实物期权理论在公司并购价值评估中的适用性

实物期权的概念最早是由麻省理工学院的Stewart Myers教授于1977年提出的。Myers教授把金融期权的观念应用于实物资产上,为已经停滞的投资决策理论带来了新的思考方向。从此,期权定价理论应用     

实物期权在企业并购中的应用研究

目标企业定价在并购行为中具有至关重要的意义,本文将实物期权方法运用于目标企业的定价,并运用Black-Scholes期权定价模型和二叉树定价模型分析了单一期权和多期权条件下并购企业的期权价值。通过例子证明实物期权的运用有利于并购企业更好地评估投资行为本身,并做出正确的决策。     

基于实物期权模型的企业并购项目定价研究

为有效测度企业并购项目的价值,本文在整理相关并购项目价值评估研究文献的基础上,结合企业并购的基本理论及并购项目价值的实物期权特性,构建企业并购项目价值评估的实物期权模型,并利用构建的Black-Scholes模型对企业并购项目期权价值进行定量测算。结果显示,基于实物期权的企业并购项目定价模型弥补了现有模型对企业不确定性价值的低估,为企业客观评价并购项目的真实价值提供了新的思路和方法。     

实物期权在我国银行并购价值评估中的应用

加入WTO,我国的银行并购将从理论走向现实,本文首先阐述了期权和实物期权的定义,分析了目前我国银行并购的现状和并购价值评估的原理以及不足,从而进一步做银行并购中的期权分析,介绍了并购的期权性质,研究了并购中隐含的实物期权,最后对引出了银行并购价值评估中实物期权方法,深入剖析了该理论在银行并购价值评估中的应用,建立了银行并购价值评估的新的总体框架。     

企业并购中实物期权定价的再探索

实物期权法在企业价值评估中的应用已久,但在并购领域,实物期权法的应用却存在一定不足之处,在并购中使用实物期权法进行企业价值评估,由来的方法并未考虑并购前后企业风险的变化,其仅仅是使用并购前历史的波动率估计实物期权价格。针对这一不足,本文提出了将波动率与并购前后企业资产负债率联系在一起的模型改进方法,将企业并购前后的风险变化融入到实物期权定价模型中,以期得到更加准确的实物期权价值。     

期权定价法在房地产行业并购目标企业价值评估中的应用

房地产企业之间的并购主要目的之一是获得被并购企业的土地使用权,而实物期权定价法比较适用于基于土地使用权目标并购的企业价值评估,在评估过程中应充分考虑基于土地使用权目标的并购特点     

基于实物期权方法的企业并购方案

近年来,随着经济的蓬勃发展,国内企业并购乃至跨国并购风起云涌,涉资上百亿美金的并购行动也频频出镜。但并购案例的高失败率与企业家们狂热的并购冲动之间的悖论,也引发了人们并购决策中传统判断的反思。企业家更渴望寻找一种兼顾战略与技术考虑的投资决策理论,以制定更科学而又更柔性的并购战略。而实物期权的思想和理论,正为决策者们提供了这样一种更富柔性战略思想的并购策略工具     

并购中企业实物期权价值评估的研究

本文采用实物期权法,建立了企业并购中目标企业的价值评估模型,认为并购中目标企业的价值不仅包括企业自身的价值,还应包括由于并购的实物期权特征和协同效应产生的目标企业的附加价值。目标企业自身的价值由传统的折现现金流法计算并通过实物期权理论调整;并购附加价值由实物期权法,改进的折现现金流法和专家评分法进行计算和分配。     

基于实物期权的旅游企业并购估值研究

旅游企业相比传统企业的独特性决定了其企业价值评估方法的特殊性,若将传统的现金流量折现模型与实物期权理论有效结合,将大大提高旅游企业价值评估的灵活性和准确性。本文针对传统企业价值评估方法在不确定因素下无法有效评估的缺陷,构建了现金流量折现模型和实物期权理论相结合的定价模型。结果表明,旅游企业中确实存在大量的实物期权,并且基于实物期权理论进行估值能够更加准确地评估旅游企业价值。     

实物期权在企业价值评估中的应用

就企业价值评估方法而言,现金流量折现法无疑是其中基本的、成熟的一种,该方法是国外现行资产评估中使用的主要方法,也适用于我国大部分被评估企业的情况。但是随着经济社会的进一步发展,现金流量折现法的局限性逐渐显现,对其进行补充和创新是当前我国企业价值评估亟待解决的问题。于是,实物期权法作为一种创新的企业价值评估方法应运而生了。     

实物期权理论及其在资产评估中的应用

本文认为现金流折现法是一种相对静态的价值评估方法,只有同时考虑资产的收益现值及其内嵌的实物期权价值才能比较准确评估未来不确定性特征比较明显的资产价值本文探讨了实物期权方法在自然资源、房地产、研发项目及无形资产、柔性制造设备等资产的价值评估中的运用,最后应用二叉树模型对矿山开采权的评估案例进行了分析:现金流折现法(以下简称DCF法)是一种传统的价值评估方法,该方法认为资产或公司的价值等于其预期现金流按照一定折现率贴现后的现值从理论上讲,如果能准确预测资产或公司未来现金流,并对其相应的风险有个合理评估,那么采用该方法就能较准确评估资产或公司的内在价值.从20世纪60年代开始,DCF法在欧美国家逐渐得到认同并被广泛使用.     

基于实物期权理论的高新技术价值评估研究

本文应用期权定价模型来评估高新技术企业价值中的无形资产或者说潜在的机会价值.根据原有的经典模型,针对高新技术企业的特点引入了延迟成本的概念,对无形资产的实物期权定价模型进行改进,并通过案例阐述了具体的评估过程.     

从优序融资理论和博弈角度看我国企业的融资顺序

中国上市公司普遍偏好股权融资,有悖于西方的优序融资理论。国内对此问题虽有探讨,但理论模型和与国外模型比较的文章甚少。本文首先分析了建立在信息不对称基础上的融资顺序理论,再结合中国现实对经典理论加以修正,说明了经理人目标的偏差、企业制度的不完善和中国股票市场定价错误以及债券市场的不发达等问题是造成公司偏好增发新股的原因。本文还从博弈论的角度进行了中外对比,探讨融资问题在中外呈现不同现象的原因。     

The Role of Real Options in Capital Budgeting: Theory and Practice1

Most discussions of capital budgeting take for granted that discounted cash flow (DCF) and real options valuation (ROV) are very different methods that are meant to be applied in different circumstances. Such discussions also typically assume that DCF is “easy” and ROV is “hard”—or at least dauntingly unfamiliar—and that, mainly for this reason, managers often use DCF and rarely ROV. This paper argues that all three assumptions are wrong or at least seriously misleading. DCF and ROV both assign a present value to risky future cash flows. DCF entails discounting expected future cash flows at the expected return on an asset of comparable risk. ROV uses “risk‐neutral” valuation, which means computing expected cash flows based on “risk‐neutral” probabilities and discounting these flows at the risk‐free rate. Using a series of single‐period examples, the author demonstrates that both methods, when done correctly, should provide the same answer. Moreover, in most ROV applications—those where there is no forward price or “replicating portfolio” of traded assets—a “preliminary” DCF valuation is required to perform the risk‐neutral valuation. So why use ROV at all? In cases where project risk and the discount rates are expected to change over time, the risk‐neutral ROV approach will be easier to implement than DCF (since adjusting cash flow probabilities is more straightforward than adjusting discount rates). The author uses multi‐period examples to illustrate further both the simplicity of ROV and the strong assumptions required for a typical DCF valuation. But the simplicity that results from discounting with risk‐free rates is not the only benefit of using ROV instead of—or together with—traditional DCF. The use of formal ROV techniques may also encourage managers to think more broadly about the flexibility that is (or can be) built into future business decisions, and thus to choose from a different set of possible investments. To the extent that managers who use ROV have effectively adopted a different business model, there is a real and important difference between the two valuation techniques. Consistent with this possibility, much of the evidence from both surveys and academic studies of managerial behavior and market pricing suggests that managers and investors implicitly take account of real options when making investment decisions.     

Realizing the Potential of Real Options: Does Theory Meet Practice?

The idea of viewing corporate investment opportunities as “real options” has been around for over 25 years. Real options concepts and techniques now routinely appear in academic research in finance and economics, and have begun to influence scholarly work in virtually every business discipline, including strategy, organizations, management science, operations management, information systems, accounting, and marketing. Real options concepts have also made considerable headway in practice. Corporate managers are more likely to recognize options in their strategic planning process, and have become more proactive in designing flexibility into projects and contracts, frequently using real options vocabulary in their discussions. Thanks in part to the spread of real options thinking, today's strategic planners are more likely than their predecessors to recognize the “option” value of actions like the following: ? dividing up large projects into a number of stages; ? investing in the acquisition or production of information; ? introducing “modularity” in manufacturing and design; ? developing competing prototypes for new products; and ? investing in overseas markets. But if real options has clearly succeeded as a way of thinking, the application of real options valuation methods has been limited to companies in relatively few industries and has thus failed to live up to expectations created in the mid‐ to late‐1990s. Increased corporate acceptance and implementations of real options valuation techniques will require several changes coming together. On the theory side, we need more realistic models that better reflect differences between financial and real options, simple heuristic methods that can be more easily implemented (but that have been carefully benchmarked against more precise models), and better guidance on implementation issues such as the estimation of discount rates for the “optionless” underlying projects. On the practitioner side, we need user‐friendly real options software, more senior‐level buy‐in, more deliberate diffusion of real options knowledge throughout organizations, better alignment of managerial incentives with long‐term shareholder value, and better‐designed contracts to correct the misalignment of incentives across the value chain. If these challenges can be met, there will continue to be a steady if gradual diffusion of real options analysis throughout organizations over the next few decades, with real options eventually becoming not only a standard part of corporate strategic planning, but also the primary valuation tool for assessing the expected shareholder effect of large capital investment projects.     

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。     

Real Options: Experimental Evidence

Empirical testing of the real options theory has been very limited. This is primarily due to various inherent problems with obtaining field data for many components of real options theory. This paper utilizes experimental methodology to generate the data. The advantage of the experimental approach is that it enables the investigator to generate reliable and replicable data in a controlled environment. The results of the experiment indicate that fundamental insights of real options theory are not evident to individual investors. The majority invested too early and thus failed to recognize the benefit of the option to wait. However, when the investors had to compete with others for the right to invest, their bids generally reflected the value of the embedded option. Furthermore, as predicted by the theory, their bids increased with greater uncertainty about future cash flows from the investment.     

实物期权研究述评

实物期权思想是Wcisbrod（1974）和Arrow（1974）等人研究在给定不可逆条件下政府投资决策时首先提出的。随后,实物期权被广泛运用于资本预算和价值评估领域,相比传统的资本预算模型（DCF）具有无比优越性。而将实物期权理论用于解释企业存在与效率边际则为企业理论提供了一个动态的观察角度,必将对企业理论的发展产生深远影响。