Case Study on Mini Hydro Power Plant & a Tea Factory

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)

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.

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

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.

If you invest in the project after five years you will get $ 463,188.77 which is $ 13,188.77 more.

To calculate the return at T, several calculations have to be performed. The following formula is applied to calculate the future value of the loan taken, in other words, what Jim has to buy back at T:

The machine will have a depreciation of $140,000 for the first five years; this is determined by dividing the initial investment by five. The old machine will be sold in 2010 for $25,000 which is below the current book value of $36,000. This is why there is a capital gain of $3,850 that will add to the incremental savings plus the depreciation for that year. The new sheeter will be sold at the end of the last year for $120,000 which will be taxed at 35; this is why a cost of $42,000 appears for the last cash flow (Exhibit 1). The NPV is a positive $1,063,567 and the IRR is 36%, this shows that the project will add value to the company along with having a great return. The payback period for the project is 2.45…Using the growth rate of 3%, the sales are projected to be nearly doubled from 2009 with the new sheeter. However, Pitts believes that he would not be surprised to see them increase by 7% or

6.The Year 0 net investment outlay for the project is $-475,000. This computed by adding the price of the machinery, installation, shipping, and the change in net working capital. The non-operating cash flow when the project is

The PAYBACK technique is based on cash flows and it measures the time which is required for a proposal’s initial cash outflow to equal its cash inflow generated by the investment, the solution is expressed in years and month or days.

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

There are three important criticisms of the payback period method. The first is clearly fundamental and relates to the fact that cash flows after the payback period are ignored. So it could be the case that whilst a project produces a large net cash flow (i.e., where cash inflows significantly exceed outflows), they are generated in the later part of the project and may be ignored as this is after the payback period. For example, in the case of project A and B in this question , project B was preferred because of its shorter payback period, but overall project A generates more cash inflows, totaling £2,10,000 as compared to only £2,00,000 in the case of project B. However, project A`s cash inflows were mainly earned in the later years.