EVAM, A New Revolutionary Ratio?

Abstract: Purpose: To investigate the usefulness of the Economic Value Added Momentum ratio and to determine if Swedish non-real estate, non-financial companies been either positively or negatively affected by their Corporate Real Estate structure from an EVAM perspective. Design/methodology/approach: Using a regression analysis composed of the OMX large and mid cap non-real estate, non-financial companies, investigates the relationship between companies’ real estate holdings and their ability to sustain a positive EVAM. The study covers the time period from 2006 to 2009 and includes 172 observations. Findings: The data showed that a negative relationship between EVAM and PPTY at the 10% real estate intensity interval might exist. However, no evidence was found that might suggest that a negative relationship between EVAM and corporate real estate holdings at the higher (15% real estate intensity) or the lower (5% real estate intensity) existed. This could suggest that companies’ that own lower percentages of real estate assets (less than 5% of PPTY) are not affecting their EVAM value and that companies’ that own larger amount of real estate (15% of PPTY or higher) are better at managing their real estate assets and thus it is not negatively impacting their EVAM. Research Implications: Real estate is reported at historical cost rather than at current fair market values. As the economy has, historically, enjoyed more periods of expansions than contractions, intuitive companies’ real estate assets are undervalued. Economic recession and booms can also dilute both the positive and negative aspects of real estate ownership. Although this investigation seeks to neutralize this phenomenon by including two periods of economic expansion and two periods of economic recession, it is unreasonable to claim that this will completely neutralize this affect. Practical Implications: The companies that have a PPTY of between 10% and 15% might be better off selling their real estate holdings or investing additional funds in real estate so as to either have a PPTY below 10% or above 15%. Companies that are in-between the 10% and 15% real estate ownership segment might not deem it cost effective to have specific real estate professionals or to invest in real estate know-how; however, the firms’ might at the same time own too much real estate, making it too costly to do nothing. Consequently, the companies could be better off deciding on a particular strategy: owning more real estate or owning less real estate. Originality/Value: Investigates if a linkage between a company’s ability to generate a positive EVAM and a company’s quantity of real estate assets exists.