Chapter 27The Real Options Model of Land Value andDevelopment Project ValuationMajor references include*: J.Cox & M.Rubinstein, “Options Markets”, Prentice-Hall, 1985 L.Trigeorgis, “Real Options”, MIT Press, 1996 T.Arnold & T.Crack, “Option Pricing in the Real World: A GeneralizedBinomial Model with Applications to Real Options”, Dept of Finance,University of Richmond, Working Paper, April 15, 2003 (available on theFinancial Economics Network (FEN) on the Social Science Research Networkat www.ssrn.com).
Chapter 27 in perspective . . .In the typical development project (or parcel of developableland), there are three major types of options that may presentthemselves:* “Wait Option”: The option to delay start of the projectconstruction (Ch.27); “Phasing Option”: The breaking of the project intosequential phases rather than building it all at once(Ch.29); “Switch Option”: The option to choose among alternativetypes of buildings to construct on the given land parcel.All three of these types of options can affect optimalinvestment decision-making, add significantly to the value ofthe project (and of the land), affect the risk and returncharacteristics of the investment, and they are difficult toaccurately account for in traditional DCF investment analysis.
Exhibit 2-2: The “Real Estate System”: Interaction of the Space Market, Asset Market, & Development IndustrySPACE OPMENTINDUSTRYASSET TREQ’DCAPRATEDEMAND(InvestorsBuying) Causal flows. Information gathering & use.CAPITALMKTS
Land value plays a pivotal role in determining whether, when,and what type of development will (and should) occur.Relationship is two-way:LandValueOptimalDevlpt From a finance/investments perspective:- Development activity links the asset & space markets;- Determines L.R. supply of space, Î L.R. rents.- Greatly affects profitability, returns in the asset market. From an urban planning perspective:- Development activity determines urban form;- Affects physical, economic, social character of city.Recall relation of land value to land use boundaries noted in Ch.5
Different conceptions of “land value” (Recall Property Life Cycle theory from Ch.5) . . .Property Value, Location Value, & Land ValueEvolution of the Value (& com ponents) of a Fixed Site (parcel)3.0HBU Value As IfVacant PotentialUsage Value, or"Location Value"("U")2.5Value Levels ( )Exh.5-10, Sect.5.4Property Value("P") Mkt Val(MV) StructureValue LandValue.2.01.5Land Value byLegal/AppraisalDefn. ("land compsMV").1.00.50.0CCCTime("C" Indicates Reconstruction times)CLand Value byEcon.Defn. Redevlpt OptionValue. ("LAND")In Ch.27wefocus on theEcon.Defn.:“LAND”
Different conceptions of “land value” . . .Property Value, Location Value, & Land ValueEvolution of the Value (& com ponents) of a Fixed Site (parcel)3.0HBU Value As IfVacant PotentialUsage Value, or"Location Value"("U")Value Levels ( )2.5Property Value("P") Mkt Val(MV) StructureValue LandValue.2.01.5Land Value byLegal/AppraisalDefn. ("land compsMV").1.00.50.0CCCTime("C" Indicates Reconstruction times)CLand Value byEcon.Defn. Redevlpt OptionValue. ("LAND")Note that thereare points intime whenthree of thefour definitionsall give thesame value,namely,property value land valuedefined byeither defn atthe times ofoptimalredevelopment(construction)on the site.
The economic definition of land value (“LAND”) is based onnothing more or less than the fundamental capability that landownership gives to the landowner (unencumbered):The right without obligation to develop (or redevelop)the property.
This definition of land value is most relevant . . .Evolution of the Value (& com ponents) of a Fixed Site (parcel)3.0Value Levels ( )2.52.01.51.00.50.0CCCTime("C" Indicates Reconstruction times)CJust prior to the times when development orredevelopment occurs on the site.
To understand the economic conception of land value, afamous theoretical development from financial economicsis most useful: “Option Valuation Theory” (OVT) :In particular, a branch of that theory known a “RealOptions”.
