实物期权方法在房地产项目投资决策中的应用

房地产业是我国国民经济的支柱产业，传统的DCF方法已不再适合于评估房地产项目的价值。为了适应当前经济发展的需要，本文采用实物期权方法，通过对案例分析计算，说明了实物期权方法对于房地产投资决策具有指导性作用。     

风险投资项目的实物期权评价理论

由于风险投资项目具有较高的不确定性,运用传统的投资项目决策的净现值法则不能很好地解决投资决策中面临的较高不确定性问题。文章引入实物期权理论,并应用净现值法则和实物期权理论进行投资决策对比分析,说明在较高不确定性环境下,实物期权理论能够发现不确定的价值,较传统投资决策方法具有一定的优越性。     

实物期权理论及在银行贷款评审中的应用研究

实物期权概念的提出 实物期权概念的提出与企业投资决策分析问题有着密切的联系,它是金融期权在公司理财领域的一种扩展.众所周知,贴现现金流法(Discounted Cash Flow,简称DCF)是通用的投资决策分析方法.     

风险投资项目的实物期权评价理论

由于风险投资项目具有较高的不确定性,运用传统的投资项目决策的净现值法则不能很好地解决投资决策中面临的较高不确定性问题。文章引入实物期权理论,并应用净现值法则和实物期权理论进行投资决策对比分析,说明在较高不确定性环境下,实物期权理论能够发现不确定的价值,较传统投资决策方法具有一定的优越性。     

基于实物期权理论的房地产投资决策研究

实物期权理论的引入弥补了传统房地产投资决策方法的局限性．使投资者能够对房地产项目的价值进行更为准确的评估，投资决策趋向科学合理．阐述了实物期权的基本内涵及其定价理论，分析了实物期权理论在房地产投资决策中的适用性以及基于该理论的几种房地产投资方式。     

不确定条件下投资决策的期权分析

传统财务决策方法不能准确评估不确定条件下项目投资的灵活决策与未来增长机会等潜在价值,而实物期权提出了较好的解决思路。本文分析了不确定性条件下财务决策的期权方法,并通过一个算例来说明实物期权方法与传统投资决策方法的区别。     

R&D投资决策中实物期权方法研究综述

实物期权方法比传统的现金流折现法(DCF或NPV)更适合对企业R&D项目投资决策进行评价.经过几十年的发展,基于实物期权的R&D项目投资决策方法的研究领域已经深入到企业竞争、发展战略等层面.在研究了国内外相关文献的基础上,本文从市场和技术的不确定性、不完全竞争的市场结构以及非对称结构和不完全信息三个方面,对这些研究文献进行了梳理和综述,并指出了进一步的研究方向.     

实物期权理论在投资决策中应用

<正>随着经济全球化和科技的迅猛发展,市场竞争环境的日趋激烈。风险和未来不确定性越来越成为项目投资决策中不可忽视的重要因素。传统投资决策方法为项目投资决策提供了量化依据,但是无法准确衡量具有风险的投资项目为企业创造的战略价值,以及投资过程中项目管理灵活性的价值。实物期权的投资决策方法为企业在不确定性环境中的投资决策提供了一种全新的概念,成为传统投资决策方法的有益补充。     

CDM项目投资决策中二叉树期权定价模型的应用

在CDM的投资决策中,不仅需要考虑一般投资项目的各种风险和不确定性,还需要考虑CDM项目本身所具有的特殊风险.传统的折现现金流量法(DCF)不考虑期权价值,可能导致低估项目价值.二叉树期权定价模型能够弥补传统折现现金流量法的缺陷,体现出CDM项目中蕴含的战略价值,是CDM项目决策分析的一种有效方法.     

期权理论发展对资本预算方法改进的贡献

传统的资本预算是以现金流贴现(DCF)及在此基础上的决策树和Monte Carlo模拟方法为基础的,随着Black和Scholes的期权定价理论的出现并由Myers(1977)将其用于实物投资决策而形成了资本预算的实物期权方     

Taking Real Options Beyond the Black Box

Finance theorists have long argued that DCF undervalues investment opportunities with significant flexibility to respond to future events and that real options valuation methods provide a solution to that problem. But for most corporate managers, real options analysis continues to be a "black box" when applied to real investment decisions.
This paper begins by considering why these approaches have not yet made it to the mainstream of practical application. It then shows how a traditional DCF approach can undervalue a project that provides management with operating flexibility and illustrates a case study that demonstrates to senior management how a real options valuation method with a few clear value drivers can build upon and be made consistent with the traditional DCF framework.
Critical to this process is ensuring consistency with the company's planning assumptions such as future price forecasts and discount rates. The article shows how to separate the static ("optionless") DCF value from the additional real options value that is shown to be a direct consequence of the assumptions about price dynamics.     

