2019
DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2019.1648842
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

DNPV: a valuation methodology for infrastructure and Capital investments consistent with prospect theory

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results in Table 4 illustrate how a positive NPV can turn into a negative prospect valuation V if diminishing sensitivity and loss aversion are considered. This happens even for a relatively small investment, such as the one registered in the example, and represents the real behavior of some airport managers and policy makers that show a reticent perception toward projects that produce negative cash flows in the short-term [18]. This behavior is consequently exacerbated when projects require strong capital investments in the initial years, yet are slow to generate positive cash flows, e.g., airport infrastructure developments.…”
Section: Inclusion Of Pgl 2: Utility Considerationsmentioning
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The results in Table 4 illustrate how a positive NPV can turn into a negative prospect valuation V if diminishing sensitivity and loss aversion are considered. This happens even for a relatively small investment, such as the one registered in the example, and represents the real behavior of some airport managers and policy makers that show a reticent perception toward projects that produce negative cash flows in the short-term [18]. This behavior is consequently exacerbated when projects require strong capital investments in the initial years, yet are slow to generate positive cash flows, e.g., airport infrastructure developments.…”
Section: Inclusion Of Pgl 2: Utility Considerationsmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Prospect theory [17] and related models in behavioral economics reject this paradigm and suggest, in contrast, that preferences depend on the reference point from which they are measured (with losses valued more than gains and diminishing sensitivity with increasing distance from the reference point), and that probabilities are evaluated nonlinearly (with changes in probabilities near zero and crucial variations in intermediate probabilities). Additionally, traditional valuation methodologies such as Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), Net Present Value (NPV), and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) utilize increased discount rates to account for risk, providing a time bias effect that promotes short-termism [18]. Consequently, the use of CBA, NPV, and IRR, which are markedly sensitive to the selection of discount rates, often discourages much-needed infrastructure projects that require large capital investments but yield positive cash flows slowly.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Their article considers cost-benefit analysis, incorporating risk considerations and cash flow analysis using the decoupled net present value (DNPV) methodology for risk-adjusted calculations to identify the optimal concession period. The DNPV method introduces the concept of the risk-cost ratio, evaluating the risk associated with lower-than-expected cash flows and representing compensation to investors for undertaking such risks (Espinoza et al 2020). Nguyen et al advocate for the separate consideration of interest rates and risk assessments in the value-for-money analysis process to evaluate the optimal concession period.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this way, the risk price is subtracted from the expected income or added to the costs, if it is associated with the project's expenses. With this method, the evaluation of the project is carried out consideringg a risk-free rate, since the risks of the project are being included separately and therefore, the resulting flows can be considered risk-free (Espinoza et al, 2019b).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%