О понятиях "проект" и "стоимость" и соответствующей оценочной терминологиистатья

Работа с статьей


[1] Смоляк С. А. О понятиях "проект" и "стоимость" и соответствующей оценочной терминологии // Вопросы оценки. — 2007. — № 3. — С. 14–18. This article written by a doyen of Russian Professional Valuation and one of the nation's leading assessors of public investment projects dwells on the issue of interrelationship between the investment project assessments and the Property valuation. Although these areas of economic measurements relate to 'different departments' they essentially embrace the same underlying principles of measurements to the extent that the Professional (Property) valuation can be viewed as an estimation of 'tail events' of investment projects. Some methods of the Professional Valuation even attempt to portray the in-exchange value of property as predicated on undertaking a certain investment project (e.g. the residual method). It is to be thought that the theoretical proximity of principles underlying Project Assessments and Professional Valuation is much closer than that between the Professional Valuation and the Investment-Financial Valuation (a la Damodaran), even though the latter two are often regarded as one and the same among Professional Valuers specializing in private businesses. Though the underlying general measurement theory (with which the article is but slightly concerned as the author has many books and published papers on that account) unites both areas, it is in the sphere of basic notions where the true distinctions need be sought and established, as the field of investment project assessments and the professional valuation necessarily deal with different entities being measured and one has to elucidate the essence of those underlying entities before proceeding any further in drawing the distinctions between the two areas. Surprisingly, such a variety of 'revisiting the concepts' has not before been attempted in the related Russian literature and even widely cited international sources (such as Brealey Myers)), and the existence of dim and poorly-conceived legal regulations governing the performance of Professional Valuation serves only to confuse matters further. The author lists three notions of what is implied under the term 'project': 1) project as a set of documents such as feasibility studies etc. (Russian legal definition under the public investments law); 2) project as a property (which view arises from the contextual analysis of the notion as used in Brealey Myers); 3) project as a set or chain of consecutive actions. The third view is more general and self-suggestive and the one which is proved by the author to be most sustainable. Having this last perspective in mind the author suggests to clarify the appropriate terminology in use throughout the field. Once an entity being measured when assessing an investment project is a set of consecutive actions projected for the future, those actions are of necessity subject specific (i.e. related to particular or assumed parties to the investment undertaking), therefore, when assessing the project the assessment in fact is one of the efficiency of those actions as set against the desired criteria of the party in question. So it makes no sense to speak about the 'value of investment projects' as such a view may have adverse side-effects in law (according to the Russian Federal Valuation Law, whenever the term 'value' is used without further specification in any statutory context (including the public investment project documents) the prescribed inference to be made in law is that the Market Value is always to be implied). However, investment projects being subject-specific intended actions are non traded entities, not to be confused with a property of any type. For treating them as property would invite the application of respective viewpoints and terminology of the Professional (Property) Valuation … Exploring some other vistas of reasoning and other terms the analysis of which is also suggested by the author, we see that careless use of many ubiquitous terms surrounding the area of investment project assessments is fraught with many tricky consequences should the assessment become a contentious one and subject to litigious debates. Some of those non-sequiturs and unintended outcomes are brought to the readers' attention. In the end, the article by highlighting the deplorable state of terminology and understanding of the relevant questions makes a powerful call for public discussions. Investment project assessors in the country are currently non-organized and poorly regulated. No recognition is made of them as a separate discipline in need of consistency and (self-) regulation. This oversight may one day lead to blightful developments and infliction of harm to public and private interests.

Публикация в формате сохранить в файл сохранить в файл сохранить в файл сохранить в файл сохранить в файл сохранить в файл скрыть