## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

ANSWERS TO SELECTED END-OF-CHAPTER QUESTIONS

17-1

a. An option is a contract which gives its holder the right to buy or sell an asset at some predetermined price within a specified period of time. A call option allows the holder to buy the asset, while a put option allows the holder to sell the asset. b. A simple measure of an option’s value is its exercise value. The exercise value is equal to the current price of the stock (underlying the option) less the striking price of the option. The strike price is the price stated in the option contract at which the security can be bought (or sold). For example, if the underlying stock sells for $50 and the striking price is $20, the exercise value of the option would be $30. c. The Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model is widely used by option traders to value options. It is derived from the concept of a riskless hedge. By buying shares of a stock and simultaneously selling call options on that stock, the investor will create a riskfree investment position. This riskless return must equal the riskfree rate or an arbitrage opportunity would exist. People would take advantage of this opportunity until the equilibrium level estimated by the Black-Scholes model was reached. d. Real options occur when managers can influence the size and risk of a project’s cash flows by taking different actions during the project’s life. They are referred to as real options because they deal with real as opposed to financial assets. They are also called managerial options because they give opportunities to managers to respond to changing market conditions. Sometimes they are called strategic options because they often deal with strategic issues. Finally, they are also called embedded options because they are a part of another project. e. Investment timing options give companies the option to delay a project rather than implement it immediately. This option to wait allows a company to reduce the uncertainty of market conditions before it decides to implement the project. Capacity options allow a company to change the capacity of their output in response to changing market conditions. This includes the option to contract or expand production. It also includes the option to abandon a project if market conditions deteriorate too much. f. Decision trees are a form of scenario analysis in which different actions are taken in different scenarios. Mini Case: 17 - 1

g. Growth options allow a company to expand if market demand is higher than expected. This includes the opportunity to expand into different geographic markets and the opportunity to introduce complementary or second-generation products. 17-2 The market value of an option is typically higher than its exercise value due to the speculative nature of the investment. Options allow investors to gain a high degree of personal leverage when buying securities. The option allows the investor to limit his or her loss but amplify his or her return. The exact amount this protection is worth is the premium over the exercise value. Postponing the project means that cash flows come later sooner; however, waiting may allow you to take advantage conditions. It might make sense, however, to proceed today important advantages to being the first competitor to enter rather than of changing if there are a market.

17-3

17-4

Timing options make it less likely that a project will be accepted today. Often, if a firm can delay a decision, it can increase the expected NPV of a project. Having the option to abandon a project makes it more likely that the project will be accepted today.

17-5

SOLUTIONS TO END-OF-CHAPTER PROBLEMS

17-1

P = $15; X = $15; t = 0.5; rRF = 0.10; σ2 = 0.12; d1 = 0.32660; d2 = 0.08165; N(d1) = 0.62795; N(d2) = 0.53252; V = ? Using the Black-Scholes option’s value as: V = = = =

−r t

Option

Pricing

Model,

you

calculate

the

P[N(d1)] - Xe RF [N(d2)] $15(0.62795) - $15e(-0.10)(0.5)(0.53252) $9.4193 - $15(0.9512)(0.53252) $1.8211 ≈ $1.82.

17-2

Option’s exercise price = $15; Exercise value = $22; Premium value = $5; V = ? P0 = ? Premium = Market price of option - Exercise value $5 = V - $22 V = $27. Exercise value = P0 - Exercise price

Mini Case: 17 - 2

$22 = P0 - $15 P0 = $37.

Mini Case: 17 - 3

17-3

a.

0 1 2 20 ├─────┼─────┼────── • • • ────┤ -20 3 3 3 NPV = $1.074 million.

b. Wait 1 year: 0 1 r= 13% | | 0 -20 | 0 | -20 2 | 2.2 | 3.8 3 | 2.2 | 3.8 21 | 2.2 | 3.8 PV @ Yr. 1 15.45 26.69

Tax imposed 50% Prob. Tax not imposed 50% Prob.

