cost indicators, etc.) and justify your choice. It should be correctly understood that the accuracy of the calculations directly depends on the choice of the calculation base;
c) Directly perform the calculation.
At first glance, nothing complicated. And if the object of appraisal is an administrative building of thousands of 15 square meters and with varying degrees of wear and tear of elements in different parts of the building? You will write only one defective statement indicating the composition and physical volume of work for a week. And how to take into account the loss of bearing capacity (and, accordingly, value) of, for example, a foundation? At the same time, one should not forget that each of your conclusions or figures should be substantiated. This is a requirement of the FSO. So it turns out that there is nothing complicated, but to put it into practice ... It is better not to get involved - and you will spend a lot of time, and one description and justification will take a significant amount of the report.
From the comparison of advantages and disadvantages, one thing follows - a good method, but very difficult to implement in practice, especially for large buildings. Appraisers know this very well and use this method only as a last resort, and to be honest - only when it is beneficial for the appraiser for one reason or another.
... Basic formula for calculating:
Ifiz = × 100% (1)
where Bx- the actual (chronological) age of the object of assessment;
Bss
Advantages of the method:
1. The whole calculation is performed in one arithmetic operation;
2. The calculation is based on only two indicators: the chronological age of the object of assessment (taken from the technical documents for the object of assessment) and the standard service life (economic life) - this indicator is taken from the normative documents for the operation of buildings. Thus, from the point of view of the evidence of the initial data for the calculation, the appraiser is fully insured.
Disadvantages of the method:
1. The method does not take into account the fact that during the operation of the building, individual elements can be repaired repeatedly or completely replaced. This situation is often encountered when a building, built several decades ago, has recently been renovated with the replacement of most of the short-lived elements.
2. It is considered that the method is not applicable for buildings with a service life close to the economic life or longer than the economic life, i.e. when mathematically it is possible to obtain the value of wear and more than 100%, which, reasoning logically, simply cannot be. The situation is typical for buildings of pre-revolutionary construction, when, with the excellent quality of construction work, a margin of safety was laid according to the principle of "grandchildren and great-grandchildren to live and rejoice." And even from this seemingly hopeless situation, Russian appraisers manage to find a worthy way out (honor and praise for their ingenuity). And the way out is extremely simple. There is such a regulatory document as the Resolution of the State Statistics Committee of the Russian Federation No. 13 of February 7, 2001 "On the approval of instructions for filling out forms of federal state statistical monitoring of the availability and movement of fixed assets." Clause 4 of this normative document provides a table of the ratio of the actually past estimated service life (i.e., in our understanding of physical wear, determined by the method of chronological age) and the degree of analytical wear. In this case, for example, a degree of physical wear of 1% corresponds to a degree of analytical wear of 0.02%. And the degree of physical wear and tear is 100% - the degree of analytical wear is 91.08%. And then, i.e. for 100% what? I quote the regulatory document: “ In cases where the period that has passed since the beginning of the operation of the facility has exceeded the duration of its estimated life of depletion of operational resources (i.e. amounted to more than 100% of its value), for each percentage of excess up to 200% inclusive, the degree of analytical wear indicated in the last position tables (91.08%), increases by 0.05 percentage points, and after 200% - by 0.01 percentage points". And this applies to all types of fixed assets! And what is not an option? The document is normative. The calculation method is described very simply. So what if the normative document was created for statistical purposes, and not for assessment. The vast majority of the regulations we use were not created for assessment purposes. To go far - the same UPVS collections were originally intended for the revaluation of fixed assets. We, appraisers, adapted them for ourselves. I don’t know about you, but I liked this solution. True, the logic is not enough, and at the border of the degree of analytical wear of 91.08% there is a sharp and inexplicable "break" of the curve, if you try to draw a dependence. Yes, there is such a drawback in the calculation method. But it's still better than nothing. Especially in a situation where it is simply impossible to apply other methods of calculating physical wear, for example, when assessing a metal support for a power transmission line, which, according to all regulatory documents, should have “died” in the era of stagnation, and it still stands like a sentry at the mausoleum and the eyes of the operator pleases.
Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages implies a limitation on the use of this method - the method gives fairly accurate results in the first years of the chronological life of the object of assessment. With increasing age, the accuracy of the calculations drops sharply. Already at the chronological age of the building of 10-15 years, this method is not desirable to use.
Effective age method... The basic formula for the calculation has 3 spellings:
Ifiz = × 100% = × 100% = × 100% (2)
where Ve is the effective age of the object of assessment, i.e. how old the object looks like;
Vost - remaining economic life;
Bss- standard service life (economic life).
Advantages of the method:
- The entire calculation is performed in one arithmetic operation;
- Index Bss is taken from regulatory documents for the operation of buildings and does not need special justification.
Disadvantage of the method:
1. It is almost impossible for an appraiser to substantiate the value Vost... Agree that no specialist will be able to say exactly (up to a year) how long the building will still be in operation. An exception is the case when, for one reason or another, in a certain period of time, the building must be demolished, but this is already a category of economic (external), and not physical wear and tear.
Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the method leads to the fact that in practice this method is almost never used.
Expert method. The method is based on the scale of expert assessments for determining physical wear and tear, set out in the Departmental normative document. The amount of wear is determined by the external (visible) damage to the elements. It is this method that BTI employees use when drawing up technical passports for buildings. The formula for the calculation is:
Ifiz = × 100% (3)
where ANDi- the amount of physical wear and tear of the i - that element in the building, determined according to the normative document;
HCi- the specific weight of the i -th element in the building;
i- element number.
Advantages of the method:
1. Relative ease of performing calculations;
2. The methodology for determining physical wear and tear is established by a regulatory document and is described in sufficient detail in it. The evidence part is reinforced concrete. Especially when the opinions of the BTI employee (reflected in the technical passport of the building) and the appraiser (reflected in the inspection report of the appraisal object or in the defective statement) suddenly, by chance, miraculously completely converge.
Disadvantages of the method:
1. The technique itself provides for an accuracy of calculations of ± 5%. Depreciation for a specific element can be determined, say, in 25% or 30% - well, such a gradation - in 5%. But even this is not scary, but the significant influence of the subjective factor (see item 3).
2. The magnitude of the error is inversely proportional to the experience of the evaluator. In addition, a situation is quite common when a simple cosmetic repair hides many visible signs of wear of the main structural elements of a building, which leads to a significant underestimation of the amount of real wear in the building as a whole.
3. And now in a little more detail on the influence of the subjective factor, which was mentioned in paragraph 1. Example - the description of the amount of wear for the element “central heating system” corresponds to the definition “Drip leaks in heating devices and their insertion points; traces of leaks in heating devices, traces of their restoration, a large number of clamps on risers and highways, traces of their repair in separate places and selective replacement; corrosion of pipelines; unsatisfactory operation of heaters ”and the percentage of wear from 41 to 60%. And how many of these "drip leaks" should there be for 10 heating devices? There is silence in the normative document. And how to assess the part of the definition "a large number of clamps on risers and highways"? At a certain age, my son had - "1, 2, 3, and everything else is" a lot. " So how do you understand "a large number"? For one situation, a lot - it can be more than 2. In another situation, and 22 may seem small. And if anything, then this is only the influence on the result of the subjective factor.
When choosing a calculation method, very often the advantages of the method outweigh the disadvantages, and therefore this method is very actively used by evaluators.
Breakdown method... The method involves the determination of the general physical wear and tear for individual groups, taking into account the physical possibility of eliminating this wear or the economic feasibility of its elimination:
- Correctable physical wear and tear (delayed repair);
- Irreparable physical wear and tear of short-lived elements (those that can be replaced several times during the operation of the building);
- Irreparable wear and tear of long-lived elements (those that form the structural frame of the building and can only be restored during a major overhaul or reconstruction of the entire building).
The values of irreparable wear are determined from the cost of the elements, taking into account the removable wear. General physical depreciation is determined by summing the individual types of depreciation. At the same time, within the framework of the implementation of the breakdown method, at various stages of the calculation, both the cost compensation method, and the chronological age method, and the expert method can be applied.
Advantage of the method:
1. The method allows one to take into account both visible and latent factors causing wear of elements (for example, natural "fatigue" of materials, which manifests itself suddenly and leads to instantaneous destruction of the element).
Disadvantages of the method:
- It is difficult to explain to the person reading your report why the estimated depreciation of the building as a whole exceeds the depreciation indicated in the building inspection report (i.e. deferred repairs);
- Quite a large amount of calculations compared to other methods;
- The method is not applicable for conditions where there is no reliable information on the timing of repairs for short-lived elements (for example, the building was bought quite recently and the new owner simply does not have data on what and when was the last time it was repaired at the object of assessment). Consequently, it becomes impossible to calculate the irreparable wear and tear of short-lived elements using the chronological age method.
Nevertheless, this method is quite actively used.
So, we have identified the main advantages and disadvantages of the methods. For some of the methods, the scope of application was limited. It's time to find out how accurate the calculation methods are.
Chronological age method... Yes, it is applicable, but only at the initial stage of building operation. As the chronological age increases, subject to ongoing repairs, the magnitude of the error increases.
Effective age method... An interesting method that can eliminate the main disadvantage chronological age method, but weakly provable. It is difficult to establish the degree of error.
As a result, the above methods are rarely used in real assessment. What is the most commonly used? Cost compensation method, expert method and breakdown method.
Therefore, we will dwell on the implementation of these methods in more detail.
Cost compensation method
It is not even questioned - in principle, this method should be most accurate. The question is - how will it be technically implemented? Most likely, the accuracy will directly depend on the choice of the calculation base. But earlier we have already noted that it is quite difficult to technically implement this method of calculation due to the large volume of registration of inspection results and the volume of calculations.
But that's what we are evaluators, to find a way to get a decent result with a minimum amount of time. Therefore, let's try to simplify the task.
For this we are ideally suited for such a normative document as the "Methodology for determining the physical deterioration of civilian buildings", approved by the order of the Ministry of Public Utilities of the RSFSR on October 27, 1970. No. 404. This document contains an interesting table:
Why not use the data in this table? Indeed, by carrying out major repairs, we compensate for the amount of physical wear and tear, and this is the main idea of the method.
Based on the results of the examination using the methodology outlined in VSN 53-86r, we establish in what range of physical wear we are and determine the correction factor by which we multiply the amount of physical wear we have obtained. The very calculation of the correction factor within each range can be carried out using the direct proportion method. This is not difficult.
But what's remarkable:
1. Up to a wear value of about 43.6%, determined by VSN 53-86r, the correction value will be less than 1. For the rest of the range, it will be more than 1. By the way, this is logically quite understandable. At the initial stage of the building's operation, the owner will never repair the elements of the building's structural frame - it is not economically feasible. Only short-lived elements are repaired (or replaced), which in the specific weight of the cost of building a building have a specific weight of no more than 50%. A completely different situation with significant physical wear of the power frame - if the walls "crack", then there is no point in doing cosmetic repairs, because cracks on the walls will still appear after a very short period of time. In this case, at first it is economically expedient to repair the power frame, and only then to engage in cosmetic repairs.
2. Logically explaining the breaks in the table by ranges (a sharp change in the cost of capital repairs from 1% to 12% with a change in physical wear and tear from 20 to 21%) is not that difficult, but practically impossible.
3. In the range of physical depreciation, determined on the basis of the inspection results from 61 to 80%, we risk getting the cost of repairs more than the cost of constructing a new building.
The author's opinion is that you can use it, but very carefully. I would even introduce a restriction - to use it only when the amount of physical wear, determined by the BCH 53-86r, in the range from 21 to 60%. With this method of calculation, the method becomes easy to use, but alas, it does not become universal, i.e. suitable for all occasions.
And what about the accuracy of the calculations? Obviously, the maximum accuracy will be approximately in the middle of the range, i.e. somewhere in the region of 40% wear according to VSN 53-86r. As you get closer to the edges of the range, the error should increase.
The conclusion is an excellent method according to its idea, and the possible implementation method is at first glance not bad, but it is unlikely to work for mass practical use. If there is a choice, then it is better to refuse such a method - it will be calmer. At least there will definitely be fewer stupid questions.
