MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414519130 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18100540

Real Options for IFRS-S1 and S2 2024 Mandatory Disclosures: An Alternative Approach to Capital Budgeting Valuation

2025· article· en· W4414519130 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Victor Manuel Castillo Delgadillo, Luz del Carmen Díaz-Peña

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Reporting and Valuation Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValuation (finance)Pre-money valuationCapital budgetingDeferralAccounting information systemFinancial accountingCost accountingEmpirical research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The new financial standards, IFRS S1 and S2, have not only modified the way financial reporting is presented to diverse stakeholders but have also increased uncertainty. These changes make traditional valuation methods inadequate. This article proposes the development of a valuation framework using Real Options Valuation (ROV), which incorporates the disclosures required by S1 and S2 as inputs to the valuation model. The framework proposes a quarterly decision rule for deferring investments, parameters aligned with the new sustainability disclosures, and notes in the financial statements proposed as voluntary reporting. The results show that, under regulatory uncertainty and its associated implications, the deferral option is a more effective technique than the Net Present Value method. For professionals responsible for the valuation process, the proposed model serves as a practical guide for applying the ROV within the capital budgeting process. For investors, it provides an additional element of transparency through disclosure and alignment with other existing accounting standards. This work lays the groundwork for future empirical applications as companies adapt to the implementation of new accounting standards and their associated reporting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicFinancial Reporting and Valuation ResearchFrench-language works237,207