Some history:Call option model of land arose from two strands of theory: Financial economics study of corporate capital budgeting, Urban economics study of urban spatial form.Capital Budgeting: How corporations should make capital investment decisions(constructing physical plant, long-lived productive assets). Includes question of optimal timing of investment. e.g., McDonald, Siegel, Myers, (others), 1970s-80s.Urban Economics: What determines density and rate of urban development. Titman, Williams, Capozza, (others), 1980s.It turned out the 1965 Samuelson-McKean Model of a perpetualAmerican warrant was the essence of what they were all using.
27.1 Real Options: The Call Option Model of Land ValueReal Options:Options whose underlying assets (either what is obtained orwhat is given up on the exercise of the option) are real assets(i.e., physical capital).The call option model of land value (introduced in Chapter 5) is areal option model:Land ownership gives the owner the right without obligation to develop (orredevelop) the property upon payment of the construction cost. Builtproperty is underlying asset, construction cost is exercise price (includingthe opportunity cost of the loss of any pre-existing structure that must betorn down).In essence, all real estate development projects are real options,though in some simple cases the optionality may be fairly trivialand can be safely ignored.
27.2 A Simple Numerical Example of OVT Applied to LandValuation and the Development Timing DecisionTodayProbabilityNext Year100%30%70%Value of Developed Property 100.00 78.62 113.21Development Cost (exclu land) 88.24 90.00 90.00NPV of exercise 11.76- 11.38 23.21(Don’t build)(Build)0 23.21(Action)Future ValuesExpected Values Sum[ Probability X Outcome ] 11.76 16.25(1.0)11.76(0.3)0 (0.7)23.21PV(today) of Alternatives @20% 11.7616.25 / 1.2 13.54Note: In this example the expected growth in the HBU value of the built property is 2.83%:as (.3)78.62 (.7)113.21 102.83.What is the value of this land today? Answer: MAX[11.76, 13.54] 13.54Should owner build now or wait? Answer: Wait. (100.00 – 88.24 – 13.54 0.)The 13.54 – 11.76 1.78 option premium is due to uncertainty or volatility.
Consider the effect of uncertainty (or volatility) in the evolution of the builtproperty value (for whatever building would be built on the site), and thefact that development at any given time is mutually exclusive withdevelopment at any other time on the same site (“irreversibility”). e.g.:TodayProbabilityNext Year100%30%70%Value of Developed Property 100.00 78.62 113.21Development Cost (exclu land) 88.24 90.00 90.00NPV of exercise 11.76- 11.38 23.21(Don’t build)(Build)0 23.21(Action)Future ValuesExpected Values 11.76 16.25 Sum[ Probability X Outcome ](1.0)11.76(0.3)0 (0.7)23.21PV(today) of Alternatives @20% 11.7616.25 / 1.2 13.54Note the importance of flexibility inherent in the option (“right withoutobligation”), which allows the negative downside outcome to be avoided.This gives the option a positive value and results in the “irreversibilitypremium” in the land value (noted in Geltner-Miller Ch.5).
Representation of the preceding problem as a “decision tree”: Identify decisions and alternatives (nodes & branches). Assign probabilities (sum across all branches @ ea. node 100%). Locate nodes in time. Assume “rational” (highest value) decision will be made at each node. Discount node expected values (means) across time reflecting risk.70%Wait Today:PV 16.25/1.2 13.54.ChoiceBuild: Get113.21-90.00 23.21Choice Next Yr.:1 YrNode Value (7.)23.21 (.3)0 16.25.30%TodayBuild Today:Get 100.0088.24 11.76.Don’t build:Get 0.Decision Tree Analysis is closely related toOption Valuation Methodology, but requires adifferent type of simplification (finite number ofdiscrete alternatives).
A problem with traditional decision tree analysis We were only able to completely evaluate this decision becausewe somehow knew what we thought to be the appropriate riskadjusted discount rate to apply to it (here assumed to be 20%).70%Wait Today:PV 16.25/1.2 13.54.ChoiceBuild: Get113.21-90.00 23.21Choice Next Yr.:1 YrNode Value (7.)23.21 (.3)0 16.25.30%TodayBuild Today:Get 100.0088.24 11.76.Don’t build:Get 0.But is this really the correct discount rate(and hence, the correct decision andvaluation of the project)?.
