Advantages Of The CAPM Assumption

To make the most informed decision the IRRs and payback periods of the projects should be compared in conjunction with the NPVs of the two projects. The NPV analysis of the two projects under consideration indicates that the MMDC Project is the better of the two projects.

a) Discounted cash flows from the projects by the suitable division of a hurdle rate to get the net present value which financially makes sense since risks among different divisions do vary.

In contrast, when capital rationing constraints occur over multiple periods and when there are numerous projects, Baumol and Quandt (1965) suggest that mathematical programming may be used to evaluate investments. The linear programming technique is widely used as the model is specifically designed to search through combinations of projects achieving the highest NPV whilst subject to a budget constraint. However, Brealy et al (2008) note that a main disadvantage to using linear programming may be the models can be highly complex and costly.

At the new WACC of 19%, the home appliance and agricultural machinery projects are valued based on their inherent levels of risk. The beta of the industry average home appliance project is 0.95, whereas the beta for the industry average agricultural machine project is calculated as 0.88. CAPM was then employed to find the cost of capital of each project. The cost of capital for the home appliance and agricultural machinery projects were found to be 10.4% and 9.92%, respectively (Appendix B). This analysis allows Star Company to allocate funds to projects that create returns greater than the industry cost of capital for each specific project.

Southwest traditionally uses a 5% premium over the weighted average cost of capital as a discount rate for long-term projects. This makes certain that the project will only have a positive net present value and be worth the investment if it gives investors a premium for the additional risk they must take on. The expected return on the project of 14.5% gives a 5.9% premium over the calculated

As Pleasure Craft Inc. has publicly held debt; we determined the cost of debt to be the yield to maturity on the outstanding debt on the outboard motor project, so using a financial calculator we establish the YTM to be equal to 2.4827%. Because this is a Semi- annual compounding, rd = YTM * 2 = 4.9654%; for the cost of equity (Rf + β (Rm - Rf)): 12.8420%. The WACC is the discount rate of the projects WACC = rd * (1- Td) * D/V + (re * E/ V) = 4.9654% (1- 35%) * 30% + 12.8420% * 70% = 0.0996, so the WACC is determined to be 9.96% for outboard motors project. The NPV of this project is positive and equal to $35,630,973.63, the IRR for the outboard motors has calculated to be 8%. From these calculation we can know the project’s beta is lower than project front- end loader project and the risk is lower also; from the decision rule the NPV > 0 and IRR > R, so we choose the outboard motor project.

Using a single cut-off rate for the entire company has increased the overall risk of their company. The use of an acceptable range based on a company-wide average cost of capital inappropriately leads the company to invest in divisions with high risk that should possibly have a higher required rate of return or to not invest in low risk divisions that would be profitable, merely because they do not exceed the company rate. Thus, using a WACC for each division will more accurately allow the corporation to decide which projects to accept and deny based on the specific risk factors of the section instead of the risk of the entire company which has been skewed because of diversification. Based on my calculations, the company wide WACC and cut off rate that should be used is 9.94% based on CAPM or 9.8% based on Dividend-growth, and any projects that are below that percentage should not be accepted for the company as a whole.

1. Discount rate: The analysis assumes that the discount rate is the same for the complete throughput time of the project. This can be countered by using different discount rates for different years, in case required.

The senior management of Company A employ you to advise them on the cost of capital the company should use to calculate net present value and decide whether or not to undertake a new investment project. You may assume that the new project is comparable to the average of the company’s existing projects in all respects.

Using CAPM to provide the calculation for the equity, this presents both positive and negative effects.

1-a How can the CAPM be used to estimate the cost of capital for a real business investment decision?

This essay will highlight the use of Capital asset pricing model ( CAPM ) to be considered as a pricing theory model for assets . CAPM model helps investors to analyse the risk and what expectation to keep from an investment (Banz , 1981) . There are two types of risk

The present value of the net incremental cash flows, totaling $5,740K, is added to the present value of the Capital Cost Allowance (CCA) tax shield, provided by the Plant and Equipment of $599K, to arrive at the project’s NPV of $6,339K. (Please refer to Exhibit 4 and 5 for assumptions and detailed NPV calculations.) This high positive NPV means that the project will add a significant amount of value to FMI. In addition, using the incremental cash flows (excluding CCA) generated by the NPV calculation, we calculated the project’s IRR to be 28%. This means that the project will generate a higher rate of return than the company’s cost of capital of 10.05%. This is also a positive indication that the company should undertake the project.

The use of an accounting rate of return also underscores a project 's true future profitability because returns are calculated from accounting statements that list items at book or historical values and are, thus, backward-looking. According to the ARR, cash flows are positive due to the way the return has been tabulated with regard to returns on funds employed. The Payback Period technique also reflects that the project is positive and that initial expenses will be retrieved in approximately 7 years. However, the Payback method treats all cash flows as if they are received in the same period, i.e. cash flows in period 2 are treated the same as cash flows received in period 8. Clearly, it ignores the time value of money and is not the best method employed. Conversely, the IRR and NPV methods reflect that The Super Project is unattractive. IRR calculated is less then the 10% cost of capital (tax tabulated was 48%). NPV calculations were also negative. We accept the NPV method as the optimal capital budgeting technique and use its outcome to provide the overall evidence for our final decision on The Super Project. In this case IRR provided the same rejection result; therefore, it too proved its usefulness. Despite that, IRR is not the most favorable method because it can provide false results in the case where multiple negative

Project finance is best understood in terms of a risk allocation which reconciles the potentially conflicting objectives of borrowers and lenders by utilizing the long-term economic and commercial linkages between the sponsors, lenders and third party participants involved with a project. (Howcroft &Fadhley, 1998).