copyright k. cuthbertson, d.nitzsche financial engineering: derivatives and risk management (j....
TRANSCRIPT
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
FINANCIAL ENGINEERING:DERIVATIVES AND RISK MANAGEMENT(J. Wiley, 2001)
K. Cuthbertson and D. Nitzsche
Lecture
Real Options
Version 1/9/2001
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
Topics
Basic Concepts
Valuation of real options using BOPM
Extension of Tree to Many Periods
Valuation of Internet Company using continuous time method
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
Basic Concepts
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
OPTIONALITY
Conventional NPV is ‘passive’
Black Gold and Crude Hole - oilfields - both have negative NPV taken separately- call option to expand, with strike= additional investment
Option to Abandon - BMW purchase of Rover- put option to sell off assets
Option to defer- don’t build plant today, wait- American call with strike = investment cost- Is the call worth more ‘alive’ (ie. Postpone start) or ‘dead’ that is exercise now (pay K and collect revenues)
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
OPTIONALITY
Table 19.1 : Similarities Between Financial and Real Options
Param Financial Option Real Option
S Stock price Present value of expected cashflows
K Strike price Investment cost
R Riskless interest rate Riskless interest rate
Share-price volatility Volatility of project cashflows
= T-t Time-to-maturity Time until oppnity to invest disappears
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
‘Drivers’ of NPV and real options
NPV PV {Expected cash flows}PV {Fixed costs}
RO PV {Expected cash flows}PV {Fixed costs}=‘strike’
Interest rate Value lost over option’s life
Cash flow volatility Time to maturity
Conventional NPV
Real Options
Payoffs = Max { PV - I0 , 0}
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
Valuation of real options using BOPM
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
Steps in Valuation (BOPM)
Measure the volatility of the value of the firm - from observed stock prices
Assume this represents ‘outcomes’ SU or SD for existing projects, without ‘optionality’, in the investment decision (ie.‘passive’) = conventional NPV
Apply the (abandonment) option and get new payoffs for the ‘treeincluding optionality’ . Discount, using risk neutral valuation toobtain ‘adjusted NPV including optionality’, then
adjusted NPV* = conventional NPV + value of option
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
‘Share Price’ Tree
S0=18
£ 36 =SU
£ 9=SD
U= 2, D = 1/U = 0.5pu =0.5
What is the cost of capital, k ?
18 = [0.5 x 36 + 0.5 x 9] / (1+k)
Hence k = 25%(1+k) = [0.5 x (36) + 0.5 x (9)] /18
Discounting all future outcomes (SU, SU2 etc) using k, will always ‘reproduce’ the current value of the stock S0 (firm)
pu = ‘real world probability
Calculate discount rate k, from observed share price
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
‘Baseline/existing’ projects
Assume projects, without any optionality have the same risk as the firm’s existing projects, so U = 2, p = 0.5 and k is the appropriate discount rate (with no optionality/passive).Risk NeutralitySurprisingly:Discounting the above outcomes SU and SD using risk free rate r = 5.25% (ignore contin. comp) and q = (R - D)/(U-D) = 0.3693 will also give the same value for S0
(=18):
S0 = [ q SU + ( 1- q) SD ]/R = 18
where R = (1+r).Thus:Instead of discounting the risky outcomes SU,SD using real probabilities p, we can use q ,and then discount using the risk free rate
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
NPV of (Simple-One Period) Abandonment Option
Calculate NPV of the ‘abandonment option’, by
1) using ‘real world’ probabilities p and discounting the payoffs using the cost of capital k (‘decision tree analysis’ DTA)
2) using ‘risk neutral’ probabilities q and discounting the payoffs using the risk free rate, r
We find the two NPV are different
The DTA approach is incorrect because it uses the discount rate k, which is calculated from the payoffs without any optionality. This discount rate is too large, given the lower riskiness of outcomes with the abandonment option
The risk neutral approach gives the correct answer for the NPV (with optionality)
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
1) One period Abandonment Option- using DTA (ie. k and p)
S0= 90
45=Sd
180= Su
Baseline value of firm
V0 = ??
100 = Vd
180 = Vu
Abandon for K = 100 at t=1
Investment cost (at t=0 ) = 105, U=2, k = 25%, p = 0.5
Conventional NPV= 90 - 105 = -15
Discount ‘optionality’ using k and p
V0 = [ pu Vu + (1-pu) Vd ]/(1+k) = 112
NPV* = 112 - 105 = 7
Note: Spread of outcomes with ‘optionality’ is less than ‘baseline’
Payoff = max {ST , K }S0 = [ pu Su + (1-pu) Sd ]/(1+k)
Note: ‘Baseline’ tree is perfectly correlated with ‘share price’ tree, since U=2.
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
2) NPV Abandonment Option - using RNV
90
45
180
Baseline value of firm
??
100
180
Abandon for K = 100 at t=1
Investment cost(at t=0 ) =110 and r = 5.25%,U= 2, q = 0.3693
Conventional NPV = -15 Payoff = max {ST , K }
V0 = [ q Vu + (1-q) Vd ]/R = 123
NPV* = 123 - 105 =18
Value of abandonment option = 123 - 90 = 33
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
NPV Abandonment Option - using RNV
If, using RNV gives the correct value for the project (with optionality) , (ie. V = 122.89)thenwhat is the implicit discount rate k* applicable in the ‘real world’ (ie using the real world probabitily, p) ?
123 = [ pu Vu + (1-pu) Vd ]/(1+k* ) = [0.5 x 180 + 0.5 x 100] / (1+k* )
Hence k* = 13.8%
Why is k* = 13.8% less than k = 25% ? And which is correct ?
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
NPV Abandonment Option - Comparison
Baseline/existing projects (no optionality), has V = 90
Abandonment using k=25%, V = 112
Abandonment using options theory V= 123 (and k*=13.8%)Valuation using k=25% understates the value of the project with optionality, since the latter has less risky outcomes and should be discounted at a lower rate than ‘existing’ projects
RNV implicitly uses the ‘correct’ (lower) discount rate of k*=13.68%
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
Where does the ‘baseline’ tree come from?1) Assume the ‘baseline’ project is ‘scale enhancing’ so its risk is the same as the riskiness of all the firms existing projects
2) Then we can use the (annual) volatility of the firms stock returns as a measure of ‘risk’ of the baseline project.
3) Then take U = exp[ x sqrt(dt) ] and D = 1/U
4) The risk neutral probabilities q can be shown to be:
q = (R - D) / ( U-D) - these are use to value the project with optionality
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
Summary: Optionality and NPV
1) Work out the ‘tree’ for project (ie. SU, SD etc) without optionality
Value of project without optionality (S0) equals the PV of value in ‘up’and ‘down’ states(SU, SD etc), using either p and k or RNV (ie. q and r ) ~ both give S0
2) Reconstruct the tree including optionality Obtain the ‘adjusted’ PV of project by working back through this tree using ‘risk neutral valuation’
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
When is it worth using real options?
When conventional NPV is close to zero
When there is great uncertainty in future outcomes-options have more value the higher is
When project has a long life - options have higher value as T increases
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
Extension of Tree to Many Periods
3
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
Figure 19.5 : Evolution of ‘baseline’ valuation
90
45.1
179.4
357.7
90
22.6
713.2
179.4
45.1
11.4
Time0 1 2 3
U= 1.9937, q = 0.3693I0 = 105.4 (or 105 rounded)
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
Fig 19.6 : Option to expand (at t=3, only)
V0* = 113.4
50.7
236.6
493.9
105.7
22.6
1024.8
224.1
45.1
11.4
Time0 1 2 3
Payoff= Max{1+e)S3 - I3, S3 } e=50%, I3 = 45
European Call
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
19.7 : Contraction option (at t=1 only)
48.8
10.3
121.4
Time0 1 2 3
Payoff= Max{S1 - I1, (1-c%) S1- I* }
c%=55%, I1 = 58, I*=10
Original I0 =105, is invested 50 at t=0 and 58 at t=1- same PVOption is to invest smaller amount I*=10 at t=1, with 55% lower revenues
(Baseline Sd =45.1)
(Baseline Su= 179.4)
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
19.8 : American abandonment option
107.1
70.6
184.7
357.7
98.9
60
713.2
179.4
60.0 (was 45.1)
60.0 (was 11.4)
Time0 1 2 3
Payoff= Max{Si , A} A=60
At T=3, only abandon on 2 lower nodesTree: Vt-1 = max { Vt rec, A } where Vrec = [qVu + (1-q) Vd] /R
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
19.9 : Investment default option
42.6
0 (was 45.1, now max{45.1-58,0 )
121.4(was 179.4, now 179.4-58)
Time0 1 2 3
Payoff= Max{S1 - I1 , 0 } I1 =58 and I0 = 50
At t=1 (only) can choose whether to invest or not
NPV* = 42.6 - 50 = -7.4
Value of inv. Default option = -7.4 - (-15.4) = 8
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
19.10 : Default on debt repayment
46.5
10.9
113.8
271.3
31.0
0
622.2
88.3
0
0
Time0 1 2 3
At t=3 (only) can default on debt of D3 = 91
Payoff= Max{S3 - D3 , 0 } D3 = 91 and I0 = 55
NPV* = 46.5 - 55 = -8.5 (-8.9 in text)Value of inv. Default option = -8.5 - (-15.4) = 6.9 (6.5 in text)
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
19.11 :Investment default (t=1) and debt default(t=3)
19.6
0
55.8
271.3
31.0
0
622.1
88.3
0
0
Time
At =1, Payoff= Max{S1 - I1 , 0 } I1 =58 (ie.t=1 value of 55)At t=3 Payoff= Max{S3 - D3 , 0 } D3 =91 (ie. t=3 value of 50)
NPV* = 19.6Value of COMBINED option = 19.6- (-15.4) = 35
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
COMBINED OPTIONS
Value of investment default option = 8
Value of debt default option = 6.9
Value of combined option = 35
Option values are not additive
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
VALUATION OF INTERNET COMPANIES
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
VALUATION OF INTERNET COMPANIES
Have value because of expansion option and option to set up allied sites (option on an option)
Given the terminal value of the firm, the value today is
V = (1/R) E*( VT)
- this is risk neutral valuation - use MCS to obtain alternative values for VT based on assessment of revenues minus costs, in a stochastic environment
- key parameters: mean growth of revenues and their volatility, rate of change of average growth rate, mark-up over costs
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
VALUATION OF INTERNET COMPANIES
Stochastic representation of revenues and costsActual changes in revenuesChange in expected growth in revenues(Risk-adjusted) process for revenue R is mean reverting:
Costs: fixed F and costs proportional to revenues, (+)R
Ct = F + ( + )Rt
( + ) = 94% ‘baseline case’, hence profit margin= 6%
The cashflow of the firm (ignoring taxes) is:
Yt = Rt - Ct
And the change in cash balances dX are:
dX = -Yt dt
All cash is ‘retained’ and earns the risk-free rate, rIf cash balances fall to zero, firm is assumed to go bankrupt
Given the terminal value of the firm, the value today is
V = (1/R) E*( XT)
- this is risk neutral valuation
December 1999, the model gave a value for Amazon.com of $5.5bn,If the profit margin is reduced from 6% to 5% then Amazon’s value falls from $5.5bn to $4.3bn. - use MCS to obtain alternative values for VT based on assessment of revenues minus costs, in a stochastic environment - key parameters - mean growth and vol of revenues, rate of change of average growth rate, mark-up over costs
*11 )( dzdt
R
dRttt
t
t
*22 ])([ dzdtkd ttt
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
VALUATION OF INTERNET COMPANIES
The cashflow of the firm (ignoring taxes) is:Yt = Rt - Ct
And the change in cash balances dX are:dX = -Yt dt
All cash is ‘retained’ and earns the risk-free rate, rIf cash balances fall to zero, firm is assumed to go bankruptGiven the terminal value of the firm, the value today is
V = (1/R) E*( XT)
MCS generates values for error terms and gives different valuesfor XT
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
VALUATION OF INTERNET COMPANIES
December 1999: Amazon.com = $5.5bn
Sensitivity Analysis
If the profit margin is reduced from 6% to 5%then Amazon’s value falls from $5.5bn to $4.3bn.
Copyright K. Cuthbertson, D.Nitzsche
END OF SLIDES