| Amstelveen Corporation |
Memo
To: Ford Allen
From: Katie
Date: [ 2/22/2012 ]
Re: Recommendation for Amstelveen Corporation’s project investment
The purpose of this memo is to explain and recommend which projects Amstelveen Corporation should invest in based on capital budgeting calculations. First, I will explain if there are any contradictory recommendations and then I will give the recommended total I suggest Amstelveen to raise. I will also give my recommendation on which project(s) the company should pursue if it remains limited to €8,000.000.
Recommendation of Inadvisable Investments
I began my process of identifying which projects would be inadvisable to pursue based on company policies by first calculation the net
…show more content…
Another project that I would not recommend is Project D. Even though this project has an acceptable net present value, accounting rate of return, and payback period the internal rate of return of 3% is not acceptable. The internal rate of return is a larger determining factor than the other figures.
Recommendation of Advisable Investments
Based on Amstelveen Corporations’ policies and capital budget figures, I recommend that the corporation to invest in Projects A, B, C, and E. Project A has a very high internal rate of return and accounting rate of return. This indicates this project will be highly profitable and a positive net present value will increase the value of the corporation. The payback period of 1.5 years also falls within the 2 year cut-off stated in the policy. Both Projects B and E have acceptable internal rate of returns and accounting rate of returns as well. This indicates profitability for the company. Since the net present value for these projects are positive, they have positive cash flows and much value in the corporation.
Project C is another project I recommend to invest in although the payback period of over the cut-off by six months. However, this project has a highly acceptable internal rate of return and accounting rate of return. The net present value is large, which would add a lot of value to the company. In my opinion, these three other factors are large enough to outweigh the payback
Second, the manufacturing order costs for non-stocked items was calculated by dividing total manufacturing order costs for non-stocked items by the number of orders for non-stocked products. Non-stocked products have additional costs associated with processing orders that went above and beyond the costs associated with a stocked product. The third step involved determining what the S"A allocation factor would be for calculating the S"A volume related costs. This allocation factor would then be applied to manufacturing COGS. The fourth and final step involved the calculation of the operating profit based on backing out volume related costs from sales revenues followed by deducting S"A and manufacturing order costs from the resulting gross margin to arrive at a operating profit.
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 question that transcends the project is whether equity investors be sufficiently rewarded to justify there financing interests. The answer to this question is dependent
I have been asked to produce a report for management of Matteck plc in which I will evaluate the financial viability of the investment proposal. The company is considering expanding into Asia. This operation would involve the acquisition of a factory, a purchase of several new motor vehicles and a new distribution unit. The following are the estimated costs of the planned investment:
b) The decision to invest in projects increases the shareholders value of the company. This is consistent with the growth and from the NPV criteria, positive NPV of projects increases the shareholder's value.
The first project proposal is Match My Doll Clothing line expansion consisted of expanding matching doll and child’s clothing and accessories. The second project proposal is Design Your Own Doll by creating customizable “one of a kind” doll features through the company’s website. The project selection criteria would base on quantitative and qualitative analysis. The quantitative analysis would base on the evaluation of discounting cash flow forecasts to determining the Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), and the Payback period of each proposed project. The qualitative analysis would include the potential project value of the company’s overall strategy, innovation, key project risks, and the project interdependencies to the whole company.
The company should accept this project. The project payback period is between 2 to 3 years.
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.
Project finance is a kind of Financing that has a priority does not depend on the creditworthiness of the sponsors proposing the business idea to launch the project. Approval does not even depend on the value of assets sponsors are willing to make available as collateral. Instead, it is basically a function of the project’s ability to repay the debt contracted and remunerate capital invested at a rate consistent with the degree of
All of the 11 projects are primarily ranked based on quantitative measurements. We have to also take into consideration of other quantitative aspects like length of the project, initial investment and anticipated payback period. Moreover, this
5. Estimate the project’s operating cash flows. (Hint: Again use Table 1as a guide) What are the project’s NPV, IRR, modified IRR (MIRR), and payback? Should the project be undertaken?
When implementing project 1, you face technical and market risk. How would you assess the risks embedded in Project 1?
All the projects will be undertaken except for project 7 since it is mutually exclusive with project 8, and project 6 and 2 will not be undertaken since they have 0 and negative value.
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
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).