Why is the net present value is better than other investment rules for making capital budgeting decision? Critically assess the performance of NPV against other rules paying special attention to internal rate of return rule and identify characteristics that make it superior to these other rule under what circumstantial dose the NPV rule itself fills unless some adjustment are made ?
Why is the net present value is better than other investment rules for making capital budgeting decision? Critically assess the performance of NPV against other rules paying special attention to internal rate of return rule and identify characteristics that make it superior to these other rule under what circumstantial dose the NPV rule itself fills unless some adjustment are made ?
For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.
Related questions
Capital Budgeting Mini Case
Instructions: The assignment is based on the mini case below. The instructions relating to the assignment are at the end of the case.
Lucy Hawkins and Andy Chen are facing an important decision. After having discussed different financial scenarios into the wee hours of the morning, the two computer engineers felt it was time to finalize their cash flow projections and move to the next stage â decide which of two possible projects they should undertake.
Both had a bachelor degree in engineering and had put in several years as maintenance engineers in a large chip manufacturing company. About six months ago, they were able to exercise their first stock options. That was when they decided to quit their safe, steady job and pursue their dreams of starting a venture of their own. In their spare time, almost as a hobby, they had been collaborating on some research into a new chip that could speed up certain specialized tasks by as much as 25%. At this point, the design of the chip was complete. While further experimentation might improve the performance of their design, any delay in entering the market now may prove to be costly, as one of the established players might introduce a similar product of their own. The duo knew that now was the time to act if at all.
They estimated that they would need to spend about $5,000,000 on plant, equipment and supplies. As for future cash flows, they felt that the right strategy at least for the first year would be to sell their product at dirt-cheap prices in order to induce customer acceptance. Then, once the product had established a name for itself, the price could be raised. By the end of the fifth year, their product in its current form was likely to be obsolete. However, the innovative approach that they had devised and patented could be sold to a larger chip manufacturer for a decent sum. Accordingly, the two budding entrepreneurs estimated the operating cash flows for this project (call it Project A) as follows:
Year | Project A Expected Cash flows ($) |
0 | (5,000,000) |
1 | 200,000 |
2 | 875,000 |
3 | 2,130,000 |
4 | 3,110,000 |
5 | 3,110,000 |
An alternative to pursuing this project would be to sell the patent for their innovative chip design to one of the established chip makers. They estimated that they would receive around $800,000 for this. It would probably not be reasonable to expect much more as neither their product nor their innovative approach had a track record.
They could then invest in some plant and equipment that would test silicon wafers for zircon content before the wafers were used to make chips. Too much zircon would affect the long-term performance of the chips. The task of checking the level of zircon was currently being performed by chip makers themselves. However, many of them, especially the smaller ones, did not have the capacity to permit 100% checking. Most tested only a sample of the wafers they received.
Lucy and Andy were confident that they could persuade at least some of the chip makers to outsource this function to them. By exclusively specializing in this task, their little company would be able to slash costs by more than half, and thus allow the chip manufacturers to go in for 100% quality check for roughly the same cost as what they were incurring for a partial quality check today. The life of this project too is expected to be only about five years.
The initial investment for this project is estimated at $ 5,000,000. After taking into account the sale of their patent, the net investment would be $4,200,000. As for the future, Lucy and Andy were pretty sure that there would be sizable profits in the first year. But thereafter, the zircon content problem would slowly start to disappear with advancing technology in the wafer industry. Keeping this in mind, they estimate the future cash inflows for this project (call it Project B) as follows:
Year | Project B Expected Cash flows ($) |
0 | (4,200,000) |
1 | 2,500,000 |
2 | 2,000,000 |
3 | 900,000 |
4 | 550,000 |
5 | 250,000 |
Lucy and Andy now need to make their decision. For purposes of analysis, they plan to use a required rate of return of 15% for both projects. Ideally, they would prefer that the project they choose have a payback period of less than 3.5 years and a discounted payback period of less than 4 years.
Below are the results of the analysis they have carried out so far:
Metrics | Project A | Project B |
Payback period (in years) | 3.58 | 1.85 |
Discounted payback period (in years) | 4.64 | 2.87 |
Net Present Value (NPV) | $560,421 | $516,723 |
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) | 18.37% | 22.47% |
Profitability Index | 1.11 | 1.12 |
Modified Internal Rate of Return (MIRR) | 17.47% | 17.70% |
One of the concerns that Lucy and Andy have is regarding the reliability of their cash flow estimates. All the analysis in the table above is based on âexpectedâ cash flows. However, they are both aware that actual future cash flows may be higher or lower.
Assignment:
Suppose that Lucy and Andy have hired you as a consultant to help them make the decision. Please draft an official memo to them with your analysis and recommendations.
Your submission should cover the following questions:
Briefly, summarize the key facts of the case and identify the problem being faced by our two budding entrepreneurs. In other words, what is the decision that they need to make? (10 points)
An excellent paper will demonstrate the ability to construct a clear and insightful problem statement while identifying all underlying issues.
What are some approaches that can be used to solve this problem? What are some various criteria or metrics that can be used to help make this decision? (10 points)
An excellent paper will propose solutions that are sensitive to all the identified issues.
a) Rank the projects based on each of the following metrics: Payback period, Discounted payback period, NPV, IRR, Profitability Index, and MIRR. (10 points)
b) Andy believes that the best approach to make the decision is the NPV approach. However, Lucy is not so sure that ignoring the other metrics is a good idea. Which of the approaches or metrics would you propose? In other words, would you prefer one or more of these approaches over the others? Explain why. (20 points)
An excellent paper includes an evaluation of solutions containing thorough and insightful explanations, feasibility of solutions, and impacts of solutions.
a) Which of these projects would you recommend? Explain why. (10 points)
b) Briefly state the limitations of the approach you used in making this decision, and outline what further analysis you would recommend. (20 points)
An excellent paper provides concise yet thorough action-oriented recommendations using appropriate subject-matter justifications related to the problem while addressing limitations of the solution and outlining recommended future analysis.
Can somebody help me do the analysis for this capital budgeting case study? I've got everything calculate but I know what to write for the analysis
The questions that pertain to the analysis section are to help you in how you approach the analysis and drive the narrative of the analysis.
Third and Final Section â The Decision. In the a directed case, this would include those questions that pertain directly to the decision. Make your recommendation to your audience.This section can also contain any commentary relevant to the case and decision.
Based on your computations in requirement number one, which projects should be accepted? Note: Projects Exp2015-A, Exp2015-B and Exp2015-C are mutually exclusive.
EXP2015-A | Exp215-B | Exp2015-C | TT2015-A | BH2015-A | |
Pay back period (years) | 3.53 years | 2.85 years | 3.77 years | 4.83 years | 2.75 years |
Net Present Value | 527,068 | 278,826 | 1,557,757 | 316,521 | 263,743 |
IRR | 25.26% | 20.87% | 23.21% | 16.03% | 23.93% |
MIRR | 16.39% | 13.57% | 15.66% | 12.88% | 17.47% |
PI | 1.7 | 1.33 | 1.60 | 1.25 | 1.36 |
Viking Freight Forwarding, LLC is a family run operation. It is owned by the Ostrem family, with the 2 Ostrem brothers and 1 sister making up the upper level management team. Tom Bertram, son-in-law of the youngest Ostrem brother, has been hired as the assistant financial vice president of the firm. His primary duties are to evaluate capital budgeting projects and other related long term projects of the operation.
Bertram is currently undertaking an analysis of five major capital budgeting projects for the coming year. All of the projects except for the Ankeny Satellite Terminal project would have the same level of risk as the other long term assets of the firm. Descriptions of the five projects are below and estimate of expected cash flows for each project is outlined in Table 1.
Project Exp2015-A: Expansion of existing facilities at Des Moines Terminal.
Viking Freight Forwarding operates primarily as a bonded freight forwarder, and thus must provide rapid delivery, on short notice, of freight temporarily stored in its bonded warehouse located on Guthrie Avenue on Des Moinesâ eastside. The terminal has six existing loading docks and this number is often insufficient for the amount of freight that must be forwarded for prompt delivery.
Because of growth in business, Viking has been unable to meet the needs of its customers on a number of occasions because of backlogs at the loading docks. Firms have begun using other freight forwarders in the area and is starting to have an effect on the revenues of the firm.
