What happen to the building after 100 years?

It is a vague inclination to suggest a value of a fixed asset such as building (commercial or residential) the appreciation of which has got value estimates varying from average or above average. Nobody would really understand the whole picture of a building when its value appreciates every year and the locality of the appreciation is much greater than the golden triangle neighbouring the KLCC Twin Towers and The Renaissance.

We are not to declare the asset since building is in its very nature built on a piece of land. Many citizens ranging from those who are no longer accepted as the citizens due to political or ideological stances, to those who are trying hard to become one, are categorised as naive in acknowledging the fact that a building must be erected from a piece of land. And that the land is of course must be the most suitable for that building because the appreciation of the building itself is relative to the value of the land itself.

In the balance sheets of corporations or even giant banks or shadow banks, the market value of the land if it is treated as an investment, must be appreciated and the difference of the value (from the previous year with the current year) is always an appreciation of such an academic valuation rather than commercial reality representation. What I mean is that the value of such an asset is only to be realised when the asset is being sold in order to gain cash. The decision to sell the asset is not in the hands of the owners as we can see many companies do not have concrete company's resolution to adopt the sale of the buildings and many of the balance sheet items are so badly treated as having multiple doctrine of alienation on its own. 

The further the land is being scrutinised, the more robust the value attached to it is going to become, since a few land lots are in actual fact reclaimed land lots and that some of the dwellers in the buildings are not aware of that fact. Therefore, should the land is to be sold in order to realise the value as cash term, nobody would declare correctly the true and fair price of the building let alone the land. Surprisingly some people are so happy to have the land as much as freehold or maybe 999 years lease. One person in particular would be shocked tremendously when someone from outside Malaysia is asking to purchase the land.

We are living in a state of anguish and uncertainty should everybody is asking to buy land everyday and that the price is volatile and does not represent the true and fair view of the financial standing of the owners and corporations. Kuala Lumpur for instance, is a new face city. New face in a way that everybody has got different face now when you go shopping or sightseeing or even trying to find who actually go shopping. No wonder the rich and famous Malaysians and Singaporeans do not really like to shop in Malaysia the reason being the new face is not their taste maybe. 

Be it as it may, the best way to value the land ammortization in the balance sheets of corporations or even banks is to find new face. That new face is either tangible or intangible in view of the above robust valuation for the next 100 years.