Client influence on valuation: does language matter?

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to attempt to analyze client influence on valuation in both Taiwan and Singapore. Both countries are chosen because of the similar level of economic development as well as professionalism amongst valuers. However, although both are Chinese‐dominated by population, the culture and language used are substantially different. Design/methodology/approach The study uses a survey questionnaire to sample valuers' response to client influence in both Taiwan and Singapore. The questionnaire is organized into five parts: social economic data, client influence situation, potential factors, influence method, and influence abilities. The survey findings were analyzed using SPSS and subjected to a number of standard procedures to check for missing values and multivariate normality. Mean difference and F‐test were used to judge whether the valuers in the two countries have significantly different views on client influence. Findings The results show that client influence on valuation practices does exist in both Taiwan and Singapore. This is despite the differences in the market structures, development background and modes of doing business. Furthermore, the study finds that the degree and extent of the problem are different. These differences, as reflected in the differing views and opinions on the causes and factors leading to client pressure, are largely due to the systemic differences in the two countries, particularly, in the way businesses are conducted as well as the medium of communication being used. Originality/value The paper contributes to the research on client influence on valuation through a comparative study of two countries with substantially different business environments and language of communication. These differences seem to have an impact on how valuers view client influence despite their similar economic, educational and professional backgrounds.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 34 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.