Insurance and Fair Value of a Bottling Line
You are valuing a 12-year-old PET bottling line for two purposes: insurance reinstatement and a fair-value estimate for a bank. The line was installed for $4.2 million replacement cost new, installed, including freight, foundations, and commissioning. Engineering reports give a 20-year expected life, but actual physical deterioration is 35% because the line has run 6,500 hours per year. A new model offers 20% higher throughput and uses 12% less energy; retrofitting the existing line would cost $600,000 and recover most of the throughput gap. Market demand for the plant's bottled drinks has fallen, and utilization is 65%. The insurer's policy is on a 'reinstatement cost new less depreciation' basis; the bank wants a going-concern fair value. The client asks you to use one number for both. The line is still operating and is supported by maintenance records, but there is no active second-hand market for the complete line.
1. Explain why one number cannot serve both purposes and calculate an indicative depreciated replacement cost for the insurance basis, stating assumptions.
Read the worked answer
One number cannot serve both purposes because the bases and the treatment of obsolescence differ. Insurance reinstatement value is governed by the policy wording; here it is reinstatement cost new less depreciation. Fair value for lending looks at the asset's economic worth in its current market and operating context, which requires consideration of functional and economic obsolescence. On the insurance basis, the starting point is $4.2 million installed replacement cost new. Physical depreciation is 35%, or $1.47 million, giving an indicative depreciated replacement cost of $2.73 million. This assumes the policy deducts physical depreciation only and does not require deduction for functional or economic obsolescence. If the policy is silent, the valuer should obtain written confirmation from the insurer; if the policy is on an indemnity basis, a different figure may apply. The calculation also assumes the installed cost includes freight, foundations, and commissioning, and excludes VAT and dismantling. The $2.73 million is not automatically the bank's fair value because it ignores the new model's efficiency and the fall in demand.
2. Discuss how functional and economic obsolescence should be treated for the bank's fair value, and what additional evidence you need.
Read the worked answer
For the bank's fair value, functional obsolescence arises because a new model has 20% higher throughput and uses 12% less energy. The retrofit cost of $600,000 is evidence of curable functional obsolescence if the benefit exceeds the cost; if it is economic to cure, the fair value should reflect that cost. If the line is not retrofitted, the valuer should estimate the penalty through lost throughput or higher energy cost and capitalize it. Economic obsolescence arises from the fall in demand and 65% utilization. The valuer should not mechanically apply a 15% or 35% deduction; the effect should be measured from the line's earnings, utilization, and market evidence. A going-concern fair value may need to reflect the cash flows the line can support, not just the asset's scrap or replacement cost. Additional evidence includes maintenance records, actual running hours, energy consumption, downtime, retrofit quotes, demand forecasts, competitor capacity, and any offers for the line. The report should separate insurance value from fair value, state the policy assumption for the insurance figure, and disclose the key judgements on obsolescence.