chapter9公司理財(cái)-資料下載頁
2025-01-04 22:00本頁面
【正文】 o. This result does make sense. It is better to have a series of payments that are high when the market is booming and low when it is slumping (., a high beta) than the reverse.The beta of an investment is independent of the sign of the cash flows. If an investment has a high beta for anyone paying out the cash flows, it must have a high beta for anyone receiving them. If the sign of the cash flows affected the discount rate, each asset would have one value for the buyer and one for the seller, which is clearly an impossible situation.2. a. Since the risk of a dry hole is unlikely to be marketrelated, we can use the same discount rate as for producing wells. Thus, using the Security Market Line: rnominal = + ( 180。 ) = = % We know that:(1 + rnominal) = (1 + rreal) 180。 (1 + rinflation) Therefore: b. c. Expected ine from Well 1: [( 180。 0) + ( 180。 3 million)] = $ million Expected ine from Well 2: [( 180。 0) + ( 180。 2 million)] = $ million Discounting at percent gives:d. For Well 1, one can certainly find a discount rate (and hence a “fudge factor”) that, when applied to cash flows of $3 million per year for 10 years, will yield the correct NPV of $5,504,600. Similarly, for Well 2, one can find the appropriate discount rate. However, these two “fudge factors” will be different. Specifically, Well 2 will have a smaller “fudge factor” because its cash flows are more distant. With more distant cash flows, a smaller addition to the discount rate has a larger impact on present value.3. Internet exercise。 answers will vary.81
公司管理相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號-1