Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-55tpx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-07T17:22:55.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Correct Procedures for the Evaluation of Risky Cash Outflows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Laurence D. Booth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of this paper is to determine the correct procedure for discounting cash outflows in a capital market context. Beedles has stated flatly that “the risk adjusted discount (RADR) approach should not be applied to investment projects with negative benefits” ([1], p. 176). Lewellen also has recently examined the problem because he felt that there “is something at least vaguely disturbing about the associated write-down of the present value of cash outflows for risk” ([7], p. 1332). Lewellen, however, concluded that “the standard procedure used for inflows can therefore be transferred intact. The logic is symmetric because the sign of the flows is reversed.” In a comment on Lewellen, Celec and Pettway stated that they are “in substantial disagreement with Lewellen's development as well as with any implied generality of employing the standard RADR procedure in valuing cash outflow streams” ([3], P. 1061). This inappropriateness of the standard RADR approach to valuing cash outflows seems to have been accepted in the 1iterature. Kudla [6] recently claimed that it has been proved by the above authors and others that the normative rules in capital budgeting do not hold in evaluating cash outflows.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 1982 , pp. 287 - 300
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Beedles, W. “Evaluating Negative Benefits.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis (03 1978), pp. 173–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Berry, R. H., and Dyson, R. G. “On the Negative Risk Premium for Risk Adjusted Discount Rates.” Journal of Business Finance and Accounting (Autumn 1980), pp. 427–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Celec, S. E., and Pettway, R. H. “Some Observations on Risk Adjusted Discount Rates: A Comment.” Journal of Finance (09 1979), pp. 1061–1063.Google Scholar
[4]Hirshleifer, J.Investment, Interest and Capital. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall (1970).Google Scholar
[5]Kraus, A., and Litzenberger, R.. “A State-Preference Model of Optimal Financial Leverage.” Journal of Finance (09 1973), pp. 911–922.Google Scholar
[6]Kudla, R. J. “Some Pitfalls in Using Certainty Equivalents: A Note.” Journal of Business Finance and Accounting (Summer 1980), pp. 239–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Lewellen, W. G. “Some Observations on Risk Adjusted Discount Rates.” Journal of Finance (09 1977), pp. 1331–1337Google Scholar
[8]Lewellen, W. G. “Reply to Pettway and Celec.” Journal of Finance (09 1979), pp. 1065–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Miles, J., and Choi, D. “Comment: Evaluating Negative Benefits.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis (12 1979), PP.1095–1099.Google Scholar
[10]Myers, S. “A Time-State-Preference Model of Security Valuation.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis (03 1968), pp. 1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Robichek, A. A., and Myers, S. C. “Conceptual Problems in the Use of Risk Adjusted Discount Rates.” Journal of Finance (12 1966), pp. 727–730.Google Scholar
[12]Rubinstein, M. E. “An Aggregation Theorem for Securities Markets.” Journal of Financial Economics (09 1974), pp. 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Rubinstein, M. E. “Securities Market Efficiency in an Arrow-Debreu Economy.” American Economic Review (12 1975), PP. 812–824.Google Scholar