Strategic Myopia and Certainty

  • Ricardo G. Barcelona


Financial theories come to life when they are applied to solving real-life problems. In this chapter, a container port expansion project next to a liquefied natural gas (LNG) regasification plant is considered. The project’s marginal NPVs under different scenarios illustrate a classic capital budgeting stance: an open and shut case for rejection. However, failing to expand opens the business to contractual default, and this has strategic consequences. Hence, when the embedded real options are considered, investing in a “marginal” project may be justifiable, because it allows larger gas payoffs to be secured.


  1. Copeland, T., Koller, T., & Murrin, J. (2000). Valuation (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley Finance.Google Scholar
  2. Damodaran, A. (1996). Investment valuation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  3. Gordon, M., & Shapiro, E. (1956). Capital equipment analysis: The required rate of profit. Management Science, 3, 102–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hamada, R. (1972). The effect of the firm’s capital structure on the systematic risk of common stocks. The Journal of Finance, 27(2), 435–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Modigliani, F., & Miller, M. H. (1958). The cost of capital, corporate finance and the theory of investment. The American Economic Review, 48(3), 261–297.Google Scholar
  6. Ohlson, J. A. (1990). A synthesis of security valuation theory and the role of dividends, cash flows, and earnings. Contemporary Accounting Research, 6(2), 648–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IESE Business SchoolUniversity of NavarraBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations