Decoupled NPV: a simple, improved method to value infrastructure investments

Abstract

Despite its shortcomings, because of its simplicity, the net present value (NPV) technique (or its close relative, the internal rate of return) remains the valuation method most widely used by investors. In this method, all risks associated with a project are lumped into a single parameter (i.e. the risk premium) that is added to the risk-free interest rate to obtain a risk-adjusted discount rate; thus, in essence, the time value of money is adjusted for risk. However, because risk and time are two separate variables, accounting for risk in this manner can lead to substantial valuation errors, particularly for long-term investments which are typical for large infrastructure projects. In this paper, an alternative valuation method that decouples the time value of money from the risk associated with a project is presented. The proposed method, termed decoupled net present value (DNPV), is also simple yet flexible, consistent and robust. The method allows investors to integrate heuristic (i.e. experience based) techniques with sophisticated probabilistic and stochastic techniques to price the risk associated with the value of the asset created and/or the investment needed to create the asset. The proposed method results in a consistent valuation free from the problems typically associated with traditional net present value applications and, more importantly, allows a seamless integration of project risk assessment/management performed by technical experts into the project financial valuation.

Uncertainty Management Associated With Project Scheduling in Mine Construction: A Coal Mining Case Study

“…The proposed model, while simple, can be used at any point in the process to aid in making changes to initial plans or changing decisions. The strength of the model is its proficiency in providing a clear valuation of a wide range of possibilities moving forward from the present time; a task at which DCF excels (Espinoza & Morris, 2013). Note that a Real Options Valuation could be applied to this model by incorporating the value of the DCF shortcomings, but this may risk reducing the ease of access and simplicity of this method-one of the primary strengths and reasons for implementation.…”

Valuation of renewable energy investments: an explanatory mixed-methods study about applied approaches amongst practitioners

“…This method was first proposed by Myers (1966, 1968) as an alternative to traditional RADR approaches, and it is regarded as theoretically superior to them because of the applied separation between the time value of money and risk (Hamada, 1977;Sick, 1986;Gitman, 1995;Megginson, 1997;Halliwell, 2001;Ryan and Gallagher, 2006;Zeckhauser and Viscusi, 2008;Cheremushkin, 2009;Espinoza and Morris, 2013), i.e., a single discount rate as a risk measure is not an adequate approach (Espinoza, 2014). Although the CE method has partially the same drawbacks as the other traditional methods, since it is based on the same philosophy as the CAPM (Wolffsen, 2012), it is the preferred method for addressing risky cash flows (Zeckhauser and Viscusi, 2008).…”

An appropriate risk addendum for risky projects

“…In either case, the value of the project is adjusted downward to compensate for the higher risk. A large number of authors concede that valuation procedures using certainty equivalents are superior in the sense of being useful in a wider range of conditions Myers, 1966, 1968;Espinoza and Morris, 2013). For projects with risks higher than the firm's "average risk," Harris and Pringle (1985) recommended using the weighted average cost of capital for companies whose operating risk is similar to that of the project in question.…”