If financial managers treat projects as black boxes, they may be tempted to think only of the first accept-reject decision and to ignore the subsequent investment decisions that may be tied to it. But if subsequent investment decisions depend on those made today, then today’s decision may depend on what you plan to do tomorrow.
When you use discounted cash flow to value a project, you implicitly assume that the firm will hold the asset passively. But managers are not paid to be dummies. After they have invested in a new project, they do not simply sit back and watch the future unfold. If things go well, the project may be expanded; if they go badly, the project may be cut back or abandoned altogether. Projects that can easily be modified in these ways are more valuable than those that do not provide such flexibility. The more uncertain the outlook, the more valuable this flexibility becomes.
That sounds obvious but notice that sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulation do not recognise the opportunity to modify projects. In real life, if things go wrong with a project, the company would abandon to cut its losses. If so, the worst outcomes would not be as devastating as a sensitivity analysis and simulation may suggest.
Options to modify projects are known as real options. Managers may not always use the term real option to describe these opportunities; for example, they may refer to “intangible advantages” of easy-to-modify projects. But when they review major investment proposals, these option intangibles are often the key to their decisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment