دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی دارایی های ثابت یا هزینه های غیر قابل بازگشت؟ بررسی سرمایه گذاری املاک و زمین خرده فروشان در بریتانیا به همراه ترجمه فارسی
| عنوان فارسی مقاله | دارایی های ثابت یا هزینه های غیر قابل بازگشت؟ بررسی سرمایه گذاری املاک و زمین خرده فروشان در بریتانیا |
| عنوان انگلیسی مقاله | Fixed assets or sunk costs? An examination of retailers’ land and property investment in the United Kingdom |
| رشته های مرتبط | حسابداری، مدیریت و اقتصاد، بازاریابی، حسابداری مالی، اقتصاد مالی و مدیریت کسب و کار |
| فرمت مقالات رایگان |
مقالات انگلیسی و ترجمه های فارسی رایگان با فرمت PDF آماده دانلود رایگان میباشند همچنین ترجمه مقاله با فرمت ورد نیز قابل خریداری و دانلود میباشد |
| کیفیت ترجمه | کیفیت ترجمه این مقاله متوسط میباشد |
| توضیحات | ترجمه این مقاله به صورت خلاصه انجام شده است. |
| نشریه | Sage |
| مجله | محیط زیست و برنامه ریزی A |
| سال انتشار | 1997 |
| کد محصول | F799 |
|
مقاله انگلیسی رایگان (PDF) |
دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی |
|
ترجمه فارسی رایگان (PDF) |
دانلود رایگان ترجمه مقاله |
|
خرید ترجمه با فرمت ورد |
خرید ترجمه مقاله با فرمت ورد |
| جستجوی ترجمه مقالات | جستجوی ترجمه مقالات |
|
فهرست مقاله: چکیده |
|
بخشی از ترجمه فارسی مقاله: مقدمه |
|
بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی: Introduction Much of the recent critical discussion of the corporate strategies of multiple retailers in the United Kingdom has focused on their land and property holdings. Though retailers are obviously in business principally to sell goods to consumers, they are also owners of many thousands of buildings, and some extremely valuable areas of land. A company’s policies for land acquisition, valuation, and disposal can have major impacts on its balance sheet, and can become important influences on urban spatial change. And yet, with some exceptions which are discussed below, there has been surprisingly little interest in the topic from academic researchers in the United Kingdom. In this paper I attempt to redress the balance by examining critically the characteristics of major retailers’ land and property holdings in the United Kingdom. In particular, the following questions are examined: What is the extent of retailers’ property and land holdings in the United Kingdom? Are such holdings solely incidental to the retailers’ main function, or are they a significant source of profit (or loss) in their own right? In what ways may retailers’ accounting and valuation practices obscure the effects of past misjudgments? Should retailers’ property and land holdings be regarded as ‘sunk costs’ which may inhibit growth and innovation, or do they distort the operation of the retail sector in other ways? The issues which have stimulated this research focus can be summarised briefly. Wrigley (1992; 1994; 1996) has reviewed the recent history of multiple grocery retailing in the United Kingdom, drawing upon criticism by City of London analysts of, in particular, the companies Tesco Stores Ltd, J Sainsbury pic, Safeway Stores pic, and Asda Group pic (for example, Credit Lyonnais Laing, 1991; 1992a; 1992b, Kleinwort Benson, 1991). In their race for market domination, these companies purchased sites for new stores at prices well above those which would be offered by other commercial users (see also Guy, 1995; Hallsworth, 1995; Hallsworth and McClatchey, 1994). This has led in turn to changes in accounting practices, such that these and other companies are now prepared to depreciate or write off part of their investment in supposedly overvalued land. The companies mentioned thus far have essentially purchased land for their own use in developing new large stores. However, other retailers have also become involved in property ownership beyond their own operational requirements. Companies such as The Boots Company pic, Kingfisher pic, The Dixon Group pic, and the Burton Group pic all set up property development subsidiaries in the late 1980s, and initiated developments of entire shopping centres and other schemes, with varying degrees of success. Again, these activities have proved controversial amongst City analysts (for example, Goldman Sachs, 1989; Kleinwort Benson, 1989). Wrigley (1992; 1996) has related such events to a more general discussion of the role of sunk costs in the analysis of urban and regional change. Sunk costs have been defined as “Costs which have been incurred in implementing a course of action or in the purchase of a piece of equipment that currently has a market value of zero … In other words such costs are irrecoverable” (Ferguson et al, 1993, page 101). Ferguson et al (1993) use an appropriate example of mining activity, in which the costs of drilling a mine shaft are irrecoverable. Although not discussed, it is presumably the case that the mine shaft, if abandoned by the company concerned, would have no value on the open market. Clark (1994) and Clark and Wrigley (1995; 1997) have examined ways in which the structure and management of large industrial corporations both affect and are affected by past commitments, in the form of the spatial configuration of production, and the existence of sunk costs which represent either past investment or penalties for future withdrawal from particular locations. The debate on sunk costs has been framed largely in relation to large multisite manufacturing corporations. However, Wrigley (1992; 1996) has attempted to apply this notion to retail activity, in particular the property assets of major grocery companies. One purpose of this present paper is to examine whether this approach can be applied more generally to the retail industry. In this paper I discuss these issues in the following way. After a descriptive review of the current extent of UK retailers’ land and property holdings, including ownership of property development companies, the utility of the ‘sunk costs’ concept is evaluated. Two opposing arguments are examined: first, that retailers’ land and property holdings contain significant sunk-cost elements which cannot easily be recovered, and can inhibit the companies’ performance; second, that these holdings are positive assets which are required for operational efficiency and may also allow future profit taking. These points of view are of course overstated, and not surprisingly it will appear that the true position lies somewhere between these two extremes. The exercise may, however, serve to correct against oversimplification of the issues concerned; and it will explore variations with type and size of retailer which are of interest in themselves. It should be noted that this review is confined largely to UK retailers and the UK property market. The latter is characterised, when compared with North American markets for example, by high land prices, heavy involvement of financial institutions, and fairly strict regulation by land-use planning interests (Guy and Lord, 1991). Much retail property is held on fixed rental ‘institutional leases’. The effects of these constraints on entry and exit from retail distribution all have potential implications for the extent and nature of sunk costs, but at the same time can contribute to a retailer’s asset base. These implications are discussed in this paper. |