Skip to main content
Log in

Utility based pricing and exercising of real options under geometric mean reversion and risk aversion toward idiosyncratic risk

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Mathematical Methods of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We study the classical real option problem in which an agent faces the decision if and when to invest optimally into a project. The investment is assumed to be irreversible. This problem has been studied by Myers and Majd (Adv Futures Options Res 4:1–21, 1990) for the case of a complete market, in which the risk can be perfectly hedged with an appropriate spanning asset, by McDonald and Siegel (Q J Econ, 101:707–727, 1986), who include the incomplete case but assume that the agent is risk neutral toward idiosyncratic risk, and later by Henderson (Valuing the option to invest in an incomplete market, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=569865, 2006) who studies the incomplete case with risk aversion toward idiosyncratic risk under the assumption that the project value follows a geometric Brownian motion. We take up Henderson’s utility based approach but assume as suggested by Dixit and Pindyck (Investment under uncertainty, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1994) as well as others, that the project value follows a geometric mean reverting process. The mean reverting structure of the project value process makes our model richer and economically more meaningful. By using techniques from optimal control theory we derive analytic expressions for the value and the optimal exercise time of the option to invest.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramowitz M, Stegun IA (1972) Handbook of mathematical functions. Dover Books on Advanced Mathematics

  • Alos E, Ewald C-O (2007) Malliavin differentiability of the Heston volatility and applications to option pricing. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=986316

  • Bjoerk T (2004) Arbitrage theory in continuous time. Oxford University Press,

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Dixit A, Pindyck R (1994) Investment under uncertainty. Princeton University Press,

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewald C-O (2005) Local volatility in the Heston stochastic volatility model. J Appl Math Stochastic Anal 2005(3): 307–322

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ewald C-O (2005) Optimal logarithmic utility and optimal portfolios for an insider in a stochastic volatility model. Int J Theor Appl Financ 8(3): 301–319

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ewald C-O, Zhang A (2006) A new technique for calibrating stochastic volatility models: the Malliavin gradient method. Quantitat Financ 6(2): 147–158

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ewald C-O, Yang ZJ (2007) Geometric mean reversion: formulas for the equilibrium density and analytic moment matching (preprint). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=999561

  • Epstein M, Schonbucher W, Wilmott P (1998) The valuation of a firm advertising optimally. Q Rev Econ Financ 38(2): 149–

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming WH, Rishel RW (1975) Deterministic and stochastic optimal control. Appl Math Springer

  • Henderson V (2002) Valuation of claims on non-tradable asset using utility maximization. Math Financ 12(4): 351–

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson V (2006) Valuing the option to invest in an incomplete market. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=569865

  • Henderson V, Hobson D (2002) Real options with constant relative risk aversion. J Econ Dyn Control 27(2): 329–

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson V, Hobson D (2007) Horizon unbiased utility functions. Stochastic Processes Appl 117(11): 1621–

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hobson D (2003) Real options, non-tradable assets and utility indifference prices. University of Bath, UK (preprint)

  • Metcalf G, Hasset K (1995) Investment under alternative return assumptions comparing random walk and mean reversion. J Econ Dyn Control 19: 1471–

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald R, Siegel DR (1986) The value of waiting to invest. Q J Econ 101: 707–

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers SC (1977) Determinants of corporate borrowing. J Financ Econ 5(2): 147–

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers SC, Majd S (1990) Abandonment value and project life. Adv Futures Options Res 4: 1–

    Google Scholar 

  • Oksendal B, Sulem A (2007) Applied stochastic control of jump diffusions. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Pindyck S (2000) Irreversibilities and the timing of environmental policy. Resour Energy Econ 22: 233–

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang ZJ, Huang LH (2005) Maximizing expected utility from terminal wealth under the case of different rates between borrowing and saving. Chin J Manage Sci 8(5): 50–

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian-Oliver Ewald.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ewald, CO., Yang, Z. Utility based pricing and exercising of real options under geometric mean reversion and risk aversion toward idiosyncratic risk. Math Meth Oper Res 68, 97–123 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00186-007-0190-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00186-007-0190-9

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation