Syndicate content

Recent comments

  • Reply to: The Puzzle with LARCs   6 days 20 hours ago
    The unpredictability of side effects for each individual is challenging - for sure. And, yes, implants and IUDs require removals by a trained professional, these are not diffucult - in fact, quick and routine procedures, which can take as little as a few minutes. It's important to remember that switching is costly regardless of your modern method - with the pill, you may need to adjust the dosage; you have to wait till the end of the cycle with an injectable before choosing another method, etc. Clinician competence and responsiveness are important, no doubt, but so is the importance of trying these more effective methods, which are not more likely to be discontinued than other methods by their adopters...
  • Reply to: The Puzzle with LARCs   6 days 20 hours ago

    I have learned a lot.

  • Reply to: Why don’t economists do cost analysis in their impact evaluations?   1 week 1 day ago

    I am pleased to share some of my recent papers (WPS) on CBA/BCA and Investment Analysis. All these four papers provide better insight into the analysis:
    1. A New Method to Estimate IRR and NPV and NPV is not an Appropriate Criterion: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2899648
    2. IRR Performs Better than NPV: A Critical Analysis of Multiple IRR and Mutually Exclusive Investments: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2913905
    3. The Controversial Reinvestment Assumption in CBA and Capital Investment Analysis: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2918744
    4. MIRR is a Spurious criterion and should not be used in cost-benefit analysis and investment analysis http://ssrn.com/abstract=2942456
    A summary of the findings follows:
    a. A new method is introduced to estimate NPV and IRR from the Capital Amortization Schedule (CAS). The new method is more transparent and explain better the NPV and IRR.
    b. The new method exposes that the NPV is the unutilized net cash flow (NCF) and if fully utilized it will become zero at a discount rate equal to IRR. NPV is not a good criterion as it indicate incomplete information on return of capital (ROC) and the return on invested capital (ROIC).
    c. IRR is most appropriate to select and rank mutually exclusive investments as explained in the paper listed two.
    d. Paper 3 provides evidence that reinvestment of intermediate income in the estimation of IRR is a fallacy and therefore IRR remains as the best criterion. This is again reinforced by the results from paper 1 listed above.
    e. MIRR is a spurious criterion because it assumes reinvestment (which is a fallacy) and MIRR also cannot solve the problem of multiple IRR as presumed. MIRR estimate is boundless with increasing investment rate (IR). MIRR is based on modified NCF (MNCF) and the MNCF distorts the cash flow and the results as explained in the paper no; 4 listed above.
    Based on these analytical evidence, Investment analysts and decision makers may wish to move away from the conventional wisdom of preferring NPV and using MIRR as a criterion so also the authors of all published works and finance and economic texts.
    Appreciate comments.
    Regards
    Dr Kannan Arjunan, PhD (Economics), MBA (Finance), CAIIB Brisbane, Australia

  • Reply to: Why don’t economists do cost analysis in their impact evaluations?   1 week 1 day ago

    Well, CBA has been criticized on several aspects. I am pleased to share some of my recent papers (WPS) on CBA/BCA and Investment Analysis. All these four papers provide better insight into the analysis:
    1. A New Method to Estimate IRR and NPV and NPV is not an Appropriate Criterion: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2899648
    2. IRR Performs Better than NPV: A Critical Analysis of Multiple IRR and Mutually Exclusive Investments: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2913905
    3. The Controversial Reinvestment Assumption in CBA and Capital Investment Analysis: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2918744
    4. MIRR is a Spurious criterion and should not be used in cost-benefit analysis and investment analysis http://ssrn.com/abstract=2942456
    A summary of the findings follows:
    a. A new method is introduced to estimate NPV and IRR from the Capital Amortization Schedule (CAS). The new method is more transparent and explain better the NPV and IRR.
    b. The new method exposes that the NPV is the unutilized net cash flow (NCF) and if fully utilized it will become zero at a discount rate equal to IRR. NPV is not a good criterion as it indicate incomplete information on return of capital (ROC) and the return on invested capital (ROIC).
    c. IRR is most appropriate to select and rank mutually exclusive investments as explained in the paper listed two.
    d. Paper 3 provides evidence that reinvestment of intermediate income in the estimation of IRR is a fallacy and therefore IRR remains as the best criterion. This is again reinforced by the results from paper 1 listed above.
    e. MIRR is a spurious criterion because it assumes reinvestment (which is a fallacy) and MIRR also cannot solve the problem of multiple IRR as presumed. MIRR estimate is boundless with increasing investment rate (IR). MIRR is based on modified NCF (MNCF) and the MNCF distorts the cash flow and the results as explained in the paper no; 4 listed above.
    Based on these analytical evidence, Investment analysts and decision makers may wish to move away from the conventional wisdom of preferring NPV and using MIRR as a criterion so also the authors of all published works and finance and economic texts.
    Appreciate comments.
    Regards
    Dr Kannapiran Arjunan, Brisbane, Australia

  • Reply to: The Puzzle with LARCs   1 week 2 days ago

    Very interesting! One other question, related to side effects, would be how the costs of switching between being "on" and "off" of contraception might interact with the inability to predict one's personal severity of side effects? For instance, with a contraceptive method that requires a clinician visit to remove, the possibility of any side effects could be relatively higher-risk -- because, if they are really severe, an implant or IUD would be more costly and difficult to remove as compared to just stopping to take the pill. Perhaps greater clinician availability, reliability, and responsiveness, as noted in the final bullet, could assist with this as well.