不好意思，小弟又來賺發文稿費? 又在題目上遇到困難了XDDD 題目如下: 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 東華國經 ------------------------------------------------------------ 解答給的答案是 "(A) 擴張NPV = 傳統NPV+ real option value.若沒有考慮實質選擇權的價值 將會低估投資計畫的NPV,拒絕了某些傳統NPV為負但擴張NPV為正的方案,導致 資本預算規模偏低。" 小弟疑惑的地方是，傳統NPV本來就有錯估風險的可能 也就是錯誤的接受高風險-壞方案，而拒絕低風險-好方案... 除非解釋中的傳統NPV是指調整過的... 這樣解答的解釋好像沒有破綻了...！ 說著說著好像想通了- -" 都打那麼多了...我的稿費...(誤!) ---------------------------------------------------- 新增題二(這才是本體) 說到資本預算不調整風險的陷阱 當遇到高風險的方案的時候，用高風險的bata(CAPM)去折現NPV這點我可以理解 可是當遇到低風險的好方案，要怎麼去執行這個project? 我是想說公司的wacc已經比低風險的bata高了，為何還可以去執行? --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 1.164.233.8 ※ 編輯: MiNiMusi 來自: 1.164.233.8 (12/26 19:23)