Ye, S and Tiong, R L K (2000) NPV-at-risk method in infrastructure project investment evaluation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 126(3), pp. 227-233. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Strategic capital investment decisions are crucial to a business firm. The decision to invest in privately financed infrastructure projects requires careful consideration, because they are exposed to high levels of financial, political, and market risks. The project appraisal methods should incorporate analysis of these risks. A number of capital-investment decision methods can take risks into account, but each of them focuses on different factors and has its limitations. Thus, a more vigorous method is needed. A systematic classification of existing evaluation methods shows that it is possible to develop a new method - the net-present-value-at-risk (NPV-at-risk) method - by combining the weighted average cost of capital and dual risk-return methods. The evaluation of two hypothetical power projects shows that the NPV-at-risk method can provide a better decision for risk evaluation of, and investment in, privately financed infrastructure projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | risk-return, infrastructure project, capital investment, project appraisal, investment decision |
| Subjects: | project delivery, economic analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, environmental hazards |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Project Management, Sustainability, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here