IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i21p5971-d280747.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Enables a High-Risk Project to Yield High Return from a Construction Contractor’s Perspective?

Author

Listed:
  • Jin Woo Won

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul 03722, Korea)

  • Wooyong Jung

    (Department of Nuclear Power Plant Engineering, KEPCO International Nuclear Graduate School, Ulsan 45014, Korea)

  • Seung Heon Han

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul 03722, Korea)

  • Sungmin Yun

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan 38541, Korea)

  • Bonsang Koo

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Seoul National University of Science and Technology, Seoul 0181, Korea)

Abstract

“High risk high return” is a general rule in the overall industry; however, high-risk projects in the construction industry frequently fail to yield a high return. In order to achieve a sustainable business in the international construction market, contractors require an average to high return yield under high-risk conditions. This study aims to reveal what risk factors and risk management performance enables high-risk projects to yield high returns. The study investigated 124 international construction projects by Korean contractors and classified them into four groups: high-risk high-return (HH), high-risk low-return (HL), low-risk high-return (LH), and low-risk low-return (LL). The study found that risk assessment accuracy was the most important trigger in discriminating between high return projects (HH, LH) and low return projects (HL, LL), whereas risk mitigation performance showed little difference between high return and low return projects. In addition, the contingency amount did not significantly affect project return in HL, LH, and LL projects, but HH projects showed a positive relation between contingency and predicted risk amount. This article contributes to recognizing the differences between high return and low return projects and provides insights for practitioners into the relation between risk management performance and high returns in different risk conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jin Woo Won & Wooyong Jung & Seung Heon Han & Sungmin Yun & Bonsang Koo, 2019. "What Enables a High-Risk Project to Yield High Return from a Construction Contractor’s Perspective?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-17, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:21:p:5971-:d:280747
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/5971/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/5971/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean-Paul Roy & Christine Oliver, 2009. "International joint venture partner selection: The role of the host-country legal environment," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 40(5), pages 779-801, June.
    2. Samuel Laryea & Will Hughes, 2008. "How contractors price risk in bids: theory and practice," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(9), pages 911-924.
    3. Shou Qing Wang & Mohammed Fadhil Dulaimi & Muhammad Yousuf Aguria, 2004. "Risk management framework for construction projects in developing countries," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 237-252.
    4. Merton, Robert C., 1980. "On estimating the expected return on the market : An exploratory investigation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 323-361, December.
    5. Müller, Gernot & Durand, Robert B. & Maller, Ross A., 2011. "The risk-return tradeoff: A COGARCH analysis of Merton's hypothesis," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 306-320, March.
    6. Enrique Salvador, 2012. "The Risk-Return Trade-Off in Emerging Markets," Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(6), pages 106-128, November.
    7. Rietz, Thomas A., 1988. "The equity risk premium a solution," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 117-131, July.
    8. Sanjeev Dewan & Charles Shi & Vijay Gurbaxani, 2007. "Investigating the Risk-Return Relationship of Information Technology Investment: Firm-Level Empirical Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(12), pages 1829-1842, December.
    9. Michael A. Hitt & David Ahlstrom & M. Tina Dacin & Edward Levitas & Lilia Svobodina, 2004. "The Institutional Effects on Strategic Alliance Partner Selection in Transition Economies: China vs. Russia," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 173-185, April.
    10. Kang-Wook Lee & Wooyong Jung & Seung Heon Han, 2017. "Country Selection Model for Sustainable Construction Businesses Using Hybrid of Objective and Subjective Information," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-18, May.
    11. Yakubu Adisa Olawale & Ming Sun, 2010. "Cost and time control of construction projects: inhibiting factors and mitigating measures in practice," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(5), pages 509-526.
    12. Lundblad, Christian, 2007. "The risk return tradeoff in the long run: 1836-2003," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 123-150, July.
    13. Radek Doskočil & Branislav Lacko, 2018. "Risk Management and Knowledge Management as Critical Success Factors of Sustainability Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, May.
    14. Graham M. Winch, 2012. "Industrial Megaprojects: Concepts, Strategies and Practices for Success," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(8), pages 705-708, February.
    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. Guiliang Su & Rana Khallaf, 2022. "Research on the Influence of Risk on Construction Project Performance: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-19, May.

