Valuing uncertain asset cash flows when there are no options: A real options approach

被引:39
|
作者
Samis, Michael
Davis, Graham A. [1 ]
Laughton, David
Poulin, Richard
机构
[1] Colorado Sch Mines, Div Econ & Business, Golden, CO 80401 USA
[2] AMEC Amer Ltd, Min & Met Consulting Grp, Oakville, ON L6H 6X7, Canada
[3] Univ Laval, Dept Genie Mines, Oakville, ON L6H 6X7, Canada
[4] Univ Alberta, Sch Business, Edmonton, AB T5M 0M1, Canada
[5] David Laughton Consulting Ltd, Edmonton, AB T5M 0M1, Canada
[6] Univ Laval, Dept Genie Mines, Ste Foy, PQ G1K 7P4, Canada
关键词
real options; capital asset pricing model; discounted cash flow; uncertainty; present value; mining; project selection; risk-adjusted discount rate;
D O I
10.1016/j.resourpol.2006.03.003
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The real option valuation method is often presented as an alternative to the traditional discounted cash flow (DCF) approach because it is able to quantify the additional asset value arising from flexible asset management. However, these two valuation methods differ on a more fundamental level: their approach to determining the effects of cash flow uncertainty on asset value. Real option valuation adjusts for risk within the cash flow components while the DCF method discounts for risk at the aggregate net cash flow. This seemingly small difference allows the real option method to differentiate assets according to their unique risk characteristics, while the conventional DCF approach cannot. This paper presents an overview of the real options and conventional DCF frameworks for valuing uncertain cash flows. To emphasize the approaches' different treatment of risk we assume an absence of managerial flexibility. Using simple algebra, this paper demonstrates that the traditional DCF method fails to adequately discount net cash flow risk, no matter what discount rate is used. Finally, in a stylized mining example we show that DCF rules would lead a developer to forego $24.5 million in value creation, at a profitability index of 1.49, by making a poor investment decision. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:285 / 298
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] A real options model for valuing flexible space
    Greden, Lara
    Glicksman, Leon
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CORPORATE REAL ESTATE, 2005, 7 (01) : 34 - +
  • [22] Manufacturing Flexibility Under Uncertain Demand by a Real Options Approach
    Kume, Katsunori
    Fujiwara, Takao
    [J]. GLOBAL VALUE CHAINS, FLEXIBILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY, 2018, : 161 - 171
  • [23] Valuing real options using implied binomial trees and commodity futures options
    Arnold, Tom
    Falcon Crack, Timothy
    Schwartz, Adam
    [J]. JOURNAL OF FUTURES MARKETS, 2007, 27 (03) : 203 - 226
  • [24] A Comprehensive Cash-Flow Valuation Approach Using Real Options
    Lawryshyn, Yuri
    Vinelli, Michael
    [J]. MATHEMATICAL METHODS IN ECONOMICS (MME 2014), 2014, : 584 - 589
  • [25] Short-term generation asset valuation: A real options approach
    Tseng, CL
    Barz, G
    [J]. OPERATIONS RESEARCH, 2002, 50 (02) : 297 - 310
  • [26] Valuing growth strategy management by hotel chains based on the real options approach
    Cunill, Onofre Martorell
    Forteza, Carles Mulet
    Miralles, Micaela Rossello
    [J]. TOURISM ECONOMICS, 2008, 14 (03) : 511 - 526
  • [27] Valuing Regulatory Flexibility: A Real Options Approach to Cost-Benefit Analysis
    Vladeck, Joe
    [J]. GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL, 2015, 103 (03) : 797 - 824
  • [28] VALUING STRATEGIC GROWTH OPTIONS A Portfolio Approach
    Vassolo, Roberto S.
    De Almeida Ravara, Filipe
    Connor, John M.
    [J]. MANAGEMENT RESEARCH-THE JOURNAL OF THE IBEROAMERICAN ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT, 2005, 3 (01) : 85 - +
  • [29] Valuing American options by simulation: A BSDEs approach
    Klimsiak, Tomasz
    Rozkosz, Andrzej
    Ziemkiewicz, Bartosz
    [J]. MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTERS IN SIMULATION, 2016, 123 : 1 - 18
  • [30] Valuing uncertain cash flows from investments that enhance energy efficiency
    Abadie, Luis M.
    Chamorro, Jose M.
    Gonzalez-Eguino, Mike
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2013, 116 : 113 - 124