Expert method
The amount of physical deterioration is usually determined according to the normative document VSN 53-86r "Rules for assessing the physical deterioration of residential buildings." In the absence of an appropriate regulatory document for buildings with a different functional purpose, appraisers use this document. AND this decision no one doubts, not even those who check your reports. The reason is simple - when a brick is produced at a factory, no one sets special conditions for its use (residential, commercial or industrial buildings). All the distinctive operating conditions of this brick after the completion of construction are laid down in other regulatory documents governing the economic life of an object of a specific functional purpose or design solution.
The author's opinion is that the amount of physical wear and tear, provided that this method is used for buildings in the middle life cycle, is already significantly distorted, not to mention the amount of wear determined by this method in 60-80%, that is, at the end of the economic life of the object of assessment.
Prerequisites for this opinion:
1. The technique used was originally intended to determine physical wear for technical purposes and in the technical understanding of this value, i.e. based on the ultimate strength of a structural element, when its safe operation is still possible, but not to assess the cost, which is what the appraiser is doing;
2. The method does not even consider the amount of physical wear of more than 80%, which is not entirely logical in relation to the assessment. We sometimes have to assess buildings that are in disrepair;
3. The methodology does not take into account the difference in unit prices for new construction and repair work - it ranges from 1.05 to 1.45, depending on the scope of work. You can check it yourself - just compare the unit prices for construction and repair work. The essence of this bias is that the unit prices for repair work initially included increased transport costs (they are reflected in the cost of estimate materials taken into account in the price) and the share of the cost of dismantling work for an element. Therefore, if, when calculating the amount of costs for the alleged repair of an element, we start from the cost of construction costs for this element, then the figure in rubles will inevitably turn out to be underestimated.
For clarity, let's try to make it out with an example.
Consider an extreme case. Suppose that the object of assessment (a brick building, one-story building, with a construction volume of 990 m 3) at the time of inspection has wear on all elements without exception 80% (we cannot deliver more on the scale given in the normative document VSN 53-86r). You do not even need to focus on the fact that such a building at the date of assessment has 100% depreciation and its residual value is zero. The probability of such a situation is 99 and 9 in the period of percent. Those. from point of view accounting such a building may well be written off without prejudice to the company's finances. The owner is faced with the main question - to make major repairs or to dispose of the building? Naturally, this assumption does not apply to historical and architectural monuments, which the owner is obliged to preserve in any way, even to the detriment of economic feasibility.
To make a decision, the owner just needs to familiarize himself with one normative document, the effect of which has not been canceled today - "Methodology for determining the physical deterioration of civilian buildings", approved by the order of the Ministry of Public Utilities of the RSFSR on October 27, 1970. No. 404. According to the table given in this document, the cost of capital repairs of a building with a physical depreciation rate from 61 to 80% is from 93 to 120% of the cost of new construction. We focus our attention on the border of 80% of physical wear and tear in the technical sense of this value. From this normative document it follows that with such a degree of deterioration of the building, major repairs (i.e., elimination of physical deterioration) will cost 1.2 times more expensive than new construction. In such a situation, not a single sane owner will undertake to "reanimate" the object - it is not economically feasible. It is cheaper to demolish the old building and build a new one.
Everything - the owner made a decision - to demolish.
But the owners are the owner, and the appraiser is the appraiser. The task of the appraiser is not to make a decision, but to determine the cost. Hence the question arises - how much then should the object cost, the degree of wear of which for all elements is equal to 80%?
If you strictly follow the methodology used by the appraisers in the implementation of the expert calculation method (according to VSN 53-86r), then 20% of the cost of the cost of creating an object.
Mathematically, everything is accurate, but there is another regulatory document, the existence of which not all appraisers even know about due to the fact that they simply did not have to determine the cost of a building subject to its disposal - SN 436-72 “Approximate rates of output of materials obtained from disassembly buildings during their demolition "dated 05/01/1972. This document is still used by designers when forming chapter 1 of the "Consolidated financial calculation" when this chapter provides for the demolition of buildings located on land plot intended for new construction, in the line "returnable materials".
According to this document, the rate of return of materials taking into account the costs of dismantling for this example (code 1-1-4c) will be 1.4% of the cost of construction costs. This means that when the building is demolished, the owner, minus the cost of demolition, can receive an income of 1.4% of the cost of construction costs. And since after the demolition the object of appraisal will physically cease to exist, then apparently this will be its value.
Agree that 20% and 1.4% are significantly different.
Thus, we were convinced by figures that the use of BCH 53-86p by appraisers in its pure form leads to an underestimation of the amount of physical wear and tear in the value sense of this value. It becomes necessary to find a way to reduce the impact of the error.
K = 
=1,2325,
where
100%
- the maximum amount of physical depreciation in terms of value;
1,4%
- the value determined according to SN 436-72;
80%
- the maximum amount of physical wear and tear in the technical sense, provided for by VSN 53-86r.
Along the way, the question arises - is the introduction of such an adjustment always justified? Apparently not always. The methodology described in VSN 53-86p itself implies a calculation accuracy of up to ± 5%. Therefore, even if this adjustment is not introduced until the value of the physical deterioration of the building, determined according to VSN 53-86r, applied to our building in the amount of 21.5% (5% (1.2325-1)), then the maximum error, taking into account the accuracy of the calculations for VSN 53-86r will not exceed 10%. And this is well within the range of ± 5%. In other cases, the introduction of an adjustment is desirable.
Breakdown method
According to the author, the main "stretch" of this method lies in the fact that when determining the removable wear (deferred repair) initially, i.e. according to textbooks, it was supposed to calculate the cost of capital repairs for each element. How directly this calculation should be performed in the textbooks is not indicated, but, judging by the examples, by drawing up estimates or by aggregated indicators. There is not much difference here.
But the appraisers are creative people and decided not to take their time for drawing up estimates - for the most part, everyone together performs the calculation of deferred repairs in accordance with the methodology described in, i.e. by an expert method - and simply and provably by reference to a normative document.
But besides this, the authors of the textbooks forgot to mention that when performing a major overhaul of an element, its condition is brought almost to the state of a new one, i.e. automatically unrecoverable physical wear and tear on this element is removed... And the additional calculation of irreparable wear, as provided by the method, inevitably leads to partial double counting, i.e. to overestimate the amount of physical wear and tear.
Now what? Give up on the breakdown method? Not at all.
At the first stage, the deferred repair is calculated using the expert method, but only for short-lived elements, taking into account the adjustment for the lack of the expert method outlined above. Base - short-lived elements can be replaced several times during the economic life of an object. Additional accounting for irreparable wear is not performed in order to avoid double counting for these elements.
At the second stage, irreparable wear is determined only for long-lived elements (structural frame of the building) using the method of chronological age. Base - for these elements, visible signs of wear, as a rule, do not reflect the real picture of the loss of bearing strength. But the existing regulatory documents on the service life of such elements are based on many years of experience in operating these elements and are "linked" to all the requirements for the safe operation of buildings.
At the third stage, the results of stages 1 and 2 in rubles are added up and can be converted into a percentage of the cost of construction costs, if necessary. As a result, we:
- Let's keep the main idea of the breakdown method - separate accounting different types wear and tear;
- Let's eliminate the main drawback of determining the amount of deferred repair by the expert method on the data of VSN 53-86r - the underestimation of the amount of wear;
- We will avoid double counting by refusing to separately calculate unrecoverable wear for short-lived elements, i.e. partial overestimation of the amount of wear;
- We will make this method universal in application - for calculations we only need data on the amount of wear of elements, obtained by us during inspection, data on the date of construction or reconstruction of the building and regulatory documents. We simply do not need data on the timing of repairs for short-lived elements - and this is the main limitation in using the breakdown method.
That's all.
The author recalls that according to the law, no one has the right to impose on the appraiser the choice of a specific calculation method or a mechanism for implementing calculations within the framework of the chosen method. Therefore, this article is just an excuse to think once again when performing calculations on the topic “are we going there, and what will we get as a result”?