    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. Salvador, Enrique & Floros, Christos & Arago, Vicent, 2014. "Re-examining the risk–return relationship in Europe: Linear or non-linear trade-off?," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 60-77.
    2. Liu, Xiaochun, 2017. "Unfolded risk-return trade-offs and links to Macroeconomic Dynamics," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 1-19.
    3. Tan, Zhengxun & Xiao, Binuo & Huang, Yilong & Zhou, Li, 2021. "Value at risk and return in Chinese and the US stock markets: Double long memory and fractional cointegration," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    4. Koutmos, Dimitrios, 2012. "An intertemporal capital asset pricing model with heterogeneous expectations," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 1176-1187.
    5. Chiang, Thomas C., 2019. "Empirical analysis of intertemporal relations between downside risks and expected returns—Evidence from Asian markets," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 264-278.
    6. Bollerslev, Tim & Kretschmer, Uta & Pigorsch, Christian & Tauchen, George, 2009. "A discrete-time model for daily S & P500 returns and realized variations: Jumps and leverage effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 150(2), pages 151-166, June.
    7. Thomas C. Chiang & Jiandong Li, 2012. "Stock Returns and Risk: Evidence from Quantile," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-39, December.
    8. Guo, Hui & Savickas, Robert & Wang, Zijun & Yang, Jian, 2009. "Is the Value Premium a Proxy for Time-Varying Investment Opportunities? Some Time-Series Evidence," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(1), pages 133-154, February.
    9. Kim, Eung-Bin & Byun, Suk-Joon, 2021. "Risk, ambiguity, and equity premium: International evidence," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 321-335.
    10. Wang, Wenzhao & Duxbury, Darren, 2021. "Institutional investor sentiment and the mean-variance relationship: Global evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 415-441.
    11. Wang, Yuanping & Mu, Congming, 2019. "Can ambiguity about rare disasters explain equity premium puzzle?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 1-1.
    12. Juan Carlos Escanciano & Juan Carlos Pardo-Fernández & Ingrid Van Keilegom, 2017. "Semiparametric Estimation of Risk–Return Relationships," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(1), pages 40-52, January.
    13. John Griffin, 2015. "Risk Premia and Knightian Uncertainty in an Experimental Market Featuring a Long-Lived Asset," Fordham Economics Discussion Paper Series dp2015-01, Fordham University, Department of Economics.
    14. Dicle, Mehmet F. & Levendis, John, 2020. "Historic risk and implied volatility," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    15. Khoa Hoang & Robert Faff, 2021. "Is the ex‐ante equity risk premium always positive? Evidence from a new conditional expectations model," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(1), pages 95-124, March.
    16. Jin (Ginger) Wu & Lu Zhang & X. Frank Zhang, 2010. "The q‐Theory Approach to Understanding the Accrual Anomaly," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 177-223, March.
    17. Müller, Gernot & Durand, Robert B. & Maller, Ross A., 2011. "The risk-return tradeoff: A COGARCH analysis of Merton's hypothesis," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 306-320, March.
    18. Glen Donaldson & Mark Kamstra & Lisa Kramer, 2003. "Stare down the barrel and center the crosshairs: Targeting the ex ante equity premium," FRB Atlanta Working Paper 2003-4, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
    19. Turan Bali & Kamil Yilmaz, 2009. "The Intertemporal Relation between Expected Return and Risk on Currency," Koç University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum Working Papers 0909, Koc University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum, revised Nov 2009.
    20. Liu, Xiaochun, 2017. "Can macroeconomic dynamics explain the time variation of risk–return trade-offs in the U.S. financial market?," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 275-293.

    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:11:y:2019:i:21:p:5971-:d:280747. 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.