MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046346762 · doi:10.1080/0013791x.2011.601403

Integrating Real Options with Managerial Cash Flow Estimates

2011· article· en· W2046346762 on OpenAlexaff
Kelsey E. Barton, Yuri Lawryshyn

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Engineering Economist · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCapital Investment and Risk Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCash flowCash flow forecastingDiscounted cash flowOperating cash flowTerminal valueBusinessCash managementFlow (mathematics)Computer scienceFinanceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a real options model that fits managerial cash flow estimates (optimistic, likely, and pessimistic projections) to a continuous geometric Brownian motion (GBM) cash flow process with changing growth and volatility parameters. The cash flows and the value of a project are correlated to a traded asset, so the real option is priced under the risk-neutral measure with a closed-form solution. The analysis is extended to a sequential compound call option for investments over multiple periods. If the project is correlated to the market, then some of the risk may be mitigated by a delta-hedging strategy. A numerical example shows that the effect of the correlated asset on the real option value is significant, and the relationship between the volatility of the project and the real option value is not analogous to the typical relationship found in financial option pricing. Integrating the expertise and industry knowledge of management, this approach makes possible a more rigorous estimation of model inputs for real option pricing.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.150 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Engineering EconomistSame topicCapital Investment and Risk AnalysisFrench-language works237,207