Yatırım Projelerinin Net Bugünkü Riske Maruz Değer Göstergesi Kullanılarak Karşılaştırılması

The aim of this study is to compare and choose the most appropriate project among investment projects giving similar results in terms of the evaluation criteria such as investment amount, NPV, IRR (Internal Rate of Return), PI (Profitability Index), Payback Period (PP) etc., by using Net Present Value-at-Risk (NPV-at-Risk) parameter. For that purpose, in addition to the basic project evaluation criteria, the NPV-at-Risk values are calculated for a number of hypothetical investment projects, for which random numbers for uncertainty factors such as amount of demand and variable costs are generated via Monte Carlo simulation. VaR values received from yearly changes in simulated cash flows are used to calculate NPV-at-Risk for different confidence levels. Finally, bubble diagram is sketched to visualize and compare the projects in terms of their NPV-at-Risk (NPV@R), size of the investments and Expected NPV (E[NPV]).

Keywords:

Value-at-Risk, Net Present Value-at-Risk investment projects, Monte Carlo simulation,

PDF

___

[1] A. Warsawski and R. Sacks, Practical multifactor approach to evaluating risk of investment in engineering projects, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 130 (2004), 357–367.
[2] A. M. Khan and D. P. Fiorino, The capital asset pricing model in project selection: A case study, The Engineering Economist 37 (1992), 145–160.
[3] C. Marshall and M. Siegel, Value-at-risk: Implementing a risk measurement standard, Conference on Risk Management in Banking, Financial Institutions Center, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, October 13-15, 1996.
[4] J. C. Goodpasture, Quantitative Methods in Project Management, J. Ross Publishing Inc., 2003.
[5] S. Ye and R. L. K. Tiong , NPV-at-risk method in infrastructure project investment evaluation, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 126 (2000), 227–233.
[6] M. Duman, Bankacılık sektöründe finansal riskin ölçülmesi ve gözetiminde yeni bir yaklaşım: Value at risk metodolojisi, TBB Bankacılar Dergisi 32 (2000), 22-30.
[7] J. Hull, Introduction to Futures and Options Markets, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1998.
[8] A. Aydın. Sermaye yeterlili˘gi ve VAR (value at risk). http://www.tbb.org.tr/Dosyalar/Arastirma ve Raporlar/sermaye var.doc, 2000. Online; accessed 12-December-2010.
[9] C. C. Küçüközmen, Bankacılıkta risk yönetimi ve sermaye yeterliliği: Value at risk uygulamaları,İktisat İşletme ve Finans 14 (1999), 71–87.
[10] J. Hudakova. Firm projects and social behaviour of investors. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0509/0509102v2.pdf, 2005. Online; accessed 12-December-2010.
[11] K. Çonkar, Küçük ve Orta Ölçekli İşletmelerde Yatırım Kararları ve Yatırım Teşvikleri, Biar Enstitüsü, Ankara 1992.
[12] F. Caron, M. Fumagalli and A. Rigamonti, Engineering and contracting projects: A value at risk based approach to portfolio balancing, International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007), 569–578.