## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

The payback period can be defined as the length of time it takes before the cumulated stream of forecasted cash flows equal the initial investment (Arnold 2007). By looking at Appendicle A1.0 and A1.1 we can see that the "Epoxy Resin" project has a payback period of 1.5 years while Synthetic Resin has a longer payback period of 2.5 years. On the basis of this methodology we will choose to invest in Epoxy Resin. Though it is important to understand that payback period cannot be used as a measure of probability, as it does not take into account the cash flows after the payback period, thus making it ineffective. Another drawback to payback period is that it simply ignores the time value of money (Today's value of a payment is worth less in the future). Also we have to take into account that there is no comparison between future cash flows with primary investment and their present value when it has been discounted, secondly, it has a serious theoretical flaw the most significant being is that it ignores shareholder wealth maximization objective (Mclaney 2003) One school of thought suggests that Payback period only demonstrates the financial feasibility of the projects technology (Attaran, 1996) and not its profitability. In this situation Tim is looking to determine which project brings maximum wealth to Day Pro, and Payback period cannot do this because it cannot measure wealth. 2. Discounted payback is very similar to the previously discussed payback method but the underlying difference is that it takes into account the time value of money. Appendicle B 1.0 and B 1.1 suggest that Epoxy Resin is the most viable project based on the discounted payback method. This still should not be used as a deciding factor as it simply ignores all cash flows after the payback period. Gowthrope ( 2008) stated that the weakness of discounted payback is that it provides little useful information. Thus it may lead to the rejection of good wealth creating projects. Another fundamental flaw of discounted payback method is that it can easily ignore the latent energy of the product because it requires an arbitrary cut off value (Arnold 2007). Payback period drawbacks are not significant where it is to be used to asses relatively short term, lower value projects (Chadwick 2007). In this situation it is vital for Tim to weigh the cost and the benefits of the two proposals and the payback methods cannot simply do this to an extent in which it can maximize the company's wealth. 3. Accounting rate of return is the ratio of profit before interest and taxation to the percentage of capital employed at the end of a period. Variations include using profit after interest and taxation, equity, capital employed and average capital for the period. (BNET 2005).

the greater the shareholders wealth is enhanced.The main purpose of ARR is to compare project's average annual profit with the capital invested. Since the acceptable ARR for both projects is 40% it may be difficult for Tim to make the right decision as both will be generating wealth. Though there is a raking conflict that exists between NPV and IRR and we must use the crossover point to resolve this dilemma.3). The IRR for Synthetic project is 36. (P131. NPV is a very strong tool that can be used to determine the potential wealth generated from a project. and the Epoxy project is 562214. (Eddie M. ARR's weakness is that it does not consider the time of cash flows and the standard of investments. The IRR is the discount rate in which NPV becomes zero.0 we can see that Synthetic Resin has a higher NPV and so we should choose to accept this project as it generates more wealth. The IRR method is compared against a single required rate of return and cannot handle variable rates. we cannot compare how much profit the shareholders can get from the case of mutually exclusive projects. NPV contradicts this and thus we must analyze this even further.17% Accept Synthetic Resin . but not cash flows. 4. 2003) Looking at Appendices E1. this is done by accumulating the sum of all the cash flows and discounting them with the relevant discount factor (E1. and the Epoxy project is 43.0 & E1.16%. The NVP for Synthetic project is 903021. What makes NPV a powerful tool is that it address the fact that £1 today is worth in the future. (P131.1 Discount Rate Outcome <29. This graph shows the NPV for both projects at a 10% discount rate NPV Curve illustrating the intersection of the NPV Curves (crossover point) and their respective IRR Values Calculations can be seen in Appendicle E1. 5. IRR could be misleading in deciding the mutually exclusive projects but we still must take it into consideration as it can consolidate our decision if it has no conflict with NPV. the greater the NPV.0 we can see that ARR for Synthetic Resin is 64% and 45% for Epoxy Resin. Another flaw with ARR is that it uses profits which ignore the time value of money. The rule is that all positive NPV investments enhance shareholders wealth.99%. Pike & Neale) In another word. the IRR is just a rate. (Investopedia 2008) Looking at Appendicle C 1. so even though Synthetic project has a lower IRR than Epoxy Resin project. The weakness of IRR is that it ignores the scale of the project. Pike & Neale).

We must also consider the total amount of return in the project and the return rate of the re-investment. or have a higher return from another investment. (Pike & Neale. Now also assume that the manager finds an investment rate of return 50% which is higher than both of the projects before he gets the return cash flow would then give us an MIRR of 47.I value given. MIRR is the rate of return which. (Dryden Press 1996) Mathematically speaking.I of 1.0 example 1) would produce an MIRR of 19. Firstly the reason that this occurs is because of the reinvestment rate assumption.903 of wealth is generated. Since we can only choose one project as they are mutually exclusive and the NPV method tells us to accept the Synthetic Resin project while IRR tells us to pick Epoxy Resin we can use the crossover point to come to decisive conclusion.29. the cash flow can be used to reinvest with same IRR. Assume that the return cash flow is saved in bank with an interest rate of 5% (Refer to Appendices F1. the manager should accept Epoxy project. There is two general rules about the P. the manager should accept Synthetic project. p138) IRR is based on the cash flow in batches.903 so that means for every £1 invested £1.38% (Refer to Appendices F1. for example in our situation Project A has a P.91% Reject Both Accept Epoxy Resin The crossover point helps us dispute the IRR and NPV raking conflicts. when the initial outlay is compared with the terminal value of the project's net cash flows reinvested at the cost of capital. Now. If the re-investment rate is higher than the original rate. gives an NPV of zero.91% >42. conflict will occur when the discount rate is set below the crossover point which in this case is 29. and should be accepted . 7. Though some investors would choose to save the cash flow returns in their bank. the re-invest rate can be higher or lower than the original return rate. meaning that IRR and NPV's assumption is based on the fact that cash flows will be reinvested at a given rate regardless what is done with the cash flows.0) indicates the value of wealth generated per £1. MIRR considers the return rate of re-investment is also the same rate with the return rate. The values which we have worked out for project A and B (Appendices G1. Profitability index (P. if the re-investment rate is low.16%. if the value is greater than 1 then the project is favourable and wealth generating. the IRR for Synthetic project is 36. in a realistic environment. and inherently NPV assumes that projects can be reinvested at the cost of capital while IRR assumes reinvestment at the IRR rate.17%< discount rate<42. and the Epoxy project is 43. On the other hand. In this case.I) is another way for showing the value of cash flows.0 example 2).29%.17%. For the mutually exclusive projects MIRR is predominantly more accurate. (Baker 2006) 6.99%.

Line graph demonstrating the relationship between discount rates and PI for both projects. but if we introduce a discount rate of 40% the Epoxy Resin projects a higher NPV and the Synthetic Resin project shows a negative NPV (-£64. Calculations can be seen in appendix H1.I value. However with both projects project a positive NPV and profitability index. as it is much simpler to compare both ratios given from each investment projects. combined with a higher discount . and if the value of the P.348). A higher cash flow in the opening periods in conjunction with a low discount rate leads to a higher NPV. but favours project A to be accepted.0 We can see that a discount rate higher than 29. By using profitability index it may be easier to decide which project to accept. but when the discount rate is high enough NPV value becomes negative thus reducing the PI. and does not lead to a clear cut decision for Day pro. If we use the previous NPV calculations which use a discount rate of 10% we can see that Synthetic resin has a higher NPV then Epoxy Resin. The reason for this is the Synthetic Resin project has a lower rate of profit during the first three years (including the initial investment) compared to the Epoxy Resin project. without knowing the riskiness of the project the NPV values will change (McLean 1997). NPV is very sensitive to changes in cash flows during initial periods.or considered. Line Graph showing correlation between discount rates and NPV in relation to initial period cash flows. This graph demonstrates the effect discount rates have on PI.I is less than 1 then it indicates that it is non wealth created and should be rejected.91% Accept Epoxy Resin 8. Calculations can be located appendices G1.17% would cause Epoxy Resin to have a higher NPV than Synthetic Resin. By ranking them we can see project A is the better wealth creating of the two projects. as it has the highest P. Also to take into account a major problem with selecting Profitability index as a deciding method is that the profitability index uses discount rate.0 Discount Rate Outcome <21% Accept Synthetic Resin 21%<Discount<42.

its initial outlay maybe lower because it's ready straight away. which makes it favorable. and at only 10% can be seen to be too low. for example they receive no money in years1 to 3 but start from year 4(Appendicle I1. This situation can impact almost all of what we have analyzed.5 years. The Discount rate which is being used also effects the true value of each project.Initial outlay". it could be anything from 1month to 3 years. and at the current 10% this could mean that it's too high. . thus reducing the projects appeal and having a negative impact on the projects financial incentive. The reason for all of this is simply because the time ". From the tables below we can see that discount rate effects NPV at a greater degree. 10. could imply that there is less risk involved. The extensive development has no specific mention on time required. Epoxy being ready of the shelf.value of money". we look at the initial outlay and cash flow. thus the figures that we have now may not be accurate. Synthetic resin is likely to incur additional cost due to its extensive development this could mean that its initial outlay will be greater than expected. and this will have implications on the cash flow for synthetic resin. and ".. so the return can be shorter than expected.000 this would then increase payback period to 3. 9. one of the first things we looked at. (Baker 2006) Here is an example let's assume the cash flows are now reversed for Synthetic Resin Synthetic Resin Discount Rate 10% Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 650000 500000 400000 Fig 2 Net Income -1000000 350000 NPV £1. And like wise for epoxy. This sensitivity analysis will determine how sensitive our NPV is to two key variables "..000 cash flow for the Synthetic Resin project in year seven would not have the same value as it does today. alternatively the synthetic resin with its required of development means that it has a greater risk.rate (30%) would further reduce the NPV of the Synthetic Resin project thus Epoxy Resin will appear to have a higher NPV. This would then make Epoxy Resin instead. For one the payback period. let's assume that initial outlay increases to £1.500.039.96 700000 We can now see that the NPV value has increased due to the Profits appearing earlier. the £700. Right now payback period is 2.Discount Rate".61 years.1). when we look at payback period.738.

Using the same line chart that we used to show the break-even NPV (Crossover Point) We can see that anything higher than 36.0 It is evident that NPV is highly sensitive to the discount rate.14% increase in the NPV with similar results for the ER leads us to a conclusion that a favorable change in the discount rate leads to a higher rate of wealth.37 Initial Outlay 558.45 Excel table can be seen in appendicle J 1.45 0.85 -34.903.288.54% 998.40 (Appendices J1. this diagram will illustrate the extremes and the lows.362. Correlation between NPV and Initial outlay Excel Calculations can be found in Appendices J1.What if scenarios".40 Epoxy Resin 5% Increase 5% Decrease Variable NPV(+) Change % NPV(-) Change % -27.91% discount rates will predominantly cause a negative NPV. We can also see that from our sensitivity analysis that a 5% increase in the NPV leads to an 22.021.214.45 for the ER project would produce a negative NPV.637. The sensitivity analysis provided us with evidence that a slight change in the initial investment did not make major changes.214.11% -7% Discount Rate 435.73 Initial Outlay 853021.226.63% for Synthetic Resin and 42.14% -11% NPV(+) Discount Rate 655.211. to the extreme and determine our boundaries and best case scenarios.4 5.Synthetic Resin Variable 5% Increase 5% Decrease Change % 27.1 The worst case scenario would be an initial outlay higher then £1.1) for the SR project would produce a negative NPV and an initial outlay higher then £1. References .71% 602.021.237.44% NPV(-) Change % 1.46 22.59% decrease in the NPV while a 5% decrease leads to a 34. If we take these ".214.59% 714. we will be able to see what is the maximum initial investment and discount rate that we can cope with.

Chapter 7-20. pg 159 . 1995. B. Vol 12.html. 1996. No 8. http://www. Pg 7.S. Business Defentitions for accounting. 6th Edition. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Ltd. NPV and IRR discounted cash flow methods are widely used. Gengage Learning. Eddie McLaney. pg 2. Lau.acp. URL: http://dictionary. Pearson Education BNET. Accessed on (06/11/2008) Pike. R. pg 8. No 3. (5th edition). 2007.management and cost accounting".Gaining CIM benefits". Pearson Education Limited.investopedia. (2000) ". Accessed on (06/11/2008) Investopedia. M.H. Vol. 2nd edition. Thomas Learning 2000.. Ip. (2008) Management accounting 2008.Investment appraisal techniques for advanced manufacturing technology (AMT): a literature review". Leslie Chadwick.W. Drury.bnet. Stephen Keef. (2007) Essentials of cooperate finance management. (2005). Gowthrope. EMEA. and Neale.L. David Brookfield. 29 pp.(2003) Business Finance (Theory and practice).(1996) ". Corporate Finance and investment: Decisions and strategies. but they can create conflicting signals. ".Attaran. Management Decision.edu/Hall/FMDS441/i5-im07b. Chan. 1995. R. management accounting..wwu. M. elements of business.cbe.com/terms/a/arr. The Dryden Press. Catherine. Vol 33.T. URL: http://www. (2006). F.225-7. Chan. Pg 2.com/definition/accounting+rate+of+Return.pdf Colin. H. Melvin Roush. Glen Arnold. Computers in Industry.

- case 3 dupont analysis
- case solution
- 05 Lottery Winnings
- 08 Corporate Bonds
- p1-52
- 01 Signal Cable Company
- Case 4 Growing Pain
- 23 Getting Our Act Together
- Case 01a Growing Pains Solution
- 02 Bigger Isnt Always Better
- Accounting Case
- Bigger Isn’t Always Better
- Case 03_The Lazy Mower_Solution
- Case 2a_Flirting With Risk_Solution
- Lottery Case Study
- Homework #4 .xls
- Wake Up and Smell the Coffee-Case
- Case 9 Finance Jim DeMello
- Look Before You Leverage
- 24 the Elusive Cash Balance
- Nikecase
- 09_How_Low_Can_It_Go
- Maria Hernandez
- Case16-TooHotToHandle
- Maria Hernandez
- Case 29 Solution
- Case 34 by Jim Demello
- Case FSA Maria Hernandes FIM Class
- 02 Bigger Isnt Always Better
- Case study

- Accounting(IAS)/Series-3-2010(Code3902)
- Overall Business Case (With Appendices) - 17Nov2016 (3)
- Management Accounting Level 3/series 4-2009
- Management Accounting Level 3/series 2-2009
- Management Accounting/Series-4-2010(Code3024)
- RFQ for New Orleans Public Belt Railroad Operator
- Management Accounting Level 3/Series 4 2008 (3024)
- Advanced Business Calculation/Series-4-2007(Code3003)
- Management Accounting Level 3/Series 2 2008 (Code 3024)
- Making Home Affordable Summary of Guidelines
- Advanced Business Calculations/Series-4-2011(Code3003)
- Management Accounting/Series-3-2010(Code3024)
- Management Accounting/Series-3-2007(Code3023)
- Advanced Business Calculations Level 3/Series 2 2008 (Code 3003)
- UT Dallas Syllabus for fin6301.501 05s taught by Yexiao Xu (yexiaoxu)
- Ernst and Young
- Airport Redevelopment Project Financial Comparison Report
- Management Accounting Level 3/Series 3 2008 (Code 3023)
- Economics of Climate Proofing at the Project Level
- Downtown East Stadium Term Sheet
- NYU Furman Center's 421-a update
- Center for Immigration Studies -- Camarota Wall Costs
- Home Affordable Modification Program – Program Update and Resolution of Active Trial Modifications
- AMI Press Release 3-12-2012
- Cost Benefit Analysis
- Rocky-Mountain-Power--Exhibit-RMP-SCH-4
- UT Dallas Syllabus for fin6301.002.11f taught by Yexiao Xu (yexiaoxu)
- Fix or Evict? Loan Modifications Return More Value Than Foreclosures
- Management Accounting/Series-2-2004(Code3023)
- 67302_1995-1999

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulClose Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Close Dialog## This title now requires a credit

Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

Loading