University of Economics, Prague Faculty of Business Administration
Bachelor´s Thesis Evaluation by the Opponent
Title of the Bachelor´s Thesis:
Author of the Bachelor´s Thesis:
Goals of the Bachelor´s Thesis:
Criteria (each max 10 points) Points awarded
1. The goals of the thesis are evident and accomplished 1
2. Demands on the acquisition of additional knowledge or skills 8
3. Adequacy and the way of the methods used 3
4. Depth and relevance of the analysis in relation to goals 4
5. Making use of literature/other resources, citing 7
6. The thesis is a well-organised logical whole 8
7. Linguistic and terminological level 7
8. Formal layout and requirements, extent 6
9. Originality, i.e. it is produced by the student 10
10. Practical/theoretical relevance/applicability 1
Total score in points (max 100)
55Final grading
failed (4)Overall evaluation (cca 150 words):
Name of the Bachelor's thesis opponent
Evaluation of investment decision for residential rental property in three different countries: Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia.
Mykhaylo Shynkarenko
Karel Pernica
Author is providing the revised thesis. Some of the previous comments has been implemented into the thesis, but unfortunately, the quality still does not meet the requirements fo the bachelor thesis. The biggest weakness of the thesis still remains the results of the calculations. Thus, the goal of the thesis remaind unfullfiled again. I am also adding some more comments on the thesis below:
- I still do not undertand, why the text is not justified, but aligned left. Author also did not use the space for separating the paragraphs.
That, along with the unjustified text is making the thesis look unproffesional.
- The captiond for each table should have been placed above the tables. And figures.
- p30 - Figure 1 not translated.
- p32 - Author states that "There is also a 4% tax on the transfer (sale) of real estate. This tax is paid only
by legal entities, .." This is not correct. Regardless the fact, that this kind of tax is not in force anymore, at the time author was writing the thesis, this tax still existed. But it was not paid only by the elegal entities, but by everyone.
- I do not undertsand, which inputs were used for the discount rate caculation. I was not able to find the "Average country Risk Premium rate" for Poland and Slovakia
- p34 - it does not make any sense to me how the CFAT was calculated. Especially in the first year. It seems that it is complete nonsense.
Also when calculating the DCF in Table 8 (p35) there must have been used some wrong formula. How is that possible, that the DCF from second year on is actually larger that the CF in year 2?
- Author is also apparently using the different calculations for the CFAT for each country. In the case of second year in CR he is probably deducting the depreciation from the anual income, while in case of Poland and SVK he is adding it to the annual income.
- What does also not make any sense at all is the CFAT in Table 21 (p51). How is that possible, that if you have income/revenues in the amount of 7500 EUR, that the CFAT for that year is 15 328,39 EUR? Where would you get this additional cash?
Overall, the thesis does not fulfill its goal, because author could have not made any conclusion based on the wrong calculations.
E V A L U A T I O N O F T H E B A C H E L O R´S T H E S I S
The aim of this thesis is to evaluate the investment decision of a non–resident to purchase the residential property with rental purposes in three different countries in central Europe (Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland).
The employer of the opponent:
01 October 2020
Signature of the opponent
KSG
