Real Options in the Brazilian Power Generation Sector: Are Domestic Equity Research Analysts Blind-Sighted or Is It Just a Temporary Glitch?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Real Options theory (“ROT”) states firms should be approached as a combination of real assets and real options. Domestic equity research analysts do not seem to evaluate companies applying ROT. After reviewing 344 (from a total estimated 368) equity research reports or analyses on Brazilian listed power generation companies produced between December 31, 2020, and April 30, 2021, we find only discounted cash flow (“DCF”) techniques are applied. No single mention to ROT is made. To estimate the magnitude of potential misvaluations, we use the Black-Scholes method to price the growth plans made publicly available by each of those 15 companies in that period and compare the outcome with the analysts’ forecasted equity value upside per company. Our results suggest local analysts have ignored a sizeable intrinsic value to those companies by failing to apply ROT. Potential explanations range from behavioral biases to low power sector representativeness at IBOVESPA.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".