No Access

Influence of Managers’ Subjective Judgments on Project Abandonment Decision Making

Yuhong Liu

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7452-3504

Graduate Institute of Finance, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan City 70101, Taiwan

E-mail Address: yuhong@mail.ncku.edu.tw

Search for more papers by this author

I-Ming Jiang

Faculty of Digital Finance, College of Management, Yuan Ze University, No. 135, Far-East Rd., Chung-Li, Taoyuan, Taiwan

E-mail Address: jiangfinance@saturn.yzu.edu.tw

Corresponding author.

Search for more papers by this author

, and

Meng-I Tsai

Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management, College of Management, No. 135, Far-East Rd., Chung-Li, Taoyuan, Yuan-Ze University, Taiwan

E-mail Address: tommy0921792267@gmail.com

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622018500529Cited by:2 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

Real option valuation with flexibility under uncertainty has been proposed as an alternative and advantageous complement to the traditional net present value (NPV) method for capital budgeting decisions, yet the problem with unrealistic expectations on precision has still not been solved. It appears clearly that a high level of precision in cash flow estimates can be misleading for the decision makers with sentiments. To the extent that precision surrounds a decision, we introduce a fuzzy process into an abandonment option approach, which is built on the use of fuzzy numbers, to investigate the effects of managerial optimism and pessimism when a manager considers whether or not to abandon capital budgeting decisions under imprecision and uncertainty. From the numerical analyses of the proposed model, we find that an optimistic manager tends to continue executing the project, while a pessimistic manager tends to give up the project and liquidate it as the value of the abandonment option is within the range of a fuzzy sentiments interval. In addition, if the project value is below the lower bound of the fuzzy sentiments interval, then it is better to exercise the abandonment option rather than to continue holding it, for both optimistic and pessimistic managers. Finally, this paper also examines why managers may still continue a project, even if its Tobin’s $q$ value is smaller than one.

Keywords:

