when i was in forestry school (back in the 60s) we normally used 6% in our forest timberland boots uk economics timberland waterproof boots courses. when i was an mba student (in the late 70s), we used the companys marginal cost of capital with an appropriate adjustment for risk. early in the timberland shift to timos, it was pretty freely discussed that timos were using real rates in the 6% to 8% which was based on the risk free rate of return (10 year t-bills at 4%) plus risk adjustment. at the same time, integrated forest products companies with large timberland acreages were using investment hurdle rates significantly above the average or even marginal cost of capital for the firm (a mistake c it should have been based on the marginal cost of capital and risk associated with purchasing and owning more timberland not riskier investments!). the result of this is that high-risk capital investments were subsidized by low-risk timberland ownership. as a timberland shoes general rule, discount rates used by the c corporations were much higher than that used timberland waterproof boots by the timos (rates in the range of 12% - 15% or more). remember the decision you reached above with the thoreau example. the c corporations also had to include taxes in the cash flow analyses (reducing cash flow and, subsequently, value) whereas most of the timo clients were pension funds and tax exempt. between the tax payments and high discount rates used by the corporations, it is pretty clear why the timos valued timberland higher than the forest industry.