A – Capital budgeting is an analysis of potential additions to fixed assets, it is part of the long term decisions taken by the top management and involve large expenditures. The capital budgeting is very important to firm’s future. The difference between capital budgeting and individual’s investment decisions are in the estimation of cash flows, risk, and determination of the appropriate discount. B – The difference between interdependent and mutually exclusive projects is that the independent project’s cash flows are not affected by the acceptance of the other, although the mutually exclusive can be adversely impacted by the acceptance of the other. the difference between normal and no normal cash flow stream projects occurs in the signs since for the normal cash flows if the cost ( negative CF) followed by a series of positive cash flows will lead to one change of sign.
On the other hand the non-normal project cash flows have two or more changes of sign C – 1 NPV: is the sum of all cash inflows and outflows of a project C – 2 – The rationale behind the NPV method is that it is equal to PV of inflows minus the cost which is the net gain in wealth. If the projects are mutually exclusive we will choose the project with the highest NPV and here in our case we will choose project S since it has a greater NPV compared to project S (19.98>18.79).
The Dissertation on Related Literature to the Cash Flow Management
The role of cash flow information in discriminating between bankrupt and non-bankrupt companies remains a contentious issue. In a number of literature reviews on bankruptcy prediction (e. g. Zavgren, 1983; Jones, 1987; Neill et al. 1991; Watson, 1996) the common view is that cash flow information does not contain significant incremental information content over accrual information in ...
If the projects are independent we will choose both. C – 3 The NPV will change if the WACC change; if the WACC increases the NPV will decrease on the other hand if the WACC decreases the NPV will increase. D – 1 Internal rate of return (IRR) is the discount rate that forces PV inflows equal to cost, and the NPV = 0. IRR using excel for project L:
IRR
18.13%
For project S:
IRR
23.6%
D – 2 A project IRR is the same as a bond’s YTM. The YTM on the bond would be the IRR of the “bond” project. D – 3 If IRR > WACC, the project’s return exceeds its costs and there is some return left over to boost stockholders returns. If IRR > WACC, the project is accepted and if IRR < WACC, the project is reject. If projects are independent, we accept both of them, as both IRR > WACC. If projects are mutually exclusive, we accept the one with the highest IRR. D – 4 IRR do not depend on the WACC, so if the WACC changes, the IRR for both projects will remain the same. E – 1
Excel=NPV(rate,CF1:CFn) + CF 0
WACC
NPV L
NPV S
0%
$50.00
$40.00
5%
$33.05
$29.29
10%
$18.78
$19.98
15%
$6.67
$11.83
20%
($3.70)
$4.63
Cross over rate is equal to 8.7%.
CF Differences
0
-60
10
60
IRR = 8.7%
E – 2 For independent projects, both IRR and NPV will lead to the same decision. If projects are mutually exclusive, there is a conflict between the IRR and the NPV. Since we said that NPV is the best method to use in case of conflict, project L will be selected based on this method. F – 1 The slope of the NPV profile depends entirely on the timing of the cash flows; long-term projects have excessive NPV profiles than short-term projects. We conclude that NPV profiles can cross in two situations, first when mutually exclusive projects differ in size: the smaller project frees up funds at t = 0 for investment. The higher the opportunity cost, the more valuable these funds, so a high WACC favors small projects, and second when the projects cash flows differ in terms of the timing pattern of their cash flows: the project with faster payback provides more CF in early years for reinvestment. If WACC is high, early CF especially good, NPVs > NPV L (projects studied in class).
The Essay on Merseyside and Rotterdam projects
I would choose Merseyside project rather than Rotterdam’s not only for its superior prospect based on the quantitative criteria, but also for a more rational strategy consideration. For the four investment criteria, here’s the elaboration. NPV. Since the two plants are of identical scale, age, design and similar project size, it makes sense to use NPV to compare the two projects. Not taken into ...
F – 2
The reinvestment rate assumptions:
-NPV method assumes Cfs are reinvested at the WACC.
-IRR method assumes CFs are reinvested at the IRR.
-Assuming Cfs are reinvested at the opportunity cost of capital is more realistic, so NPV method is the best. NPV method should be used to choose between mutually exclusive projects. -Perhaps a hybrid of the IRR that assumes cost of capital reinvestment is needed. F – 3 Some projects will result in different IRR and NPV. The NPV will be selected to decide if the project is going to be accepted or not. We do not use the IRR first because it does not take into account changing discount rates, so it is j not adequate for longer-term projects with discount rates that are will probably vary. Second, the IRR ineffective is a project with a non-normal cash flow streams (mixture of positive and negative cash flows).
G – 1 MIRR assumes reinvestment at the opportunity cost =WACC. MIRR also avoids the multiple IRR problem.
G – 2 MIRR does not always lead to the same decision as NPV when mutually exclusive projects are being considered. In particular, small projects often have a higher MIRR, but a lower NPV, than larger projects. Thus, MIRR is not a perfect substitute for NPV, and NPV remains the single best decision rule.
H – 1 Payback period is the number of years required to recover a project’s cost, or “how long does it take to get our money back?”
H – 2 The payback period tells us when the project will break even in a cash flow sense. With a required payback of 2 years, Project S is acceptable, but Project L is not. Whether the two projects are independent or mutually exclusive makes no difference in this case. H – 3 Discounted payback is similar to payback except that discounted rather than raw cash flows are used. H – 4 Discounted payback still fails to consider cash flows after the payback period and it gives us no specific decision rule for acceptance. However, payback is not generally used as the primary decision tool. Rather, it is used as a rough measure of a project’s liquidity and riskiness. I –
The Research paper on Project Management Case Study: The Spares Distribution Center (SDC)
In the article written by John McMichael and Lockwood Greene (1994), the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group (BCAG) started to design and operate the new Spares Distribution Center (SDC) in SeaTac, Washington, for the company’s Customer Services Division. With the project aimed at yearly growth rate in the areas of inventory and shipments, there were internal and external risks that BCAG faced in ...
1
2
3
CF
-800000
5000000
-5000000
WACC
0,1
To find NPV we used excel:
Excel: =NPV(rate,CF1:CFn)+CFO
NPV
(386 776,86 DT)
Excel: =IRR(CF0:CFn,Rate)
IRR
25%
Excel: =MIRR(CF0:CFN,Rate)
MIRR
5,6%
7
