DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Real Option Analysis to Value Government Risk Share Liability in BTO-a Projects

손익공유형 민간투자사업의 투자위험분담 가치 산정

  • KU, Sukmo (Department of Transportation Engineering, University of Seoul) ;
  • LEE, Sunghoon (Big Data Research Center, Samsung Card) ;
  • LEE, Seungjae (Department of Transportation Engineering, University of Seoul)
  • 구석모 (서울시립대학교 교통공학과) ;
  • 이성훈 (삼성카드 빅데이터 연구소) ;
  • 이승재 (서울시립대학교 교통공학과)
  • Received : 2017.06.27
  • Accepted : 2017.08.29
  • Published : 2017.08.31

Abstract

The BTO-a projects is the types, which has a demand risk among the type of PPP projects in Korea. When demand risk is realized, private investor encounters financial difficulties due to lower revenue than its expectation and the government may also have a problem in stable infrastructure operation. In this regards, the government has applied various risk sharing policies in response to demand risk. However, the amount of government's risk sharing is the government's contingent liabilities as a result of demand uncertainty, and it fails to be quantified by the conventional NPV method of expressing in the text of the concession agreement. The purpose of this study is to estimate the value of investment risk sharing by the government considering the demand risk in the profit sharing system (BTO-a) introduced in 2015 as one of the demand risk sharing policy. The investment risk sharing will take the form of options in finance. Private investors have the right to claim subsidies from the government when their revenue declines, while the government has the obligation to pay subsidies under certain conditions. In this study, we have established a methodology for estimating the value of investment risk sharing by using the Black - Scholes option pricing model and examined the appropriateness of the results through case studies. As a result of the analysis, the value of investment risk sharing is estimated to be 12 billion won, which is about 4% of the investment cost of the private investment. In other words, it can be seen that the government will invest 12 billion won in financial support by sharing the investment risk. The option value when assuming the traffic volume risk as a random variable from the case studies is derived as an average of 12.2 billion won and a standard deviation of 3.67 billion won. As a result of the cumulative distribution, the option value of the 90% probability interval will be determined within the range of 6.9 to 18.8 billion won. The method proposed in this study is expected to help government and private investors understand the better risk analysis and economic value of better for investment risk sharing under the uncertainty of future demand.

국내 민간투자사업의 추진 방식 중 수익형 민간투자사업은 수요 위험이 존재하는 방식이다. 수요 위험이 현실화 될 경우 민간사업자는 예상보다 낮은 수입으로 인해 재무적인 어려움을 겪으며, 정부도 안정적인 사회기반시설 운영에 차질을 빚을 수 있다. 따라서 정부는 수요 위험에 따른 위험 분담 정책을 다양하게 적용해 오고 있다. 하지만 정부의 위험 분담은 수요의 불확실성으로 인한 정부의 우발채무이며, 실시협약의 문구로 표현되어 기존의 전통적인 사업평가 방식인 NPV 방식으로는 위험을 계량화 할 수 없다. 본 연구는 수요 위험 분담 정책의 하나로 2015년에 도입된 손익공유형 방식(BTO-a)을 대상으로 수요 위험을 고려한 정부의 투자위험 분담 가치를 산정하는데 목적을 두고 있다. 투자위험 분담은 금융에서의 옵션(option) 형태를 갖게 된다. 민간사업자는 수입이 감소했을 때 정부로 부터 보조금을 청구할 권리를 가지고 있으며, 반대로 정부는 일정 조건하에서 보조금을 지급할 의무를 가지고 있다. 본 연구에서는 Black-Scholes 옵션가격결정 모형을 활용하여 투자위험 분담의 가치추정 방법론을 정립하고 사례 사업을 통해 결과의 적정성을 살펴보았다. 사례 사업은 제안된 고속도로 민간투자사업을 대상으로 하였으며, 분석결과 투자위험 분담 가치는 약 120억원으로 추정되어 민간이 투자한 투자비의 약 4%를 차지하는 것으로 나타났다. 즉, 정부가 투자위험을 분담함으로써 120억원의 재정지원을 추가로 투입하는 효과로 볼 수 있다. 교통량 위험을 확률변수로 가정할 경우 사례사업에서 도출된 옵션가치는 평균이 122억원이고 표준편차는 36.7억원으로 도출되었다. 누적분포를 도출한 결과 90% 확률 구간의 옵션가치가 69억원에서 188억원의 범위에서 결정될 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구에서 제시한 방법은 미래수요의 불확실성하에서 정부와 민간사업자가 더 나은 위험 분석과 투자위험 분담에 대한 경제적인 가치를 이해하는데 도움을 줄 것으로 기대한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ashuri B., Asce M. , Kashani H., Molenaar K. R., Lee S., Lu J. (2012), Risk-Neutral Pricing Approach for Evaluating BOT Highway Projects With Government Minimum Revenue Guarantee Options, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(4).
  2. Black F., Scholes M. (1973), The Pricing of Option and Corporate Liabilities, Journal of Political Economy, 5, 637-657.
  3. Charles Y. J. Cheah, Jicai Liu (2006), Valuing Governmental Support in Infrastructure Projects as Real Options Using Monte Carlo simulation, Construction Management and Economics, 24, 545-554. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190500435572
  4. Cho J.h., Park H.i.(2004), Valuation of Real Estate Development Project by Using Binomial Option Pricing Model, Journal of the Korea Real Estate Analysts Association, 10(1).
  5. Choi J. E., Park T. K. (2013), A Study on the Reasonable Rate of Return for the Korean PPI Projects: An Investigation of Transportation Projects, Seoul City Review, 14(4), 203-222.
  6. Cox J., Rubinstein M. (1976), Option Pricing: A Simplified Approach, Journal of Financial Economics, 229-263.
  7. Garvin M. J., Cheah C. Y. J. (2004), Valuation Techniques for Infrastructure Investment Decisions, Construction Management and Economics, 22(4), 373-383. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190310001649010
  8. Jeong S.-Y., Kim J.-P. (2014), Economic Evaluation of National Highway Construction Projects Using Real Option Pricing Models, International Journal of Highway Engineering, 16(1), 75-89. https://doi.org/10.7855/IJHE.2014.16.1.075
  9. Jun J.-b., Kim S.-i. (2009), Financial Feasibility Analysis of Project Finance Considering Strategic Decision-making, The Korea Spatial Planning Review, 61, 25-39. https://doi.org/10.15793/kspr.2009.61..002
  10. Kim K. S. (2010), Rationalization for Decision-making on SOC Investment(II): Risk Analysis of Estimated Subway Ridership, Korea Development Institute.
  11. Kim K. S. (2013), Valuation of the Minimum Revenue Guarantee in the Urban Railway PPP Project, Korea Development Institute.
  12. Kim M.H., Le K.h. (2012), Economic Evaluation of Port Hinterlands Using Real Option, Journal of Korea Port Economic Association, 28(3), 235-257.
  13. Kim S.-m., Kwon Y.-J. (2007), Dynamic Valuation of the G7-HSR350X Using Real Option Model, Journal of the korean society for railway, 10(2), 137-145.
  14. Ku S. M., Lee. S. J. (2015), Development of Model for Optimal Concession Period in PPPs Considering Traffic Risk, J. Korean Soc. Transp., 34(5), Korean Society of Transportation, 421-436. https://doi.org/10.7470/jkst.2016.34.5.421
  15. Ministry of Strategy and Finance (2016), PPP Basic Plan.
  16. Myers S., Majd S. (1987), Abandonment Value and Project Life, Advances in Futures and Options Research, 4, 1-21.
  17. Shin S.-H. (2009), A Study on the Fair Returns of Private Participants' Investments on BTO PPI Projects, Korea Institute of Construction Engineering and Management, 10(2), 121-131.
  18. Shin S.-H. (2011), A Study on Early Termination Payment Option of BTO PPI Projects, Korea Institute of Construction Engineering and Management, 12(3).
  19. Shin S.-H. (2012), A Study on Risk Sharing of PPI Project Demand Risk, Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 13(2), 102-109. https://doi.org/10.6106/KJCEM.2012.13.2.102