未知题型

某房地产开发公司于2000年3月以有偿出让方式取得一块土地50年使用权，并于2002年3月在此地块上建成一座砖混结构的写字楼，当时造价为2000元，经济耐用年限为55年，残值率为5%。目前，该类建筑重置价格为每平方米5500元/m2。该建筑物占地面积 1000m2，建筑面积2500m2，现用于出租，每月平均实收租金为6万元。另据调查，当地同类写字楼出租租金一般为每月每建筑平方米30元，空置率为10%，每年需要支付的管理费为年租金的3.5%，维修费为建筑重置价格的1.5%，土地使用税及房产税合计为每建筑平方米25元，保险费为重置价的0.2%，土地资本化率为7%，建筑物资本化率为0.8%。假设土地使用权出让年限届满，土地使用权及地上建筑物由国家无偿收回。试根据以上资料评估该宗地2006年3月的土地使用权价值。(保留整数位)

A.5%，维修费为建筑重置价格的1.5%，土地使用税及房产税合计为每建筑平方米25元，保险费为重置价的0.2%，土地资本化率为7%，建筑物资本化率为0.8%。假设土地使用权出让年限届满，土地使用权及地上建筑物由国家无偿收回。试根据以上资料评估该宗地2006年3月的土地使用权价值。(保留整数位)

【参考答案】

1．选定评估方法：该宗房地产有经济收益适宜采用收益法。2．计算总收益：总收益应该为客观收益而不是实际收益。年总收益=[......

(↓↓↓ 点击下方‘点击查看答案’看完整答案 ↓↓↓)

点击查看答案

相关考题

单项选择题

1. 中国诗词歌曲最早可追溯至时期的中国古典诗词歌曲。
A、商周
B、春秋
C、战国
D、魏晋

单项选择题

采用变动仪器高法观测A、B两点的高差分别为1.345m，1.349m，1.338m。那么A、B两点的高差为1.347m
A、正确
B、错误

未知题型

It sometimes seems that plans for emissions trading are piling up even faster than the greenhouse gases they are designed to curB.In late July the first emission exchange in Australia and Canada opened, in anticipation of mandatory carbon-trading schemes in both countries. America already has a healthy voluntary carbon market, and will soon add an obligatory one for utilities in certain states. But the evidence from the most advanced such 'cap-and-trade' programme, the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), suggests that companies are struggling to make the most of carbon markets.
In theory, cap-and-trade schemes allow firms to reduce their emissions at the lowest possible cost. Governments put a limit on the amount firms can pollute, and issue an equivalent number of allowances. Those companies that find they do not have enough must either cut emissions or buy spare allowances from others. But for the system to work efficiently, firms must take advantage of all opportunities to reduce the costs of participation.
Not all of them do, however. Last year, after the price of European allowances plunged, New Carbon Finance, a research firm, and Cantor CO2e, a brokerage, surveyed 452 participants in the ETS. The price had fallen because it had become obvious that governments had issued too many allowances and the market would soon be floodeD.Yet 31% of respondents with allowances to spare said they would not sell them until the end of 2006, just in case a last minute surge in their emissions left them short. Another 16% said they would wait until the end of this year, when the first phase of the ETS winds up. This caution has cost them dearly. The price of permits, which was roughly 15 ($19) at the time, is now less than 0.15 ( $0.21).
The root of the problem, says Guy Turner of New Carbon Finance, is that many companies view the ETS as a regulatory burden, rather than a chance to make money. They tend to put environmental experts, rather than financial whizzes, in charge of their participation in the schemE.The former, in turn, tend to concentrate on making sure that their firm has enough allowances, rather than on maximising their valuE.They are seldom used to trading, and are sometimes uncomfortable with the idea of 'profiteering' from a system designed to cut pollution. Moreover, they have little incentive to stick their necks out by proposing elaborate transactions in the carbon markets, since they are unlikely to be rewarded if they succeed, but risk dismissal if something goes wrong. Governments do not help matters by handing out allowances to polluters for free, giving them little incentive to capitalise on what are actually valuable assets.
James Emanuel of Cantor CO2e points to several signs that firms are not exploiting carbontrading opportunities to the full. One example is the difference in price between European allowances and Certified Emission Reductions (CERs), which are carbon credits derived from emissions cuts in poor countries. Under the ETS, CERs are interchangeable with European allowances, within certain limits. Yet they are much cheaper. Firms holding European allowances could sell them now, buy CERs instead, and pocket the differencE.The persistent difference in price suggests that few are doing so.
By the same token, on the futures market, there is hardly any difference between the price of European allowances to be delivered in 2008 and those to be delivered in 2009. Since firms receive their allowances from governments more than a year before they actually need them for compliance purposes, they could sell them and sign a futures contract agreeing to buy the permits they need a year later, at only marginally higher cost. This is tantamount to taking out a loan at an enticingly low interest ratE.
What is ETS? In what way does it help to reduce carbon emissions?