Real Options Analysis: Where Are the Emperor's Clothes?

Once a topic of interest only to finance specialists, real options analysis now receives active, mainstream attention in business schools and industry. This article provides practitioners with a critical review of five well‐established real options approaches that are extensively documented in the academic and professional literature. These approaches include the “classic approach” and “revised classic approach” (as proposed by Martha Amram and Nalin Kulatilaka), the “subjective approach” (as proposed by Tim Luehrman), the “MAD Approach” (as proposed by Tom Copeland and Vladimir Antikarov), and the “integrated approach” (as proposed by James Smith and Robert Nau). The article discusses the assumptions, mechanics, and potential range of applications of each approach, along with the results when applied to a simple case involving development of a natural gas field. While the approaches share a focus on investment flexibility and shareholder value, they rely on fundamentally different assumptions, use significantly different techniques, and can produce dramatically different results. Consequently, a great deal of thought must go into selecting and applying them in practice. The revised classic approach appears to be best suited to cases dominated either by “market” risk or “private” risk alone, and where approximate results are acceptable and resources are limited. The integrated approach is best suited to cases with a mix of market and technological risks, and where accuracy and a management roadmap are critical.