Discussion - (Mis)Use Of Monte Carlo Simulations In NPV Analysis - Davis, G. A.

Discussion by R.J. Pindred In his paper, Davis presents an overview of risk. He also introduces the Capital Asset Processing Model (CAPM) as a foundation for selecting the appropriate discount rate for a mining project. While applying portfolio theory is more defensible than the ad hoc adjustment of discount rates, the CAPM is not a panacea. CAPM shortcomings [The CAPM, as Davis stated, is expressed in the equation: ri=rf+pi4) where ri is the project discount rate rf is the risk free interest rate (3i is the project beta, and 0 is the market risk premium (rm - rf)] Application of the CAPM is more difficult than Davis indicates. Valuation is prospective, while the CAPM parameters are historical. Beta is determined from a regression analysis of historical data, while the beta needed for valuation is the expected beta. Betas are known to be unstable and the regressions that generate them often have low explanatory power. The difficulty of estimating a "project" beta must also be considered. Thus, the beta that is used in the CAPM will be based on the analyst's judgment. Like Cavender's discount rate, this judgment can lead to different project NPVs. Subjectivity in valuation cannot be avoided by a mechanical application of the CAPM. The risk-free rate, which Davis identifies as a short-term real rate of 4%, is also subject to scrutiny. A mining project is not a short-term investment and no single risk-free rate is appropriate for all of the cash flows. The hypothetical mine discussed in Cavender's paper is a six-year project. One might argue for the application of a risk-free rate from the Treasury yield curve at the duration of the project (in a bond-duration sense). This, too, is inappropriate. The risk-free rate should be matched to the timing of the cash flow. These rates can be determined by calculating the implied forward rates from the yield curve using a procedure known as "bootstrapping." It is likely that each of the project's cash flows would be discounted at a different rate. Commodity prices Davis criticizes the "ad hoc adjustment to the discount rate." Yet, in his discussion of the value of stochastic simulation, he suggests that the gold price be modeled as a "random walk, with or without a trend." This is essentially an arbitrary modeling of price risk. Consider that a liquid market in gold futures exists. The futures' price curve, which is closely related to the market's estimate of future spot gold prices, should be used to provide inputs to the model. This is especially true of a relatively short six-year project. Alternatively, as Davis correctly points out, a risk-averse investor can sell the commodity short to hedge price risk. Is it any more correct, in the portfolio sense, to account for price risk at all ?? References Cavender, B., 1992, "Determination of the optimum lifetime of a mining project using discounted cash flow and option pricing techniques," Mining Engineering, Vol. 44, No. 10, pp.1262-1268 Fabozzi, F.J., 1993, Bond Markets, Analysis and Strategies, Second Edition, Prentice Hall, Inc. Higgins, R.C., 1992, Analysis for Financial Management, Third Edition, Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Solnik, B., 1991, International Investments, Second Edition, Addison Wesley Reply by G.A. Davis Pindred discusses two issues related to my paper, the shortcomings of the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) and which commodity price values to use in the valuation exercise. Even though these topics are not directly related to the use or misuse of Monte Carlo simulation, they are important points to take into consideration in valuation exercises. Since I do not appear to have addressed these issues satisfactorily in my original paper, I will comment on each here. Pindred agrees with me that applying portfolio theory, and specifically the CAPM, to the selection of project discount rates is more defensible than ad hoc methods. But he then points out that the application of the CAPM to project valuation is more difficult that I indicate. It is true that the CAPM is a difficult tool for project valuation in general,. But the application of the CAPM to mining projects is one of the easiest I can think of. The biggest problem with using the CAPM for project valuation is coming up with an expected project beta. I suggest a project beta for gold projects of 0.45. The "true" value might be 0.35, 0.55 or whatever. Pindred correctly notes that the selection of the appropriate project beta is based