References

1. J. Bengtsson, Manufacturing flexibility and real options: A review, International Journal of Production Economics 7 (2001) 213–224. Web of Science, Google Scholar
2. S. C. Myers, Determinants of corporate borrowing, Journal of Financial Economics 5 (1977) 147–176. Web of Science, Google Scholar
3. R. McDonald and D. Siegel, Investment and the valuation of firms when there is an option to shut down, International Economic Review 26 (1985) 331–349. Web of Science, Google Scholar
4. R. S. Pindyck, Irreversibility, uncertainty, and investment, Journal of Economic Literature 29 (1991) 1110–1148. Web of Science, Google Scholar
5. A. K. Dixit and R. S. Pindyck, Investment under Uncertainty (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1994). Google Scholar
6. L. Trigeorgis, Real Options: Managerial Flexibility and Strategy in Resource Allocation (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996). Google Scholar
7. J. T. S. Cheng, I. M. Jiang and Y. H. Liu, Technological innovation, product life cycle and market power: A real options approach, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 14 (2015) 93–113. Link, Web of Science, Google Scholar
8. M. Brennan and E. Schwartz, Evaluating natural resource investments, Journal of Business 58(2) (1985) 135–157. Google Scholar
9. N. S. Kaplan and M. S. Weisbach, The success of acquisitions: Evidence from divestitures, Journal of Finance 47 (1992) 107–138. Web of Science, Google Scholar
10. A. Robichek and J. VanHorne, Abandonment value and capital budgeting, Journal of Finance 22 (1967) 577–590. Web of Science, Google Scholar
11. S. C. Myers and S. Majd, Abandonment value and project life, Advances in Futures and Options Research 4 (1990) 1–21. Google Scholar
12. E. Dyl and H. Long, Abandonment value and capital budgeting: Comment, Journal of Finance 24 (1969) 88–95. Web of Science, Google Scholar
13. J. H. Saleh, E. S. Lamassoure and D. E. Hastings, Flexibility and the value of on-orbit servicing: New customer-centric perspective, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 40 (2003) 279–291. Web of Science, Google Scholar
14. A. L. Weigel and D. E. Hastings, Application of real options to strategic management of military satellite communications, AIAA Paper No. 2001-4572, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA (2001). Google Scholar
15. B. Miller and J. P. Clarke, Application of real options to evaluate the development process of new aircraft models, AIAA Paper No. 2004-6498, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA (2004). Google Scholar
16. L. Miller and M. Bertus, License valuation in the aerospace industry: A real options approach, Review of Financial Economics 14 (2005) 225–239. Google Scholar
17. J. A. Rodger, A fuzzy linguistic ontology payoff method for aerospace real options valuation, Expert Systems with Applications 40 (2009) 2828–2840. Web of Science, Google Scholar
18. R. Comment and G. A. Jarrell, Corporate focus and stock returns, Journal of Financial Economics 37 (1995) 67–87. Web of Science, Google Scholar
19. K. John and E. Ofek, Asset sales and increases in focus, Journal of Financial Economics 37 (1995) 105–126. Web of Science, Google Scholar
20. L. Lang, A. Poulsen and R. Stulz, Asset sales, firm performance, and the agency costs of managerial discretion, Journal of Financial Economics 37 (1995) 3–37. Web of Science, Google Scholar
21. K. M. J. Kaiser and A. Stouraitis, Agency costs and strategic considerations behind sell-offs: The UK evidence, European Financial Management 7 (2001) 319–349. Google Scholar
22. W. F. M. DeBondt and R. H. Thaler, Financial decision-making in markets and firms: A behavioral perspective, in Finance, Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, eds. R. A. Jarrow, V. Maksimovic and W. T. Ziemba, Vol. 9, Chapter 13 (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1995), pp. 385–410. Google Scholar
23. U. Malmendier and G. A. Tate, CEO overconfidence and corporate investment, Journal of Finance 60 (2005) 2660–2700. Web of Science, Google Scholar
24. U. Malmendier and G. A. Tate, Who makes acquisitions? CEO overconfidence and the market’s reaction, Journal of Financial Economics 89 (2008) 20–43. Web of Science, Google Scholar
25. I. Ben-David, J. R. Graham and C. R. Harvey, Managerial miscalibration, Quarterly Journal of Economics 128(4) (2013) 1547–1584. Web of Science, Google Scholar
26. Z. Sautner and M. Weber, How do managers behave in stock option plans? Clinical evidence from exercise and survey data, Journal of Financial Research 32 (2009) 123–155. Google Scholar
27. Y. Liu and R. Taffler, CEO overconfidence in M&A decision making and its impact on firm performance, Working paper, University of Edinburgh (2008). Google Scholar
28. S. Gervais, J. B. Heaton and T. Odean, Overconfidence, compensation contracts, and capital budgeting, Journal of Finance 65 (2011) 1735–1777. Web of Science, Google Scholar
29. L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information and Control 8 (1965) 338–353. Web of Science, Google Scholar
30. S. Y. Wang and C. F. Lee, A fuzzy real option valuation approach to capital budgeting under uncertainty environment, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 9(5) (2010) 695–713. Link, Web of Science, Google Scholar
31. G. Kou, Y. Lu, Y. Peng and Y. Shi. Evaluation of classification algorithms using MCDM and rank correlation, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 11(1) (2012) 197–225. Link, Web of Science, Google Scholar
32. G. Kou, Y. Peng and G. Wang, Evaluation of clustering algorithms for financial risk analysis using MCDM methods, Information Science 275 (2014) 1–12. Web of Science, Google Scholar
33. G. Kou, D. Ergu, C. Lin and Y. Chen, Pairwise comparison matrix in multiple criteria decision making, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 22(5) (2016) 738–765. Web of Science, Google Scholar
34. Y. H. Liu and I. M. Jiang, Influence of investor subjective judgments in investment decision-making, International Review of Economics & Finance 24 (2012) 129–142. Web of Science, Google Scholar
35. K. P. Wong, The effects of abandonment options on operating leverage and investment timing, International Review of Economics and Finance 18 (2009) 162–171. Web of Science, Google Scholar
36. K. P. Wong, The effects of abandonment options on investment timing and intensity, Bulletin of Economic Research 64(3) (2012) 305–318. Web of Science, Google Scholar
37. J. Tobin, A general equilibrium approach to monetary theory, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 1(1) (1969) 15–29. Google Scholar
38. M. R. Kamran, Z. Chou, H. S. Ali and F. Sabir, Does earnings management mediate the impact of financial policies on market value of firms? A comparative study of China and Pakistan, International Journal of Financial Engineering 5(1) (2018) 1–22. Link, Web of Science, Google Scholar
39. F. Black and M. Scholes, The pricing of options and corporate liabilities, Journal of Political Economy 81 (1973) 637–659. Web of Science, Google Scholar
40. W. Margrabe, The value of an option to exchange one asset for another, Journal of Finance 33 (1978) 177–186. Web of Science, Google Scholar
41. J. M. Harrison, Brownian Motion and Stochastic Flow Systems (Wiley, New York, 1985). Google Scholar
42. L. Trigeorgis, Real Options in Capital Investment Models, Strategies and Applications (Praeger, Westport, CT, 1995). Google Scholar
43. M. C. Jensen, Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers, American Economic Review 76 (1986) 323–329. Web of Science, Google Scholar
44. N. Koussis, S. H. Martzoukos and L. Trigeorgis, Real R&D options with time-to-learn and learning-by-doing, Annals of Operations Research 151 (2007) 29–55. Web of Science, Google Scholar
45. J. B. Heaton, Managerial optimism and corporate finance, Financial Management 31 (2002) 33–45. Web of Science, Google Scholar