Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Danbolt, J.; Hirst, I.; Jones, E. (2002)
Publisher: Routledge
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: HB
Although the impact of growth opportunities on company value has been recognized since Miller and Modigliani (1961), relatively little empirical work has been undertaken to value growth opportunities. In this study the validity of the KBM model (Kester (1984) and Brealey and Myers (1981)) is tested on a sample of 278 large UK companies for 1987-1995. Applying standard assumptions, the value of growth opportunities is found to account for a larger proportion of market values than assets-in-place. However, tests of the KBM model cast doubt on the credibility of these results and the validity of the model. The KBM model is highly sensitive to the inclusion of inflation in the risk free interest rate, and with a real interest rate (which on theoretical grounds is preferable), the model ceases to provide credible results. The model also fails to provide results consistent with expectations derived from option pricing theory regarding the relationship between the value of growth opportunities and the value of assets-in-place. These limitations of the KBM model indicate a need for a reappraisal of the method of measuring the value of growth opportunities.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Barclay M.J., and Smith C.W. (1995) The maturity structure of corporate debt, Journal of Finance, 50(2, June), 609-632.
    • Ben-Horim, M., and Callen, J.L. (1989) The Cost of Capital, Macaulay's Duration, and Tobin's q, Journal of Financial Research, 12(2, Summer), 143-156.
    • Black, F., and Scholes, M. (1973) The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities, Journal of Political Economy, 81(May-June), 637-654.
    • Brealey, R.A., and Myers, S.C. (1981) Principles of Corporate Finance, (1st Edition), McGraw-Hill.
    • Brealey, R.A., and Myers, S.C. (1996) Principles of Corporate Finance, (5th Edition), McGraw-Hill.
    • BZW (1996) The BZW Equity-Gilt Study, BZW Securities, London.
    • Chung, K.H., and Charoenwong, C. (1991) Investment Options, Assets in Place, and the Risk of Stocks, Financial Management, 20(3, Autumn), 21-33.
    • Cox J., Ross, S., and Rubenstein M. (1979) Option Pricing: A Simplified Approach, Journal of Financial Economics, 7(September), 229-263.
    • Fama, E.F. (1991) Efficient Capital Markets II, Journal of Finance, 46(5, December), 1575-1617.
    • Fama, E.F. and French, K.R. (1997) Industry Costs of Equity, Journal of Financial Economics, 43, 153-193.
    • Kester, W.C. (1984) Today's Options for Tomorrow's Growth, Harvard Business Review, (March/April), 153-160.
    • Kester, W.C. (1986) An Options Approach to Corporate Finance, Chapter 5 in Altman, E.I. Handbook of Corporate Finance, John Wiles & Sons.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article