You are on page 1of 44

6-1

Chapter 6 Comparing Mutually Exclusive Alternatives

Mutually Exclusive Alternatives: PW Method

6.1
PW (12%) A $800 $1,500( P / F ,12%,1)
L $660( P / F ,12%,10)
$988.91
PW (12%) B $2, 635 $565( P / F ,12%,1)
L $840( P / F ,12%,10)
$1, 696.01

Select Project B.

6.2
(a)

PW (15%) A $1,500 $1,350( P / F ,15%,1) L


$100( P / F ,15%, 4)
$467.52
PW (15%) B $1,500 $1, 000( P / F ,15%,1) L
$150( P / F ,15%, 4)
$586.26

Select Project B.

(b)
NFW (15%) D $1,500( F / P,15%,4) $450( F / A,15%, 4)
$376.49
NFW (15%) E $1,800( F / P,15%, 4) $600( F / A,15%, 4)
$152.18

Select Project D.

(c)
PW (15%)C $3, 000 $1, 000( P / F ,15%,1)
X ( P / F ,15%, 2)
$1,500( P / F ,15%,3) X ( P / F ,15%, 4)
1.3279 X $1,144.16

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-2

To be acceptable, it must satisfy the following condition:

PW (15%)C 0
1.3279 X $1,144.16 0
X $861.63

(d)
PW (18%) D $1,500 $450( P / A,18%, 4)
$289.47 0
Yes, Project D is acceptable.

(e) If MARR < 10.40%, Project E is better. Otherwise, Project D is better.

6.3

(a)
PW (12%) A $14,500 $12,610( P / F ,12%,1) $12,930( P / F ,12%,2)
$12,300( P / F ,15%,3) $15,821.54
PW (12%) B $12,900 $11,210( P / F ,12%,1) $11,720( P / F ,12%,2)
$11,500( P / F ,12%,3) $14,637.51

Select Project A.

(b)
FW (12%) A $15,821.54( F / P,12%,3) $22,228.13
FW (12%) B $14,637.51( F / P,12%,3) $20,564.65

Select Project A.

6.4

(a)
PW (15%) A $6,000 $800( P / F ,15%,1) $14,000( P / F ,15%,2)
$5,281.66
PW (15%) B $8,000 $11,500( P / F ,15%,1) $400( P / F ,15%,2)
$2,302.46

Select Project A.

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-3

(b) PW(i) function for each alterative on the same chart between 0% and 50%:

Project A is preferred at all interest rates between 0% and 50%.

6.5

Method A:

$25, 000( A / F ,12%,5)


CE (12%) A $60, 000 $92, 791.67
0.12

Method B:

$180, 000( A / F ,12%,50)


CE (12%) B $150, 000 $150, 625.5
0.12

Since CE(12%) values above represent cost, Method A is preferred.

6.6

Standard Lease Option:

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-4

PW (0.5%)SL $5,500 $1,150( P / A, 0.5%, 24)


$1, 000( P / F , 0.5%, 24)
$30,560.10

Single Up-Front Option:

PW (0.5%)SU $31,500 $1, 000( P / F , 0.5%, 24)


$30, 612.82

Select the standard lease option as you will save $52.72 in present worth.

6.7
Machine A:

PW (13%) $75, 200 ($6,800 $2, 400)( P / A,13%, 6)


$21, 000( P / F ,13%, 6)
$101,891

Machine B:

PW (13%) $44, 000 $11,500( P / A,13%, 6)


$89,971
Machine B is a better choice.

*
6.8

(a)
Required HP to produce 10 HP:

Motor A: X 1 10 / 0.85 11.765 HP


Motor B: X 2 10 / 0.90 11.111 HP

Annual Energy Cost:

Motor A: 11.765(0.7457)(1,500)(0.07) $921.18


Motor B: 11.111(0.7457)(1,500)(0.07) $869.97

Present Worth:
*
An asterisk next to a problem number indicates that the solution is available to students
on the Companion Website.

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-5

PW (8%) A $800 $921.18( P / A,8%,15)


$50( P / F ,8%,15)
$8, 669
PW (8%) B $1, 200 $869.97( P / A,8%,15)
$100( P / F ,8%,15)
$8, 614

Motor B is preferred.

(b) With 2,000 operating hours:

PW (8%) A $800 $1,535.26( P / A,8%,15)


$50( P / F ,8%,15)
$13,925
PW (8%) B $1, 200 $1, 449.97( P / A,8%,15)
$100( P / F ,8%,15)
$13,579
Motor B is still preferred.

6.9 Given: Required service period = infinite, analysis period = least common
multiple service periods (six years)

Project A:

PW (12%)cycle $20, 000 $17,500( P / F ,12%,1) $17, 000( P / F ,12%, 2)


$15, 000( P / F ,12%,3)
$19,854.00
PW (12%) total $19,854[1 ( P / F ,12%,3)]
$33,985.69

Project B:

PW (12%)cycle $25, 000 $25,500( P / F ,12%,1) $18, 000( P / F ,12%, 2)


$12,117.35
PW (12%) total $12,117.35[1 ( P / F ,12%, 2) ( P / F ,12%, 4)]
$29, 478.02
Project A is preferred.

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-6

6.10

(a) Without knowing the future replacement opportunities, we may assume that
both alternatives will be available in the future with the identical investments
and expenses. We further assume that the required service period will be
indefinite.

(b) With the common service period of 24 years,

Project A1:

PW (10%)cycle $900 $400( P / A,10%,3)


$200( P / F ,10%,3)
$1, 744.48
PW (10%) total $1, 744.48[1 ( P / A,33.10%, 7)]
$6,302.63

Note that the effective interest rate for a three-year cycle is

(1.10)3 1 33.10%

Project A2:

PW (10%)cycle $1,800 $300( P / A,10%,8)


$500( P / F ,10%,8)
$3,167.22
PW (10%) total $3,167.22[1 ( P / F ,10%,8)
( P / F ,10%,16)]
$5,334.03
Project A2 is preferred.

(c)
PW (10%) A1 $1,744.48
PW (10%) A 2 $1,800 $300( P / A,10%,3) S ( P / F ,10%,3)
$2,546.06 0.7513S

Let PW (10%) A1 PW (10%) A 2 and solve for S.

S $1, 067

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-7

6.11

(a) Assuming a common service period of 15 years

Project B1:

PW (12%)cycle $18, 000 $2, 000( P / A,12%,5) $2, 000( P / F ,12%,5)


$24, 075
PW (12%) total $24, 075[1 ( P / A, 76.23%, 2)]
$45, 487
Note: (1.12) 5 1 76.23%

Project B2:

PW (12%) cycle $15,000 $2,100( P / A,12%,3) $1,000( P / F ,12%,3)


$19,332
PW (12%) total $19,332[1 ( P / A,40.49%,4)]
$54,826
Note: (1.12) 3 1 40.49%

Select Project B1.

(b)
Project B1 with two replacement cycles:

PW (12%) $24, 075 $24, 075( P / F ,12%,5)


$37, 736

Project B2 with four replacement cycles where the fourth replacement ends
at the end of the first operating year:

PW (12%) $19,332[1 ( P / F ,12%,3) ( P / F ,12%, 6)]


[$15, 000 ($2,100 $6, 000)( P / F ,12%,1)]( P / F ,12%,9)
$47, 040

Project B1 is still a better choice

6.12 Since only Model A is repeated in the future, we may have the following
sequence of replacement cycles:

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-8

Option 1: Purchase Model A now and repeat Model A forever.


Option 2: Purchase Model B now and replace it at the end of year 2 by
Model A. Then repeat Model A forever.

PW (15%) Model A $6, 000 $3,500( P / A,15%,3)


$1,991.29
A $1,991.29( A / P,15%,3)
$872.14
PW (15%)Model B $15, 000 $10, 000( P / A,15%, 2)
$1, 257.09
A $1, 257.09( A / P,15%, 2)
$773.26
(a)
Option 1:
$872.14
PW (15%) AAAL
0.15
$5,814.27
Option 2:
$872.14
PW (15%) BAAL $1, 257.09 ( P / F ,15%, 2)
0.15
$5, 653.51
Option 1 is a better choice.

(b) Let S be the salvage value of Model A at the end of year 2.

$6, 000 $3,500( P / A,15%, 2) S ( P / F ,15%, 2) $1, 257.09

Solving for S yields

S $2, 072.50

6.13

Since either tower will have zero salvage value after 20 years, we may select
the analysis period of 35 years:

PW (11%) Bid A $137, 000 $2, 000( P / A,11%,35)


$154, 710
PW (11%)Bid B $128, 000 $3,300( P / A,11%,35)
$157, 222

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-9

Bid A is a better choice.

If you assume an infinite analysis period, the present worth of each bid will
be:
[$137, 000 $2, 000( P / A,11%, 40)]( A / P,11%, 40)
PW (11%) Bid A
0.11
$157, 296
[$128, 000 $3,300( P / A,11%,35)]( A / P,11%,35)
PW (11%) Bid B
0.11
$161,367

Bid A is still preferred.

6.14

(a)
PW (15%) A1 $15, 000 $9,500( P / F ,15%,1)
$12,500( P / F ,15%, 2) $7,500( P / F ,15%,3)
$7, 644.04

(b)
PW (15%) A 2 $25, 000 X ( P / F ,15%, 2)( P / F ,15%,1)
$9,300
X $24, 263

(c) Note that the net future worth of the project is equivalent to its terminal
project balance.

PB (15%)3 $7, 644.04( F / P,15%,3)


$11, 625.63

(d) Select Project A2.

6.15
(a) Project balances as a function of time are as follows:

Project Balances
n A D
0 $2,500 $5,000
1 2,100 6,000
2 1,660 7,100

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-10

3 1,176 3,810
4 694 1,191
5 163 1,690
6 421 3,859
7 763 7,245
8 1,139

All figures above are rounded to nearest dollars.

(b) Knowing the relationship FW (i ) PB (i ) N ,

FW (10%) A $1,139
FW (10%) D $7, 245

(c) Assuming a required service period of eight years

PW (10%) B $7, 000 $1,500( P / A,10%,8)


$1, 000( P / F ,10%,1) $500( P / F ,10%, 2)
$1,500( P / F ,10%, 7) $1,500( P / F ,10%,8)
$17, 794
PW (10%)C $5, 000 $2, 000( P / A,10%, 7)
$3, 000( P / F ,10%,8)
$16,136
Select Project C.

6.16

Option 1: Non-deferred plan

PW (12%)1 $200, 000 $21, 000( P / A,12%,8)


$304,320

Option 2: Deferred plan

PW (12%)2 $100, 000( P / F ,12%, 2) $6, 000( P / A,12%,3)( P / F ,12%, 2)


$160, 000( P / F ,12%,5) $15, 000( P / A,12%,3)( P / F ,12%,5)
$140, 000( P / F ,12%,8)
$258,982
Option 2 is a better choice.

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-11

*
6.17

Alternative A: Once-For-All Expansion

PW (15%) A $30M $0.40M ( P / A,15%, 25)


$0.85M ( P / F ,15%, 25)
$32,559,839

Alternative B: Incremental Expansion

PW (15%) B $10M $18M ( P / F ,15%,10)


$12 M ( P / F ,15%,15) $1.5M ( P / F ,15%, 25)
$0.25M ( P / A,15%, 25)
$0.10M ( P / A,15%,15)( P / F ,15%,10)
$0.10 M ( P / A,15%,10)( P / F ,15%,15)
$17, 700, 745

Select Alternative B.

6.18

Option 1: Tank/tower installation

PW (12%)1 $164, 000

Option 2: Tank/hill installation with the pumping equipment replaced at the


end of 20 years at the same cost

PW (12%)2 ($120, 000 $12, 000)


($12, 000 $1, 000)( P / F ,12%, 20)
$1, 000( P / F ,12%, 40) $1, 000( P / A,12%, 40)
$141,373

Option 2 is a better choice.

Unit-Cost Profit Calculation

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-12

*
6.19
Let T denote the total operating hours in full load.

Motor I (Expensive)

Annual power cost:


150
(0.746) (0.05) T $6.741T
0.83
Equivalent annual cost of operating the motor:

AEC (6%) I $4,500( A / P, 6%,10) $675 6.741T


$1, 286.41 $6.741T

Motor II (Less expensive):

Annual power cost:


150
(0.746) (0.05) T $6.9938T
0.80

Equivalent annual cost of operating the motor:

AEC (6%) II $3, 600( A / P, 6%,10) $540 6.9938T


$1, 026.11 6.9938T

Let AEC (6%) I AEC (6%) II and solve for T .

$1, 286.41 6.741T $1, 029.11 6.9938T

T 1, 017.8 hours per year

6.20
Option 1: Purchase units from John Holland

Unit cost $25 ($35, 000) / 20, 000 $23.25

Option 2: Make units in house

PW (15%)dm $63, 000( P / A1 ,5%,15%,5) $230, 241


PW (15%)dl $190,800( P / A1 , 6%,15%,5) $709, 491
PW (15%) vo $139, 050( P / A1 ,3%,15%,5) $490,888
AEC (15%) ($230, 241 $709, 491 $490,888)( A / P,15%,5) $70, 000
$496, 776

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-13

Unit cost $496, 776 / 20, 000 $24.84

Option 1 is a better choice.

6.21

(a) Determine the unit profit of air sample test by the TEM (in-house).

Subcontract Option:

Unit profit $400 $300 $0.50 $1,500 /1, 000 $98

TEM Purchase Option:

AEC (15%) ($415, 000 $9,500)( A / P,15%,8) ($50, 000


$6, 000 $18, 000 $20, 000)
$188, 600

Unit cost $188, 600 /1, 000 $188.60


Unit profit $300 $188.60 $111.40

(b) Let X denote the break-even number of air samples per year.

$1,500 $188, 600


$400 ($300 $0.50 ) $300
X X

Solving for X yields

X 933.17 934 air samples per year

Note: If SECs goal is simply to minimize per unit cost of sampling, then the
break-even point would be calculated without including the revenue:

($300+$0.50+ ($1,500/X) = $188,600/X

Solving for X yields: X= 622.62 623 air samples per year

Mutually Exclusive Alternatives: AE Method


6.22

(a)

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-14

AE (15%) A $12, 000( A / P,15%, 4) [$9,120 $2, 280( A / G,15%, 4)]


$1,892.95
AE (15%) B $12, 000( A / P,15%, 4) $6,350
$2,146.82

(b) Process A: $1,892.95 / 2, 000 $0.9465 / hour


Process B: $2,146.82 / 2, 000 $1.0734 / hour

(c) Process B is a better choice.


*
6.23

Capital recovery cost for both motors:


CR (13%)CV $13, 000( A / P,13%, 20) $1,851
CR(13%)PE $15, 600( A / P,13%, 20) $2, 221

Annual operating cost for both motors:

18.650 kW $0.07 3,120 hrs


CV : $4,551
0.895 kWh year
18.650 kW $0.07 3,120 hrs
PE : $4,380
0.93 kWh year

(a) Savings per kWh:

AEC (13%)CV $1,851 $4,551 $6, 402


AEC (13%) PE $2, 221 $4,380 $6, 601

Comments: At 3,120 annual operating hours, it will cost the company an


additional $370, but energy savings are only $171, which results in a $199
loss from each motor. The total output power is 58,188 kWh per year (25
HP 0.746 kW/HP 3120 hrs/year). Therefore, the savings (losses) per
operating hour from switching from conventional motor to the PE is

($199 / yr)
($0.034) / kWh
58,188 kWh/yr

(b)

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-15

$1,851 1.4587T $2, 221 1.4038T


0.0549T 370
T 6, 737 hours

6.24
New Lighting System Cost:

AEC (12%) $50, 000( A / P,12%, 20) ($8, 000 $3, 000)
$17, 694

Old Lighting System Cost:

AEC (12%) $20, 000


Annual savings from installing the new lighting system $2,306

6.25 Given: i 6% interest compounded monthly, the effective annual


interest (1.005)12 1 6.17% per year, effective semiannual
interest (1.005)6 1 3.04% per semiannual

Option 1: Buying a bond

AE (3.04%)1 $2, 000( A / P,3.04%, 6) $100 $2, 000( A / F ,3.04%, 6)


$39.20 per semiannual
AE (6.17%) $39.20( F / A,3.04%, 2)
$79.59 per year

Option 2: Buying and holding a growth stock for three years

AE (6.17%) 2 $2, 000( A / P, 6.17%,3) $2, 735.26( A / F , 6.17%,3)


$107.17

Option 3: Receiving $150 interest per year for three years

AE (6.17%)3 $2, 000( A / P, 6.17%,3) $150 $2, 000( A / F , 6.17%,3)


$126.60

Making the personal loan is the best option.

6.26
Equivalent Annual Cost:

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-16

AEC (13%) A ($1, 200, 000 $60, 000)( A / P,13%, 20)


(0.13)($60, 000) $50, 000 $40, 000
$260, 083
AEC (13%) B ($750, 000 $30, 000)( A / P,13%,10)
(0.13)($30, 000) $80, 000 $30, 000
$216,395

Processing cost per tonne:

C A $260, 083 /(20)(365) $35.63 per tonne


CB $216,395 /(20)(365) $29.64 per tonne
Incinerator B is a better choice.

6.27

(a)
AE (15%) A [$2,500 $1, 000( P / F ,15%,1)
$400( P / F ,15%, 4)]( A / P,15%, 4)
$216.06
AE (15%) B [$4, 000 $100( P / F ,15%,1)]( A / P,15%, 4) $1,500
$129.40
Project A is a better choice.

(b)
AE (15%) B $129.40

AE (15%)C [$5, 000 $200( P / A,15%, 2)]( A / P,15%, 4) $2, 000


$134.79
Project C is a better choice.

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-17

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis


6.28 Assumption: Jet Fuel Cost = $1.50/L

System A : Equivalent annual fuel cost: A1 = ($1.5/L)(160kL/1,000


hours)(2,000 hours) $480, 000 (assuming an end of-year convention)

AEC (10%)fuel [$480, 000( P / A1 , 6%,10%,3)]( A / P,10%,3)


$507, 494
AEC (10%) A ($100, 000 $10, 000)( A / P,10%,3)
(0.10)($10, 000) $507, 494
$544, 684

System B : Equivalent annual fuel cost: A1 = ($1.50/L)(128kL/1,000


hours)(2,000 hours = $384,400

AEC (10%)fuel [$384, 000( P / A1 , 6%,10%,3)]( A / P,10%,3)


$405,995
AEC (10%) B ($200, 000 $20, 000)( A / P,10%,3)
(0.10)($20, 000) $405,995
$480,376

Cost of owning and operating:

System A $544, 684 / 2, 000 $272.34 per hour


System B $480,376 / 2, 000 $240.19 per hour

System B is a better choice.

6.29 Since the required service period is 12 years and the future replacement cost
for each truck remains unchanged, we can easily determine the equivalent
annual cost over a 12-year period by simply finding the annual equivalent cost
of the first replacement cycle for each truck.

Truck A: Four replacements are required.

AEC (12%) A ($15, 000 $5, 000)( A / P,12%,3)


(0.12)($5, 000) $3, 000
$7, 763.50

Truck B: Three replacements are required.

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-18

AEC (12%) B ($20, 000 $8, 000)( A / P,12%, 4)


(0.12)($8, 000) $2, 000
$6,910.80

Truck B is a more economical choice.

6.30

(a) Number of decision alternatives (required service period = five years):

Alternative Description

Buy Machine A and use it for four years.


A1
Then lease the machine for one year.

A2 Buy Machine B and use it for five years.

A3 Lease a machine for five years.

Buy Machine A and use it for four years.


A4 Then buy another Machine A and use it
for just one year.

Buy Machine A and use it for four years.


A5
Then buy Machine B and use it for one year.

Both A4 and A5 are feasible but may not be practical alternatives. To


consider these alternatives, we need to know the salvage values of the
machines after one-year use.

(b) With lease, the O&M costs will be paid by the leasing company:

For A1:

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-19

PW (10%)1 $6,500 ($600 $100)( P / F ,10%, 4)


$800( P / A,10%, 4) $200( P / F ,10%,3)
$100( P / F ,10%, 2) ($3, 000 $100)( P / F ,10%,5)
$10,976
AEC (10%)1 $10,976( A / P,10%,5)
$2,895.44

For A2:

PW (10%) 2 $8,500 $1, 000( P / F ,10%,5)


$520( P / A,10%,5) $280( P / F ,10%, 4)
$10, 042
AEC (10%) 2 $10, 042( A / P,10%,5)
$2, 649

For A3:

AEC (10%)3 [$3, 000 $3, 000( P / A,10%, 4)]( A / P,10%,5)


$3,300

A2 is a better choice.

*
6.31

Option 1:

AEC (18%)1 $125,000(300)( A / P,18%, 20)


$(0.08)(125,000)(300)( A / F ,18%, 20)
(0.01 0.473)(80,000,000)
$52,824,600
cost/kg $52,824,600 / 80,000,000
$66.0 cents/kg

Option 2:

AEC (18%) 2 ($0.10 0.473)(80,000,000)


$45,840,000
cost/kg $45.84 / 80
57.34 cents/kg

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-20

Option 2 is a better choice.

6.32 Given: Required service period indefinite, analysis period indefinite

Plan A: Incremental Investment Strategy:

Capital Investment :

AEC (10%)1 [$400, 000 $400, 000( P / F ,10%,15)]( A / P,10%, )


$49,576

Supporting Equipment:

AEC (10%) 2 [($75, 000 $75, 000 / 3.1772)( P / F ,10%,30)]


( A / P,10%, )
$565

Note that the effective interest rate for 15-year period is

(1 0.1)15 1 3.1772

Operating Cost:

AEC (10%)3 [$31, 000( P / A,10%,15)


$62, 000( P / A,10%,5)( P / F ,10%,15)]
$63, 000
[ $1, 000( P / G,10%, )]
0.10
( P / F ,10%, 20)]( A / P,10%, )
$40, 056

Note that ( P / G, i, ) 1/ i 2 or ( P / G,10%, ) 100

Total Equivalent Annual Worth:

AEC (10%) A $49,576 $565 $40, 056 $90,197

Plan B: One-Time Investment Strategy:

Capital Investment:

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-21

AEC (10%)1 $550, 000( A / P,10%, )


$55, 000

Supporting Equipment:

$150, 000
AEC (10%) 2 ( A / P,10%, )
16.4494
$912

Note that the effective interest rate for 30-year period is

(1 0.1)30 1 16.4494

Operating Cost:

AEC (10%)3 [$35, 000( P / A,10%,15)


$55, 000( P / A,10%, )( P / F ,10%,15)]
( A / P,10%, )
$39, 788

Total Equivalent Annual Worth:

AEC (10%) B $55, 000 $912 $39, 788 $95,700

Plan A is a better choice.

Design Economics
*
6.33

(a)
Energy Loss:

0.0042059 $3, 038.13


(24 365)($0.0825)
A A

Material Weight:

(60)(8894) A 533640 A

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-22

Total Material Costs:

(533 640 A)(13) $693 7320 A

Capital Recovery Cost:

CR (11%) [$6937 320 A $2 533640 A]( A / P,11%, 25) $2 533640 A 0.11


5870040 A A / P,11%, 25 117400.8 A
814175 A

Total Equivalent Annual Cost:

3.03813
AEC (11%) $814175 A
A

Optimal Cross-Sectional Area:

dAEC (11%) 3.03813


$814175 0
dA A2
A 0.00193172m 2 19.3172 cm 2

(b) Minimum Annual Equivalent Total Cost:

AEC (11%)
2 3.03813 $3,145.52
0.00193172

(c) Graphs of the capital cost, energy-loss cost, and the total cost as a function of
the cross-sectional area A:

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-23

Mixed Investments
6.34

(a) IRR for the incremental investment:

n Net Cash Flow


Project A Project B B-A
0 $300 $800 $500
1 0 $1,150 $1,150
2 $690 $40 $650

i* B A 0% or 30%

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-24

Since this is a mixed incremental investment, we need to find the RIC using an
external interest rate of 15%.

RICB-A IRRB-A 16.95% 15%

Project B is preferred.

(b) PW(i) function between 0% and 50%:

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-25

Mutually Exclusive Alternatives: IRR Method


6.35

(a) Project A: IRR 11.71%


Project B: IRR 19.15%

(b) Only Project B is acceptable.

(c) Since Project A is not acceptable, select Project B.

6.36 Option 1:Buy a GIC.

Option 2: Purchase a bond, and assume that MARR 9%

Net Cash Flow


n Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2
0 -$10,000 -$10,000 0
1 0 1,000 -1,000
2 0 1,000 -1,000
3 0 1,000 -1,000
4 0 1,000 -1,000
5 16,105 11,000 5,105

The rate of return on incremental investment is

i*1 2 10% 9%

Option 1 is a better choice.

6.37 Determine the cash flow on incremental investment:

Net Cash Flow


n Project A Project B B-A
0 -$2,000 -$3,000 -$1,000
1 1,400 2,400 1,000
2 1,640 2,000 360

i* B A 28.11% 15%

Select Project B.

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-26

6.38

(a) IRR on the incremental investment:

Net Cash Flow


n Project A1 Project A2 A2 A1
0 10,000 12,000 $2,000
1 5,000 6,100 1,100
2 5,000 6,100 1,100
3 5,000 6,100 1,100

i* A 2 A1 29.92%

(b) Since it is a simple incremental investment, IRR A2-A1 29.92% 10% .


Therefore, select Project A2.

6.39

(a) IRR on the incremental investment:

Net Cash Flow


n
A1 A2 A2 A1
0 -$15,000 -$20,000 -$5,000
1 7,500 8,000 500
2 7,500 15,000 7,500
3 7,500 5,000 -2,500

Since the incremental cash flow series portrays a nonsimple investment, we


need to find the RIC at 10%, which is RIC A 2 A1 7.36% 10% . So, select A1.

(b) We can verify the same result by applying the NPW criterion.

PW (10%) A1 15, 000 $7,500( P / A,10%,3)


$3, 651
PW (10%) A 2 20, 000 $8, 000( P / F ,10%,1) $15, 000( P / F ,10%2)
$5, 000( P / F ,10%,3)
$3, 426

Select Project A1.

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-27

6.40 Incremental cash flows ( Model A Model B):

n AB
0 $2,376
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 2,500

IRR A B 1.28%

If MARR 1.28%, Model A is a preferred.

*
6.41

IRR for Model A: 6.01%, IRR for Model B: 7.25%

The best decision is do-nothing.

6.42

(a) The least common multiple project lives = six years analysis period six
years

Net Cash Flow


n
Project A Project B BA
0 $100 $200 100
1 60 120 60
2 50 150-200 100
3 50100 120 170
4 60 150-200 110
5 50 120 70
6 50 150 100

Since the incremental cash flow series indicates a nonsimple investment, but it
is a pure incremental investment.

IRRB A 15.98% 15%

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-28

So, select Project B.

(b) Incremental analysis between C and D:

Net Cash Flow


n
Project C Project D CD
0 $4,000 $2,000 $2,000
1 2,410 1,400 1,010
2 2,930 1,720 1,210

IRR C D 7.03% , Project D is preferred.

(c) Incremental analysis between E and F:

Net Cash Flow


n
Project E Project F F E
0 $2,000 $3,000 $1,000
1 3,700 2,500 1,200
2 1,640 1,500 140

No IRR, Project E dominates Project F. Select E.

6.43 Let A0 = current practice, A1 just-in-time system, A2 stocks less supply


system.

Comparison Between A0 and A1:

n A0 A1 A1 A0
0 0 -$2,500,000 -$2,500,000
1-8 -5,000,000 -2,900,000 2,100,000

i* A1 A0 IRR A1 A0 83.34% 10%

A1 is a better choice.

Comparison Between A1 and A2:

n A2 A1 A2 A1
0 -$5,000,000 -$2,500,000 -$2,500,000
1-8 -1,400,000 -2,900,000 1,500,000

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-29

i* A 2 A1 IRR A 2 A1 58.49% 10%


A2 is a better choice. That means that the stockless supply system is the final
choice.

6.44

(a)
Project A vs. Project B

Net Cash Flow


n
Project A Project B BA
0 $1,000 $1,000 0
1 900 600 -$300
2 500 500 0
3 100 500 400
4 50 100 50

i* B A IRR B A 21.27% 12% , select B.

Project B vs. Project C

Net Cash Flow


n
Project B Project C CB
0 $1,000 $2,000 $1,000
1 600 900 300
2 500 900 400
3 500 900 400
4 100 900 800

i*C B IRR C B 26.32% 12% , select C.

(b)
$1, 000 $300( P / A, i, 4)
i 7.71%

(c) Since borrowing rate of return (BRR) is less than MARR, Project D is
acceptable.

(d)

Net Cash Flow


n
Project C Project E CE

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-30

0 $2,000 $1,200 $800


1 900 400 500
2 900 400 500
3 900 400 500
4 900 400 500

i*C E IRR C E 50.23% 12% , select C.

6.45

(a)
i1* 85.08%, i2* 48.11%, and i3* 44.31%

(b)
Project 1 vs. Project 2:

n Project 1 Project 2 21
0 $1,000 $5,000 $4,000
1 500 7,500 7,000
2 2,500 600 1,900

This is a nonsimple incremental investment. So we need to compute RIC at


15%.

RIC21 33.69% 15%


Select Project 2.

Project 2 vs. Project 3:

n Project 2 Project 3 23
0 -$5,000 -$2,000 -$3,000
1 7,500 1,500 6,000
2 600 2,000 -1,400

This is another nonsimple incremental investment, so we need to calculate


RIC on the incremental investment.

RIC23 59.42% 15%


Again, select Project 2.

6.46

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-31

(a) IRRB 25.99%

(b) PW (15%) A $10, 000 $5,500( P / A,15%,3) $2,558

(c) Incremental Analysis:

Net Cash Flow


n Project A Project B BA
0 $10,000 $20,000 $10,000
1 5,500 0 5,500
2 5,500 0 5,500
3 5,500 40,000 34,500

Since IRR B A 24.24% 15%, select Project B.

6.47 Select Model C. Note that all three projects would be acceptable individually,
as each projects IRR exceeds the MARR. The incremental IRR of Model (C
B) is 40%, indicating that Model C is preferred over Model B at MARR = 12%.
Similarly, the incremental IRR of Model (C A) is 15%, which exceeds the
MARR. Therefore, Model C is again preferred.

6.48 All projects would be acceptable because individual ROR exceed the MARR.
Based on the incremental analysis, we observe the following relationships:

IRR A 2 A1 10% 15% (Select A1)


IRR A3 A1 18% 15% (Select A3)
IRR A3 A 2 23% 15% (Select A3)
Therefore, A3 is the best alternative.

6.49 From the incremental rate of return table, we can deduce the following
relationships:

IRR A 2 A1 9% 15% (Select A1)


IRR A3 A 2 42.8% 15% (Select A3)
IRR A 4 A3 0% 15% (Select A3)
IRR A5 A 4 20.2% 15% (Select A5)
IRR A6 A5 36.3% 15% (Select A6)

It is necessary to determine the preference relationship among A1, A3, and A6.

IRR A3 A1 16.66% 15% (Select A3)

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-32

IRR A6 A3 20.18% 15% (Select A6)


IRR A6 A1 18.24% 15% (Select A6)
A6 is the best alternative.

6.50 For each power saw model, we need to determine the incremental cash flows
over the by-hand operation that will result over a 20-year service life.

Power Saw
Category Model A Model B Model C
Investment cost $4,000 $6,000 $7,000
Salvage value $400 $600 $700
Annual labour savings $1,296 $1,725 $1,944
Annual power cost $400 $420 $480
Net annual savings $896 $1,305 $1,464

Net Cash Flow


n Model A Model B Model C
0 -$4,000 -$6,000 -$7,000
1 896 1,305 1,464
2 896 1,305 1,464

20 400+896 600+1,305 700+1,464
IRR 22.03% 21.35% 20.46%
PW(10%) $3,688 $5,199 $5,568

Model A vs. Model B:

PW (i ) B A $2, 000 $409( P / A, i, 20) $200( P / F , i, 20)


0
IRR B A 19.97% 10%

Select Model B.

Model B vs. Model C:

PW (i )C B $1, 000 $159( P / A, i, 20) $100( P / F , i, 20)


0
IRR C B 15.03% 10%

Select Model C.

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-33

Unequal Service Lives

6.51 With the least common multiple of six project years,

Net Cash Flow


n Project A Project B BA
0 -$100 -$200 -$100
1 60 120 60
2 50 150-200 -100
3 50-100 120 170
4 60 150-200 -110
5 50 120 70
6 50 150 100

Since the incremental cash flow series is a nonsimple investment, we may


abandon the IRR analysis and use the PW decision rule.

PW (15%) B A $100 $60( P / F ,15%,1)


$100( P / F ,15%, 6)
$3.48

Since PW (15%) B A 0, or PW (15%) B PW (15%) A , select Project B.

Comments: Even though the incremental flow is a nonsimple, it has a unique rate
of return. As shown in Problem 7.39, this incremental cash flow series will pass the
net investment test, indicating that the incremental cash flow is a pure investment.

IRR B A 15.98% 15%

6.52

(a) Since there is not much information given regarding the future replacement
options and the required service period, we may assume that the required
service period is indefinite and both projects can be repeated at the same cost
in the future.

(b) The analysis period may be chosen as the least common multiple of project
lives, which is three years.

n A2 A1
0 -$5,000
1 0
2 0

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-34

3 15,000

IRR A 2 A1 44.195%
The MARR must be less than 44.195% for Project A1 to be preferred.

Short Case Studies

ST6.1

Option 1: Process device A lasts only four years. You have a required
service period of six years. If you take this option, you must consider how you
will satisfy the rest of the required service period at the end of the project life.
One option would subcontract the remaining work for the duration of the
remaining required service period. If you select this subcontracting option
along with Device A, the equivalent net present worth would be

PW (12%)1 $100, 000 $60, 000( P / A,12%, 4)


$10, 000( P / F ,12%, 4)
$100, 000( P / A,12%, 2)( P / F ,12%, 4)
$383, 292

Option 2: This option creates no problem because its service life coincides
with the required service period.

PW (12%) 2 $150, 000 $50, 000( P / A,12%, 6)


$30, 000( P / F ,12%, 6)
$340,371

Option 3: With the assumption that the subcontracting option would be


available over the next six years at the same cost, the equivalent present worth
would be

PW (12%)3 $100, 000( P / A,12%, 6)


$411,141

With the restricted assumptions above, Option 2 appears to be the best


alternative.

Notes to Instructors: This problem is deceptively simple. However, it can make


the problem interesting with the following embellishments.

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-35

If the required service period is changed from six years to five years, what would
be the best course of action?
If there are price differentials in the subcontracting option (say, $55,000 a year for
a six-year contract, $60,000 for a five-year contract, $70,000 a year for a four-
year contract, and $75,000 a year for any contract lasting less than four years),
what would be the best option?
If both Processes A and B would be available in the subsequent years, but the
required investment and salvage value would be increasing at the annual rate of
10%, what would be the best course of action?
If both Device A and B will be available in the subsequent years, but the required
investment and salvage value (as well as the O & M costs) would be decreasing at
the annual rate of 10%, what would be the best course of action?

ST6.2

Note to Instructors: This case problem requires several pieces of information. (1)
No minimum attractive rate return figure is given for Northern Electric. (2) What
would be a typical number of accidents in line construction work? (3) How does a
typical electric utility handle the nesting problems? If there is some cleaning cost,
how much and how often?

First, we may calculate the equivalent present value (cost) for each option
without considering the accident costs and nesting problems.

Design Options
Factors Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Cross Arm Triangular Horizontal Stand Off
Line
Investment:
Construction cost $495,243 $396,813 $402,016 $398,000
Accident cost
Annual cost:
Flashover repair $6,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000
Cleaning nest
Annual savings:
Inventory 0 $4,521 $4,521 $4,521

Assume that Northern Electrics required rate of return would be 12%. The
equivalent present value cost for each option is as follows:

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-36

PW (12%)1 $495, 243 $6, 000( P / A,12%, 20)


$540, 060
PW (12%)2 $396,813 $3, 000( P / A,12%, 20)
$4,521( P / A,12%, 20)
$385, 452
PW (12%)3 $402, 016 $3, 000( P / A,12%, 20)
$4,521( P / A,12%, 20)
$398, 654
PW (12%)4 $398, 000 $3, 000( P / A,12%, 20)
$4,521( P / A,12%, 20)
$386, 639

It appears that the triangular design configuration be the most


economical.

If we consider the potential accident costs ($65,000 per accident) during line
construction work, it is likely to change the outcome. If we expect only a
couple of accidents, Option 2 still appears to be the best. However, if you
expect more than three accidents, the conventional cross-arm design appears
to be more economical. If the nest cleaning cost were factored into the
analysis, the accident cost would be reduced to the extent of the annual
cleaning cost, indicating the preference of the triangular design.

ST6.3

This case problem appears to be a trivial decision problem as one alternative


(laser blanking method) dominates the other (conventional method). The
problem of this nature (from an engineers point of view) involves more
strategic planning issues than comparing the accounting data. We will first
calculate the unit cost under each production method. Since all operating costs
are already given in dollars per part, we need to convert the capital expenditure
into the required capital recovery cost per unit.

Conventional method:

CR (16%) $106, 480( A / P,16%,10)


$22, 031 per year
$22, 031
Unit capital recovery cost
3, 000
$7.34 per year

Laser blanking method:

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-37

CR(16%) $83, 000( A / P,16%,10)


$17,173 per year
$17,173
Unit capital recovery cost
3, 000
$5.72 per part

Blanking Method
Description Conventional Laser
Steel cost/part $14.98 $8.19
Transportation cost/part $0.67 $0.42
Blanking cost/part $0.50 $0.40
Capital cost/part $7.34 $5.72
Total unit cost $23.49 $14.73

It appears that the window frame production by the laser blanking


technique would save about $8.76 for each part produced. If Ford decides
to make the window frame in house, the part cost would range between
$14.73 and $23.49, depending upon the blanking method adopted. If Ford
relies on an outside supplier, the subcontracting work should be in this
cost range. If Ford were producing the window frames by the conventional
method, the die investment had already been made. In this case, one of the
important issues is to address if it is worth switching to the laser blanking
this time or later. If Ford decides to go with the laser blanking, it will take
six months to reach the required production volume. What option should
Ford exercise to meet the production need during this start-up period?

ST6.4

Given: annual energy requirement 66 Gg of steam, net proceeds from


demolishing the old boiler unit $1, 000
Annual Energy Requirement 66 2.32 153.12 TJ

(a) Annual fuel costs for each alternative:

Alternative 1:
153,12 TJ
Weight of dry coal
(0.75)(33.24 MJ/kg)
6,142 tonnes

Annual fuel cost 6,142 125


= $7,67,750

Alternative 2:

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-38

153.12 TJ(0.94)
Natural Gas cost 40 / m3 3
(0.78)(39 MJ/m )
= $1,892,608

153.12 TJ(0.06)
Heating Oil cost $864 / L
(0.81)(38.6 MJ/L)
= $252,702

Annual fuel cost = $1,892,608 + $252,702


= $2,145,310

(b) Unit cost per steam kg:

Alternative 1: Assuming a zero salvage value of the investment

AEC (10%) ($1, 770,300 $100, 000


$1, 000)( A / P,10%, 20)
$767, 750
$10, 71,970

$10, 71,970
Unit cost $1.62 /kg
66106 kg

Alternative 2:
AEC (10%) ($889, 200 $1, 000)( A / P,10%, 20)
$2,145,310
$2, 249, 638

$2, 249, 638


Unit cost 3.41 /kg
66106 kg
(c) Select Alternative 1.

ST6.5

(a) Assumptions Required:

There is no information regarding the analysis period; we will assume that the
firm will be in business for an indefinite period.
There is no information regarding the future plastics technology options; we
will assume that the best one available will be the technology introduced n
months from now.

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-39

We will assume that the annual revenue/costs are spread evenly throughout
the year.

(b) Investment Decision:

Present Worth Analysis: First we will determine the equivalent present worth for
each option, and its value at MARR = 15%

Option 1:

PW(i)1 = -10 + [15/12 6/12](P/A,i,96) + 1(P/F,i,96)

PW(i)1 = -10 + 0.75(P/A,i,96) + 1(P/F,i,96)

PW(1%)1 = -10 + 46.15 + 0.38 = $36.53 M

Option 2:

PW(i)2 = {(0.1n 10) + [(15/12 0.15n) (6/12 + 0.05n)](P/A,i,96-n) +


[1+0.05n](P/F,i,96-n)}(P/F,i,n) + [15/12 6/12](P/A,i,n)

PW(i)2 = {(0.1n 10) + [0.75 0.2n](P/A,i,96-n) + [1+0.05n](P/F,i,96-


n)}(P/F,i,n)) + 0.75(P/A,i,n)

Although Option 1 (switching now) bestows a great present worth ($36.53 M), it
can be seen that the best time to retrofit would be to wait the full 96 months,
which would yield a PW of $48.22 M. The worst time to retrofit would be after
41 months ($186.43 M).

