000			01904cam a2200241 4500
001			ABS66976
008			030901n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u123418
100			_aFowler, S.
245			_aTwo views of the future
260			_c2003
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(0334) 23 August 2003, 54-55(2)
520			_aCompares and contrasts two different valuation methods used for working out compensation claims for lost future profits of businesses ended by a compulsory purchase order. The LT frequently uses the method laid down in "Reynolds v Manchester City Council" (LT [1980] 257 EG 939) which adjusts the historical profits of the business, for example taking an average of the last three years' trading figures and capitalises them by applying a multiplier or years' purchase which is intended to produce an end figure which represents the value to the claimant of the loss of his ability to derive a future profit. The accountant's method applies a years' purchase figure or a price earnings multiplier to a future stream of earnings to arrive at a capitalised value for the business's future profits. The authors argue that both methods should produce similar values but warns that in many cases multipliers are not consistent which may lead to unfair levels of compensation for claimants for their losses. Provides a stock market comparison of the FTSE ratio used in "Reynolds" and that of the present day to illustrate the problem of applying multipliers.
590			_aABS
650			_aGOODWILL
650			_aLOSSES
650			_aREYNOLDS V MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL
650			_aSCENEOUT V CENTRAL MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
650			_aDIRECTOR OF BUILDINGS AND LANDS V SHUN FUNG IRONWORKS LTD
690			_aENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND CONSULTANCY-PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT-COMPULSORY PURCHASE AND COMPENSATION
700			_aEwing, A.
942			_n0
999			_c73311 _d73311