• • • • • •

Tax imposed: NPV @ Yr. 1 = (-20 + 15.45)/(1.13) = -4.027 Tax not imposed: NPV @ Yr 1 = (-20 + 26.69)/ (1.13) = 5.920 Expected NPV = .5(-4.027) + .5(5.920) = 0.947 Note though, that if the tax is imposed, the NPV of the project is negative and therefore would not be undertaken. The value of this option of waiting one year is evaluated as 0.5($0) + (0.5)($ 5.920) = $2.96 million. Since the NPV of waiting one year is greater than going ahead and proceeding with the project today, it makes sense to wait. 17-4 a. 0 1 2 3 4 10% ├─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┤ -8 4 4 4 4 NPV = $4.6795 million. b. Wait 2 years: 0 1 | r = 10% | 10% Prob. 0 0 | 90% Prob. 0 | 0 2 | -9 | -9 3 | 2.2 | 4.2 4 | 2.2 | 4.2 5 | 2.2 | 4.2 6 | 2.2 | 4.2 PV @ Yr. 2 $6.974 $13.313

Low CF scenario: NPV = (-9 + 6.974)/(1.1)2 = -$1.674 High CF scenario: NPV = (-9 + 13.313)/(1.1)2 = $3.564 Expected NPV = .1(-1.674) + .9(3.564) = 3.040 If the cash flows are only $2.2 million, the NPV of the project is negative and, thus, would not be undertaken. The value of the option of waiting two years is evaluated as 0.10($0) + 0.90($3.564) = $3.208 million.

Mini Case: 17 - 4

Since the NPV of waiting two years is less than going ahead and proceeding with the project today, it makes sense to drill today. 17-5 a. 0 1 2 20 13% ├─────┼─────┼────── • • • ────┤ 40 40 40 -300 NPV = -$19.0099 million. b. Wait 1 year: 0 1 r = 13% | | 50% Prob. 0 -300 | 50% Prob. 0 | -300 2 | 30 | 50 3 | 30 | 50 4 | 30 | 50 21 | 30 | 50 NPV @ Yr. 0 -$78.9889 45.3430 Don’t purchase.

• • • • • •

If the cash flows are only $30 million per year, the NPV of the project is negative. However, we’ve not considered the fact that the company could then be sold for $280 million. The decision tree would then look like this: 0 1 r = 13% | | 50% Prob. 0 -300 | 50% Prob. 0 | -300 2 | 30 | 50 3 | 30 + 280 | 50 4 | 0 | 50 21 | 0 | 50 NPV @ Yr. 0 -$27.1468 45.3430

• • • • • •

The expected NPV of waiting 1 year is 0.5(-$27.1468) + 0.5($45.3430) = $9.0981 million. Since the upper branch is negative, the optimal strategy is to wait and implement only if sales are $50 million per year. The NPV is: 0.5(0) + 0.5($45.3430) = $22.67 million.

Mini Case: 17 - 5

17-6

a.

0 12% | -6,200,000

1 | 600,000

• • •

14 | 600,000

15 | 600,000

Using a financial calculator, input the following data: CF0 = 6,200,000; CF1-15 = 600,000; I = 12; and then solve for NPV = $2,113,481.31. b. 0 1 12% | | -6,200,000 1,200,000 • • • 14 | 1,200,000 15 | 1,200,000 =

Using a financial calculator, input the following data: CF0 = 6,200,000; CF1-15 = 1,200,000; I = 12; and then solve for NPV $1,973,037.39.

c. If they proceed with the project today, the project’s expected NPV = (0.5 × -$2,113,481.31) + (0.5 × $1,973,037.39) = -$70,221.96. So, Hart Enterprises would not do it.

**d. Since the project’s NPV with the tax is negative, if the tax were
**

imposed the firm would abandon the project. looks like this:

0 1 r= 12% 50% Prob. | | Taxes -6,200,000 6,000,000 No Taxes | 50% Prob. -6,200,000 | 1,200,000 2 | 0 | 1,200,000 • • •

**Thus, the decision tree
**

NPV @ Yr. 0 -$ 842,857.14

15 | 0

• • •

| 1,200,000 1,973,037.39 Expected NPV $ 565,090.13

Yes, the existence of the abandonment option changes the expected NPV of the project from negative to positive. Given this option the firm would take on the project because its expected NPV is $565,090.13. e.

50% Prob. Taxes 0 1 r = 12% | | NPV = ? -1,500,000 +300,000 = NPV @ t = 1}wouldn’t do | NPV = ? | -1,500,000 +4,000,000 = NPV @ t = 1

NPV @

Yr. 0 $ 0.00

No Taxes 50% Prob.

2,232,142.86 Expected NPV $1,116,071.43

If the firm pays $1,116,071.43 for the option to purchase the land, then the NPV of the project is exactly equal to zero. So the firm would not pay any more than this for the option.

Mini Case: 17 - 6

17-7

P = PV of all expected future cash flows if project is delayed. From Problem 15-3 we know that PV @ Year 1 of Tax Imposed scenario is $15.45 and PV @ Year 1 of Tax Not Imposed Scenario is $26.69. So the PV is: P = [0.5(15.45)+ 0.5(26.690] / 1.13 = X = $20. t = 1. rRF = 0.08. σ2 = 0.0687. $18.646.

d1 = ln[18.646/20] + [0.08 + .5(.0687)](1) = 0.1688 (.0687)0.5 (1)0.5 d2 = 0.1688 - (.0687)0.5 (1)0.5 = -0.0933 From Excel function NORMSDIST, Extension to Chapter 7: N(d1) = 0.5670 N(d2) = 0.4628 Using the Black-Scholes option’s value as: V = = = =

−r t

or

approximated

from

Table

7E-1

in

Option

Pricing

Model,

you

calculate

the

P[N(d1)] - Xe RF [N(d2)] $18.646(0.5670) - $20e(-0.08)(1)(0.4628) $10.572 - $8.544 $2.028 million.

Mini Case: 17 - 7

17-8

P = PV of all expected future cash flows if project is delayed. From Problem 15-4 we know that PV @ Year 2 of Low CF Scenario is $6.974 and PV @ Year 2 of High CF Scenario is $13.313. So the PV is: P = [0.1(6.974)+ 0.9(13.313] / 1.102 = X = $9. t = 2. rRF = 0.06. σ2 = 0.0111. $10.479.

d1 = ln[10.479/9] + [0.06 + .5(.0111)](2) = 1.9010 (.0111)0.5 (2)0.5 d2 = 1.9010 - (.0111)0.5 (2)0.5 = 1.7520 From Excel function NORMSDIST, Extension to Chapter 7: N(d1) = 0.9713 N(d2) = 0.9601 Using the Black-Scholes option’s value as: V = = = =

−r t

or

approximated

from

Table

7E-1

in

Option

Pricing

Model,

you

calculate

the

P[N(d1)] - Xe RF [N(d2)] $10.479(0.9713) - $9e(-0.06)(2)(0.9601) $10.178 - $7.664 $2.514 million.

Mini Case: 17 - 8

- Gangesh Project
- Chapter 16 Capital Structure Decisions
- 2010 11Annual Report
- Forward, Future and Option
- Chapter 11 Financial Planning and Forecasting Financial Statements
- Huchzermeier-Manag-Science-2001
- 74_Quiz Equity and Options.pdf
- Chapter 10 Analysis of Financial Statements
- Financial Planning and Forecasting Brigham Solution
- Chapter 13 Corporate Valuation, Value-Based Management, And Corporate Governance
- damodran
- Chapter 11 Cash Flow Estimation and Risk Analysis
- Multi-Attribute_Decision_Making
- BSM_Appendix10
- By SP Tulsian
- Secrets
- Financial derivatives
- DeVry University FIN 516 Complete Course
- Mineral Economics - Issues and Challenges - Hand Out
- Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options_OCR
- Call & Put Options in Shareholders' Agreements
- Derivative Valuation Q2 March 2008
- Lease vs Buy
- Ashwamedham_IIMRohtak_Romanjam
- qo
- Renatus Bulletin 2.19.12
- Notice
- ch28
- Trading Journals of Real Traders
- Column27

- Hedge Fund Gates Study
- Markopolos Testimony on Madoff
- Pershing Square IV Letter to Investors
- Equipment Lease
- SEC v. Cooperman
- Lease with Option to Purchase
- Buy-Sell Agreement
- Maximizing the Capacity of the EFSF (7.11.2011)
- Omega Advisors Inc. Letter to Investors 9.21.16
- ACCA Exam Tips June 2010 OpenTuition.com
- Deloitte v Flanagan
- Madoff Trustee's Lawsuit Against Fairfield Greenwich
- Rent to Own Agreement
- Sacramento-Municipal-Util-Dist-GS-TOU2-Medium-General-Service-Time-of-Use
- UT Dallas Syllabus for fin6355.501.11f taught by David Springate (spring8)
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,166, 5 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 368 United States of America v. Bruce A. Jensen, 608 F.2d 1349, 10th Cir. (1979)
- Robert L. Reis and Barbara D. Reis v. George O. Sparks, Jr., and Elizabeth H. Sparks, and Mary S. Potter, D/B/A M. S. Potter Real Estate, Robert L. Reis and Barbara D. Reis v. George O. Sparks, Jr., and Elizabeth H. Sparks, and Mary S. Potter D/B/A M. S. Potter Real Estate, 547 F.2d 236, 4th Cir. (1976)
- Colorado Marijuana Investor Alert
- rev_stls_198306
- Salt Lake Tribune v. Management Planning, 390 F.3d 684, 10th Cir. (2004)
- Accenture Outlook
- Draft BOOM Agreement - BayWEB Project - 09-24-2010
- SHILOH INDUSTRIES INC 10-Q (Quarterly Reports) 2009-02-25
- sensep_2_pt13
- 81314_Viggle_8k_912AM_Nov19
- Commitment of Traders Report
- Cary Marine, Inc. v. The Motorvessel Papillon, Great Lakes Cary Corporation, Donald B. McCann and Third Party Randy Postma, Third Party, 872 F.2d 751, 3rd Cir. (1989)
- UT Dallas Syllabus for fin6360.0u1.11u taught by Christopher Angelo (cga051000)
- ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY INC 8-K (Events or Changes Between Quarterly Reports) 2009-02-20
- Equity Incentive Plan

- Latitude Advertisement Agency Business Plan
- Final Rainbow Restaurant
- Atlas Honda Analysis Report
- Nestle Ppt
- HRM Practices of Warid Telecom
- Nestle Juices Project
- Mazdoor Nama
- Dawn News
- Yellow Journalism Ass
- Dulux ICI Marketing Plan
- Poineer Research business plan
- Juice Buks Business Plan
- Accounting and Costing System analysis at Super Asia Fans
- Tahzeeb Business Plan
- 1st World War by Alan Woods
- Nirala Sweets Management Systems
- Coca Cola HRM
- ICI HRM
- Master Tiles Marketing Plan
- Chapter 10 Analysis of Financial Statements
- Chapter 13 Corporate Valuation, Value-Based Management, And Corporate Governance
- Sugar Crisis in Pakistan research paper
- PSO (HRM)
- Chapter 11 Cash Flow Estimation and Risk Analysis
- Pakistan Cement Factory Marketing Management
- Faisal Bank HRM Systems
- Strategic Marketing Haleeb Foods

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulRead Free for 30 Days

Cancel anytime.

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Close Dialog## This title now requires a credit

Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

Loading