IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i8p3451-d349412.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

To Wait or Not to Wait? Use of the Flexibility to Postpone Investment Decisions in Theory and in Practice

Author

Listed:
  • Azzurra Morreale

    (School of Business and Management, LUT University, 53850 Lappeenranta, Finland)

  • Luigi Mittone

    (School of Business and Management, LUT University, 53850 Lappeenranta, Finland
    Department of Economics and Management, University of Trento, 38122 Trento, Italy)

  • Thi-Thanh-Tam Vu

    (School of Business and Management, LUT University, 53850 Lappeenranta, Finland
    Department of Economics and Management, University of Trento, 38122 Trento, Italy
    International School, Vietnam National University, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam)

  • Mikael Collan

    (School of Business and Management, LUT University, 53850 Lappeenranta, Finland)

Abstract

Business sustainability and real options are closely connected, as real options are managerial flexibility that allows organizations to adapt to changes in their environment, thus making the organization more robust and economically sustainable. Studies in real options theory abound, yet there is still a lack of evidence on whether people make decisions consistently with the predictions made by real options models. We run a laboratory experiment to study the role of option value and the laboratory time required to resolve uncertainty in individuals’ decision to price and adopt an option to wait. Specifically, we compare decision makers’ choices in two investment scenarios: One with a short time to maturity (implying a low option value), and another with a longer time to maturity (implying a high option value). In the lab, both scenarios are implemented with the waiting time of twenty and sixty minutes. Our results show that decision makers deviate from the theoretical predictions, recognizing the benefit of waiting, when the value of the option is higher, or when the waiting time is shorter. Our study does not only bring more insights into real options adoption at the individual level, but also emphasizes the great potential of behavioral and experimental approach to bridge the gap between theory and practice in the real options literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Azzurra Morreale & Luigi Mittone & Thi-Thanh-Tam Vu & Mikael Collan, 2020. "To Wait or Not to Wait? Use of the Flexibility to Postpone Investment Decisions in Theory and in Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-19, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:8:p:3451-:d:349412
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/8/3451/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/8/3451/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kozlova, Mariia, 2017. "Real option valuation in renewable energy literature: Research focus, trends and design," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 180-196.
    2. Hartmann, Marcus & Hassan, Ali, 2006. "Application of real options analysis for pharmaceutical R&D project valuation--Empirical results from a survey," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 343-354, April.
    3. Morreale, Azzurra & Mittone, Luigi & Lo Nigro, Giovanna, 2019. "Risky choices in strategic environments: An experimental investigation of a real options game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 279(1), pages 143-158.
    4. Ryan Oprea & Daniel Friedman & Steven T. Anderson, 2009. "Learning to Wait: A Laboratory Investigation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(3), pages 1103-1124.
    5. Luigi Ranieri & Giorgio Mossa & Roberta Pellegrino & Salvatore Digiesi, 2018. "Energy Recovery from the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste: A Real Options-Based Facility Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, January.
    6. Marek Durica & Danuse Guttenova & Ludovit Pinda & Lucia Svabova, 2018. "Sustainable Value of Investment in Real Estate: Real Options Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-18, December.
    7. Jiangang Shi & Kaifeng Duan & Shiping Wen & Rui Zhang, 2019. "Investment Valuation Model of Public Rental Housing PPP Project for Private Sector: A Real Option Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, March.
    8. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2013. "The “bomb” risk elicitation task," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 31-65, August.
    9. Read, Daniel & van Leeuwen, Barbara, 1998. "Predicting Hunger: The Effects of Appetite and Delay on Choice, , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 189-205, November.
    10. Thaler, Richard, 1981. "Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 201-207.
    11. Hongjun Dai & Tao Sun & Wen Guo, 2016. "Brownfield Redevelopment Evaluation Based on Fuzzy Real Options," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-10, February.
    12. Gill, David & Prowse, Victoria, 2019. "Measuring costly effort using the slider task," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 1-9.
    13. Depositario, Dinah Pura T. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M. & Wu, Ximing & Laude, Tiffany P., 2009. "Should students be used as subjects in experimental auctions?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 122-124, February.
    14. Savolainen, Jyrki, 2016. "Real options in metal mining project valuation: Review of literature," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 49-65.
    15. Cassimon, D. & De Backer, M. & Engelen, P.J. & Van Wouwe, M. & Yordanov, V., 2011. "Incorporating technical risk in compound real option models to value a pharmaceutical R&D licensing opportunity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1200-1216.
    16. Loewenstein, George, 1987. "Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 97(387), pages 666-684, September.
    17. Sungchul Kim & Ronald Giachetti & Sangsung Park, 2018. "Real Options Analysis for Acquisition of New Technology: A Case Study of Korea K2 Tank’s Powerpack," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-18, October.
    18. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2012. "Estimating Time Preferences from Convex Budgets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3333-3356, December.
    19. David Laibson, 1997. "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 443-478.
    20. Jung Ho Park & Kwangsoo Shin, 2018. "R&D Project Valuation Considering Changes of Economic Environment: A Case of a Pharmaceutical R&D Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-15, March.
    21. Filippos Exadaktylos & Antonio M. Espin & Pablo Branas-Garza, 2012. "Experimental Subjects are Not Different," Working Papers 12-11, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    22. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin & Wickens, Chris, 2016. "oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 88-97.
    23. Antonella Lomoro & Giorgio Mossa & Roberta Pellegrino & Luigi Ranieri, 2020. "Optimizing Risk Allocation in Public-Private Partnership Projects by Project Finance Contracts. The Case of Put-or-Pay Contract for Stranded Posidonia Disposal in the Municipality of Bari," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-18, January.
    24. Adam Borison, 2005. "Real Options Analysis: Where Are the Emperor's Clothes?," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 17(2), pages 17-31, March.
    25. Guofeng Ma & Qingjuan Du & Kedi Wang, 2018. "A Concession Period and Price Determination Model for PPP Projects: Based on Real Options and Risk Allocation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-21, March.
    26. Kent D. Miller & Zur Shapira, 2004. "An empirical test of heuristics and biases affecting real option valuation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 269-284, March.
    27. Fredrik Carlsson & Haoran He & Peter Martinsson, 2013. "Easy come, easy go," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(2), pages 190-207, June.
    28. Steven T. Anderson & Daniel Friedman & Ryan Oprea, 2010. "Preemption Games: Theory and Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1778-1803, September.
    29. Mikael Collan & Tero Haahtela & Kalevi Kyläheiko, 2016. "On the usability of real option valuation model types under different types of uncertainty," International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 11(1), pages 18-37.
    30. Cox, John C. & Ross, Stephen A. & Rubinstein, Mark, 1979. "Option pricing: A simplified approach," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 229-263, September.
    31. Murphy, Ryan O. & Andraszewicz, Sandra & Knaus, Simon D., 2016. "Real options in the laboratory: An experimental study of sequential investment decisions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 23-39.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Małgorzata Kieżel & Paweł Piotrowski & Joanna Wiechoczek, 2021. "Perception of Social Responsibility Strategy in Higher Education: Empirical Study in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Martine Van den Boomen & Sjoerd Van der Meulen & Jonathan Van Ekris & Roel Spanjers & Olle Ten Voorde & Janwim Mulder & Peter Blommaart, 2021. "Optimized Expansion Strategy for a Hydrogen Pipe Network in the Port of Rotterdam with Compound Real Options Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-23, August.
    3. Ana María Sánchez Pérez & Jorge Tarifa Fernández & Salvador Cruz Rambaud, 2020. "Assessing Blockchain Investments through the Learning Option: An Application to the Automotive and Aerospace Industry," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-13, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jindrich Matousek & Tomas Havranek & Zuzana Irsova, 2022. "Individual discount rates: a meta-analysis of experimental evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 318-358, February.
    2. Ye Li & Clemens Kool & Peter-Jan Engelen, 2020. "Analyzing the Business Case for Hydrogen-Fuel Infrastructure Investments with Endogenous Demand in The Netherlands: A Real Options Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-22, July.
    3. Morreale, Azzurra & Mittone, Luigi & Lo Nigro, Giovanna, 2019. "Risky choices in strategic environments: An experimental investigation of a real options game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 279(1), pages 143-158.
    4. Jorge Tarifa-Fernández & Ana María Sánchez-Pérez & Salvador Cruz-Rambaud, 2019. "Internet of Things and Their Coming Perspectives: A Real Options Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-15, June.
    5. Aurélien Baillon & Owen O'Donnell & Stella Quimbo & Kim van Wilgenburg, 2022. "Do time preferences explain low health insurance take‐up?," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(4), pages 951-983, December.
    6. Gorupec Natalia & Tiberius Victor & Brehmer Nataliia & Kraus Sascha, 2022. "Tackling uncertain future scenarios with real options: A review and research framework," The Irish Journal of Management, Sciendo, vol. 41(1), pages 69-88, July.
    7. James Andreoni & Christina Gravert & Michael A. Kuhn & Silvia Saccardo & Yang Yang, 2018. "Arbitrage Or Narrow Bracketing? On Using Money to Measure Intertemporal Preferences," NBER Working Papers 25232, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Sebastian Schweighofer-Kodritsch, 2015. "Time Preferences and Bargaining," STICERD - Theoretical Economics Paper Series /2015/568, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
    9. Dilip Soman & George Ainslie & Shane Frederick & Xiuping Li & John Lynch & Page Moreau & Andrew Mitchell & Daniel Read & Alan Sawyer & Yaacov Trope & Klaus Wertenbroch & Gal Zauberman, 2005. "The Psychology of Intertemporal Discounting: Why are Distant Events Valued Differently from Proximal Ones?," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 347-360, December.
    10. OUATTARA, Aboudou & DE LA BRUSLERIE, Hubert, 2015. "The term structure of psychological discount rate: characteristics and functional forms," MPRA Paper 75111, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Stephen L. Cheung & Agnieszka Tymula & Xueting Wang, 2022. "Present bias for monetary and dietary rewards," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1202-1233, September.
    12. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    13. Khwaja, Ahmed & Silverman, Dan & Sloan, Frank, 2007. "Time preference, time discounting, and smoking decisions," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 927-949, September.
    14. Philip Streich & Jack S. Levy, 2007. "Time Horizons, Discounting, and Intertemporal Choice," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(2), pages 199-226, April.
    15. Haewon Yoon, 2020. "Impatience and Time Inconsistency in Discounting Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(12), pages 5850-5860, December.
    16. Manel Baucells & Silvia Bellezza, 2017. "Temporal Profiles of Instant Utility During Anticipation, Event, and Recall," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 729-748, March.
    17. Faralla, Valeria & Novarese, Marco & Ardizzone, Antonella, 2017. "Framing Effects in Intertemporal Choice: A Nudge Experiment," MPRA Paper 82086, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, 2023. "Intertemporal choice with savoring of yesterday," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(3), pages 539-554, April.
    19. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2019. "How related are risk preferences and time preferences?," CLTS Working Papers 4/19, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 16 Oct 2019.
    20. Wang, Mei & Rieger, Marc Oliver & Hens, Thorsten, 2016. "How time preferences differ: Evidence from 53 countries," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 115-135.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:8:p:3451-:d:349412. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.