<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>
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA/oai:DiVA.org:umu-23095 |
| Date | January 2009 |
| Creators | Gupta, Mayank |
| Publisher | Umeå University, Umeå School of Business |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, text |
Page generated in 0.0012 seconds