不好意思，小弟又来赚发文稿费? 又在题目上遇到困难了XDDD 题目如下: Clueless corporation never condiders abandonment options or growth options when estimationg its optimal capital budget. What impact does this policy have on the company's optimal capital budget? (A) Its estimated capital budget is too small because it fails to consider abandonment and growth options. (B) Its estimated capital budget is too large because it fails to consider abandonment and growth options. (C) Failing to consider abandonment options makes the optimal capital budget too large, but failing to consider growth options makes the optional capital budget too small, so it is unclear what impact this policy has on the overall capital budger. (D) Failing to consider abandonment options makes the optimal capital budget too small, but failing to consider growth options makes the optional capital budget too large, so it is unclear what impact this policy has on the overall capital budger. (E) Neither abandonment nor growth options should have an effect on the company's optimal capital budget. 94 东华国经 ------------------------------------------------------------ 解答给的答案是 "(A) 扩张NPV = 传统NPV+ real option value.若没有考虑实质选择权的价值 将会低估投资计画的NPV,拒绝了某些传统NPV为负但扩张NPV为正的方案,导致 资本预算规模偏低。" 小弟疑惑的地方是，传统NPV本来就有错估风险的可能 也就是错误的接受高风险-坏方案，而拒绝低风险-好方案... 除非解释中的传统NPV是指调整过的... 这样解答的解释好像没有破绽了...！ 说着说着好像想通了- -" 都打那麽多了...我的稿费...(误!) ---------------------------------------------------- 新增题二(这才是本体) 说到资本预算不调整风险的陷阱 当遇到高风险的方案的时候，用高风险的bata(CAPM)去折现NPV这点我可以理解 可是当遇到低风险的好方案，要怎麽去执行这个project? 我是想说公司的wacc已经比低风险的bata高了，为何还可以去执行? --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 1.164.233.8 ※ 编辑: MiNiMusi 来自: 1.164.233.8 (12/26 19:23)