Making real options really work

As a way to value growth opportunities, real options have had a difficult time catching on with managers. Many CFOs believe the method ensures the overvaluation of risky projects. This concern is legitimate, but abandoning real options as a valuation model isn't the solution. Companies that rely solely on discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis underestimate the value of their projects and may fail to invest enough in uncertain but highly promising opportunities. CFOs need not--and should not--choose one approach over the other. Far from being a replacement for DCF analysis, real options are an essential complement, and a project's total value should encompass both. DCF captures a base estimate of value; real options take into account the potential for big gains. This is not to say that there aren't problems with real options. As currently applied, they focus almost exclusively on the risks associated with revenues, ignoring the risks associated with a project's costs. It's also true that option valuations almost always ignore assets that an initial investment in a subsequently abandoned project will often leave the company. In this article, the authors present a simple formula for combining DCF and option valuations that addresses these two problems. Using an integrated approach, managers will, in the long run, select better projects than their more timid competitors while keeping risk under control. Thus, they will outperform their rivals in both the product and the capital markets.     

Brealey,Myers, and Allen on Real Options

Real options are valuable sources of flexibility that are either inherent in, or can be built into, corporate assets. The value of such options are generally not captured by the standard discounted cash flow (DCF) approach, but can be estimated using a variant of financial option pricing techniques. This article provides an overview of the basics of real option valuation by examining four important kinds of real options:

• 1 The option to make follow‐on investments. Companies often cite “strategic” value when taking on negative‐NPV projects. A close look at the payoffs from such projects reveals call options on follow‐on projects in addition to the immediate cash flows from the projects. Today's investments can generate tomorrow's opportunities.
• 2 The option to wait (and learn) before investing. This is equivalent to owning a call option on the investment project. The call is exercised when the firm commits to the project. But often it's better to defer a positive‐NPV project in order to keep the call alive. Deferral is most attractive when uncertainty is great and immediate project cash flows—which are lost or postponed by waiting—are small.
• 3 The option to abandon. The option to abandon a project provides partial insurance against failure. This is a put option; the put's exercise price is the value of the project's assets if sold or shifted to a more valuable use.
• 4 The option to vary the firm's output or its production methods. Companies often build flexibility into their production facilities so that they can use the cheapest raw materials or produce the most valuable set of outputs. In this case they effectively acquire the option to exchange one asset for another.

The authors also make the point that, in most applications, real‐option valuation methods are a complement to, not a substitute for, the DCF method. Indeed DCF, which is best suited to and usually sufficient for safe investments and “cash cow” assets, is typically the starting point for real‐option analyses. In such cases, DCF is used to generate the values of the “underlying assets”—that is, the projects when viewed without their options or sources of flexibility.     

基于实物期权理论的企业设计创新投资时机研究

产品的设计创新已经成为企业培养和维持核心竞争优势的关键。已有文献较少基于经济管理的视角来探讨不确定条件下企业设计创新所具有的实物期权特性,且传统的 DCF 无法对管理决策柔性做出科学的评价。为此,根据实物期权理论,构建企业设计创新的投资时机模型,并利用案例证明该模型的科学性和可行性。结果表明,企业在 DCF 分析的同时,应充分考虑企业设计创新的投资期权价值,把握最佳投资时机,实现科学决策。     

Deferring real options with solar renewable energy certificates

This study evaluates investment in a utility-scale solar power plant using a real-options approach (ROA). Although ROAs have been widely applied in the literature, the deferring option for a utility-scale power plant has not been fully examined, especially within the context of the unique subsidy program of solar renewable energy certificates (SRECs) in the USA. Using data from one of the most developed solar electricity markets in New Jersey, we incorporate the time-varying volatility of electricity prices and bounded SREC prices in real-options valuation. Our results show that deferring real options generates significant value for the project that the traditional discount cash flow approach ignores. It is thus optimal to postpone the investment in more than 70% of cases. In addition, we demonstrate that debt financing is crucial for renewable energy investments.     

Real Options: Meeting the Georgetown Challange

In response to the demand for a single, generally accepted real options methodology, this article proposes a four‐step process leading to a practical solution to most applications of real option analysis. The first step is familiar: calculate the standard net present value of the project assuming no managerial flexibility, which results in a value estimate (and a “branch” of a decision tree) for each year of the project's life. The second step estimates the volatility of the value of the project and produces a value tree designed to capture the main sources of uncertainty. Note that the authors focus on the uncertainty about overall project value, which is driven by uncertainty in revenue growth, operating margins, operating leverage, input costs, and technology. The key point here is that, in contrast to many real options approaches, none of these variables taken alone is assumed to be a reliable surrogate for the uncertainty of the project itself. For example, in assessing the option value of a proven oil reserve, the relevant measure of volatility is the volatility not of oil prices, but of the value of the operating entity—that is, the project value without leverage. The third step attempts to capture managerial flexibility using a decision “tree” that illustrates the decisions to be made, their possible outcomes, and their corresponding probabilities. The article illustrate various kinds of applications, including a phased investment in a chemical plant (which is treated as a compound option) and an investment in a peak‐load power plant (a switching option with changing variance, which precludes the use of constant risk‐neutral probabilities as in standard decision tree analysis). The fourth and final step uses a “no‐arbitrage” approach to form a replicating portfolio with the same payouts as the real option. For most corporate investment projects, it is impossible to locate a “twin security” that trades in the market. In the absence of such a security, the conventional NPV of a project (again, without flexibility) is the best candidate for a perfectly correlated underlying asset because it represents management's best estimate of value based on the expected cash flows of the project.     

A Bayesian Approach to Real Options: The Case of Distinguishing between Temporary and Permanent Shocks

Traditional real options models demonstrate the importance of the “option to wait” due to uncertainty over future shocks to project cash flows. However, there is often another important source of uncertainty: uncertainty over the permanence of past shocks. Adding Bayesian uncertainty over the permanence of past shocks augments the traditional option to wait with an additional “option to learn.” The implied investment behavior differs significantly from that in standard models. For example, investment may occur at a time of stable or decreasing cash flows, respond sluggishly to cash flow shocks, and depend on the timing of project cash flows.     

实物期权在项目信贷评估中的运用

近20年来,众多国内外学者对实物期权进行了大量研究并得出结论:决策灵活性确实增加了项目整体评估价值。但这些研究基本上是从项目管理者角度进行分析的。本文着重从银行角度探讨了实物期权在信贷评估过程中的作用,结果表明:在传统的以折现现金流法(DiscountedCashFlow,DCF)为主导的项目评估过程中融入实物期权思想,将使对高科技类项目的评价更加客观、全面。对项目投资决策选择权的分析可以加强信贷工作人员对项目贷款风险趋势的事前判断,对项目在未来运行中的不确定性进行评估,并通过在合同中增加约束性条款,实现项目权利向银行权利的转化,以降低银行信贷风险。     

二次能源利用项目投资决策的影响因素分析

基于我国二次能源再利用在财政、征地、税收及信贷等方面的政策约束,以华菱湘钢高炉煤气发电项目为例,研究了二次能源利用项目投资决策的影响因素。根据华菱湘钢高炉煤气发电项目的可研报告,综合分析了企业生产、成本及价格等因素对华菱湘钢高炉煤气发电项目的影响,并将所得税优惠等优惠政策纳入投资决策,具体探讨了政策优惠对项目决策的重大影响。我们认为,国家在具体落实当前的政策的同时,应进一步提供力度更大的政策支持。     

理性预期与能源投资——基于中国碳减排承诺的自然实验

引入宏观经济学的理性预期分析框架来评估未来碳减排承诺如何影响当期的能源投资行为具有重要意义。能源项目投资规模大、持续时间长、不可逆性强,使得投资者在决策时会尽可能地纳入影响未来收益和成本的信息。本文将中国碳排放权交易市场试点政策与发电行业投资行为相结合,理论分析和实证检验了政府规划和实施的碳排放权交易市场试点政策如何影响企业的理性预期作用于当期发电技术项目投资,结果表明,碳排放权交易市场试点政策在规划期会促使企业相对提高试点地区低排放发电技术项目投资,特别是相对提高了这些地区低排放火力发电技术项目投资。碳排放权交易试点政策正式实施之后,企业降低了政策试点地区的高排放发电技术项目投资的实际利用水平。这一发现说明环境管制政策在正式实施之前的规划期,会对企业的投资行为产生预期管理效应,通过释放减排政策信号,促使企业先验地调整能源投资决策,以适应未来减排承诺目标。