IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sce/scecf0/54.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Use Of Time And Financial Value In Project Decision Trees - A Specific Model And An Algorithm For Rolling Back The Trees

Author

Listed:
  • Pedro Godhino

    (Faculty of Economics of the University of Coimbra and INESC)

  • J.P. Costa

    (Faculty of Economics of the University of Coimbra and INESC)

Abstract

Capital budgeting textbooks usually consider the financial perspective to be the most important, or even the only perspective that should be considered in project evaluation. However, there are often certain factors that cannot be incorporated in the financial value of a project and that are very important in deciding whether or not the project should be undertaken. Time is one important criterion that is often overlooked in the project evaluation literature. In a construction project, for example, there will usually be a deadline. If the company does not meet the deadline, it may have to pay some compensation, and its image may be damaged in a way that is hard to quantify. Other times there may exist some benefits from an early conclusion of the project, like the possibility of undertaking other projects or seizing other opportunities. Competitive interaction will often provide other important reasons to use time as a criterion. In order to deter competitive entries, to gain a competitive advantage or to avoid losses resulting from an early competitive entry, companies may want to undertake a project as soon as possible, while trying to maximise its financial value. In such circumstances, companies may want to use both time and financial value in the definition of their strategies.All these reasons led us to develop a new approach that incorporates both time and financial value in decision trees for the evaluation of investment projects [1]. It focuses on the use of time and financial value, but we think it can be easily extended to other criteria. This new approach allows decision-makers to identify all the non-dominated strategies, letting them use any multicriteria method to choose among them. Decision trees provide an useful way to represent investment projects when different choices or uncertain events are involved. The classical evaluation of such decision trees consisted on the use of the expected value to aggregate the project Net Present Value (NPV) across the decision nodes. However, in recent years it has been acknowledged that this classical evaluation fails to capture the correct value of the project, since the discount rate can no longer be assumed constant in the presence of different options. Instead of the use of the expected value, most authors recommend the use of a valuation model based on Option Pricing Theory: the binomial model. So, we defined an approach that can be used not only with the classical valuation of decision trees but also with the binomial model for option valuation.This communication starts with a brief presentation of decision trees and the binomial model. Then we present our general approach to the use of two criteria - time and financial value - in the evaluation of projects represented by decision trees. Our approach identifies all the non-dominated strategies, allowing the use of any multicriteria method to choose among them. We present a new type of node - the time passage node - that simplifies the definition of these trees, and we particularly discuss the way we handle time and the rules that allow the identification of the non-dominated strategies.Then, we present a more specific model that can be used, for example, in some production planning problems. Although this is a discrete-time model, it may many times be used as a proxy for the continuous-time problem. So, the trees that will be used will usually be very complex, and probably only used within computational systems. Even for computational systems, these trees will be very large and the calculations may take a long time. With that in mind, we present an algorithm that allows a faster identification of the non-dominated strategies, without requiring the complete definition of the corresponding decision trees. We also present the mathematical results in which the algorithm is based.

Suggested Citation

  • Pedro Godhino & J.P. Costa, 2000. "The Use Of Time And Financial Value In Project Decision Trees - A Specific Model And An Algorithm For Rolling Back The Trees," Computing in Economics and Finance 2000 54, Society for Computational Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:sce:scecf0:54
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://fmwww.bc.edu/cef00/papers/paper54.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Trigeorgis, Lenos, 1993. "The Nature of Option Interactions and the Valuation of Investments with Multiple Real Options," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 1-20, March.
    2. James E. Smith & Robert F. Nau, 1995. "Valuing Risky Projects: Option Pricing Theory and Decision Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(5), pages 795-816, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jiao Wang & Lima Zhao & Arnd Huchzermeier, 2021. "Operations‐Finance Interface in Risk Management: Research Evolution and Opportunities," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(2), pages 355-389, February.
    2. Carol Alexander & Xi Chen, 2021. "Model risk in real option valuation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 299(1), pages 1025-1056, April.
    3. Guglielmo D’Amico & Giovanni Villani, 2021. "Valuation of R&D compound option using Markov chain approach," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 379-404, September.
    4. Lander, Diane M. & Pinches, George E., 1998. "Challenges to the Practical Implementation of Modeling and Valuing Real Options," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(3, Part 2), pages 537-567.
    5. Felipe Isaza Cuervo & Sergio Botero Boterob, 2014. "Aplicación de las opciones reales en la toma de decisiones en los mercados de electricidad," Estudios Gerenciales, Universidad Icesi, November.
    6. Savolainen, Jyrki, 2016. "Real options in metal mining project valuation: Review of literature," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 49-65.
    7. Pedro Godinho & João Paulo Costa, 2004. "The Use of Cost and Time in Project Decision Trees: A model and an application," Notas Económicas, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, issue 20, pages 145-161, December.
    8. Collan, Mikael, 2004. "Giga-Investments: Modelling the Valuation of Very Large Industrial Real Investments," MPRA Paper 4328, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Nyambane, Gerald G. & Black, J. Roy, 2004. "The Real Options Puzzle For Michigan Tart Cherry Producers," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20011, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Marco Araújo & Love Ekenberg & Mats Danielson & João Confraria, 2022. "A Multi-Criteria Approach to Decision Making in Broadband Technology Selection," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 387-418, April.
    11. Maarten Ijzerman & Lotte Steuten, 2011. "Early assessment of medical technologies to inform product development and market access," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 331-347, September.
    12. Gabriel J Power & Charli D. Tandja M. & Josée Bastien & Philippe Grégoire, 2015. "Measuring infrastructure investment option value," Journal of Risk Finance, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 16(1), pages 49-72, January.
    13. Agliardi, Rossella, 2006. "Options to expand: Some remarks," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 65-72, March.
    14. Carlos Andres Zapata Quimbayo & Carlos Armando Mej¨ªa Vega, 2019. "Real Options Valuation in Gold Mining Projects under Multinomial Tree Approach," Business and Economic Research, Macrothink Institute, vol. 9(3), pages 204-218, September.
    15. Robert Nau, 2001. "De Finetti was Right: Probability Does Not Exist," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 89-124, December.
    16. Lukas Auer, 2013. "SOA investment decision-making using real options analysis," International Journal of Services, Economics and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 5(1/2), pages 21-40.
    17. Seiji Harikae & James S. Dyer & Tianyang Wang, 2021. "Valuing Real Options in the Volatile Real World," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(1), pages 171-189, January.
    18. Rubtsov, Alexey, 2016. "Model misspecification and pricing of illiquid claims," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 242-249.
    19. Wassila Bensahel, 2010. "Une Creation Substantielle De La Valeur Adaptee Aux Entreprises Intensives En Immateriel," Post-Print hal-00479541, HAL.
    20. Andrea Gamba & Nicola Fusari, 2009. "Valuing Modularity as a Real Option," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(11), pages 1877-1896, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sce:scecf0:54. 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: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sceeeea.html .

    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.