Using real options for revenue risk mitigation in transportation project financing

Transportation Research Record

Volumn , Issue 1993, 2007, Pages 1-8

  Chiara, Nicola ^a   Garvin, Michael J ^b  

^a Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences   (United States)

^b VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MONTE CARLO METHODS; PROJECT MANAGEMENT;

BUILD-OPERATE-TRANSFER (BOT); MULTI-EXERCISE BOUNDARY METHOD; REVENUE RISK; RISK MITIGATION;

RISK MANAGEMENT;

EID: 38349035909     PISSN: 03611981     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3141/1993-01     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Reinhardt, W. State Legislative Scorecard: Enabling Laws for Transportation Partnerships. Public Works Financing, Vol. 186, 2004, p. 7.
2. Esty, B. C. Modern Project Finance: A Casebook. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2003.
3. Yescombe, E. R. Principles of Project Finance. Academic Press, San Diego, Calif., 2003.
4. Dailami, M., I. Lipkovich, and J. Van Dyck. INFRISK: A Computer Simulation Approach to Risk Management in Infrastructure Project Finance Transactions. Paper 2083. World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1999.
5. Hoffman, S. L. The Law and Business of International Project Finance. Transnational Publishers, Inc., Ardsley, N.Y., 2001.
6. Irwin, T. Public Money for Private Infrastructure. Paper 26601. World Bank, Washington, D.C., 2003.
7. Wibowo, A. Valuing Guarantees in a BOT Infrastructure Project. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 11, No. 7, 2004, pp. 395-403.
8. Vassallo, J. M., and A. S. Soliño. Minimum Income Guarantee in Transportation Infrastructure Concessions in Chile. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1960, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 15-22.
9. Chiara, N. Real Options Methods for Improving Economic Risk Management in Infrastructure Project Finance. PhD diss. Columbia University, New York, 2006.
10. Jaillet, P., E. I. Ronn, and S. Tompaidis. Valuation of Commodity-Based Swing Options. Management Science, Vol. 50, No. 7, 2004, pp. 909-921.
11. Broadie, M., and P. Glasserman. Pricing American-Style Securities Using Simulation. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Vol. 21, No. 8, 1997, pp. 1323-1352.
12. Meinshausen, N., and B. M.Hambly. Monte Carlo Methods for the Valuation of Multiple-Exercise Options. Mathematical Finance, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2004, pp. 557-583.
13. Longstaff, F. A., and E. S. Schwartz. Valuing American Options by Simulation: A Simple Least Squares Approach. Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2001, pp. 113-147.
14. Andersen, L. A. A Simple Approach to the Pricing of Bermudan Swap Options in the Multifactor LIBOR Market Model. Journal of Computational Finance, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2000, pp. 5-32.
15. Esty, B. C. Improved Techniques for Valuing Large-Scale Projects. Journal of Project Finance, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1999, pp. 9-25.
16. Guasch, J. L. Granting and Renegotiating Infrastructure Concessions, Doing Right. Paper No. 28816. WBI Development Studies, The World Bank, Washington, D.C., 2004.
17. Bodie, Z., A. Kane, and A. Marcus. Investments, 6th ed. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, New York, 2005.