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-40

n PW n PW n PW n PW n PW n PW
1 $24.64 17 -$116.43 33 -$179.01 49 -$180.47 65 -$134.77 81 -$53.08
2 $13.14 18 -$122.44 34 -$180.73 50 -$178.86 66 -$130.61 82 -$47.00
3 $2.02 19 -$128.16 35 -$182.22 51 -$177.08 67 -$126.32 83 -$40.81
4 -$8.72 20 -$133.57 36 -$183.48 52 -$175.12 68 -$121.90 84 -$34.52
5 -$19.09 21 -$138.69 37 -$184.51 53 -$172.98 69 -$117.34 85 -$28.13
6 -$29.09 22 -$143.53 38 -$185.31 54 -$170.68 70 -$112.65 86 -$21.64
7 -$38.73 23 -$148.08 39 -$185.90 55 -$168.20 71 -$107.83 87 -$15.06
8 -$48.01 24 -$152.36 40 -$186.27 56 -$165.56 72 -$102.89 88 -$8.38
9 -$56.95 25 -$156.36 41 -$186.43 57 -$162.75 73 -$97.82 89 -$1.61
10 -$65.54 26 -$160.09 42 -$186.39 58 -$159.79 74 -$92.63 90 $5.25
11 -$73.79 27 -$163.56 43 -$186.13 59 -$156.67 75 -$87.32 91 $12.20
12 -$81.70 28 -$166.76 44 -$185.67 60 -$153.39 76 -$81.90 92 $19.24
13 -$89.29 29 -$169.71 45 -$185.02 61 -$149.96 77 -$76.36 93 $26.36
14 -$96.55 30 -$172.41 46 -$184.17 62 -$146.38 78 -$70.70 94 $33.57
15 -$103.49 31 -$174.85 47 -$183.12 63 -$142.65 79 -$64.94 95 $40.85
16 -$110.12 32 -$177.05 48 -$181.89 64 -$138.78 80 -$59.06 96 $48.22

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-41

ST6.6

(a) Assumptions Required:

There is no information regarding the expected cash flows from the current
operation if Chiller Cooling decides to defer the introduction of the
absorption technology for three years. Therefore, we need to make an
explicit assumption of the expected cash flows for the first three years if
Chiller Cooling decides to defer the decision. Assume that the annual cash
flow during this period would be X.
Another assumption we have to make is about the analysis period.
Assuming that the firm will be in business for an indefinite period, we also
need to make an explicit assumption regarding the future cooling technology.
Since there is no information about the future cooling technology options,
we may assume that the best cooling technology will be the absorption
technology that will be introduced three years from now. Therefore, if
Chiller Cooling decides to select Option 1, we could assume that, at the end
of eight years, Option 2 (the best cooling technology at that time) will be
adopted for an indefinite period.

(b) Investment Decision:

Present Worth Analysis: First, we will determine the equivalent present


worth for each option:

PW (i )1 $6 $9( P / A, i,8) $1( P / F , i,8)


[$5 $4( P / A, i,8) $2( P / F , i,8)]( A / P, i,8)

i
( P / F , i,8)
PW (i ) 2 X ( P / A, i,3)
[$5 $4( P / A, i,8) $2( P / F , i,8)]( A / P, i,8)

i
( P / F , i,3)

Now we can determine the value X that makes the two options economically
equivalent at an interest rate of 15%. In other words, if we evaluate the two
present worth functions at i 15% , we have

PW (15%)1 $41.31
PW (15%)2 2.2832 X $13.28

Letting PW (15%)1 PW (15%) 2 and solving for X gives

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-42

X $12.28

As long as the current operation continues to generate annual net revenue of


$12.28 millions for three years, Option 2 is a better choice.

Rate of return analysis: The present worth analysis above indicates that, if
X $12.28 , the break-even rate of return on incremental investment is
i*1 2 15%

Therefore, the ultimate choice will depend on the level of annual revenues
generated during the first three years when the advanced cooling technology is
deferred. Clearly, if

X $12.28 , then i*1 2 15% , Option 1 is preferred.

ST6.7

n Current Pump(A) Larger Pump(B) B-A


0 $0 -$1,600,000 -$1,600,000
1 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $10,000,000
2 $10,000,000 $0 -$10,000,000

IRR = 25%
400%

The incremental cash flows result in multiple rates of return (25% and 400%), so
we may abandon the rate of return analysis. Using the PW analysis,

PW (20%) $1.6 M $10 M ( P / F , 20%,1) $10 M ( P / F , 20%, 2)


$0.21 0
Reject the larger pump.

Return on Invested Capital:

PB (i, 20%)0 $1, 600, 000


PB(i, 20%)1 $1, 600, 000(1 i ) $10, 000, 000
8, 400, 000 1, 600, 000i

If i 525%, then PB(i, 20%)1 0 .

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-43

PB (i, 20%) 2 (8, 400, 000 1, 600, 000i)(1 0.20) $10, 000, 000
80, 000 1,920, 000i
0
i 4.17% 20%

If i 525%, then PB(i, 20%)1 0 , no RIC exists. So the RIC on the incremental
cash flows should be 4.17%, which indicates Select a smaller pump.

ST6.8

(a) Whenever you need to compare a set of mutually exclusive projects based
on the rate of return criterion, you should perform an incremental analysis.
In our example, the incremental cash flows would look like the following:

n B-A
0 -$10,000
1 +23,000
2 -13,200

This is a nonsimple investment with two rates of return.

i* B A 10% or 20%

We could abandon the IRR analysis and use the PW analysis to rank the
projects.

(b) If we plot the present worth as a function of interest rate, we will observe
the following:

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.


6-44

If MARR < 10% select Project A.


If 10% MARR 18.1%, select Project B.
If MARR > 18.1%, do nothing.

Return on Invested Capital: The true rate of return can be found as a function of
MARR.

Let i IRR and assume i 1.3

PB (i, MARR)0 $10, 000


PB(i, MARR)1 $10, 000(1 i ) $23, 000
$13, 000 10, 000i
PB(i, MARR) 2 ($13, 000 10, 000i)(1 MARR)
$13, 200
0

(Note that, if, i 1.3, there will be no feasible solution.) Rearranging the terms
in PB(i, MARR) 2 gives an expression of IRR as a function of MARR.

1.32
IRR 1.3
1 MARR

For example, at MARR 15%

IRR B A 15.3% 15%

Project B (the higher cost investment) would be justified.

Copyright 2012 Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, Ontario.