Real estate development as real options

Hui, E C M and Fung, H H K (2009) Real estate development as real options. Construction Management and Economics, 27(3), pp. 221-227. ISSN 1466433X

Abstract

One of the recent advances in property valuation is to view a property or the right to develop it as a call option. Shilling et al. (1985) were among the first to apply option pricing theory in this way. For real estate development, although not explicitly said so in his paper, Titman (1985) was the first to treat vacant lots of land as options to wait to develop. A frequently cited paper by Quigg (1993) presents the first empirical effort to support the real option pricing point of view. The valuation framework of Quigg (1993) is in one sense a specialization and in another sense a generalization of the framework of Williams (1991). Unfortunately, the works of both Williams and Quigg are technically flawed, but surprisingly their errors have gone unnoticed for over 15 years and are still propagating in the literature (e.g. in Yamaguchi et al., 2000 and Patel and Paxson, 2001). In the following, we will first address the flaws of Quigg (1993). Then we will examine the problems in Williams' (1991) work. Finally, we will discuss some implications of the Williams-Quigg valuation framework.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: real estate; real options
Index terms: real estate development, specialization, option, pricing, land, real option, real estate
Subjects: economic development, business, decision analysis, economic analysis, real estate economics
Topics: Business Strategy, Urban Studies, Risk Management
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