Between the end <strong>of</strong> year 7 (the time <strong>to</strong> decide whether <strong>to</strong> launch the compound) andthe end <strong>of</strong> year 17 (the time when the patent <strong>of</strong> Davanrik expires), there areuncerta<strong>in</strong>ties, lead<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> the existence <strong>of</strong> <strong>real</strong> <strong>options</strong>. Between the end <strong>of</strong> year 0 (thetime <strong>to</strong> decide whether <strong>to</strong> <strong>in</strong>vest on this compound) and the end <strong>of</strong> year 7, there areother <strong>real</strong> <strong>options</strong>, as huge uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty also exist. If the <strong>options</strong> from year 0 and year 7is considered as a s<strong>in</strong>gle option (known as Option A), then it, <strong>to</strong>gether with theabandonment option for the period between year 7 and year 17 (known as Option B)can be seen as a compound option, where Option A must be exercised <strong>in</strong> order <strong>to</strong> keepOption B open. For a compound option, a s<strong>in</strong>gle b<strong>in</strong>omial tree could be used <strong>to</strong> derivethe value. But <strong>in</strong> this case, Option A is a complex compound option as well, and as itis go<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> illustrate below, it is assumed that option A and option B have differentvolatility and risk-free rate. So here the values derive from B<strong>in</strong>omial Trees (BT) forOption B (the second BT) would be added <strong>to</strong> the last branch <strong>of</strong> the first BT.5.2 Option B (Year 7 <strong>to</strong> year 17)5.2.1 Five variables that determ<strong>in</strong>e the value <strong>of</strong> the <strong>options</strong>Between the end <strong>of</strong> year 7 (the time <strong>to</strong> decide whether <strong>to</strong> launch the compound) andthe end <strong>of</strong> year 17 (the time when the patent <strong>of</strong> Davanrik expires), Merck & Co canchoose <strong>to</strong> abandon the project, at any time before the patent ends (so that there is stillsalvage value), or Merck can expand the scale at a cost or extract with a sav<strong>in</strong>g.However, as discussed <strong>in</strong> Chapter 2, the option <strong>to</strong> expand, extract, or defer may lead<strong>to</strong> other concepts, it is assumed here, Merck & Co only has the option <strong>to</strong> abandon, forthe time between the end <strong>of</strong> year 7 and the end <strong>of</strong> year 17. And s<strong>in</strong>ce this option canbe exercised at any time, it can be seen as an American put option.The value <strong>of</strong> the underly<strong>in</strong>g asset – it should be the ‗present‘ value <strong>of</strong> the net cash<strong>in</strong>flow from the project, but s<strong>in</strong>ce this option beg<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> year 7, the ‗present‘ value <strong>of</strong>$1200m, $345m, $2250m should be discount ‗forward‘ <strong>to</strong> the end <strong>of</strong> year 7 <strong>to</strong> get thecorrect ‗present‘ value at year 7, by us<strong>in</strong>g the weighted average cost <strong>of</strong> capital <strong>of</strong>Page | 46
Merck & Co (10%), which gives $2338m, $672m, $4385m respectively.The time <strong>to</strong> expiration – as the compound is go<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> go through a 7 year R&Dprocess, and the patent still has17 years <strong>of</strong> life, the product would have a 10 yearperiod <strong>of</strong> exclusivity, beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> 7 years. The time between year 7 and year 17leaves 10 year <strong>of</strong> time, which can be deemed as suitable for expiration time. Assumeyear 0 is the year 1999, thus for this option, T is the year 2016 and t is the year 2006.Volatility – ten years <strong>of</strong> Merck & Co‘s s<strong>to</strong>ck price has been used <strong>to</strong> derive thestandard deviation (S.D. = 49.61%) for the time period between year 7 and year 10.Here the his<strong>to</strong>rical volatility <strong>of</strong> Merck & Co is used, rather than the Davanrik, or say,LAB Pharmaceuticals. As will be discussed later that for other period, mean<strong>in</strong>g year 0<strong>to</strong> year 7, other volatility figure will be used, this is because for the time between year0 and year7, the volatility would be more project-related, especially <strong>in</strong> terms <strong>of</strong> LABPharmaceuticals‘ past performance. It is assumed for that period, the volatility wouldbe higher, as the fact that LAB has never passed the process.Page | 47
- Page 1 and 2: APPLICATION OF REAL OPTIONS VALUATI
- Page 3 and 4: Table of ContentsAbstract .........
- Page 5 and 6: List of TablesTable 5.1: Value of O
- Page 7 and 8: Chapter One— IntroductionAs one o
- Page 9 and 10: Then, in Chapter 4, the case study
- Page 11 and 12: and we will have the right to take
- Page 13 and 14: project, to get its salvage value,
- Page 15 and 16: The option to switch:If assets have
- Page 17 and 18: 2.2 Advantages of Real Option Valua
- Page 19 and 20: In the case of pharmaceutical R&D,
- Page 21 and 22: delayed in time. Undertaking one pr
- Page 23 and 24: Figure 2.2: Advantages and disadvan
- Page 25 and 26: smallest possible payoff of zero, w
- Page 27 and 28: options applications is the binomia
- Page 29 and 30: t: years to expirationr: annual ris
- Page 31 and 32: Chapter Three— Apply Real options
- Page 33 and 34: on Howell et al (2001).3.1.1 Precli
- Page 35 and 36: approved.3.2 real options valuation
- Page 37 and 38: Figure 3.3: Comparison of a call op
- Page 39 and 40: applying the principals of activity
- Page 41 and 42: that has occurred in the past. Depe
- Page 43 and 44: Chapter Four— Case StudyFor this
- Page 45 and 46: 4.3 DavanrikLAB Pharmaceuticals ori
- Page 47 and 48: efficacious for depression only, a
- Page 49 and 50: Chapter Five— Case Study Analysis
- Page 51: figure below:Figure 5.3: NPV of Dav
- Page 55 and 56: approval and other issues. Therefor
- Page 57 and 58: of $345m at year 0 (which is $672.3
- Page 59 and 60: project turns out to be unprofitabl
- Page 61 and 62: these three options, the risk-free
- Page 63 and 64: ewrite as, noting all the costs (in
- Page 65 and 66: Figure 5.10: Valuation of Option A
- Page 67 and 68: Figure 5.12: Valuation of Option A
- Page 69 and 70: Figure 5.13 Valuation of Compound r
- Page 71 and 72: $ in millionmillion to $113.97 mill
- Page 73 and 74: Chapter Six— Limitations and conc
- Page 75 and 76: discovery projects, arrives in a di
- Page 77 and 78: References1. Amram M & Kulatilaka N
- Page 79 and 80: 31/08/2006, available at: http://ho
- Page 81 and 82: 46. T rigeorgis L . (1995), ―M et