Project Exp2015-A calls for the building of an annex to the existing warehouse; the annex would provide 3 new loading docks and 5,000 square feet of additional storage space. This would take some time to construct and the amount of lost revenues would continue to mount so that the recouping the lost revenues would be spread out over a longer time period. However, the additional storage space would allow for more growth in the future.
Project Exp2015-B: Alternative expansion of existing facilities at Des Moines Terminal.
Project Exp2015-Bis to simply add 3 additional loading docks to the existing building. This would significantly reduce the construction time relative to project a so that lost revenues could be recouped faster. However, no additional storage space would be added. Project Exp2015-Bwould disrupt the current operation more and the warehouse layout would have to be reconfigured, so that the total cost of the project would be the same as Project Exp2015-A. While the cash inflows would be more rapid, the projects life would be much shorter. This solves the immediate problem but does not address the growth issue.
Project Exp2015-SAT: Build a new satellite terminal in Ankeny
Rather than expanding at the current Guthrie Avenue location, Bertram is considering building a satellite terminal in the industrial park in Ankeny which is located 6 miles from the current location. The current site in Des Moines does not have the potential for extensive expansion so he is considering this expansion in an off-site location. This is a much more expensive project and more risky in that excess capacity will be built and coordinating shipments will be more difficult
Project TT2015-A: Purchase of Three New Tractor-Trailers.
An increase in business has not only caused backlogs at the loading docks but also has forced Viking to lease tractor-trailers since they have insufficient quantity of their own. This increases the cost of transportation as well as making it difficult to do regularly scheduled maintenance on their tractor-trailers since they are being fully utilized with little down time. Project TT2015-A would alleviate this problem.
Project BH2015-A: Special equipment for handling bulk commodities.
A profitable capital investment made in 1990 to handle bulk commodities and forward them by rail would be upgraded under Project BH2015-A. This would involve the installation of a movable conveyor belt to increase rail car loading efficiency by reducing current labor costs.
Table 1 | Mutually | Exclusive | Independent | Independent | |||||
Project | Project | Project | Project | Project | |||||
Exp2015-A | Exp2015-B | Exp2015-C | TT2015-A | BH2015-A | |||||
CFo | $(750,000.00) | $(840,000.00) | $(2,600,000.00) | $(1,250,000.00) | $(720,000.00) | ||||
1 | $ 195,000.00 | $ 275,000.00 | $ 625,000.00 | $ 258,900.00 | $ 261,900.00 | ||||
2 | $ 225,000.00 | $ 295,000.00 | $ 650,000.00 | $ 258,900.00 | $ 261,900.00 | ||||
3 | $ 214,500.00 | $ 315,900.00 | $ 750,000.00 | $ 258,900.00 | $ 261,900.00 | ||||
4 | $ 216,500.00 | $ 200,000.00 | $ 750,000.00 | $ 258,900.00 | $ 261,900.00 | ||||
5 | $ 229,400.00 | $ 110,000.00 | $ 775,000.00 | $ 258,900.00 | $ 261,900.00 | ||||
6 | $ 219,400.00 | $ 90,000.00 | $ 800,000.00 | $ 258,900.00 | |||||
7 | $ 210,400.00 | $ 90,000.00 | $ 675,000.00 | $ 258,900.00 | |||||
8 | $ 205,400.00 | $ 80,000.00 | $ 650,000.00 | $ 258,900.00 | |||||
9 | $ 195,400.00 | $ 80,000.00 | $ 625,000.00 | $ 258,900.00 | |||||
10 | $ 185,400.00 | $ 70,000.00 | $ 500,000.00 | $ 258,900.00 | |||||
Note all cash-flows are on an after tax basis. |
The existing capital structure uses very little debt and relies mostly on retention of earnings and additional equity provided by the Ostrem family. While Bertram believes that the cost of capital could be reduced by changing the capital structure to include more debt, the current capital budget must be analyzed using the existing capital structure and the relevant component costs. See Table 2 for the cost of capital and the current capital structure.
Table 2 | Cost of capital and capital structure | Component | |||
weight | cost | ||||
Present | Debt | 40% | 7% | ||
Common Equity | 60% | 14% | |||
Tax rate =30% |