:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:應用實質選擇權方法評估自辦市地重劃之投資效益
作者:凃新南
作者(外文):Hisn-nan Tu
校院名稱:國立高雄第一科技大學
系所名稱:管理研究所
指導教授:林楚雄
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2012
主題關鍵詞:自辦市地重劃實質選擇權二項式實質選擇權模型土地開發Binomial Option Pricing Modelurban land readjustmentland developmentreal option
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:39
以傳統淨現值方法評估自辦市地重劃計畫,對開發商而言並無合理之投資報酬,然開發商並未因此放棄開發,因此自辦市地重劃案之開發效益是高或低,實有深入探討之必要。本研究主要運用與比較二項式實質選擇權模型 (Binomial Option Pricing Model)與Capozza and Li (2002)實質選擇權模型分析自辦市地重劃案開發之投資價值。本研究以高雄縣慈惠與文山兩自辦市地重劃案為研究對象,實證結果究發現:(1)二項式實質選擇權模型與Capozza and Li (2002)實質選擇權模型均較傳統淨現值法評估之結果穩定且具一致性。(2)兩個研究個案均具投資價值,應即刻開發。(3)二項式實質選擇權模型較Capozza and Li (2002)實質選擇權模型為佳。
Traditional NPV approach shows there is no profit for land developers in most of the readjustment projects. However, land developers still flung themselves into the readjustment project. Such phenomenon raises a question that whether the traditional NPV approach is appropriate in evaluating the land readjustment project and consequently motives this study. Using both the Binomial Option Pricing Model and the Real Option Model of Capozza and Li (2002), as well as the samples from Tzwhei and Wenshan land adjustment projects in Kaohsiung City, this study concludes that: (1) evaluations from either the Binomial Option Pricing Model or the Real Option Model are more stable and consistent than that from traditional NPV approach, (2) results from those two models suggest the two readjustments should be undertaken immediately and (3) the Binomial Option Pricing Model performs better than the Real Option Model does.
一、中文
1.王健安,1998,資本投資計畫評核術的一個新觀念—實質選擇權之理論與實證方法的文獻回顧,台灣土地金融季刊,35(4),P.75-98。
2.王健安,1999,從等待價值與融資限制的觀點探討不動產投資開發的決策過程,中華民國住宅學會第八屆年會論文集,P.221-237。
3.李宗政,1999,民間參與投資BOT交通建設之決策分析-相關開發機會之考量,國立交通大學博士論文。
4.林財源,1995,財務報表分析,三民書局。
5.吳秉蓁,2000,都市更新容積獎勵對開發時機的影響,政治大學地政系碩士論文。
6.周麗娟、張大成,1998,金融選擇權與實質選擇權,台北銀行月刊,28(3),P.12-23。
7.高孟定,1994,市地重劃:有效的都市計畫實施工具,計畫經緯,18,P.3-17。
8.梁仁旭,2007,土地選擇權時間價值比之研究,都市與計畫,34(1),P.1-12。
9.梁仁旭、陳奉瑤,2005,土地選擇權價值之實證分析,2005年海峽兩岸土地學術研討會。
10.黃嘉興、凃新南,2004,實質選擇權在BOT資本投資決策之應用-以高雄捷運為例,臺灣銀行季刊,55(3),P.289-325。new window
11.陳明吉、蘇培魁、羅容恆,2004,BOT計畫投資時點選擇之價值評估-以大鵬灣國家風景區為例,中山管理評論,12(4),P.825-853。new window
12.陳冠華,1999,不確定市場下建商投資行為之研究,政治大學地政研究所碩士論文。
13.蔡小美,2008,實質選擇權在市地重劃上之應用–以公辦第54期高雄巨蛋為例,中山大學財務管理學系碩士論文。
14.蔡進國,1997,實質選擇權在土地估價上之應用-傳統評估方法與實質選擇權法之分析比較,臺灣大學財務金融研究所碩士論文。
15.劉佳侑,2007,實質選擇權對土地開發時機及其價值影響之實證研究,政治大學地政研究所碩士論文。
二、英文
1.Adams, D., Disberry, A., Hutchison, N., Munjoma, T., 2001, Ownership constrains to brownfield redevelopment, Environment and Planning A, 33, P.453-477.
2.Caballero, R. J., 1991, “On the Sign of the Investment-Uncertainty Relationship”, American Economic Review, 81(1), P.279-288.
3.Capozza, D. R. and Helsley, R. W., 1990, “The Stochastic City”, Journal of Urban Economics, 28, P.187-203.
4.Capozza, D. R. and Li, Y., 1994, “The Intensity and Timing of investment: The Case of Land”, The American Economic Review, 84(4), P.889-904.
5.Capozza, D. R. and Sick, G. A., 1994, “The Risk Structure of Land Market”, Journal of Urban Economics, 35, P.297-319.
6.Capozza, D. R. and Li, Y.(2002), “Optimal Land Development Decisions”, Journal of Urban Economics, 51, P.123-142.
7.Cox, John C., Stephen A, Ross, and Mark Rubinstein, 1979, "Option Pricing: A Simplfied Approach", Journal of Financial Economics, 7, P.229-263.
8.Dixit, A. K. and Pindyck, R. S., 1994, “Investment under Uncertainty”, Princeton University Press.
9.Grenadier, S. R., 2002, “Option Exercise Games: An Application to the Equilibrium Investment Strategies of Firms”, Review of Financial Studies, 15, P.691-721.
10.Huang, Chia-Hsing, 1999, “an options-based real estate development strategy”, The 8th Annual Conference of Chinese Soceity of Housing Studies, P.239-249。
11.Karki, T. K., 2003, Implementation Experiences of land pooling projects in Katmandu Valley, Habitat International, 28(1), P.67-88.
12.Larsson, G., 1993, LR:A Modern Approach to Urbanization, Avebury, England, P.145.
13.Larsson, G., 1997, “Land Readjustment:a tool for urban development”, Habital International, 21(2), P.141-152.
14.Lucius, D. I., 2001, “Real options in real estate development”, Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 19(1), P.73-78.
15.Luehrman, 1998, "Investment Opportunities as Real Option: Getting Started on the Number", Harvard Business Review, 76(4), P.51-67.
16. , 1998, "Strategy as a Portfolio of Real Options", Harvard Business Review, 76(5), P.89-99.
17.McDonald, R. and Siegel, D., 1986, “The Value of Waiting to Invest”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, P.187-203.
18.Myers, S. C., 1977, “Determinants of Corporate Borrowing”, Journal of Financial Economics, 5, pp.147-175.
19.Patel, K. and Sing, T. F., 2001, “Evidence of Irreversibility in the UK Property Market”, The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Vol.41, Issue3, P.313-334.
20.Sorensen A., 2000a, “Conflict, consensus or consent:implications of Japanese LR practice for developing countries”, Habitat International, 24, P.51-73.
21.Sorensen A., 2000b, “LR and metropolitan growth:an examination of suburban lan development and urban sprawl in Tokyo Metropolitan Area”, Progress in Planning, 53(4), P.218-330.
22.Titman, S., 1985, “Urban Land Prices under Uncertainty”, The American Economic Review, P.505-514.
23.Trigeorgis, L., and Mason, S. P., 1987, "Valuing Managerial Flexibility", Midland Corporate Financial Journal, 5(1), P.14-21.
24.Trigeorgis, L., 1996, “Real Options” Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.Williams, J. T., 1991, “Real Estate Development as an Option”, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 4, P.191-208.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE