Analysis: Cost-Benefit Analysis

NPV analysis uses future cash flows to estimate the value that a project could add to a firm’s shareholders. A company director or shareholders can be clearly provided the present value of a long-term project by this approach. By estimating a project’s NPV, we can see whether the project is profitable. Despite NPV analysis is only based on financial aspects and it ignore non-financial information such as brand loyalty, brand goodwill and other intangible assets, NPV analysis is still the most popular way evaluate a project by companies.

Finally, in order to complete a more accurate comparison between the two projects, we utilized the EANPV as the deciding factor. Under current accepted financial practice, NPV is generally considered the most accurate method of predicting the performance of a potential project. The duration of the projects is different, one lasts four years and one lasts six years. To account for the variation in time frames for the projects and to further refine our selection we calculated the EANPV to compare performance on a yearly basis.

2. Net Present Value – Secondly, Peter needs to investigate the Net Present Value (NPV) of each project scenario, i.e. job type, gross margin, and # new diamonds drills purchased. The NPV will measure the variance of the present value of cash outflow (drilling equipment investment) versus the future value of cash inflows (future profits), at the benchmark hurdle rate of 20%. A positive NPV associated with the investment means that the investment should be undertaken as it exceeds the minimum rate of return. A higher NPV determines which project scenario will have the highest return on cash flow, hence determining the most profitable investment in terms of present money value.

By computing the highest discount rate at which a project will have a positive NPV, the IRR method is supposed to assure that the actual rate of return on an accepted project is higher than the required rate of return.

Evaluating the risks, calculating the probability of success, and factoring in the projected profit from sales will provide a clearer NPV to be compared with other projects in the

Cost-benefit analysis is used to help decide whether or not to continue with a project, essentially weighing the pros and cons related to benefits versus the cost of achieving the desired result. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a technique used to compare the total costs of a program/project with its benefits (Oxford, n.d.).

Thus, by year three the company will be making a profit off the investment as year three is 86.73 million profit by 55.35 cost giving the company a 31.38 million dollar surplus. Generally, a period of payback of three year or less is acceptable (Reference Entry) causing this project to be viable based off the payback analysis. Although, these calculations are flawed. The reason for this is because the time value of money is not taken into effect when calculating payback periods which is where IRR can further assist in a more realistic financial picture (Reference Entry).

Municipalities continue to face more and more challenges for revenue sources and funding many programs as they are downloaded from upper levels of government. Under Bill 26, miscellaneous local revenues is one method of income in the form of user fees and charges, license/permit fees, fines/penalties, special capital levies/development charges and income from investments. These types of initiatives are helpful in relieving some burden but are not the ultimate fix but municipalities need to utilize these better to their advantage.

Sports is one of the largest recreational activities in canada, with over 2 million kids aged 5 to 14, took part in sports. However, our government has decreased its funding over sports. From 2014 to 2015, 201.98 million dollars were funded but from 2015 to 2016, only 196.78 milion dollars were funded on sports. Moreover, sports participation of kids is declining. Boys now are less likely to regularly participate in sports than they were back in 1992 and those who do compete are involved in fewer sports. The decline rate will continue unless our government promotes sports heavily, through schools and community sport programs. Our governent should dedicate more money on these programs because sports are mainly promoted by such means, sports have heath benefits and sports make us smarter.

In the case of Worldwide Paper Company we performed calculations to decide whether they should accept a new project or not. We calculated their net income and their cash flows for this project (See Table 1.6 and 1.5). We computed WPC’s weighted average cost of capital as 9.87%. We then used the cash flows to calculate the company’s NPV. We first calculated the NPV by using the 15% discount rate; by using that number we calculated a negative NPV of $2,162,760. We determined that the discount rate of 15% was out dated and insufficient. To calculate a more accurate NPV for the project, we decided to use the rate of 9.87% that we computed. Using this number we got the NPV of $577,069. With the NPV of $577,069 our conclusion is to accept this

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.

This analysis is done assuming the benefits accrued in the year 2050. The costs are evaluated from the year 2011 – the proposed time of starting the project, while the benefits are calculated from the year 2020 – the expected time of launching the project. The estimated streams of benefits and costs occurring each year between 2011 and 2050 were discounted to their present value and summarized to calculate the benefit cost ratio.

NPV and IRR: When examining the NPV and the IRR of the Merseyside project, the numbers were very attractive. It had a positive net present value and an IRR above 10 percent. By these numbers, along with others,

This analysis will determine whether or not the project is worth pursuing using a net present value (NPV) approach.

The following paper analyzes a project from financial perspectives using the capital budgeting techniques like Net Present Value (NPV) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR).