Chapter 10

Capital Budgeting Techniques

10.1 Overview of Capital Budgeting
Long term investments represent sizable outlays of funds, so the
firm needs procedures to analyze and select its long term
investments.
Capital Budgeting
The process of evaluating and selecting long-term investments
that contribute to the firm’s goal of maximizing owners’ wealth.

Capital Expenditure
An outlay of funds by the firm that the firm expects to produce
benefits over a period of time greater than 1 year

Operating Expenditure
An outlay of funds by the firm resulting in benefits received
within 1 year
Capital Budgeting Process
• Consists of five distinct but interrelated steps: proposal generation,
review and analysis, decision making, implementation, and follow-
up

01 Managers at all levels in a business make proposals for new investment projects
that are reviewed by finance personnel

Financial managers perform formal review and analysis to assess the merits of
02 investment proposals

Firms typically delegate capital expenditure decision making on the basis of dol-
03 lar limits.

Following approval, firms make expenditures and implement projects; expendi-

04 tures for a large project often occur in phases

Managers monitor results and compare actual costs and benefits to the projections
05 that they originally used to justify making the investment
 Basic Terminology
Independent Mutually Exclusive Unlimited Funds Capital Rationing
Projects Projects
The financial
Projects that compete The financial situation
Projects whose cash situation in which a
with one another so that in which a firm has
flows are unrelated to (or firm is able to
the acceptance of one only a fixed number of
independent of) one accept all
eliminates from further dollars available for
another; accepting or independent
consideration all other capital expenditures
rejecting one project projects that provide
projects that serve a and numerous
does not change the an acceptable
similar function projects compete for
desirability of other return
these dollars
projects

Accept–Reject Ranking
Approach Approach
The ranking of capital
expenditure projects
The evaluation of capital
on the basis of some
expenditure proposals to
predetermined
determine whether they
measure, such as
meet the firm’s minimum
how much value the
acceptance criterion
project creates for
shareholders
 Capital Budgeting Techniques
• To ensure that the investment projects a firm selects have the
best chance of increasing the value of the firm, financial
managers need tools to help them evaluate the merits of
individual projects and to rank competing investments
• A number of techniques are available for performing such
analyses
• The best techniques take into account the time value of money
as well as the tradeoff between risk and return
• Project evaluation methods that fail to account for money’s time
value or for risk may not lead to shareholder value maximization

Payback Period

Net Present value (NPV)

Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

Capital Budgeting Techniques
• We will use one basic problem to illustrate all the techniques described in
this chapter
• The problem concerns Bennett Company, a medium-sized metal fabricator
that is currently contemplating two projects with conventional cash flow
patterns
• Project A requires an initial investment of $420,000, and project B requires
an initial investment of $450,000
• The projected cash flows for the two projects appear in the following Table
and on the timelines later
Project A Project B
Initial
investment −$420,000 −$450,000
Year Operating cash inflows
1 $140,000 $280,000
2 140,000 120,000
3 140,000 100,000
4 140,000 100,000
5 140,000 100,000
10.2) Payback Period
• Payback Period
The time it takes an investment to generate cash inflows sufficient to recoup the initial outlay
required to make the investment
• Decision Criteria
If the payback period is less than the maximum acceptable payback period, accept the project
If the payback period is greater than the maximum acceptable payback period, reject the project

Pros and Cons of Payback Analysis

• Large firms sometimes use the payback approach to evaluate small projects (or as one of several
metrics used to judge a larger project’s merits), and small firms use it to evaluate most projects
• The payback method’s popularity results from its simplicity and intuitive appeal
• By measuring how quickly the firm recovers its initial investment, the payback period also gives at least
some consideration to the timing of cash flows
• Likewise, the payback approach offers a crude way to adjust for project risk if managers require a faster
payback on riskier endeavors
• The major weakness of the payback period is that the appropriate payback period is merely a
subjectively determined number
• No firm connection exists between the payback period and the goal of shareholder wealth
maximization

Your Picture Here and Send to Back
We can calculate the payback period for Bennett
Company’s projects A and B, using the data in the
timeline.
For project A, which is an annuity, the payback period
is 3.0 years ($420,000 initial investment ÷ $140,000
annual cash inflow).
Because project B generates a mixed stream of cash
inflows, the calculation of its payback period is not as
clear-cut.
In year 1, the firm will recover $280,000 of its $450,000
initial investment.
By the end of year 2, $400,000 ($280,000 from year 1 +
$120,000 from year 2) will have been recovered.
At the end of year 3, $500,000 will have been recovered.
Only 50% of the year-3 cash inflow of $100,000 is
needed to complete the payback of the initial $450,000.
The payback period for project B is therefore 2.5 years
(2 years + 50% of year 3).
• If Bennett’s maximum acceptable payback period were 2.75
years, project A would be rejected and project B would be
accepted.
• If the maximum acceptable payback period were 2.25 years,
both projects would be rejected.
• If the projects were being ranked, B would be preferred over
A because it has a shorter payback period. Note, however,
that no matter what payback period Bennett requires, it is
unclear from payback analysis which investment will do the
most to increase shareholder wealth. All we can say is that
project B recoups the initial investment more rapidly than
does project A.
10.3) Net Present Value (NPV)
Net Present Value (NPV)
A capital budgeting technique that measures an investment’s value by calculating the present value of
its cash inflows and outflows
NPV = Present Value of Cash Inflows – Initial Investment
n
CFt
NPV    CF0 (10.1)
t 1 (1  r ) t

