Capital Budgeting: Cost-Benefit Analysis

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.

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.

When choosing between projects with acceptable IRRs, the one with the highest IRR should be chosen.

The payback’s reciprocal would be more useful for projects with very long lives. The payback reciprocal is best used when the useful life of an investment is twice the payback period. The IRR rises when the useful life of an investment increase which would then get closer to the higher reciprocal.

EEC calculated the amount of time involved the anticipation of its cost ($3 million). The timeline in recovering their cost of investment ($2 million) initially for the foundation of this investment any profit made in the future of this investment will be justified as a profit for the company. If EEC can anticipate a fast return on its investment it is a profitable wise decision in making the investment financial, it is considered to be an easier way of formulating investments financially. On the basis of one year all cash flows is added together equal to the sum of $2 million originally invested, then it is divided by the annual cash flow of $500,000. The calculation of the payback period would equal four years. After this time frame any financial proceeds will be considered profitable for the company. I conclude that the timeframe is adequate in comparison of the investment in this worthwhile investment financial venture for the company.

7) See Table 1 NPV=42,318.71 IRR = 14% MIRR = 12% Payback period= 2.93 years. Yes the project should be undertaken.

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).

The company should accept this project. The project payback period is between 2 to 3 years.

A target payback period will be set by the company and the proposals that recover their initial cost within this time will be acceptable. If a comparison is made between two or more options then the choice will be project with the fastest payback.

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

later in the project life. With a NPV of less than -$810,000, Scenario 6 is the project with the

2. Compute the NPV of both projects. Which would you recommend? What if they are not mutually exclusive?

3. The NPV method is better because it shows the size of the project so you can see how much value a project has not just a percentage. You could have a higher percentage but a much lower value and you would still go for the lower percentage.

Internal rate of return (IRR) and Payback period “IRR of a project provides useful information regarding the sensitivity of the project’s NPV to errors in the estimate of its cost of capital” (Pierson et al.2011, pp.157).This proposal also shows the project is profitable by using Excel to get the IRR of 18.9%, which is

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,