Evaluating the Capacity of Standard Investment Appraisal Methods
AbstractThe survey findings indicate the existence of gap between theory and practice of capital budgeting. Standard appraisal methods have shown a wider project value discrepancy, which is beyond and above the contingency limit. In addition, the research has found the growing trend in the use of value management models. The presence of correlation between the frequency of monitoring and project value discrepancy, and the absence of uniformity in the use of evaluation methods throughout the life span of a project are among the results of the study.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Tinbergen Institute in its series Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers with number 02-082/1.
Date of creation: 20 Aug 2002
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.tinbergen.nl
Capital Budgeting; Investment Appraisal; DCF Methods; Project Analysis; Shareholder Value Analysis; Value Management Techniques.;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- G30 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - General
- G31 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Capital Budgeting; Fixed Investment and Inventory Studies
- L6 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing
- L8 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services
- L9 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities
- M10 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting - - Business Administration - - - General
- O22 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Project Analysis
- O32 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2002-12-02 (All new papers)
- NEP-CFN-2002-12-02 (Corporate Finance)
- NEP-RMG-2002-12-02 (Risk Management)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Graham, John R. & Harvey, Campbell R., 2001. "The theory and practice of corporate finance: evidence from the field," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2-3), pages 187-243, May.
- Milton Harris & Artur Raviv, .
"Capital Budgeting and Delegation,"
CRSP working papers
343, Center for Research in Security Prices, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago.
- Peterson, Robert A, 1994. " A Meta-analysis of Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 21(2), pages 381-91, September.
- Schall, Lawrence D & Sundem, Gary L & Geijsbeek, William R, Jr, 1978. "Survey and Analysis of Capital Budgeting Methods," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 33(1), pages 281-87, March.
- Glen C. Arnold & Panos D. Hatzopoulos, 2000. "The Theory-Practice Gap in Capital Budgeting: Evidence from the United Kingdom," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(5&6), pages 603-626.
- Harris, Milton & Raviv, Artur, 1996. " The Capital Budgeting Process: Incentives and Information," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 51(4), pages 1139-74, September.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Antoine Maartens (+31 626 - 160 892)).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.