Author
Listed:
- Saługa Piotr W.
(Dr hab. inż., prof. AGH, AGH Akademia Górniczo-Hutnicza, Wydział Zarządzania, Katedra Zarządzania w Energetyce, Kraków)
- Zamasz Krzysztof
(Dr. Wyższa Szkoła Biznesu w Dąbrowie Górniczej, Dąbrowa Górnicza;)
- Kamiński Jacek
(Dr hab. inż., prof. IGSMiE PAN, Pracownia Ekonomiki Energetyki, Instytut Gospodarki Surowcami)
Abstract
For many years, real options analysis (ROA) has been perceived as an attractive project valuation alternative to the traditional discounted cash flow analysis (DCF). Right now, one can see evidence of a growing dispersion in the applicability of the method among various industries (particularly minerals, coal, gas and petroleum) and the banking sector. This is because of its potential to value managerial flexibility including possibilities for delaying investments or reformulating the operating strategies of the company. The real option approach enables one to calculate a project’s fundamental value in approximating the market one. The basis of option theory is stochastic modeling of underlying assets - the preferred, commonly used ROA methodology, introduced by Copeland and Antikarov (2001), is called the MAD (marketed asset disclaimer) approach. It assumes that an underlying asset, which is the (gross) present value of the project (PV), changes with time according to themultiplicative stochastic process derived as discrete binomial approximation of geometric Brownian motion (GBM). In addition, theMAD assumes, that a twin asset of the underlying instrument is calculated in a common way net present value (NPV). The twin-asset assumption fulfills the theoretical criteria required for fair option valuation in no-arbitrage conditions. The paper delivers empirical arguments arguing that indirect modeling of PVs, according to the standard stochastic process, do not properly reflect reality. The calculations were based on the valuation of a hard coal project with flexibility - the methodology has included multiplicative price modeling (that parameter has served as so called ‘referential asset’) and, consequently, built a consecutive PVs tree, where respective present values have been adjusted by referential price levels. Moreover, the paper has emphasized that the option-to-wait changes the structure of project’s cash flow and PV trees, depending on the waiting period. In conclusion, the arguments have been derived from the consecutive modeling of a PV asset is more accurate than indirect constructing of it in the MAD’s multiplicative mode.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vrs:gosmin:v:31:y:2015:i:2:p:31-48:n:4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.