Response to Comments on Brandão et al. (2005)

Luiz E. Brandão (), James S. Dyer () and Warren J. Hahn ()
Additional contact information
Luiz E. Brandão: IAG Business School, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22453-900, Brazil
James S. Dyer: McCombs School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712
Warren J. Hahn: McCombs School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712

Decision Analysis, 2005, vol. 2, issue 2, 103-109

Abstract: In this note, we respond to Smith’s (2005) discussion of the approach outlined in our paper (Brandão et al. 2005) on using traditional decision analysis methods to solve real-options problems. Our response addresses several areas where we largely agree with Smith, but have different views on modeling preferences or on the practicality of implementing alternative modeling approaches. We view the issue raised by Smith on the estimation of process volatility to be a valid concern and propose a modification to our method to address this problem.

Keywords: decision analysis; decision trees; real options (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2005
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/deca.1050.0042 (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:2:y:2005:i:2:p:103-109

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Decision Analysis from INFORMS Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Asher ().