On the Optimal Lifetime of Real Assets

Bitros, George C. and Flytzanis, Elias (2016): On the Optimal Lifetime of Real Assets.

Abstract

We show that the “abandonment” model emphasized by researchers in capital budgeting and the “steady state” replacement model emphasized by economic theorists constitute sub-cases of a more general class of transitory replacement models in which the horizon of reinvestments is determined endogenously along with the other decision variables. Moreover, comparisons between our model and that of steady state replacement revealed that there are considerable differences. In particular, we found that: i) the two models lead to different estimates concerning the profit horizon, the duration of replacements, the timing of abandonment or scrapping, and the impact of productive capacity and market structure on service lives, as these are determined by various parameters, ii) even though the steady state replacement policy may result in higher total profit, it does so at great expense in flexibility for the planner, because the replacements are built into the model from the beginning, and iii) the transitory replacement policy seems more realistic in that the replacements are undertaken only if forced on the planner by decreasing profits.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: optimal service life, replacement, abandonment, scrapping, horizon of reinvestments
• Subjects: E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E2 - Consumption, Saving, Production, Investment, Labor Markets, and Informal Economy > E22 - Investment ; Capital ; Intangible Capital ; Capacity

References

Bitros, G. C., (2007), “Why the Structure of Capital and the Useful Lives of its Components Matter: A Test Based on a Model of Austrian Descent,” Review of Austrian Economics, 21, 301-328.

Bitros, G. C., (2008), “The optimal lifetime of assets under uncertainty in the rate of embodied technical change,” Metroeconomica, Vol. 59, pp. 173-188.

Bitros, G. C. and Flytzanis, E., (2007), “Utilization and Maintenance in a Model with Scrapping”, European Journal of Operational Research, 194, 551-573

Blackwell, D. (1953), “Equivalent Comparisons of Experiments,” The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, Vol. 24, pp 265-272.

Brems, H., (1968), Quantitative Economic Theory: A Synthetic Approach (New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.).

Dyl, E. A. and Long, H. W., (1969), “Abandonment Value and Capital Budgeting,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 24, pp. 88-95.

Haavelmo, T., (1960), A Study in the Theory of Investment (Chicago: The Chicago University Press).

Howe, K. M. and McCabe, G. M., (1983), “On Optimal Asset Abandonment and Replacement,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 18, 3, pp.295-305.

Lehrer, E. and Shmaya, W., (2006), “Two remarks on Blackwell’s theorem,” Tel Aviv University, School of Mathematical Sciences, unpublished mimeo.

Mauer, C. D., and Ott, S. H., (1995), “Investment under Uncertainty: The Case of Replacement Investment decisions” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 30, pp. 581-605.

Nickell, S., (1975) “A Closer Look at Replacement Investment”, Journal of Economic Theory, Vol., 10, pp.54-88.

Preinreich, G. A. D., (1940), “The Economic Life of Industrial Equipment”, Economet-rica, Vol. 8, pp. 12-44.

Robichek, A. A. and Van Horne, J. V., (1967), “Abandonment Value and Capital Budgeting,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 22, pp.577-589.

Rust, J., (1987), “Optimal Replacement of GMC Bus Engines: An Empirical Model of Harold Zurcher,” Econometrica, Vol. 55, 5, pp. 999-1033.

Smith, V. L., (1961), Investment and Production: A Study in the Theory of the Capital-Using Enterprise (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press).

Terborgh, G., (1949), Dynamic Equipment Policy (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1949).

Van Hilten, O, (1991), “The Optimal Lifetime of Capital Equipment”, Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 55, pp. 449-454.