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.     

The Capital Structure of PE‐Funded Companies (and How New Debt Instruments and Investors Are Expanding Their Debt Capacity)

The capital structures and financial policies of companies controlled by private equity firms are notably different from those of public companies. The concentration of ownership and intense monitoring of leveraged buyouts by their largest investors (that is, the partners of the PE firms who sit on their boards), along with the contractual requirement of PE funds to return their capital within seven to ten years, have resulted in capital structures that are far more leveraged than those of their publicly traded counterparts, but also considerably more provisional and “opportunistic.” Whereas the average U.S. public company has long operated with roughly 30% debt and 70% equity, today's typical private‐equity sponsored company is initially capitalized with an “upside‐down” structure of 70% debt and just 30% equity, and then often charged with working down its debt as quickly as possible. Although banks supplied most of the debt for the first wave of LBOs in the 1980s, the remarkable growth of the private equity industry in the past 25 years has been supported by the parallel development of a new leveraged acquisition finance market. This financing innovation has led to a general movement away from a bankcentered funding base to one comprising a relatively new set of institutional investors, including business development corporations and hedge funds. Such investors have shown a strong appetite for new debt instruments and risks that banks have been unwilling or, thanks to increased capital requirements and other regulatory burdens, prohibited from taking on. Notable among these new instruments are second‐lien loans and uni‐tranche debt—instruments that, by shifting the allocation of claims on the debtor's cash flow and assets in ways consistent with the preferences of these new investors, have had the effect of increasing the debt capacity of their portfolio companies. And such increases in debt capacity have in turn enabled private equity funds—now sitting on near‐record amounts of capital from their limited partners—to bid higher prices and compete more effectively in today's intensely competitive M&A market, in which high target acquisition purchase prices are being fueled by a strong stock market and increased competition from corporate acquirers.     

Morgan Stanley Roundtable on Capital Structure and Payout Policy

A group of finance academics and practitioners discusses a number of topical issues in corporate financial management: Is there such a thing as an optimal, or value‐maximizing, capital structure for a given company? What proportion of a firm's current earnings should be distributed to the firm's shareholders? And under what circumstances should such distributions take the form of stock repurchases rather than dividends? The consensus that emerged was that a company's financing and payout policies should be designed to support its business strategy. For growth companies, the emphasis is on preserving financial fl exibility to carry out the business plan, which means heavy reliance on equity financing and limited payouts. But for companies in mature industries with few major investment opportunities, more aggressive use of debt and higher payouts can add value by reducing taxes and controlling the corporate “free cash flow problem.” Both leveraged financing and cash distributions through dividends and stock buybacks represent a commitment by management to shareholders that the firm's excess cash will not be wasted on projects that produce growth at the expense of profitability. As for the choice between dividends and stock repurchases, dividends appear to provide a stronger commitment to pay out excess cash than open market repurchase programs. Stock buybacks, at least of the open market variety, preserve a higher degree of managerial fl exibility for companies that want to be able to capitalize on unpredictable investment opportunities. But, as with the debt‐equity decision, there is an optimal level of financial fl exibility; too little can mean lost investment opportunities but too much can lead to overinvestment.     

THE REVOLUTION IN CORPORATE RISK MANAGEMENT: A DECADE OF INNOVATIONS IN PROCESS AND PRODUCTS

The explosion of corporate risk management programs in the early 1990s was a hasty and ill‐conceived reaction by U.S. corporations to the great “derivatives disasters” of that period. Anxious to avoid the fate of Barings and Procter & Gamble, most top executives were more concerned about crisis management than risk management. Many companies quickly installed (often outrageously priced) value‐at‐risk (VaR) systems without paying much attention to how such systems fit their specific business requirements. Focused myopically on loss avoidance and technical risk measurement issues, the corporate risk management revolution of the '90s thus got underway in a disorganized, ad hoc fashion, producing a curious amalgam of policies and procedures with no clear link to the corporate mission of maximizing value. But as the risk management revolution unfolded over the last decade, the result has been the “convergence” of different risk management perspectives, processes, and products. The most visible sign of such convergence is a fairly recent development called “alternative risk transfer,” or ART. ART forms consist of the large and growing collection of new risk transfer and financing products now being offered by insurance and reinsurance companies. As just one example, a new class of security known as “contingent capital” gives a company the option over a specified period—say, the next five years—to issue new equity or debt at a pre‐negotiated price. And to hold down their cost, such “pre‐loss” financing options are typically designed to be “triggered” only when the firm is most likely to need an infusion of new capital to avoid underinvestment or financial distress. But underlying—and to a large extent driving—this convergence of insurance and capital markets is a more fundamental kind of convergence: the integration of risk management with corporate financing decisions. As first corporate finance theorists and now practitioners have come to realize, decisions about a company's optimal capital structure and the design of its securities cannot be made without first taking account of the firm's risks and its opportunities for managing them. Indeed, this article argues that a comprehensive, value‐maximizing approach to corporate finance must begin with a risk management strategy that incorporates the full range of available risk management products, including the new risk finance products as well as established risk transfer instruments like interest rate and currency derivatives. The challenge confronting today's CFO is to maximize firm value by choosing the mixture of securities and risk management products and solutions that gives the company access to capital at the lowest possible cost.     

Pitfalls in Levering and Unlevering Beta and Cost of Capital Estimates in DCF Valuations1

The “levering” and “unlevering” of estimates of beta and various costs of capital are routine steps in estimating the discount rates used in DCF valuations. But as the authors demonstrate by reviewing the existing research on the subject, the levering and unlevering formulas that are most commonly used in practice are not appropriate for valuing many companies. They also illustrate the shortcomings of—and substantial valuation errors that can result from—the common practices of assuming that the betas of securities like debt and preferred stock are equal to zero and ignoring the effects of equity‐linked securities such as employee stock options, warrants, and convertible debt. The authors offer alternative levering formulas that are more appropriate for valuing most companies than—and as readily implemented as—the formulas commonly used today. They also provide a relatively easy way to estimate betas for debt and preferred stock that can be used in the levering and unlevering formulas. The authors discuss how properly to account for equity‐linked securities such as employee stock options, warrants, and convertible debt while demonstrating the potential importance of ignoring such equity‐linked securities in the levering and unlevering formulas. Finally, the authors show why it is appropriate to standardize the treatment of contractual obligations such as leases across comparable companies in order to get consistent estimates of the unlevered cost of capital.     

CONVERTIBLE BONDS: MATCHING FINANCIAL AND REAL OPTIONS

For companies whose value consists in large part of “real options”‐ growth opportunities that may (or may not) materialize‐convertible bonds may offer the ideal financing vehicle because of the matching financial options built into the securities. This paper proposes that convertible debt can be a key element in a financing strategy that aims not only to fund current activities, but to give companies access to low‐cost capital if and when their real investment options turn out to be valuable. In this sense, convertibles can be seen as the most cost‐effective solution to a sequential financing problem‐how to fund not only today's activities, but also tomorrow's growth opportunities (some of them not yet even foreseeable). For companies with real options, the ability of convertibles to match capital inflows with corporate outlays adds value by minimizing two sets of costs: those associated with having too much (particularly equity) capital (known as “agency costs of free cash flow”) and those associated with having too little (“new issue” costs). The key to the cost‐effectiveness of convertibles in funding real options is the call provision. Provided the stock price is “in the money” (and the call protection period is over), the call gives managers the option to force conversion of the bonds into equity. If and when the company's investment opportunity materializes, exercise of the call feature gives the firm an infusion of new equity (while eliminating the debt service burden associated with the convertible) that enables it to carry out its new investment plan. Consistent with this argument, the author's recent study of the investment and financing activities of 289 companies around the time of convertible calls reports significant increases in capital expenditures starting in the year of the call and extending three years after. The companies also showed increased financing activity following the call, mainly new long‐term debt issues (many of them also convertibles) in the year of the call.     

Contingent Capital vs. Contingent Reverse Convertibles for Banks and Insurance Companies

During the credit and liquidity crisis in 2007 and 2008, banks found themselves largely unable to raise significant new equity quickly from parties other than sovereign wealth funds and governments. Some banks have thus recently begun to consider contingent capital as a means of pre‐arranging recapitalizations for future crises. Contingent capital is a type of put option that entitles a company to issue new securities on pre‐negotiated terms, often following the occurrence of one or more risk‐based triggering events. This article compares the economic merits of a new security—a “contingent reverse convertible” or CRC—against more traditional forms of contingent capital. In November 2009, Lloyds Banking Group plc issued “Enhanced Capital Notes”—subordinated debt that converts into common stock if Lloyds's core regulatory capital falls below 5% of its regulatory risk‐weigh ted assets. This CRC is not strictly speaking a form of contingent capital, but it does give banks the potential to recapitalize themselves quickly in the face of a crisis without having to turn to governments and taxpayers. One important limitation of CRCs is that because they do not generate new cash for a bank at the time of conversion, they are unlikely to stop a liquidity crisis once it has begun. More traditional contingent capital facilities, by contrast, do put cash in the hands of the issuer at the time the facility is drawn. But even for those inclined to use CRCs, it may be unrealistic to expect many other institutions to imitate the structure of the Lloyds offering. Persuading existing investors to take a more subordinated position in a bank's capital structure and write a put option to the bank on its own stock will be neither cheap nor easy. For this reason, the more traditional solutions used to date may have more success with banks, though arriving at a price that helps issuers and satisfies investors will be a challenge for those structures as well.     

Financial Management Association Roundtable on Stock Market Pricing and Value‐Based Management

A group of academics and practitioners addresses a number of questions about the workings of the stock market and its implications for corporate decision‐making. The discussion begins by asking what the market wants from companies: Is it mainly just steady increases in earnings per share, which are then “capitalized” by the market at the current industry P/E multiple to produce a higher stock price? Or does the market pay attention to the “quality,” or sustainability, of earnings? And are there more revealing measures of annual corporate performance than GAAP earnings—measures that would provide investors with a better sense of companies' future cash‐generating capacity and returns on capital? The consensus was that although many investors respond uncritically to earnings numbers, the most sophisticated and influential investors consider far more than current earnings when pricing stocks. And although the stock market is far from omniscient, the heightened scrutiny of companies resulting from the growth of hedge funds, private equity, and investor activism of all kinds appears to be making the market “more efficient” in building information into stock prices. The second part of the discussion explored the implications of this view of the market pricing process for corporate strategy and the evaluation of major investment opportunities. For example, do acquisitions have to be “EPS‐accretive” to be value‐adding, or is there a more reliable means of assessing an investment's value added than pro forma EPS effects? Does the DCF valuation method always offer a better guide to value than the method of comparables used by many Wall Street dealmakers? And under what circumstances are the relatively new real options valuation approaches likely to provide a significant advantage over conventional methods? The main message offered to corporate practitioners is to avoid letting cosmetic accounting effects get in the way of value‐adding investment and operating decisions. As the corporate record on acquisitions makes painfully clear, there is no guarantee that an accretive deal will turn out to be value‐increasing (in fact, the odds are that it will not). As for choosing a valuation method, there appears to be a time and place for each of the major methods—comparables, DCF, and real options—and the key to success is understanding which method is best suited to the circumstances.     

Single vs. Multiple Discount Rates: How to Limit “Influence Costs” in the Capital Allocation Process*

Most finance textbooks suggest that companies evaluate investment projects using discount rates that reflect both the debt capacity and the unique risks of the project. In practice, however, companies often use their company‐wide WACC to evaluate such investments because of the difficulty of (and subjectivity involved in) estimating the risk of individual projects, and the potential for managerial bias and influence to distort the estimates. This article proposes a practicable method for calculating the cost of capital that produces different discount rates for investment projects with different risks while minimizing the “influence costs” that arise when managers have discretion in the choice of discount rates. The proposed approach makes use of market information (in the form of the firm‐wide costs of debt and equity), thereby limiting managerial discretion, while typically still providing a good approximation of theoretically correct, project‐specific discount rates. The key to the method's effectiveness is its use of a project's debt capacity to define the capital structure weights, where debt capacity is defined by the amount of debt financing the project will support without lowering the firm's credit rating.     