Where did the 20% discount rate (OCC) come from anyway?.To be honest It was a nice round number that seemed “in the ballpark” forrequired returns on development investment projects.70%Wait Today:PV 16.25/1.2 13.54.ChoiceBuild: Get113.21-90.00 23.21Choice Next Yr.:1 YrNode Value (7.)23.21 (.3)0 16.25.30%TodayDon’t build:Get 0.Build Today:Get 100.0088.24 11.76.Can we be a bit more “scientific” orrigorous? . . .
27.3.1 An Arbitrage Analysis Suppose there were “complete markets” in land, and buildings, andbonds, such that we could buy or sell (short if necessary) infinitelydivisible quantities of each, including land and buildings like our subjectdevelopment project Thus, we could buy today: 0.67 units of a building just like the one our subject development wouldproduce next year that will either be worth 113.21 or 78.62 then.And we could partially finance this purchase by issuing: 51.21 worth of riskless bonds (with a 3% interest rate).Then this “replicating portfolio” (long in the bldg, short in the bond)next year will be worth: In the “up” scenario: (0.67) 113.21 - 51.21(1.03) 75.95 – 52.74 23.21, or: In the “down” scenario: (0.67) 78.62 - 51.21(1.03) 52.74 – 52.74 0.Exactly Equal to the Development Project in All Future Scenarios!
27.3.1Recall:These are the future scenarios, describing allpossible future outcomes.Build: Get113.21-90.00 23.2170%Wait Today:PV 16.25/1.2 13.54.ChoiceTodayBuild Today:Get 100.0088.24 11.76.Choice Next Yr.:1 YrNode Value (7.)23.21 (.3)0 16.25.30%In the upside outcome, the projectwill be worth 23.21, same as thereplicating portfolio.In the downside outcome, theproject will be worth 0, same asthe replicating portfolio.Don’t build:Get 0.
27.3.1Thus, this “replicating portfolio” must be worth the same as the land(the development option) today.Suppose not: If the land can be bought for less than the replicating portfolio, then Ican sell the replicating portfolio short, buy the land, pocket thedifference as profit today, and have zero net value impact next year (asthe land and replicating portfolio will in all cases be worth the samenext year, so my long position offsets my short position exactly). If the land costs more than the replicating portfolio, then I can sellthe land short, buy the replicating portfolio, pocket the difference asprofit today, and once again have zero net impact next year.This is what is known as an “arbitrage” – riskless profit!In equilibrium (within and across markets), arbitrage opportunitiescannot exist, for they would be bid away by competing marketparticipants seeking to earn super-normal profits.
27.3.1In real estate, markets are not so perfect and complete to enableactual construction of technical arbitrage. But neverthelesscompetition tends to eliminate super-normal profit, so we can usethis kind of analysis to model prices and values.Fundamentally, this approach will always equalize the expectedreturn risk premium per unit of risk, across the asset markets.So, how much is the land worth in our example . . .The replicating portfolio is:(0.67)V(0) - 51.21And thus must have this value.The only question is, what is the value of V(0), the value of theunderlying asset (the project to be developed) today (time-0)?.
27.3.1We know that a similar asset already completed today is worth 100.00.However, this value includes the value of the net cash flow (dividends,rents) that asset will pay between today and next year.Our development project won’t produce those dividends, because itwon’t produce a building until next year.So, we need a little more analysis Suppose that the underlying asset (the built property) has an expectedtotal return of 9%.If a similar building has a value today of 100.00, and an (ex dividend)value next year of either 113.21 (70% chance) or 78.62 (30% chance),then the expected value next year is (0.7)113.21 (0.3)78.62 102.83(i.e., expected growth is E[gV] 2.83%).Thus, the PV today of a building that would not exist until next year(i.e., PV of similar pre-existing building net of its cash flow between nowand next year) is:PV[V1] V(0) 102.83 / 1.09 94.34.(versus V0 100.00 for pre-existing bldg.)
27.3.1Now we can value the option by valuing the replicating portfolio:C0 (0.67)V(0) - 51.21 (0.67) 94.34 - 51.21 63.29 - 51.21 12.09.Thus, our previous estimate of 13.54 (based on the 20% OCC) wasapparently not correct. The option is actually worth 1.45 less.
