Risikojustering av kalkulasjonsrenta i samfunnsøkonomiske analysar [Translated: Risk adjustment of the discount rate in cost-benefit analyses]

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Standard

Risikojustering av kalkulasjonsrenta i samfunnsøkonomiske analysar [Translated: Risk adjustment of the discount rate in cost-benefit analyses]. / Nesje, Frikk; Lund, Diderik.

I: Samfunnsøkonomen, Bind 132, Nr. 4, 2018, s. 34.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Harvard

Nesje, F & Lund, D 2018, 'Risikojustering av kalkulasjonsrenta i samfunnsøkonomiske analysar [Translated: Risk adjustment of the discount rate in cost-benefit analyses]', Samfunnsøkonomen, bind 132, nr. 4, s. 34. <https://samfunnsokonomene.no/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Samfunnsøkonomen-nr-4-2018.pdf>

APA

Nesje, F., & Lund, D. (2018). Risikojustering av kalkulasjonsrenta i samfunnsøkonomiske analysar [Translated: Risk adjustment of the discount rate in cost-benefit analyses]. Samfunnsøkonomen, 132(4), 34. https://samfunnsokonomene.no/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Samfunnsøkonomen-nr-4-2018.pdf

Vancouver

Nesje F, Lund D. Risikojustering av kalkulasjonsrenta i samfunnsøkonomiske analysar [Translated: Risk adjustment of the discount rate in cost-benefit analyses]. Samfunnsøkonomen. 2018;132(4):34.

Author

Nesje, Frikk ; Lund, Diderik. / Risikojustering av kalkulasjonsrenta i samfunnsøkonomiske analysar [Translated: Risk adjustment of the discount rate in cost-benefit analyses]. I: Samfunnsøkonomen. 2018 ; Bind 132, Nr. 4. s. 34.

Bibtex

@article{016d8cba76f54896a849d44afa90101f,
title = "Risikojustering av kalkulasjonsrenta i samfunns{\o}konomiske analysar [Translated: Risk adjustment of the discount rate in cost-benefit analyses]",
abstract = "Previously, governmental guidelines for choice of discount rate allowed for differentiation of the rate based on the project{\textquoteright}s systematic risk. After 2014, this was no longer allowed. This was in part because the risk adjustment proved to have low transparency and consistency across sectors. The guidelines now demand that the risk adjustment follows a return requirement that suits a large group of public-sector projects. We show that practitioners in the energy and environmental field deviate from the guidelines by making additional risk adjustments. In light of this, we point out weaknesses in the arguments for the revision in 2014. We also suggest how one can make consistent and transparent project specific risk adjustments.",
author = "Frikk Nesje and Diderik Lund",
year = "2018",
language = "English",
volume = "132",
pages = "34",
journal = "Samfunnsoekonomen",
issn = "1890-5250",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Risikojustering av kalkulasjonsrenta i samfunnsøkonomiske analysar [Translated: Risk adjustment of the discount rate in cost-benefit analyses]

AU - Nesje, Frikk

AU - Lund, Diderik

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Previously, governmental guidelines for choice of discount rate allowed for differentiation of the rate based on the project’s systematic risk. After 2014, this was no longer allowed. This was in part because the risk adjustment proved to have low transparency and consistency across sectors. The guidelines now demand that the risk adjustment follows a return requirement that suits a large group of public-sector projects. We show that practitioners in the energy and environmental field deviate from the guidelines by making additional risk adjustments. In light of this, we point out weaknesses in the arguments for the revision in 2014. We also suggest how one can make consistent and transparent project specific risk adjustments.

AB - Previously, governmental guidelines for choice of discount rate allowed for differentiation of the rate based on the project’s systematic risk. After 2014, this was no longer allowed. This was in part because the risk adjustment proved to have low transparency and consistency across sectors. The guidelines now demand that the risk adjustment follows a return requirement that suits a large group of public-sector projects. We show that practitioners in the energy and environmental field deviate from the guidelines by making additional risk adjustments. In light of this, we point out weaknesses in the arguments for the revision in 2014. We also suggest how one can make consistent and transparent project specific risk adjustments.

M3 - Journal article

VL - 132

SP - 34

JO - Samfunnsoekonomen

JF - Samfunnsoekonomen

SN - 1890-5250

IS - 4

ER -

ID: 248161891