Drivers of Shareholder Returns in Tech Industries (or How to Make Sense of Amazon's Market Value)

Earnings according to GAAP do a notoriously poor job of explaining the current values of the most successful high‐tech companies, which in recent years have experienced remarkable growth in revenues and market capitalizations. But if GAAP earnings fail to account for the values of such companies, are there other measures that do better? The authors address this question in two main ways. They begin by summarizing the findings of their recent study of both the operating and the stock‐market performance of 169 publicly traded tech companies (with market caps of at least $1 billion). The aim of the study was to identify which of the many indicators of corporate operating performance—including growth in revenues, EBITDA margins, and returns on equity—have had the strongest correlation with shareholder returns over a relatively long period of time. The study's main conclusion is that investors appear to be looking for signs of neither growth nor efficiency in using capital alone, but for an optimal mix or balancing of those goals. And that mix, as the study also suggests, is captured in a cash‐flow‐based variant of “residual income” the authors call “residual cash earnings,” or RCE. In the second part of their article, the authors show how and why RCE does a much better job than reported net income or EPS of explaining the current market value of Amazon.com , one of the best‐performing tech companies in the world. Mainly by treating R&D spending as an investment of capital rather than an expense, RCE reveals the value of a company that is distinguished by both the amount and the productivity of its ongoing investment—both of which have been obscured by GAAP.     

Evidence from German Companies of Effects of Corporate Risk Management on Capital Structure Decisions

The author investigates the interaction between risk management and capital structure among publicly listed German companies. By surveying executives at these companies, she computes a risk management score for each company indicating the extent of risk management practices. The scores reflect not only the companies' use of derivatives and “at‐risk” ratios, but also the respondents' assessments of how well risk management has been integrated into existing corporate processes. Some results, though not all, are consistent with finance theory. Most important, companies with more extensive risk management activities have higher debt ratios and lower interest coverage ratios. At the same time, such companies also exhibit lower volatility of cash flow, sales, EBIT, and net income, which helps explain their ability to service more debt. And, finally, companies with more extensive—and, according to their responding executives, more effective—risk management also tend to be larger, have longer debt maturities, lower average costs of debt, and have more tangible assets.     

A Better Way to Measure Operating Performance (or Why the EVA Math Really Matters)

Most companies rely heavily on earnings to measure operating performance, but earnings growth has at least two important weaknesses as a proxy for investor wealth. Current earnings can come at the expense of future earnings through, for example, short‐sighted cutbacks in investment, including spending on R&D. But growth in EPS can also be achieved by investing more capital with projected rates of return that, although well below the cost of capital, are higher than the after‐tax cost of debt. Stock compensation has been the conventional solution to the first problem because it's a discounted cash flow value that is assumed to discourage actions that sacrifice future earnings. Economic profit—in its most popular manifestation, EVA—has been the conventional solution to the second problem with earnings because it includes a capital charge that penalizes low‐return investment. But neither of these conventional solutions appears to work very well in practice. Stock compensation isn't tied to business unit performance—and often fails to provide the intended incentives for the (many) corporate managers who believe that meeting current consensus earnings is more important than investing to maintain future earnings. EVA doesn't work well when new investments take time to become profitable because the higher capital charge comes before the related income. In this article, the author presents two new operating performance measures that are likely to work better than either earnings or EVA because they reflect the value that can be lost either through corporate underinvestment or overinvestment designed to increase current earnings. Both of these new measures are based on the math that ties EVA to discounted cash flow value, particularly its division of current corporate market values into two components: “current operations value” and “future growth value.” The key to the effectiveness of the new measures in explaining changes in company stock prices and market values is a statistical model of changes in future growth value that captures the expected effects of significant increases in current investment in R&D and advertising on future profits and value.     

STERN STEWART ROUNDTABLE ON CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND STOCK REPURCHASE

This roundtable brings together a small group of finance theorists and practitioners to discuss two important—and in most companies closely related—financial policy decisions: (1) the optimal mix of debt and equity and (2) the amount (and form) of cash distributions to shareholders. The result is an interesting set of comments and exchanges that show current theory and corporate practice to be consistent in some respects, but at odds in others. In the first part of this two‐part discussion, the University of Rochester's Clifford Smith presents a broad theoretical framework in which companies set leverage targets by weighing tax and other benefits of debt against potential costs of financial distress, particularly in the form of underinvestment. According to this theory, mature companies with stable cash flows and limited investment opportunities should make extensive use of debt, while growth companies should be funded primarily (if not entirely) with equity. But, as becomes clear in the case study of PepsiCo that follows the opening discussion, putting theory into practice is far from straightforward. Consistent with the theory, Pepsi does have a target leverage ratio, and management has attempted to adhere to that target through a policy of regular stock repurchase. But if the company's decision‐making process appears consistent with the framework mentioned above, it also relies on conventional ratingagency criteria to an extent that surprises some of the panelists. Moreover, Pepsi's policy of maintaining a single‐A credit rating sets off an interesting debate about the value of preserving access to capital markets “under all conditions.” In the second part of the discussion, Rice University's David Ikenberry begins by offering four main corporate motives for stock repurchases: (1) to increase (or at least maintain) the target corporate leverage ratio; (2) to distribute excess capital and so prevent managers from destroying value by reinvesting in low‐return projects; (3) to substitute for dividends, thereby providing a more flexible and tax efficient means of distributing excess capital; and (4) to “signal” and, in some cases, profit from undervaluation of the firm's shares. As in the first part of the discussion, the case of Pepsi largely supports the theory. Assistant Treasurer Rick Thevenet notes that, in 2000, the company generated free cash flow of $3 billion, of which $800 million was paid out in dividends and another $1.4 billion in stock buybacks. And each of the four motives cited above appears to have been at work in the design or execution of Pepsi's buyback policy. There is also some discussion of a fifth motive for buybacks—the desire to boost earnings per share. Although this motive is perhaps the most widely cited by corporate managers, the idea that EPS considerations should be driving corporate buyback programs is shown to rest on flawed reasoning. Moreover, questions are raised about what appears to be an EPS‐driven phenomenon: the corporate practice of attempting to buy back as many shares at the lowest price possible—and the lack of disclosure that often surrounds such a practice. In closing, Dennis Soter offers the novel suggestion that corporate buyback policy should not be designed to transfer wealth from selling to remaining shareholders, but rather to “share the gains from value‐creating transactions.” Through more and better disclosure about their repurchase activities (and Pepsi's policy appears to be a model worth emulating), companies are likely to establish greater credibility with investors, thereby increasing the liquidity and long run value of their shares.     

MORGAN STANLEY ROUNDTABLE ON Capital Structure and Payout Policy

A group of distinguished finance academics and practitioners discuss a number of topical issues in corporate financial management: Is there such a thing as an optimal, or value‐maximizing, capital structure for a given company? What proportion of a firm's current earnings should be distributed to the firm's shareholders? And under what circumstances should such distributions take the form of stock repurchases rather than dividends? The consensus that emerges is that a company's financing and payout policies should be designed to support its business strategy. For growth companies, the emphasis is on preserving financial flexibility to carry out the business plan, which means heavy reliance on equity financing and limited payouts. But for companies in mature industries with few major investment opportunities, more aggressive use of debt and higher payouts can add value both by reducing taxes and controlling the corporate free cash flow problem. In such cases, both leveraged financing and cash distributions through dividends and stock buybacks signal management's commitment to its shareholders that the firm's excess cash will not be wasted on projects that produce low‐return growth that comes at the expense of profitability. As for the choice between dividends and stock repurchases, dividends provide a stronger commitment to pay out excess cash than open market repurchase programs. Stock buybacks, at least of the open market variety, preserve more flexibility for companies that want to be able to capitalize on unpredictable investment opportunities. But, as with the debt‐equity decision, there is an optimal level of financial flexibility: too little can mean lost investment opportunities, but too much can lead to overinvestment.     

Are U.S. Companies Really Holding That Much Cash—And If So,Why?

Non‐financial S&P 500 companies are now estimated to hold a total of $2.1 trillion of “cash,” a figure that is larger than the annual GDP of all but eight countries. In this report, J.P. Morgan's Corporate Finance Advisory team notes that while many observers have attributed the buildup to offshore cash growth alone, onshore cash levels are also up significantly. To be sure, the companies that have shown the greatest increases also tend to be highly successful, with strong cash flow and business performance. And the managers of such companies tend to prefer to retain much if not most of this cash to take advantage of investment opportunities and to maintain the flexibility to respond to the next economic downturn. Also adding to the cash build‐ups, the executives of large MNCs with significant overseas cash holdings typically try to avoid the higher tax bill triggered by repatriating funds to the U.S. Nevertheless, investors continue to expect growth and high returns on capital; and corporate distributions of capital in the form of dividends and stock buybacks can play an important role in encouraging companies to operate efficiently. While pursuing both of these goals—preservation of enough cash to weather downturns and invest in all positive‐NPV projects, and commitment to paying out excess capital—boards and senior decision makers should continuously reexamine their cash holdings and capital allocation policies to ensure they are appropriate not only for today's environment, but throughout the economic cycle.     

The Case for Secondary Buyouts as Exit Channel

Do private equity firms have a clear pecking order when deciding on exit channels for their portfolio companies? Are secondary buyouts—that is, sales to other PE firms—always an exit of last resort? And are there company‐ or market‐related factors that have a clear and predictable influence on decisions to pursue secondary buyouts? Using a proprietary dataset of over 1,100 leveraged buyouts that exited in North America or Europe between 1995 and 2008, the authors attempt to answer these questions by analyzing the returns associated with public, private, and secondary (or “financial”) exits. Based on their analysis of the realized returns, there is no clear pecking order of exit types. Secondary buyouts deliver rates of return that are the equal of those achieved through public exits. In addition, the authors assess the relationship between the likelihood of choosing a financial exit and certain company‐related as well as market‐related factors. Portfolio companies with greater debt capacity are more likely to be sold in secondary buyouts. Furthermore, increases in both the liquidity of debt markets and the amount of undrawn capital commitments to the private equity industry increase the probability of exit through secondary buyouts.     

Real Asset Valuation: A Back‐to‐basics Approach

Different valuation methods can lead to different corporate investment decisions, and the conventional “static, single discount rate” DCF approach in particular is biased against many of the kinds of decisions that corporate managers tend to view as “strategic.” Reducing the bias from valuations involves two main tasks: treating risk in a way that is consistent with observed market pricing, and accounting for the ability of companies to make decisions “dynamically” over time. The authors propose two separate tools, market‐based valuation and complete decision tree analysis, for accomplishing these two improvements in valuation. The authors also suggest working with the full distribution of future cash flows, one possible realization at a time, rather than working with the aggregate measure of expected cash flow. From a technical perspective, it is necessary to work with the full distribution to value real options properly. Valuing the cash flows one realization at a time also leads to a much better understanding of the interaction between economy‐level, systematic risks and local asset‐level, technical risks. Just as important, the proposed approaches support an effective division of labor between local asset managers, who are better positioned to model technical considerations and other asset specifics, and the central finance staff, who can ensure the consistent treatment of economy‐wide risk and to create the rules of engagement for evaluating opportunities. After presenting an overview of both the valuation and the organizational issues, the authors present a case involving a corporate investment in carbon capture and storage that illustrates both the application of the proposed methods and the various sources of bias in the typical DCF analysis.     

A CEO's Playbook for Creating Long‐Term Value: Ten Essential Resource Allocation Practices

A former CEO of a large and successful public company teams up with a former chief investment strategist and a well‐known academic to suggest ten practices for public companies intent on creating long‐run value:

1. Establish long‐term value creation as the company's governing objective.
2. Ensure that annual plans are consistent with the company's long‐term strategic plan.
3. Understand the expectations embedded in today's stock price.
4. Conduct a “premortem”—and so gain a solid understanding of what can go wrong—before making any large capital allocation decisions.
5. Incorporate the “outside view” in the strategic planning process.
6. Reallocate capital to its highest‐valued use, selling corporate assets that are worth more to or in the hands of others.
7. Prioritize strategies rather than individual projects.
8. Avoid public commitments, such as earnings guidance, that can compromise a company's capital allocation flexibility.
9. Apply best private equity practices to public companies.
10. CEOs should work closely with their boards of directors to set clear expectations for creating long‐term value.

These practices, as the authors note in closing, “are meant to provide a starting point for public companies in carrying out their mission of creating long‐run value—and in a way that earns the respect, if not the admiration and support, of all its important stakeholders.”