实物期权理论在房地产价值评估中的应用

房地产开发时间长,价格变化快,传统的净现值法易低估房地产开发项目的价值,往往导致对项目的低评。本文通过引入实物期权理论,在论述其在房地产开发价值评估中应用的合理性基础上,结合房地产开发的实例讨论在不确定性条件下房地产推迟开发带来的投资机会价值,为房地产价值评估提供一种更贴近实际情况的方法。     

资产评估中的实物期权方法研究

一、实物期权的涵义 实物期权是一种现实的选择权,是金融期权在实际生产经营领域的延伸,具有内在价值和时间价值,其将资产所有者所拥有的在未来以一定的价格取得或出售某项实物资产的权利视为资产价值的组成部分.《实物期权评估指导意见——(试行)》(以下简称《指导意见》)中将实物期权定义为"附着于企业整体资产或者单项资产上的非人为设计的选择权,即指现实中存在的发展或者增长机会、收缩或者退出机会等.拥有或者控制相应企业或者资产的个人或者组织在未来可以执行这种选择权,并且预期通过执行这种选择权能带来经济利益".     

资产评估中实物期权应用的探讨

实物期权是金融期权在实体经济领域应用的拓展,可用于资产价值的评估和投资策略的分析。《实物期权评估指导意见（试行）》的颁布,开辟了评估业务的新方法和新思路。与金融期权相比,实物期权中参数的选取更为复杂,实际应用时也受到更多的限制。另外,评估对象的复杂性导致评估时可能涉及多因素标的资产上的复合期权,而非普通单因素标的资产上的单个期权。本文在比较不同期权定价模型适用条件的基础上,对模型中重要影响因素和参数的确定,以及多重复合实物期权定价方法的应用进行了探讨。     

实物期权理论在企业科技项目价值评估中的应用

传统的企业项目价值评价方法不能有效地评估科技项目的真实价值,可能使得企业对项目投资决策做出错误的判断,并可能导致银行信贷风险评估产生误判,不利于科技项目的实施。本文在科技项目特点的基础上,提出将实物期权理论运用于科技项目价值评估中,并且通过具体案例验证了该方法的有效性。     

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     

浅论实物期权在风险投资价值评估中的应用

风险投资在中国的迅猛发展使风险企业的价值评估备受关注,传统方法在风险高、收益高的风险投资中的应用受到一定的限制,而实物期权作为对传统方法的补充,能够更加全面的评价风险企业的价值。本文主要研究了实物期权的理论的内涵、定价方法、应用及在该领域需要进一步解决的问题。     

实物期权理论在企业并购定价中的应用

本文认为,企业价值可以划分为现实资产价值和期权价值两部分。前者可以运用传统的企业价值评估方法进行评估,后者则对企业拥有的期权进行识别和评估,两者之和即为企业价值。通过引进期权理论对传统方法进行改进,本文导出了基于并购特征和企业经营灵活性的并购企业的出价范围,为并购中对目标企业定价提供了一种思路和方法。     

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。     

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.     

期权定价理论及在我国资产评估领域应用的分析

本文首先介绍了布莱克--斯科尔斯期权定价模型(B-S模型)的产生背景、前提假设与期权定价理论的发展简史;然后介绍了B-S模型的一些变型,接着又介绍了二叉树期权定价模型及其假设,以及B-S模型在股指期权、货币期权、期货期权及实物期权等领域中的应用;最后,作者结合会计准则与评估准则,强调了继续研究期权定价理论的必要性和迫切性.     

收益波动模型及其在香港房地产评估中的应用

将市场比较法与收益法结合起来,可以得到一个新的收益波动模型.这样的模型又分两类:即直接资本化模型和报酬资本化率模型.在收益波动模型中,使用概率统计和价值函数可得出波动系数和状态系数,然后通过使用收益均值、收益标准差、对象状态系数、资本化率(投资收益率)、收益年期等五个基本变量来评估财产的价值.本文还介绍了使用此模型评估香港写字楼和住宅的两个实例.     

Valuation of American Futures Options: Theory and Empirical Tests

This paper reviews the theory of futures option pricing and tests the valuation principles on transaction prices from the S&P 500 equity futures option market. The American futures option valuation equations are shown to generate mispricing errors which are systematically related to the degree the option is in-the-money and to the option's time to expiration. The models are also shown to generate abnormal risk-adjusted rates of return after transaction costs. The joint hypothesis that the American futures option pricing models are correctly specified and that the S&P 500 futures option market is efficient is refuted, at least for the sample period January 28, 1983 through December 30, 1983.     

Pricing Final Indemnification Payments to Private Sponsors in Project-Financed Public-Private Partnerships: An Application of Real Options Valuation

The extraordinary global growth in the private funding of public infrastructure projects in the form of public‐private partnerships (or PPPs) is expected to have major social and economic benefits—benefits that result in large part from improving the allocation of project risks between the public and private sectors. But with the financial crisis and severe tightening of credit likely to limit the financing and delivery of new projects, both project participants and their financiers need to manage the technical, economic, legal, and political complexities of infrastructure projects more carefully, especially in less traditional infrastructure deals that involve complex operations, new assets, or emerging markets. This paper proposes and illustrates the application of the real options valuation approach to a critical feature of most PPPs: establishing the final “indemnification” amount to be paid by a public administration to private partners in the project financing of those PPPs that face substantial market risks. In demonstrating this approach, the authors use the case of the Pedemontana Lombarda toll road, a major transportation infrastructure project in Northern Italy for which financial plans have been filed and whose start is now pending. The main function of real options in this case is to capture the effects on value of the major market risk in such projects—namely, the uncertainty about volume of traffic on the new road. The authors interpret the final indemnification price as the value of a real put option sold by the awarding authority to private investors (in the case of a project that would otherwise be unprofitable and have a negative NPV). The put option takes the form of a clause in the concession contract that gives investors the right, under certain circumstances, to sell the toll road back to the government for a fixed sum (in this case, €2.9 billion). According to the authors, this valuation approach is likely to be helpful in any kind of infrastructure project that faces risk stemming from the unpredictability of market demand and future revenue streams.     

Real Options Valuation: A Case Study of an E‐commerce Company

This paper presents a real options valuation model with original solutions to some issues that arise frequently when trying to apply these models to real‐life situations. The authors build on existing models by introducing an innovative and intuitive risk neutral adjustment that allows us to work with all the simulated paths. The problem of incorporating real options into each path is solved with a “nearest neighbors” technique, and uncertainty is simulated using a beta distribution that adapts better to company‐specific information. The model is then applied to a real life e‐commerce company to produce the following insights: the expanded present value is higher than the traditional present value; the presence of several real options make them interact so that their values are nonadditive; and part of the expanded present value is explained by the presence of “Jensen's inequality” that stems from the “convexity” between the value of each year's cash flow and the uncertain variables.     

The Valuation of Volatility Options

This paper examines the valuation of European- and American-style volatilityoptions based on a general equilibrium stochastic volatility framework.Properties of the optimal exercise region and of the option price areprovided when volatility follows a general diffusion process. Explicitvaluation formulas are derived in four particular cases. Emphasis is placedon the MRLP (mean-reverting in the log) volatility model which has receivedconsiderable empirical support. In this context we examine the propertiesand hedging behavior of volatility options. Unlike American options,European call options on volatility are found to display concavity at highlevels of volatility.     

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.