4.6 Article

Model risk in real option valuation

期刊

ANNALS OF OPERATIONS RESEARCH
卷 299, 期 1-2, 页码 1025-1056

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10479-019-03273-4

关键词

CARA; CRRA; Certain equivalent; Decision tree; Divestment; Hyperbolic absolute risk aversion; Investment; Mean-reversion; Risk aversion; risk tolerance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study introduces a general decision-tree framework to value an option to invest/divest in a project, focusing on the model risk inherent in standard real option valuation methods. The research examines how real option values depend on various factors including project dynamics, investment costs, exercise opportunities, project size relative to initial wealth, and investor's risk tolerance. Contrary to previous literature, it is found that real option values can decrease with project volatility and increase with investment costs, and the attractiveness of large projects compared to small projects depends on investor risk tolerance, changes in risk tolerance with wealth, and cost structures to invest in the project.
We introduce a general decision-tree framework to value an option to invest/divest in a project, focusing on the model risk inherent in the assumptions made by standard real option valuation methods. We examine how real option values depend on the dynamics of project value and investment costs, the frequency of exercise opportunities, the size of the project relative to initial wealth, the investor's risk tolerance (and how it changes with wealth) and several other choices about model structure. For instance, contrary to stylised facts from previous literature, real option values can actually decrease with the volatility of the underlying project value and increase with investment costs. And large projects can be more or less attractive than small projects (ceteris paribus) depending on the risk tolerance of the investor, how this changes with wealth, and the structure of costs to invest in the project.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据