Decision Criteria
If the NPV is greater than $0, accept the project
If the NPV is less than $0, reject the project
 Using the Bennett Company data, assuming that it discounts project cash flows at
10%

Figure 10.2

Both projects are acceptable because the net present value of each is greater
than $0. If the projects were being ranked, however, project A would be
considered superior to B because its net present value is higher than that of B.
NPV and the Profitability Index
For a project that has an initial cash outflow followed by cash inflows, the profitability index (PI) is
simply equal to the present value of cash inflows divided by the absolute value of the initial cash
outflow:

• A PI greater than 1.0 implies that the present value of cash inflows is greater than the (absolute
value of the) initial cash outflow, so a profitability index greater than 1.0 corresponds to a net
present value greater than 0
• In other words, the NPV and PI methods will always come to the same conclusion regarding
whether a particular investment is worth doing or not
We can refer back to Figure 10.2, which shows the present value of cash
inflows for projects A and B, to calculate the PI for each of Bennett’s
investment options:
PIA = $530,710 ÷ $420,000 = 1.26
PIB = $559,244 ÷ $450,000 = 1.24
• According to the profitability index, both projects are acceptable
(because PI > 1.0 for both), which shouldn’t be surprising because we
already know that both projects have positive NPVs.
• Furthermore, in this particular case, the NPV rule and the PI both
indicate that project A is preferred over project B. It is not always true that
the NPV and PI methods will rank projects in exactly the same order.
• Different rankings can occur when alternative projects require initial
outlays that have very different magnitudes.
10.4) Internal Rate of Return

IRR
The discount rate that equates the NPV of an investment opportunity
with $0 (because the present value of cash inflows equals the initial
investment); it is the rate of return that the firm will earn if it invests
in the project and receives the given cash inflows

Decision Criteria
If the IRR is greater than the cost of capital, accept the project
If the IRR is less than the cost of capital, reject the project

These criteria guarantee that the firm will earn at least its required
return. Such an outcome should increase the market value of the
firm and, therefore, the wealth of its owners.
10.4) Internal Rate of Return

Calculating the IRR

As IRR is a sophisticated capital budgeting technique; it can
be calculated by financial calculators and Spreadsheets which
have preprogrammed functions that allow you to calculate a
project’s IRR very quickly.

Another possible algebraic formula for calculating IRR is:

IRR = R1 + (NPV1 X (R2 – R1))

NPV1 – NPV2
Where:
R1,R2 = randomly selected discount rates
NPV1 = higher net present value
NPV2 = lower net present value
Figure 10.3 Calculation of IRRs for Bennett Company’s Capital
Expenditure Alternatives
Comparing the IRRs of projects A and B given in Figure 10.3 to Bennett Company’s 10% cost of capital, we
can see that both projects are acceptable because the return on each project is greater than the cost of
capital:
IRRA = 19.9% > 10.0%
IRRB = 21.7% > 10.0%
Comparing the two projects’ IRRs, Bennett’s managers rank project B over project A because project B
delivers a higher IRR (IRRB = 21.7% > IRRA = 19.9%).
If these projects are mutually exclusive, meaning that Bennett can choose one project or the other but not
both, the IRR decision technique would recommend project B.

There is no guarantee that NPV and IRR will rank projects in the same order. However, both methods should
reach the same conclusion about the acceptability or nonacceptability of projects.
Book Problem 10- 21
Solution
a.

Project A Project B
Cash Investment Cash Investment
Year Inflows Balance Year Inflows Balance
0 $150,000 0 $150,000
1 $45,000 105,000 1 $75,000 75,000
2 45,000 60,000 2 60,000 15,000
3 45,000 15,000 3 30,000 15,000
4 45,000 30,000 4 30,000 0
5 45,000 30,000
6 45,000 30,000

$150,000
Payback A   3.33 years  3 years, 4 months
$45,000
$15,000
Payback B  2 years  years  2.5 years  2 years, 6 months
$30,000
b. At a discount rate of zero, dollars have the same value through time and all that is needed is a
summation of the cash flows across time.
NPVA  ($45,000  6) − $150,000  $270,000  $150,000  $120,000
NPVB  $75,000  $60,000  $120,000  $150,000  $105,000

c) At cost of capital = 9%
NPVA = $51,866.34 d) IRRA= 19.91%
NPVB= $51,112.36 IRRB = 22.71%
e) Rank
Project Payback NPV IRR
A 2 1 2
B 1 2 1

The project that should be selected is A. The conflict between NPV and IRR is due partially to the reinvestment
rate assumption. The assumed reinvestment rate of Project B is 22.71%, the project’s IRR. The reinvestment rate
assumption of A is 9%, the firm’s cost of capital. On a practical level, Project B may be selected due to
management’s preference for making decisions based on percentage returns and their desire to receive a return of
cash quickly.

f) At cost of capital = 12%

NPVA = $35,013
NPVB= $37,436

At a cost of capital of 12%, the NPV of Project A is $35,013, and the NPV of Project B is $37,436. In this
case, Project B appears to be the better project, in contrast to the previous NVP-based rankings, which
showed Project A to be superior. Notice that Project B pays most of its cash in the early years. This makes
its NPV less sensitive to the cost of capital. The NPVs of both projects fall as the cost of capital rises, but
the NPV of Project A falls more rapidly.