Search results

This paper aims to present a financial valuation framework based on the real options theory to evaluate investments in toll road projects delivered under the two‐phase development plan.

The approach is based on applying the real options theory to evaluate investments in toll road projects. In particular, the risk‐neutral valuation method is used for pricing flexibility embedded in the two‐phase development plan. Risk‐neutral binomial lattice is used to model traffic uncertainty and to find the optimal time for the toll road expansion. Probabilistic life cycle cost and revenue analysis is conducted to characterize the investor's financial risk profile and determine the flexibility value of the expansion option.

The flexible, two‐phase development plan can improve the investor's financial risk profile in the toll road project through limiting the downside risk of overinvestment (i.e. decreasing the probability of investment loss) and increasing the expected investment value in a highway project.

Private and public sectors can benefit from this valuation framework and use tax dollars and users' fees effectively through avoiding overinvestment in toll road projects.

The framework consists of several integrated features, which distinguish it from existing investment valuation models. The risk‐neutral valuation method for pricing flexibility embedded in the two‐phase development plan is applied. This real options framework is capable of characterizing traffic boundary, at which it is optimal for the investor to expand the toll road. Further, this framework provides the likelihood distribution of when the investor may expand the toll road.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze what transaction costs are acceptable for customers in different investments. In this study, two life insurance contracts, a mutual fund and a risk-free investment, as alternative investment forms are considered. The first two products under scrutiny are a life insurance investment with a point-to-point capital guarantee and a participating contract with an annual interest rate guarantee and participation in the insurer’s surplus. The policyholder assesses the various investment opportunities using different utility measures. For selected types of risk profiles, the utility position and the investor’s preference for the various investments are assessed. Based on this analysis, the authors study which cost levels can make all of the products equally rewarding for the investor.

The paper notes the risk-neutral valuation calibration using empirical data utility and performance measurement dynamics underlying: geometric Brownian motion numerical examples via Monte Carlo simulation.

In the first step, the financial performance of the various saving opportunities under different assumptions of the investor’s utility measurement is studied. In the second step, the authors calculate the level of transaction costs that are allowed in the various products to make all of the investment opportunities equally rewarding from the investor’s point of view. A comparison of these results with transaction costs that are common in the market shows that insurance companies must be careful with respect to the level of transaction costs that they pass on to their customers to provide attractive payoff distributions.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, their research question – i.e. which transaction costs for life insurance products would be acceptable from the customer’s point of view – has not been studied in the above described context so far.

This paper proposes a discrete time real options model with time‐dependent and serial correlated return process for a real estate development problem with waiting options. Based on a Martingale condition, the paper claims to be able to relax many unrealistic assumptions made in the typical real option pricing methodology. Our real option model is a new one without assuming the return process as “Ito Process”, specifically, without assuming a geometric Brownian motion. We apply the model to the condominium market in Tokyo metropolitan area in the period 1971‐1997 and estimate the value of waiting to invest in 1998‐2007. The results partly provide realistic estimates of the parameters and show the applicability of our model.

In financial planning, customers are typically confronted with choosing a premium payment scheme when investing in a mutual fund, which is often equipped with an investment guarantee to provide downside protection. Guarantee costs may thereby also be charged differently depending on the provider. The paper aims to investigate the impact of the premium payment method on different performance measures for a mutual fund with an investment guarantee.

The paper compares a fund with annual and upfront premiums as well as constant guarantee costs versus the guarantee price as an annual percentage fee of the fund value, always ensuring that the present value of premium payments is the same for all product variants. The paper further studies the relevance of the guarantee level and the contract term.

The results emphasize that even though the present value of premiums paid into the contract is the same, the type of premium (upfront versus annual) as well as the type of guarantee cost (upfront versus annual fee) has a considerable impact on the performance.

Providers can thus make a product more attractive for consumers by individually adjusting the premium scheme depending on their preferences and by making the resulting risk-return-profile transparent, while keeping the other contract characteristics unchanged (e.g. extent of the guarantee).

