Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T18:53:00.582Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Asset Growth, Abandonment Value and the Replacement Decision of Like-for-Like Capital Assets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Jack E. Gaumnitz  and
Douglas R. Emery
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The rapid advancement of technology leading to quicker obsolescence, shorter life cycles, and more intensive competition has resulted in renewed emphasis on the abandonment and replacement decision in the analysis of investment projects. Once an investment was undertaken, many corporations in the past often abandoned a project only when it either suddenly ceased to function, or else when it became so unprofitable that abandonment was literally forced. Several authors have demonstrated that a project could be abandoned well before any of these terminal conditions existed. Robicheck and Van Home, for instance [14], showed that an asset could be abandoned even though it may be expected to generate positive cash flows in subsequent years. Dyl and Long (DL) [6], in a modification to the Robichek and Van Home (RVH) model regarding the year of abandonment, suggested that rather than abandoning a project at the earliest time–whenever the abandonment value exceeded the present value of all subsequent future flows– all possible cases of abandonment over the life of the asset should be considered. In this manner, the procedure is to select the highest net present value of an asset over all cash flow and abandonment possibilities. This result particularly holds when all projects have the same degree of risk and when there are frictionless markets and no capital rationing.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 1980 , pp. 407 - 419
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1[Bierman, H. Jr, and Smidt, S.. The Capital Budgeting Decision. New York: MacMillan Company (1966).Google Scholar
[2[Bonini, C.P. “Capital Investment under Uncertainty with Abandonment Options.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 12, No. 1 (03 1977), pp. 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3[Carol, A. “An Investment Paradox.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis (01 1972), pp. 1421–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4[Daniel, R.C. “Phasing Out Capital Equipment.” Operations Research Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 1 (03 1973), pp. 113–116.Google Scholar
[5[Duncan, John and Scholnick, Lawrence S.. “Interrupt and Opportunistic Replacement Strategies for Systems of Deteriorating Components.” Operations Research Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 2 (06 1973), pp. 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6[Dyl, E.A. and Long, H.W.. “Abandonment Value and Capital Budgeting.” Journal of Finance, Vol. 24 (03 1969), pp. 88–95.Google Scholar
[7[Ghidini, G. “Comment: ‘An Investment Paradox.’” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 12 (1977), pp. 891–894.Google Scholar
[8[Kulonda, D.J. “Replacement Analysis with Unequal Lives–the Study Period Method.” The Engineering Economist, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Spring 1978), pp. 171–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9[Lesser, A. Jr, “Reflections on Sink Cost and Abandonment Decisions.” Engineering Economist, Vol. 17, No. 1 (1971), pp. 73–77.Google Scholar
[10[Masse, Pierre. Optimal Investment Decisions. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. (1962).Google Scholar
[11[Meyer, R. “Equipment Replacement under Uncertainty.” Management Science, Vol. 17 (1971), pp. 750–758.Google Scholar
[12[Moore, C.L. “The Present-Value Method and the Replacement Decision.” Accounting Review, Vol. 39 (01 1964), pp. 94–102.Google Scholar
[13[Pappas, J.L. “The Role of Abandonment Value in Capital Asset Management.” The Engineering Economist, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Fall 1976), pp. 53–61.Google Scholar
[14[Robichek, A.A. and Home, J.C. Van. “Abandonment Value and Capital Budgeting.” Journal of Finance, Vol. 22 (12 1967), pp. 577–589.Google Scholar
[15[Robichek, A.A. and Horne, J.C. Van. “Abandonment Value and Capital Budgeting: Reply.” Journal of Finance, Vol. 24 (03 1969), pp. 96–97.Google Scholar
[16[Schwab, B. and Lusztig, P.. “A Note on Abandonment Value and Capital Budgeting.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 5 (09 1970), pp. 377–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17[Serfozo, R.F. “A Replacement Problem Using a Wald Identity for Discounted Variables.” Management Science, Vol. 20, No. 9 (05 1974), pp. 1314–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18[Shillinglaw, G. “Profit Analysis for Abandonment Decisions.” Reprinted in The Management of Corporate Capital, Solomon, E., Ed. Glencoe, III.: The Free Press of Glencoe (1959), pp. 269–281.Google Scholar
[19[Van Home, J.E. “The Capital-Budgeting Decision Involving Combinations of Risky Investments.” Management Science, Vol. 13 (10 1966), pp. B84–92.Google Scholar
[20[Taylor, G.A.Managerial and Engineering Economy. Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc. (1964).Google Scholar
[21[Waters, R.C. and Bullock, R.L.. “Inflation and Replacement Decisions.” The Engineering Economist, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Summer 1976), pp. 249–257.Google Scholar