Computational Economics

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 331–355 | Cite as

Valuation of R&D Investment Opportunities with the Threat of Competitors Entry in Real Option Analysis

  • Giovanni Villani


This paper provides a real option methodology in order to value a pioneer’s R&D investment opportunity allowing for more potential competitors to enter in the market. To incorporate this competitive dimension, we assume that the pioneer may lose the “competitive dividends”   if the real option is not exercised. According to Majd and pindyck (1987) (Journal of Financial Economics 18(1):7–27), in a real options context, “dividends”   are the opportunity costs inherent in the decision to defer an investment project and so deferment implies the loss of project’s cash flows. Concerning this, Trigeorgis (1996) (Real Options: Managerial Flexibility and Strategy in Resource Allocation, The MIT Press, Cambridge, (1996) incorporates the preemption effect through the “competitive dividends”  which are the cash flows that can be eroded by anticipated competitive arrivals. In particular way, we propose the valuation of a pioneer’s R&D investment assuming that the Development cost can be spent in two moments: \(t_2\) or \(t_3\). If the Development cost is realized in \(t_2\) no firms enters in the market since the rivals’ R&D plan is not yet concluded otherwise, if the Development cost is delayed until time \(t_3\) waiting better market conditions, other rivals may enter in the market and so the opportunity costs, namely dividends, increase. Moreover, we analyze the optimal timing to realize the Development investment, i.e. we determine the conditions for which the pioneer prefers to invest the Development cost at time \(t_2\) or \(t_3\).


Real options R&D Monte Carlo methods Competitive dividends 

JEL Classification

G13 O32 C15 D40 


  1. Armada, M. R., Kryzanowsky, L., & Pereira, P. J. (2007). A modified finite-lived American exchange option methodology applied to real options valuation. Global Finance Journal, 17(3), 419–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armada, M. R., Kryzanowsky, L., & Pereira, P. J. (2011). Optimal investment decisions for two positioned firms competing in a duopoly market with hidden competitors. European Financial Management, 17(2), 305–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandão, L. E., & Dyer, J. S. (2005). Decision analysis and real options: A discrete time approach to real option valuation. Annals of Operations Research, 135(1), 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carr, P. (1988). The valuation of sequential exchange opportunities. The Journal of Finance, 43(5), 1235–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carr, P. (1995). The valuation of American exchange options with application to real options. In Lenos Trigeorgis (Ed.), Real options in capital investment: Models, strategies and applications. London: Westport Connecticut.Google Scholar
  6. Cortazar, G. (2001). Simulation and numerical methods in real options valuation. In E. S. Schwartz & L. Schwartz (Eds.), Real options and investment under uncertainty: Classical readings and recent contributions (pp. 601–620). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cortelezzi, F., & Villani, G. (2009). Valuation of R &D sequential exchange options using Monte Carlo approach. Computational Economics, 33(3), 209–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dias, M. A. G. (2004). Valuation of exploration and production assets: An overview of real options models. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 44(1–2), 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fudenberg, D., & Tirole, J. (1985). Preemption and rent equalization in the adoption of new technology. Review of Economic Studies, 52, 383–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gamba, A. (2003). Real options valuation: A Monte Carlo approach. Working Paper Series 2002/03, Faculty of Management, University of Calgary.Google Scholar
  11. Grenadier, S. R. (1996). The strategic exercise of options: Development cascades and overbuilding in real estate markets. The Journal of Finance, 51(5), 1579–1653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huisman, K. J. M. (2001). Technology investment: A game theoretic real options approach. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lambrecht, B., & Perraudin, W. (2003). Real options and preemption under incomplete information. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 27(4), 619–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Majd, S., & Pindyck, R. S. (1987). Time to build, option value and investment decisions. Journal of Financial Economics, 18(1), 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Margrabe, W. (1978). The value of an exchange option to exchange one asset for another. The Journal of Finance, 33(1), 177–186.Google Scholar
  16. McDonald, R., & Siegel D. R. (1986). The value of waiting to invest. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101, 707–727.Google Scholar
  17. McDonald, R. L., & Siegel, D. R. (1985). Investment and the valuation of firms when there is an option to shut down. International Economic Review, 28(2), 331–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Smith, T. A. (2003). Real options and takeovers. Emory Law Journal, 52(4), 1815–1846.Google Scholar
  19. Thijssen, J. J. J. (2010). Preemption in a real option game with a first mover advantage and player-specific uncertainty. Journal of Economic Theory, 145, 2448–2462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Trigeorgis, L. (1996). Real options: Managerial flexibility and strategy in resource allocation. Cambridge: The Mit Press.Google Scholar
  21. Weeds, H. (2002). Strategic delay in a real options model of R &D competition. Review of Economic Studies, 69(3), 729–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of FoggiaFoggiaItaly

Personalised recommendations