Article of Capital Budgeting Survey Essay

This research is motivated by two major factors: (1) the  over twenty year hiatus since the last thorough review ofthe capital budgeting survey literature, and (2) past appeals to the finance academic community by researchers to explore  neglected areas ofthe capital budgeting process. In response, and using a four-stage capital budgeting process as a guide, the authors review the capital budgeting survey literature  from 1984 through 2008 and find that some ofthe neglected  areas have infact been directly addressed. Unfortunately, the most prevalent focus of capital budgeting surveys continues  to be that ofthe selection stage. As a result, many areas ofthe capital budgeting process still remain relatively unexplored, providing numerous survey research opportunities. This research effort is motivated by two tnajor factors: 1)  the twenty year hiatus since the last thorough review of the capital budgeting survey literature, and 2) past observations and appeals made to the finance academic community by  fellow researchers to explore neglected areas of the capital budgeting process through more focused and directed survey  research. Richard M. Burns is a Professor of Finance at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL Joe Walker is an Associate Professor of Finance at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL. The authors wish to thank the Editor and the anonymous referee for their many helpful comments and suggestions. 78 The first factor stands on its own as justification for an update of the capital budgeting survey literature. The last comprehensive reviews were made by researchers Scott and Petty (1984) and Mukherjee (1987) over twenty years ago. Regarding the second factor, almost three decades ago, Kim (1979) noted that too much emphasis was being placed on methods of ranking and selecting capital budgeting proposals. Scott and Petty (1984) also noted the â€Å"†¦ disproportionate (unjustified) amount of time [spent] on a particular stage (financial analysis and project selection) †¦Ã¢â‚¬  Further, Gordon and Pinches (1984) generalized this complaint by arguing that â€Å"†¦the capital budgeting process must be viewed in its entirety.† Mukherjee (1987) agreed that â€Å"†¦ further survey efforts need to be devoted to understanding the entire process.† To address these two factors, the authors have provided a current review of the capital budgeting survey studies over the past twenty-four years. The results are reported in a four-stage capital budgeting framework that allows a more detailed and clear assessment of the appeals by past researchers. As a result, fertile areas for future applied research in the area of capital budgeting survey work are more easily identified and summarized. The organization of this paper is as follows. In Section I a four-stage capital budgeting process will be identified and used throughout the balance ofthe paper. It provides a useful framework to evaluate in more detail the most prominent capital budgeting survey literature reviews of the past, to highlight neglected areas of capital budgeting research, and to organize past appeals for future research in this area. In Section II this four-stage process will also be used to describe the procedures used in performing the capital budgeting 79 BURNS & WALKER – CAPITAL BUDGETING SURVEYS: THE FUTURE IS NOW survey literature update over the 1984-2008 period. Section  III will continue to use this framework to present the detailed findings while Section IV will provide an overall summary.  Finally, Section V will present conclusions, comments, and  insights for future survey research. I. Past Reviews and Appeals appears on an executive’s desk and all that is needed is for the manager to choose the project(s) with the highest expected payoff. However, as most managers quickly learn, this is not the case. Further, once projects are chosen, the evaluation  of an individual project’s subsequent performance  is usually either ignored or often inappropriately  handled.  Our contention is that the capitalbudgeting process must be viewed in its entirety,  and the informational needs to support effective  decisions must be built  into the firm’s decision  comprehensive reviews  support system. In the corporate finance  capital budgeting survey  literature  the  capital  The last budgeting process has been  were made by researchers Scott  described in terms of four The two most significant stages: 1) identification, attempts to assess the and Petty (1984) and Mukherjee 2) development,  3)  balance of research among  (1987) over twenty years ago.  selection, and 4) control.’  these four stages were those  The identification stage  of Scott and Petty (1984)  comprises the overall process of project idea generation and Mukherjee (1987), both of which occurred well over including sources and submission procedures and the twenty years ago.^ Scott and Petty provided a synthesis of earlier surveys of  incentives/reward system, if any. The development stage involves the initial screening process relying primarily large American firms and organized their analysis based on a upon cash flow estimation and early screening criteria. The three stage classification: 1) project definition and cash flow selection stage includes the detailed project analysis that estimation 2) financial analysis and project selection, and results in acceptance or rejection of the project for funding. 3) project implementation and review. Citing Gitman and Finally, the control stage involves the evaluation of project Forrester (1977), they noted that: †¦ project definition and cash flow estimation is performance for both control purposes and continuous considered the â€Å"most difficult† aspect ofthe capital improvement for future decisions. All four stages have budgeting process. The financial analysis and common areas of interest including personnel, procedures, project selection stage, which receives the most and methods involved, along with the rationale for each. attention in the literature, is considered the least All four stages are critical to the overall process, but difBcult ofthe three stages †¦Ã‚  the selection stage is arguably the most involved since it includes the choices of analytical methods/techniques used, Also covering surveys of large American corporations, how the cost of capital is determined, how adjustments for Mukherjee (1987) agreed that there had been too much projects risks are assessed and reflected, and how, if relevant, survey focus on the selection stage and not enough on the capital rationing affects project choice. The selection stage other stages as well as the overall capital budgeting process. has also been the most investigated by survey researchers, Paraphrasing that paper’s recommendations, it called for particularly in the area of selection techniques, resulting in more research into specific questions relevant for each stage. a relative neglect ofthe other stages. This in turn has led to For example, in stage 1, future surveyors were urged to appeals to future researchers to consider the other stages in investigate the reward systems, procedural aspects, and the their survey research efforts. As Gordon and Pinches (1984) organizational structure ofthe firm. In stage 2, more research note: was suggested on the topics of divisional vs. corporate Most of the literature on the subject of capital biases, strategic considerations, cash flow estimation budgeting has emphasized the selection phase, details, data details, cannibalization, risk, and inflation. giving little coverage to the other phases. Instead, Even within the more widely-studied Stage 3, neglected it is usually assumed that a set of well-defined capital investment opportunities, with all of the informational needs clearly specified, suddenly ^ o t e that these two reviews are only three years apart based on publication ‘See Gordon and Pinches (1984) and Mukherjee (1987). Scott and Petty (1984) use a similar 3-stage process. It is interesting to note, however, that an even earlier survey by Gitman and Forrester (1977) had used a 4-stage analysis. date, and that the latter does not cite the former, likely due to publication lags. As noted in the procedures section, this paper uses the Mukherjee format. Furthermore, the title of this paper derives from Mukherjee’s title. 80 areas were identified such as the rationale for the various methods used, how firms compute their cost of capital, the low rate of risk recognition, the associated low rates of risk adjustment and assessment sophistication, capital rationing (and the low usage of linear programming), and the details of authorization levels. Finally, with regard to Stage 4, more research was encouraged into the details of performance evaluation, how the company follows up on such evaluation, the details of expenditure control procedures, and the reward system for performance.’ How well these appeals have been answered with subsequent survey research is the primary focus of this paper. In the next section the authors describe the procedures employed to assess the effectiveness of these appeals made over twenty years ago. II. Procedures Consistent with the reviews by Scott and Petty (1984) and Mukherjee (1987), the following criteria were used to choose capital budgeting survey articles for inclusion in this review: the surveys had to involve large US firms, they had to be broad-based (not focused on one particular industry), and they had to be published in mainline academic journals post-1984. Using these criteria resulted in the selection of the nineteen capital budgeting surveys included in Figure 1.† The Figure provides, in chronological order, the survey year (which in all cases differs from the publication year), authors, research method, usable responses and the audience surveyed. Each of these 19 survey articles was then thoroughly examined in an effort to identify the stages and areas within each stage that the survey covered. The results of this process are reported in Figure 2 and consistent with Mukherjee’s (1987) chronological ordering in a tabular form indicating areas of investigation within the four stages ofthe ‘These more specific questions are largely paraphrased from Mukherjee (1987) and are not fully exhaustive. The interested reader is, of course, encouraged to read this very thorough article in its entirety. †¢Ã¢â‚¬ ¢The initial search using Proquest (ABI Inform) specifying â€Å"capital budgeting surveys† in scholarly journals after January 1, 1984, yielded over two hundred results. However, the great majority were published in the non-mainline journals, including many strictly practitioner (trade journal) outlets and /or were focused on a particular country or industry and thus eliminated by the screening criteria. To insure against missing articles due to any limitations ofthe ABl database, the authors checked the references ofthe surviving articles, and in addition, conducted a manual search ofthe most cited finance journals tables of contents and the reference sections of the various survey articles found. JOURNAL OF APPLIED FINANCE – ISSUES 1 & 2, 2009 capital budgeting process.’ It should be noted that the Figures herein were slightly altered from Mukherjee’s original format to better focus on selected issues that were identified specifically as areas of neglect. For example, the category of â€Å"techniques† was divided into â€Å"techniques used† and â€Å"reasons for techniques used†. Similarly, the risk category was divided into â€Å"risk recognition†, â€Å"risk assessment†, and â€Å"risk adjustment†. III. Findings by Stage A quick perusal of Figure 2 reveals an obvious concentration of â€Å"checks† in Stage 3 (selection) similar to the previous findings of Mukherjee. Although a careful look at some of the stage categories individually indicates that several neglected areas have been researched over the period, there is still an obvious and relative lack of research into Stages 1, 2, and 4. To further assess the effectiveness ofthe research appeals, the analysis and reported results in this section will be ordered by the four stages.   Summary comments are provided only  on those surveys which provide a significant contribution to a previously neglected area of capital budgeting survey research. As a result, the findings of Bierman ( 1993), Gilbert and Reichert (1995), Payne, Heath, and Gale (1999), and Ryan and Ryan (2002) are not summarized. A. Stage 1 : Identification Suggested areas of study within this stage include how project proposals are initiated, whether the proposal process is on-going or on an â€Å"only-when-needed† basis, at what level projects are generated, whether there is a formal process for submitting ideas, how that process works when present, and if there is an incentive system for rewarding good ideas.* Unfortunately, there has never been an in-depth survey focused on this stage, leaving no question that it remains strongly neglected. The only contribution of a minor nature to this topic is the incidental finding by Stanley and Block (1984). They found that in over 80% of the responding firms that capital budgeting proposals originated bottom up ‘In the 1987 article, note that on Figure 4, the stages are described somewhat differently from the discussion in the paper itself Specifically, in the body of the paper, the four stages are: (1) identification, (2) development, (3) selection, and (4) the post-audit. But in the table, the 4 stages are idea generation, proposal development, selection of projects, and control or performance evaluation. ‘As in footnote 3, the following suggested areas of study for all four stages are largely paraphrased from Mukherjee (1987).. 81 BURNS & WALKER – CAPITAL BUDGETING SURVEYS: THE FUTURE IS NOW Figure 1. Surveys of Capital Budgeting of Large US Firms Surveyed Year(s) Survey Author(s) Method Number of Usable Responses 1982 Stanley & Block (1984) questionnaire 121 1986 Pruitt & Gitman (1987) questionnaire 121 1986 Pohlman, Santiago, & Markel(1988) questionnaire 232 1988 Gordon & Myers (1991) 1988 1992 1990 1991 1992 Myers, Gordon, & Hamer(1991) Bierman (1993) Porterba & Summers (1995) Gilbert & Reichert (1995) Trahan & Gitman (1995) Sample CFO’s of Fortune 1000 multinationals VP Finance or Treasurer of largest industrials in Fortune 500 CFO’s of Fortune 500 questionnaire 282 questionnaire 282 questionnaire 74 Executives and capital budgeting directors of large US industrials except utilities and transportation Large public firms from FASB Data Bank 100 largest of Fortune 500 questionnaire 160-228 CEO’s of Fortune 1000 questionnaire 151 Fortune Magazine Directory CFO’s questionnaire 84 CFO’s of Fortune 500 + Forbes 200 Managers of foreign manufacturing subsidiaries of US industrials 1992 Shao & Shao (1996) questionnaire 188 1992 Burns & Walker (1997) questionnaire 180 Fortune 500 7,27,10 7 best-sellling texts, 27 prestigious CFO’s, 10 leading financial advisors 1996-97 Bruneretal(1998) telephone survey 1992-93 Mukherjee & Hingorani(1999) questionnaire 102 Fortune 500 CFO’s 1994 Payne, Heath, & Gale (1999) questionnaire 155 USA and Canadian based companies from S&P Compustat database questionnaire 111 CFO’s from Fortune 1000 questionnaire 392 CFO’s from FEI corporations interviews 39 executives of large companies questionnaire 205 CFO’s of Fortune 1000 questionnaire 40 top-ranking officers of Fortune 1000 1997 1999 1999 1999 2005 Gitman & Vandenberg (2000) Graham & Harvey (2001) Triantis & Borison (2001) Ryan & Ryan (2002) Block (2007) z †¢^ II O) (2002) ueAy â€Å"? uBAy o (0 O) †¢a (0 a> i2 i2 o u. a> †¢o (0 (O O) I O) †¢o 3 OQ a re U 3 D) < ‘O6B!)UB9 ‘UBLU|L|Od S (8861.) |S>tJeiM (Z86l.)ueaJi!O’SH!n.id (W6l)>|00ia’8’^8|UBis |L Idea Generation |A. Source of Origination |B. Reasons for Idea Origination |C. Process of Origination & Submission |D. Time Pattern of Origination 1II. ProposalDevelopment |A. Level at Which screening Takes Place |B. Screening Process  ¡C. Cashflow Estimates (and forecasting) |D. Responsibility for Budget Preparation (personnel) |lll. Selection of Projects |A. Classification of Projects for Economic Analysis B. Personnel (Department) Responsible for Analysis C1. Listing Techniques Used |C2. Reasons for Techniques Used Dl. Risk recognition D2. Risk assessment D3. Risk adjustment El. Capital Rationing: How Extensive? E2. Capital Rationing Rationale E3. Capital Rationing Methods Used F. Cost of Capital G. Project Approval |IV. Control (or Perfonnance Evaluation) A. Extent of Use of Post Audit B. Personnel Involved/Procedure C. Performance Measurement D. Use of Evaluation (Punishment/Reward/Etc.) 1* Surveys in this exhibit appear in chronological order of their publication. 82 JOURNAL OF APPLIED FINANCE – ISSUES 1 & 2, 2009 o o o o CM o ( ¿ooz) >iooia 6jaquapueA ‘S UBLUIJO (0002) (6660 9|B0 ‘S ‘MIB9H ‘auÄBd (666 O !UBJo6u!H ‘S aa[jaLj>|ni^ -?†¢ -y -7-?†¢ -y (1.002) uosuog pue suueui -?†¢ ~y (1.002)’^SWBH S lUBMBJO ~7-?†¢ -?†¢ -?†¢ -?†¢ -y -?†¢ (866l.)|Bà ­a.iaunjg -?†¢ CO t ^ -y ( ¿66l)J8>lieM’8SUjng (966l†¢)oeL^S’8OB^s -y (9661.) uBUjJio ‘S UBUBJi -y (S66l.)weM0!ay’s;jaqi!9 -y (9661-) sjauiujns ‘s eqjapod -?†¢ -y m ( £661.) ueuuaig -y -y â€Å"5 ‘a. n O (1-661-) jaoiBH ‘S ‘uopjoo ‘sjaA|/| ~y -y ~y -y (1.661.) sjaÄ|/l’8uopjoo -y ~y -y -y -?†¢ -?†¢ -y ~y -y -y to -y 00