Skip to main content

Capital Rationing as an Incentive Instrument for Growth Options

  • Chapter

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. For an overview see, e.g., Dixit & Pindyck (1994); Trigeorgis (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  2. See, e.g., Lambert (2001) pp. 77–79.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Antle & Eppen (1985) have analyzed the role of organizational slack for a single one-period investment project based on the same hypothesis.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See Antle & Fellingham (1997) for an overview over models with private information and incentives.

    Google Scholar 

  5. The latter of these results can be found in a number of papers dealing with investment incentive problems, including Holmström & Weiss (1985); Harris & Raviv (1996); Bernardo et al. (2001); Dutta & Reichelstein (2002b).

    Google Scholar 

  6. See McDonald & Siegel (1986); Ingersoll jr. & Ross (1992); Hu & Bernt (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  7. See Myers (1977); Kester (1984); Kester (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  8. One exception is Bjerksund & Stensland (2000). They study a situation, where a principal who is the owner of a natural gas field must get gas through a pipeline that is operated by an agent to the market.

    Google Scholar 

  9. For an application of their model see Antle et al. (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  10. In general, the value of the timing option is high, when the investment opportunity is exclusive to one party. Competition reduces the option value. See Grenadier (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  11. See Schiller (2001) for a similar assumption. Laux (2001) shows, how the limited-liability constraint relaxes, if multiple projects are combined under the management of a single manager.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Here, I refer particularly to the result in Antle & Eppen (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  13. See Neher (1999) for an explanation of staged financing in the face of a commitment problem using a model with perfect certainty.

    Google Scholar 

  14. See Amram & Kulatilaka (1999), p. 168.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See Friedl (2002a), pp. 73–81.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2007). Capital Rationing as an Incentive Instrument for Growth Options. In: Real Options and Investment Incentives. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-48268-0_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics