Essay on Capital Budgeting Summary

1.1. Review principles of estimating project cash flows. Suggested reading: Ch. 9 “Capital Budgeting and Cash Flow Analysis” in “Contemporary Financial Management”, 11th ed. by Moyer, McGuigan, and Kretlow.

For the purpose of calculating the net present value of the project, an appropriate cost of capital has to be calculated at which free cash flows of the project should be discounted. Since the project will be solely financed by selling new shares, cost of equity will be used as the discount rate. Beta for the company can be assumed to be equal to average of the betas of the competitors of the company. This average beta value comes out to be 1.2. Risk free rate is 0.17% while risk premium has been estimated to be 6%. Thus by putting these values in CAPM formula, we can find the cost of equity for the company which is 7.39%.

The payback period looks at a project only until the costs have been recovered. This analysis tool is often ignored because it does not take into consideration the time value of money. The time value of money limitation of the payback period can be modified by using the discounted cash flows of a project for the analysis of when the outflows will be recovered.

Estimate the project’s operating cash flows for each year of the project’s economic life. (Hint: Use Table 2 as a guide)

This mini-case provides a review of the methodology and rationale associated with the various capital budgeting evaluation methods such as payback period, discounted payback period, NPV, IRR, MIRR,

NPV is known as the best technique in the capital budgeting decisions. There were flows in payback as well as discounted pay back periods because it don’t consider the cash flow after the payback and discounted pay back period. To remove this flows net present value (NPV) method, which relies on discounted cash flow (DCF) techniques is used to find the value of the project by considering the cash flow of the project till its life. To implement this approach, we proceed as

See Table 1: Expected non-operating cash flow when the project is terminated at year 4 = 165,880$

The capital budget process in place is to use the payback period and return on invested capital (ROIC) for the project. The payback period criterion is a flawed way to determine the value of the project because it does not take into account cash flows after the required payback period (7 years). For example, if the Energy Gel project had not

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).

1. Two commonly used methods of financial analysis are payback and present value. Payback determines the length of time for an investment to return its original cost (1). Using the assumptions stated below the payback of the Jiminy Nick wind turbine with a cost of about $3.3 million would return the investment in about four years time. Net present value summarizes the initial cost of an investment, the estimated annual cash flows, and expected salvage value, taking into account the time value of money (1). A NPV calculation for the scenario SED is reviewing equals $7,697,286 minus the investment costs of $3,318,000 totaling $4,379,286.

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

is only three years. Second; the payback period for the project A is 3 years and for G

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

It is expressed in time or years. It is normally defined as the period, usually expressed in years, which it takes the cash inflows from an investment project to equal the cast outflows.