Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2002. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references. Available also from UMI Company.

<p>In much of the recent times the practitioner’s fraternity has been focused towards making investment decisions, based on traditional financial evaluation techniques ranging from Net present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Pay Back Period, Profitability Index. Although these techniques have performed satisfactorily and have provided practitioners’ insights about how to value investments and thereby providing them a holistic view of the project and making informed decisions. However, these traditional techniques have focused more on quantifying the risk assessment done at the beginning of the project, by taking into consideration an optimal discount rate based on the firm’s overall cost of capital, and the additional risk associated with the given project. Nevertheless, these traditional Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) techniques, fails to take into account the value of managerial flexibility in business environments associated with a high degree of uncertainty, thereby not encapsulating the value of different options which are embedded within the project, that managers possess and the value of new information during the project lifecycle. In order to value these options, Real Options Valuation technique has been proposed, which predominantly traces its origin from valuing financial options. Though various academicians have supported this technique and the potential benefits it offers to organizations while making investment decisions, it still rests on a number of assumptions, which needs to be validated across different businesses. Therefore, this study focuses on understanding the obstacles involved with the implementation of Real Options Valuation technique, based on the three roadblocks identified by Lander and Pinches (1998).</p><p>A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was conducted within a given case company X in Sweden. Wherein based on the existing financial evaluation technique that company X uses while making investment decisions are analyzed. Based on the responses provided by the company X officials, the study revealed that company X employs traditional financial evaluation techniques, since they are been widely accepted across a wide range of industries, and also decision makers, and shareholders tend to prefer a probabilistic risk assessment at the beginning of the project, however company X do acknowledge the potential benefits offered by Real Options Valuation technique, but they are not been implemented, because of its ignorance among the key decision makers, coupled with complex mathematical calculations and various assumptions that needs to be incorporated while using Real Options approach for valuing investments, which makes it difficult in the context of given company X for using Real Options approach for valuing investments.</p>

In much of the recent times the practitioner’s fraternity has been focused towards making investment decisions, based on traditional financial evaluation techniques ranging from Net present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Pay Back Period, Profitability Index. Although these techniques have performed satisfactorily and have provided practitioners’ insights about how to value investments and thereby providing them a holistic view of the project and making informed decisions. However, these traditional techniques have focused more on quantifying the risk assessment done at the beginning of the project, by taking into consideration an optimal discount rate based on the firm’s overall cost of capital, and the additional risk associated with the given project. Nevertheless, these traditional Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) techniques, fails to take into account the value of managerial flexibility in business environments associated with a high degree of uncertainty, thereby not encapsulating the value of different options which are embedded within the project, that managers possess and the value of new information during the project lifecycle. In order to value these options, Real Options Valuation technique has been proposed, which predominantly traces its origin from valuing financial options. Though various academicians have supported this technique and the potential benefits it offers to organizations while making investment decisions, it still rests on a number of assumptions, which needs to be validated across different businesses. Therefore, this study focuses on understanding the obstacles involved with the implementation of Real Options Valuation technique, based on the three roadblocks identified by Lander and Pinches (1998). A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was conducted within a given case company X in Sweden. Wherein based on the existing financial evaluation technique that company X uses while making investment decisions are analyzed. Based on the responses provided by the company X officials, the study revealed that company X employs traditional financial evaluation techniques, since they are been widely accepted across a wide range of industries, and also decision makers, and shareholders tend to prefer a probabilistic risk assessment at the beginning of the project, however company X do acknowledge the potential benefits offered by Real Options Valuation technique, but they are not been implemented, because of its ignorance among the key decision makers, coupled with complex mathematical calculations and various assumptions that needs to be incorporated while using Real Options approach for valuing investments, which makes it difficult in the context of given company X for using Real Options approach for valuing investments.

[pt] Este trabalho tem como objetivo apresentar uma alternativa para se analisar e avaliar opções sobre DI Futuro. Para tanto, faremos uso da teoria clássica sobre derivativos, e em particular, do modelo sugerido por Black [2] para a avaliação de opções sobre futuros de commodities. O contrato em questão, não possui solução analítica devido ao comportamento não linear do seu pay- off. A teoria define que a equação diferencial que descreve o comportamento do preço do ativo é função do ativo objeto. Neste trabalho, algumas simplificações foram assumidas, face a não adoção de um modelo estocástico que determine o comportamento futuro da taxa livre de risco, neste caso definida como um parâmetro determinístico do modelo. É fato de que tal simplificação não invalida os resultados, pelo contrário, McConnell e Schwartz [17] mostram que a relação custo benefício em se adotar modelos mais sofisticados não compensa frente aos resultados obtidos quando praticidade e ganhos são comparados. De posse da equação diferencial que governa o comportamento do preço do derivativo, se faz presente a necessidade de se usar um procedimento numérico - Método de Diferenças Finitas Explícito (MDFE). / [en] The main objective of this paper is to describe an alternative model to value Brazilian DI Future option. And so, we will make use of the classical derivatives theory, in particular, to the model introduced by Black for options on commodities future contracts. For such instrument, the analytical solution is not possible to be obtained due to the non-linear formulation of the pay-off (Risk Neutral Valuation). The theory defines the differential equation that describes the asset price behavior, in this case the financial operation agreed, as function of the underlying variables that govern its behavior. In the present work some simplifications had been carried through, regarding the non-adoption of a stochastic model to represent the future behavior of the risk-free rate, being defined as a deterministic parameter in the model. One must bear in mind that such simplification does not invalidate the results; on the contrary, McConnell e Schwartz [17] shows that the trade-off between the practicability and the profit in term of the results makes questionable the use of the more sophisticated model. Having the differential equation that governs the behavior of the derivative contract price, a numerical procedure is carried out - Explicit Finite Differences Method (EFDM).

[pt] O Ambiente de Contratação Livre proporcionou uma continuidade do processo de livre concorrência de mercado iniciado com a reestruturação do setor elétrico em 1997. A mudança de um regime baseado em contratos de suprimento renováveis para uma estrutura baseada em preços dados por um mercado competitivo, expõe as empresas do setor elétrico brasileiro à volatilidade do mercado de eletricidade. Neste novo ambiente, as empresas devem gerenciar os riscos associados às suas operações. Devido às características singulares do setor elétrico brasileiro, o gerenciamento de risco é um grande desafio para os próximos anos. Por outro lado, com a liberdade de negociação permitida pelo segmento de comercialização de energia no Ambiente de Contratação Livre, os contratos de compra e venda de energia elétrica passaram a adaptar-se as necessidades de mercado com a incorporação de flexibilidades que viessem a mitigar os riscos com relação à demanda por energia elétrica e principalmente com relação ao preço. Dentro desse contexto, foi desenvolvido um modelo de avaliação de portfolio de contratos de compra e venda de energia elétrica, incorporando as flexibilidades inerentes a atividade de comercialização, de forma a quantificar os riscos associados a esta atividade e determinar o valor adicionado ao portfolio pelas flexibilidades. O caso estudado é fictício, mas é um exemplo típico na área de comercialização de energia elétrica dentro deste novo modelo. / [en] The Free Contracts Environment enabled continuity of the free market competition process which started with the electric sector restructure in 1997. The shift from a regime based on renewable supply contracts to a structure based on prices established by competition exposes companies in the Brazilian electric sector to the volatility of the electricity market. In this new environment companies must manage the risks associated to the operations. The Brazilian electric sector singular features make risk management a great challenge for ensuing years. On the other hand, with free negotiation enabled by the energy trade segment within the free contracts environment, electric energy purchase and sale contracts started to adapt to the market needs incorporating flexibilities designed to face uncertainty regarding electric energy demand in general and prices in particular. Within this context, an electric energy purchase and sale portfolio valuation model was developed, incorporating the flexibilities inherent to commercialization activities, in order to quantify the risks associated with this activity and establish the value added to the portfolio by the flexibilities. The case studied is fictitious, but typical in the field of electric energy trading within this new model.