To date, there has been no comprehensive analysis with specific focus on the impact of different premium payment schemes (in particular with respect to savings premiums and guarantee costs) on risk and return of a mutual fund with otherwise given contract characteristics such as the underlying fund strategy and the investment guarantee, even though the premium scheme itself can already have a considerable impact on the terminal payoff distribution and thus risk-return profiles. In addition, such an analysis can provide important information for consumers and providers in designing and choosing attractive products by simply adjusting the premium scheme (if possible) instead of or in addition to changing other product features.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to estimate the cost of granting executive stocks with strike prices adjusted by the cost of capital. Design/methodology/approach – In the paper a Monte Carlo simulation approach developed in Longstaff and Schwartz is used in conjunction with the subjective valuation model developed in Ingersoll to value these executive stock options that are subject to performance hurdles. Findings – The paper finds that standard European Black‐Scholes‐Merton option values overstate the true cost to the firm of granting these executive stock options. The option values also decrease with a higher dividend yield, a higher performance hurdle, a longer vesting period, and a shorter maturity. Research limitations/implications – While the study in the paper is limited to the valuation of executive options, the methodology can be used to study incentive effects of executive stock options that have a performance hurdle. Practical implications – The approach used in this paper to estimate the cost of granting executive stock options is a clear improvement over standard European option pricing approaches that often result in biased estimates. Originality/value – This paper presents a first attempt to integrate the Ingersoll utility‐theoretic model and the Longstaff and Schwartz least squares Monte Carlo algorithm to estimate the subjective value and the objective cost of executive stock options with a performance hurdle. This valuation approach will be useful in the study of other types of executive compensation.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework of replication pricing of derivatives and identify funding valuation adjustment (FVA) and credit valuation adjustments (CVA) as price components.

The authors propose the notion of bilateral replication pricing. In the absence of funding cost, it reduces to unilateral replication pricing. The absence of funding costs, it introduces bid–ask spreads.

The valuation of CVA can be separated from that of FVA, so-called split up. There may be interdependence between FVA and the derivatives value, which then requires a recursive procedure for their numerical solution.

The authors have assume deterministic interest rates, constant CDS rates and loss rates for the CDS. The authors have also not dealt with re-hypothecation risks.

The results of this paper allow user to identify CVA and FVA, and mark to market their derivatives trades according to the recent market standards.

For the first time, a line between the risk-neutral pricing measure and the funding risk premiums is drawn. Also, the notion of bilateral replication pricing extends the unilateral replication pricing.

This paper provides a structural model to value startup companies and determine the optimal level of research and development (R&D) spending by these companies.

This paper describes a new variant of float-the-money options, which can act as a financial instrument for financing R&D expenses for a specific time horizon or development stage, allowing the investor to share in the startup's value appreciation over that duration. Another innovation of this paper is that it develops a structural model for evaluating optimal level of R&D spending over a given time horizon. The paper deploys the Gompertz-Cox model for the R&D project outcomes, which facilitates investigation of how increased level of R&D input can enhance the company's value growth.

The author first introduces a time-varying drift term into standard Black-Scholes model to account for the varying growth rates of the startup at different stages, and the author interprets venture capital's investment in the startup as a “float-the-money” option. The author then incorporates the probabilities of startup failures at multiple stages into their financial valuation. The author gets a closed-form pricing formula for the contingent option of value appreciation. Finally, the author utilizes Cox proportional hazards model to analyze the optimal level of R&D input that maximizes the return on investment.

The integrated contingent claims model links the change in the financial valuation of startups with the incremental R&D spending. The Gompertz-Cox contingency model for R&D success rate is used to quantify the optimal level of R&D input. This model assumption may be simplistic, but nevertheless illustrative.

Once supplemented with actual transaction data, the model can serve as a reference benchmark valuation of new project deals and previously invested projects seeking exit.

The integrated structural model can potentially have much wider applications beyond valuation of startup companies. For instance, in valuing a company's risk management, the level of R&D spending in the model can be replaced by the company's budget for risk management. As another promising application, in evaluating a country's economic growth rate in the face of rising climate risks, the level of R&D spending in this paper can be replaced by a country's investment in addressing climate risks.

This paper is the first to develop an integrated valuation model for startups by combining the real-world R&D project contingencies with risk-neutral valuation of the potential payoffs.

Compensation of funds managers increasingly involves elements of profit sharing that entitle managers to option-like payoffs. An important example is the compensation of private equity fund managers. Compensation of private equity fund managers typically consists of a fixed management fee and a performance-related carried interest. The fixed management fee resembles common compensation terms of mutual funds and hedge funds, while the performance-related carried interest is uncommon among most mutual funds. Moreover, the performance-related carried interest typically differs from variable hedge fund fees. In this chapter, we derive the value of the variable components of private equity fund managers’ compensation based on a risk-neutral option-pricing approach.