- Loading...
- No images or files uploaded yet.
|
|
real options
Table of Contents:
Options analysis for Capital Budgeting decisions
The core of the NPV analysis assumes that you are sitting at time T=0, and that you have one decision to make.... You first calculate the expected cash flows, and then you discount them to the present value to compare NPV of the various choices. If the project has a positive NPV, you accept the project, if its negative you reject it.
The problem with this analysis is that it doesn't properly value Options. You often have the choice to invest more at a later date. You might have the option to invest just a little now...to get the project rolling, and then if its going well...then you invest a little bit more at a later date. This is the essence of the Venture Capital Method of Valuation. This is often referred to as a "decision tree" analysis which handles risk in a more sophisticated manner. With this method, you value the firm today assuming that future decisions will be optimal (even before knowing what those decisions are going to be).
Starting a project is like purchasing a call option. If further information is revealed that makes the investment seem attractive, then you have bought the right to that investment in the future. In general, it is in investors best interest to not exercise the call option immediately, but rather to wait until the end of the time period to see what new information is presented.
The problem with standard NPV analysis is that it does not consider the very real world flexibility that most managers (and Venture Capitalists) face. An NPV analysis might show that a project should not be undertaken, but thinking in terms of options, you might be willing to invest a little for the option of being there in the future. This explains alot of seed funding of a few million dollars of Silicon Valley companies (that no-one but Venture Capitalist's can figure out why they are being funded). Sometimes, its just a matter of believing in the vision of the entrepreneur, or the idea, or seeing potential for untapped market share, and a little VC money makes sense (if not in an NPV world). By allowing the investing firm to change its investment policy later according to new information, a seemingly unwarranted investment can be justified.
Managers that just use NPV are ignoring real-world flexibility in their analysis. Please see more about capital budgeting process (project finance) here: capital budgeting
Options & Venture Capital analysis:
The core of the NPV analysis assumes that you are sitting at time T=0, and that you have one decision to make.... You first calculate the expected cash flows, and then you discount them to the present value to compare NPV of the various choices. If the project has a positive NPV, you accept the project, if its negative you reject it.
The problem with this analysis is that it doesn't properly value Options. You often have the choice to invest more at a later date. You might have the option to invest just a little now...to get the project rolling, and then if its going well...then you invest a little bit more at a later date. This is the essence of the Venture Capital Method of Valuation. This is often referred to as a "decision tree" analysis which handles risk in a more sophisticated manner. With this method, you value the firm today assuming that future decisions will be optimal (even before knowing what those decisions are going to be).
Starting a project is like purchasing a call option. If further information is revealed that makes the investment seem attractive, then you have bought the right to that investment in the future. In general, it is in investors best interest to not exercise the call option immediately, but rather to wait until the end of the time period to see what new information is presented.
The problem with standard NPV analysis is that it does not consider the very real world flexibility that most managers (and Venture Capitalists) face. An NPV analysis might show that a project should not be undertaken, but thinking in terms of options, you might be willing to invest a little for the option of being there in the future. This explains alot of seed funding of a few million dollars of Silicon Valley companies (that no-one but Venture Capitalist's can figure out why they are being funded). Sometimes, its just a matter of believing in the vision of the entrepreneur, or the idea, or seeing potential for untapped market share, and a little VC money makes sense (if not in an NPV world). By allowing the investing firm to change its investment policy later according to new information, a seemingly unwarranted investment can be justified.
Managers that just use NPV are ignoring real-world flexibility in their analysis.
External Links:
Links to KookyPlan pages
Number of page visitors
Who visited recently?
Someone else 2 hrs ago Someone else 2 hrs ago Someone else 3 hrs ago Someone else 3 hrs ago Someone else 4 hrs ago Someone else 4 hrs ago Someone else 4 hrs ago Someone else 5 hrs ago Someone else 8 hrs ago
|
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.