The general formula for the Replicating Portfolio in a Binomial World is:Replicating Portfolio NV-B, where:“N” is “shares” (proportional value) of the underlying asset (builtproperty) to purchase,“B” is current (time 0) dollar value of bond to issue (borrow), and:N (Cu-Cd)/(Vu-Vd); andB (NVd-Cd)/(1 rf).With: Cu MAX[Vu-K, 0]; Cd MAX[Vd-K, 0];Vu, Vd, “up” & “down” values of property to be built; K constr cost.In the preceding example:N (23.21-0)/(113.21-78.62) 23.21/34.59 0.67; andB (0.67(78.62)-0)/1.03 52.74/1.03 51.21.
Suppose we could sell the option for 13.54 Then we could (with complete markets): Sell the option (short) for 13.54, take in 13.54 cash. Borrow 51.21 at 3% interest (with no possibility of default), thereby take inanother 51.21 cash. Use part of the resulting 64.75 proceeds to buy 0.67 units of a building justlike the one to be built (minus its net rent for this coming year), for a price of(0.67) 94.34 63.29. Our net cash flow at time 0 is: 64.74 – 63.29 1.45. A year from now, we face: In the “up” outcome: We must pay to the owner of the option we sold 23.21 113.21 - 90, thevalue of the development option. We must pay off our loan for (1.03) 51.21 52.74. We will sell our .67 share of the building for (.67) 113.21 75.95 cashproceeds. Giving us a total net cash flow next year of 75.95 – ( 23.21 52.74) 75.95 - 75.95 0. In the “down” outcome: We owe the owner of the option nothing, but we still owe the bank 52.74. We sell our .67 share of the building for (.67) 78.62 52.74 cash proceeds. Giving us a total net cash flow next year of 0. Thus, we make a riskless profit at time 0 of 1.45. ( 13.54 - 12.09.) We could perform arbitrage for any option price other than 12.09.
27.3.1Here is another way of depicting what we have just suggested (Exh.27-3):TodayNext YearDevelopment OptionValueC Max[0,V-K]PV[C1] x“x” unkown value,x P0 , otherwisearbitrage.C1up 113.21-90 23.21C1down 0(Don’t build)Built Property ValuePV[V1] E[V1] / (1 OCC) [(.7)113.21 (.3)78.62]/1.09 102.83/1.09 94.34V1up 113.21V1down 78.62B 51.21B1 (1 rf )B (1.03)51.21 52.74B1 (1 rf )B (1.03)51.21 52.74P0 (N) PV[V1] – B (0.67) 94.34 - 51.21 63.29 - 51.21 12.09P1up (0.67)113.21 52.74 75.95 - 52.74 23.21P1down (0.67)78.62 52.74 52.74 - 52.74 0Bond ValueReplicating Portfolio:P (N)V – BThe replicating portfolio duplicates the option value in all future scenarios, henceits present value must be the same as the option’s present value: C0.Thus, the option is worth 12.09.
We can now correct our decision tree:The correct OCC was not 20%, but rather 34.4%.We know this because this is the rate that gives the correct PV ofthe option: 12.09 E[C] / (1 E[rc]) 16.25 / 1.344.70%Wait Today:ChoicePV 16.25/1.344 12.09.Build: Get113.21-90.00 23.21Choice Next Yr.:1 YrNode Value (7.)23.21 (.3)0 16.25.30%TodayBuild Today:Get 100.0088.24 11.76.Don’t build:Get 0.In effect, we were able to derive theoption value without knowing the OCC.If we want to know the OCC we can“back it out” from the option value.
Note:This options-based derivation of the OCC of developable land iscompletely consistent with Chapter 29’s formula for developmentproject OCC:PV [CT ] VT LTVTLT (1 E[rC ])T (1 E[rV ])T (1 E[rD ])TOnly in the circumstance where the option will definitely be developednext period (e.g., in the previous example, if the construction cost were 78.62 million instead of 90 million, the option would be worth 18.01 million and it would be “ripe” for immediate development): 102.83 78.62 102.83 78.62 18.01 1.3441.091.03In all cases, the result is to provide the same expected return riskpremium per unit of risk across all the asset markets (land, buildings,bonds): the equilibrium condition within and across the relevant markets.
