Espinoza, D; Rojo, J; Cifuentes, A and Morris, J (2020) DNPV: A valuation methodology for infrastructure and capital investments consistent with prospect theory. Construction Management and Economics, 38(3), pp. 259-274. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Traditional valuation methods such as net present value (NPV) utilize increased discount rates to account for risk, in the process introducing a time bias effect that promotes short-termism. Application of NPV often discourages much needed infrastructure projects that require large capital investments yet are slow to generate positive cashflows. NPV also downplays the significance of future liabilities and can lead to risk misallocation amongst investment partners and stakeholders. The decoupled net present value (DNPV) method introduces the risk-as-a-cost concept that prices the risk of obtaining lower-than-expected cashflows and thus represents investors' compensation for bearing such risks. Capturing the loss-aversion attitudes described by prospect theory, DNPV provides a transparent and consistent valuation framework for long-term investments by: (i) calculating expected values of cashflow components using their probability characterizations, (ii) defining the cost of risk (market and non-market) as the expected downside value, (iii) subtracting/adding the cost of risk from/to expected revenues/expenditures, and (iv) discounting the results using risk-free rates. DNPV’s power is illustrated by re-analyzing a 42-year toll-road concession initially evaluated using NPV and real options. The case study shows how explicit risk quantifications could be used to better structure the concession and reallocate risks among stakeholders.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | derivatives; dnpv; npv; prospect theory; real options; valuation |
| Index terms: | expected value, methodology, bias, valuation method, prospect theory, risk-free rate, liability, capital investment, revenue, toll, discount rates, compensation, infrastructure project, real option, case study, investor, quantification, net present value |
| Subjects: | dispute resolution, data collection methods, economic analysis, real estate economics, probability and distributions, research methods, transportation engineering, liability law, statistical analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, measurement and scaling, sociology |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Urban Studies, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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