Mattar, M H and Cheah, C Y J (2006) Valuing large engineering projects under uncertainty: Private risk effects and real options. Construction Management and Economics, 24(8), pp. 847-860. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
In all large engineering projects, valuation constitutes an important step during the initial stage as each stakeholder assesses the prospect of his or her investment. The complexity of valuation increases dramatically in the face of uncertainty especially when the risks are dynamic and stochastic in nature. The usual classification in finance theory divides risks into either market or unique. In this research, a new notion of private risk is introduced. A private risk may either be correlated with the market or be unique, but in addition it represents a substantial portion of an investor's wealth and is not tradable due to agency costs or other strategic reasons. The principles of pricing would differ according to the treatment of these different types of risks. Methods that are currently in vogue for pricing private risks are first evaluated, followed by a study of the effect of private risks in real option problems. Through a classic oil and gas exploration and development example, it is demonstrated that the methods chosen for pricing private risks can lead to decisively different real option values, exercise strategies and development policies. Effectively, the difference in real option values can be interpreted as a form of private risk premium.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | decision analysis; private risk; real option; risk; valuation |
| Index terms: | agency, complexity, exploration, strategy, face, risk premium, real option, oil and gas, decision analysis, investor, pricing, exercise |
| Subjects: | sociology, decision analysis, industry analysis, systems engineering, management, psychology, environmental resource management, economic analysis, health behaviours and lifestyles |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Sustainability, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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