---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- : - (1 : ) 60 V-60 (2 : Real Option ),,, (3 : ), : (Expected Return) (Ris k),,,,,, (A, B, C, D), (1, 2, 3, 4) ( ), -, (DCF), 1
---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------, - : (Decis ion- tree), (Binomial- Lattice) 2 (Decis ion- Tree Method),,,, (Binomial- Lattice Method),,, 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) - (),,,,,, - ( ) 60 (V-60 Checklist) < V- 60 Che cklist 19 > / / / ) ( ) 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- V-60 Checklist,,, 4, 19, 60 Real Option 2) -,,,, 60, -,,,,,,,,,, ),, 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- < > 3) - ( ) (Expected Return) (Risk),,,,,, ) 2001 -AHP - 5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (A, B, C, D), (1, 2, 3, 4) < > - (),,,,,,,, 6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- < > < > 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ( ),,,, < > Expected Return Risk High Average Low Extremely Low Low va1 vb1 vc1 Average va2 vb2 vc2 High va3 vb3 vc3 vd Organization-Dependent va4 vb4 - ( ),,,,, - () 4) - ( ),, 99 11 250 ) Measuring the Value of Companies, 2000. Valuing dot-coms 8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - () (DCF),,, DCF - (2010 ) 2010 13% 12% 600 11%, 2.5% 3.4% 20102025 12%, 2025 5,5% 2025 370 - ( ) 4 ( A) 790 ( B) A 370 ( C), 150 ( D), 80 A D, C D 2010 230 9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- < 20 10> ( :, %) DCF A( : 15%, 18%) B( : 13%, 12%) C( : 10%, 8%) D( : 5%, 6%) 850 14 790 5 39 600 11 370 35 130 410 8 150 35 53 170 7 30 25 8 230 - ( ) < > ( :, %) A 0 5 10 B 25 35 50 C 35 35 35 D 40 25 5 160 230 320 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) - ( ) (Decision-tree), (Binomial-Lattice) 2 D. Kellogg M. Charnes** 6) Financial Analysis Journal(2000.5) ( ) (Decision-Tree Method),,,, (the expected net present value) (Binomial-Lattice Method),, (the expected commercialization cash flows), <> ) Navigating through a Biotech Valuation(V. Walter Bratic, Patricia Tilton & Mira Balakrishnan, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2000) Real-Option Valuation for a Biotechnology Company(David Kellogg and John M. Charnes, Financial Analysis Journal, 2000.5.) ) Kellogg Sprint PCS, Charnes Kansas 11
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - (Decision-Tree Method), R&D, ( ) dog( ), below average( ), average( ), above average( ), breakthrough( ) (R&D ) R&D 1,, ( ), () - (Binomial-Lattice Method), ( ) ( ) - ( ) 2, < > 1994. 6.30 1994.10.20 1995. 6.30 1996. 6.30 1996.12.23 Decision Tree ( ) 5.63 5.63 11.81 19.50 33.86 4.31 5.70 7.17 10.26 15.05-23.4% 1.3% -39.3% -47.4% -55.6% Binomial 4.51 5.87 8.51 10.44 15.45-19.8% 4.3% -27.9% -46.5% -54.4% kcshin@hri.co.kr 3669-4036 hsjoung@hri.co.kr 3669-4022 12