There exists a wide disparity between the theory and practice of capital budgeting. During the past fifteen years, the theory of capital budgeting has been characterized by the increased application of such analytical techniques as utility analysis, mathematical programming, probability and statistical theory. The practice of capital budgeting has no doubt changed at the same time, but business executives do not appear to have adopted many of the new techniques. The purpose of this paper is to compare current theory with practice: (1) to discuss the nature of the gap and the reason for its existence, and (2) to try to lessen this disparity by suggesting ways of modifying theory to make it more operationally meaningful. To aid discussion, this paper is divided into four sections: objective of financial management, risk analysis in investment decisions, profitability criteria for investment selection, and conclusions. It is difficult, if not impossible, to characterize the current theory of capital budgeting in a few words. By current theory, I shall mean the type of work on capital budgeting that appears in journals such as Management Science, Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, and Engineering Economist. These theories generally make use of modern quantitative tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]