Here is the corrected summary of the analysis of the development project:The land is worth: MAX[ 100.00 – 88.24, C0] 12.09:Î 34.4% OCC for the optionTodayProbabilityNext Year100%30%70%Value of Developed Property 100.00 78.62 113.21Development Cost (exclu land) 88.24 90.00 90.00NPV of exercise 11.76- 11.38 23.21(Don’t build)(Build)0 23.21(Action)Future ValuesExpected Values Sum[ Probability X Outcome ]PV(today) of Alternatives @ 34% 11.76 16.25(1.0)11.76(0.3)0 (0.7)23.21 11.7616.25 / 1.344 12.09What is the value of this land today? Answer: MAX[11.76, 12.09] 12.09Should owner build now or wait? Answer: Wait. (100.00 – 88.24 – 12.09 0.)
27.3.2The previously described option valuation of a development project iscompletely consistent with the “Certainty Equivalent Valuation” form of theDCF valuation model presented earlier in the Chapter 10 lecture in thiscourse.The general 1-period Certainty Equivalent Valuation Formula is: E[ rV ] rf E0 [C1 ] (Cup Cdown ) Vup % Vdown % CEQ0 [C1 ] C0 1 rf1 rfe.g., in our example :((.7) 23.21 (.3) 0) ( 23.21 0) 9% 3% (113.21 / 94.34)% (78.62 / 94.34)% C0 1 3%6% ( 16.25) ( 23.21) %( 16.25) ( 23.21)( 366.67( 16.25) ( 23.21)(0.1636) 120%83.33% %) 1.051.031.03 16.25 3.80 12.45 12.091.031.03
I’m hoping you developed some intuition for the certainty equivalence valuation modelback in Chapter 10. But in case not, let’s try this . . .The certainty equivalent value next year is the downward adjusted value of the riskyexpected value for which the investment market would be indifferent between that valueand a riskfree bond value of the same amount E[rV ] rf E0 [C1 ] (Cup Cdown ) Vup % Vdown % CEQ0 [C1 ] C0 1 rf1 rfThe certainty equivalent value next year is the expected value minus a risk discount. E[rV ] rf (Cup Cdown ) %% VVupdown The risk discount consists of the amount ofrisk in the next year’s value as indicated by therange in the possible outcomes times Îtimes the market priceof risk.The market price of risk is the market expected return risk premium per unit of return risk, theratio of the market expected returnE[rV ] rfrisk premium divided by theVup % Vdown %range in the correspondingreturn possible outcomes.
Thus, we can derive the same present value of the optionthrough two completely consistent (indeed,mathematically equivalent) approaches: The “arbitrage analysis” based on thereplicating portfolio, or; The certainty equivalent valuation model.The latter is more convenient for computations.
27.3.3 What is fundamentally going on with this framework:V1up 113.21p 0.7PV[V1 ] 94.341-p 0.3V1down 78.62C1up 23.21p 0.7PV[C1 ] 12.091-p 0.3C1down 0Underlying asset (builtproperty) outcome %range: 113.21 78.62 37% 94.34Option (land)
Chapter 27 The Real Options Model of Land Value and Development Project Valuation Major references include*: J.Cox & M.Rubinstein, “Options Markets”, Prentice-Hall, 1985 L.Trigeorgis, “Real Options”, MIT Press, 1996 T.Arnold & T.Crack, “Option Pricing in the Real World: A Generalized Binomial Model with Applications to Real Options”, Dept of Finance, /p div class "b_factrow b_twofr" div class "b_vlist2col" ul li div strong File Size: /strong 571KB /div /li /ul ul li div strong Page Count: /strong 109 /div /li /ul /div /div /div
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Part One: Heir of Ash Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Chapter 15 Chapter 16 Chapter 17 Chapter 18 Chapter 19 Chapter 20 Chapter 21 Chapter 22 Chapter 23 Chapter 24 Chapter 25 Chapter 26 Chapter 27 Chapter 28 Chapter 29 Chapter 30 .
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. Contents Dedication Epigraph Part One Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Part Two Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Chapter 15 Chapter 16 Chapter 17 Chapter 18. Chapter 19 Chapter 20 Chapter 21 Chapter 22 Chapter 23 Chapter 24 Chapter 25 Chapter 26