2009
DOI: 10.3368/le.85.4.655
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Valuation of Timber Harvesting Options Using a Contingent Claims Approach

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The extent to which each timber region reacted to these events differed; however, geographically close areas had responded in a similar pattern most of the time. Regardless, it had been shown that the presence of ARCH and (or) jump effects did impact optimal rotations (e.g., Saphores et al 2002;Khajuria et al 2009). The estimated time-varying variances and covariances may help timber managers in making their strategic decisions.…”
Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The extent to which each timber region reacted to these events differed; however, geographically close areas had responded in a similar pattern most of the time. Regardless, it had been shown that the presence of ARCH and (or) jump effects did impact optimal rotations (e.g., Saphores et al 2002;Khajuria et al 2009). The estimated time-varying variances and covariances may help timber managers in making their strategic decisions.…”
Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Such a process could be a useful alternative to stochastically fluctuating means or trends (Pindyk 1999;Schwartz and Smith 2000), or distinct structural breaks (Khajuria et al 2009) used in more recent real option analysis. Such a process could be a useful alternative to stochastically fluctuating means or trends (Pindyk 1999;Schwartz and Smith 2000), or distinct structural breaks (Khajuria et al 2009) used in more recent real option analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[9]) because the consideration of individual risk preferences, risk perception and project specific changes of risks over time cannot be considered sufficiently (e.g. [22,23], for similar arguments in timber applications). In contrast, an approach that focuses on the individual grower explicitly is chosen.…”
Section: The Risk Adjusted Discount Ratementioning
confidence: 99%