Real options reasoning

Falling forward real options reasoning and entrepreneurial failure. Academy of Management Review, 24 13-30. 

Two justices dissented from the majority opinion. Their dissents reflected, in part, questions about who really controlled and dictated the use of lead for service pipes. The majority opinion suggested that, because the homeowners owned the service pipes, they had ultimate control over them. This was not the case. Huddersfield forbade homeowners from working on the pipes themselves, adopted by-laws which said that the service pipes shall at all time be under the control and management of the town, and mandated that all customers of the waterworks use either lead or cast-iron service pipes. The extent to which consumers had the ability to choose between lead and iron was particularly important for the justices in the minority. In a lengthy dissent, for example, the Earl of Selborne expressed doubt that any real option was given to consumers to use iron rather than lead, and suggested that the use of lead was imposed, de facto, on consumers by the Town of Huddersfield. In response. Justice Blackburn said that he saw no reason to believe that if the discretion had been left to the inhabitant, there would have been any difference in the material used for service pipes.- ... 

In the author s group, much lower-melting benzenesulfonate, tosylate, or octyl-sulfate ionic liquids have recently been obtained in combination with imidazolium ions. These systems have been successfully applied as catalyst media for the biphasic, Rh-catalyzed hydroformylation of 1-octene [14]. The catalyst activities obtained with these systems were in all cases equal to or even higher than those found with the commonly used [BMIM][PF6]. Taking into account the much lower costs of the ionic medium, the better hydrolysis stability, and the wider disposal options relating to, for example, an octylsulfate ionic liquid in comparison to [BMIM][PF6], there is no real reason to center future hydroformylation research around hexafluorophosphate ionic liquids. 

Taking into account the much lower costs of the ionic medium, the better stability against hydrolysis and the wider disposal options related to, for example, an octylsulfate or a tosylate ionic liquid in comparison to BMIM PF6], there is no real reason to centre future hydroformylation research around hexafluorophosphate ionic liquids. 

Despite the obvious merit of this conventional wisdom, selectivity wild cards often prove essential, and there is real value in developing a repertoire of special weapons and tactics. Even though there is no way to predict which, if any, will produce the effect you seek, the options are limited, well defined, and the investment of resources reasonably modest. By the time you get to the point of evaluating wild cards, you will probably be sufficiently familiar with your analytical system to discern a useful result from a chromatogram without extensive secondary testing. The principal investment will be buffer preparation and the time to run the analyses. 

The conditional approval step could be integrated with the existing system of market-place utilisation controls, and thus be used as an option to expedite approvals for earlier access to promising therapies. However, it would be important not to burden new drugs unnecessarily with conditional approval status if there is not a real reason to do so. 

We have made a reasonable effort to make apples to apples comparisons between the simulation speeds of the software in this book by using commonly available Berkeley SPICE 2 OPTIONS. The reader will notice that it is not predictable which software package will run the fastest on any given circuit. The real purpose of including the run times is to provide the user with an estimate as to how long the circuit will take to simulate on his or her own computer, nothing more. That being said, the simulation times noted after the simulations are reasonably accurate. 

The discussion so far has focused on asset allocation as generally applicable to a broad cross-section of investors. In reality, the vast majority of individual investors face special restrictions that limit their flexibility to implement optimal portfolios. For example, many investors hold real estate, concentrated stock holdings, VC or LBO partnerships, restricted stock, or incentive stock options that for various reasons cannot be sold. For these investors, standard MV optimization is stiU appropriate and they are weU advised to target the prescribed optimum portfolio. They should then utilize derivative products such as swaps to achieve a synthetic replication. 

The store and control approach would clearly pass responsibility for real action to future generations, and might lead them to pass it further on, and so on. For this reason this option has been judged unethical by technical and policy experts in many countries [2]. 

---