This paper aims to explain why firms do not use NPV for all capital budgeting decisions. Differential usage is attributed to the cost of information and the incomplete dissemination of knowledge of evaluation techniques. Analysis of Australian survey data indicates that 34% of informed managers switch to naive techniques for smaller dollar projects - a cost of information effect. We find 40% of organisations with large capital expenditures do not use NPV, suggesting a lack of knowledge of the NPV technique. Thus significant proportions of large Australian organisations lack detailed knowledge of DCF techniques while others fail to use those techniques for reasons of excessive cost. We also find, after controlling for cost and mandatory considerations, that many large firms with sophisticated capital budgeting procedures actually accept projects that do not meet threshold criteria. The explanation appears to lie in the recognition that projects have strategic and growth options, but an apparent inability amongst managers to factor these values into their project evaluation criteria such as NPV.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by School of Finance and Economics, University of Technology, Sydney in its series Working Paper Series with number
1.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Duncan Ford).
Related research
Keywords:
References listed on IDEAS 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.: