Case Write Up The Investment Detective 1

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.

IRR uses all cash flows and incorporates the time value of money. When evaluating independent projects, IRR will always lead to the same decision as NPV. Because IRR assumes that cash flows will be reinvested at the internal rate of return, which is not always or even usually the case, it can rank mutually exclusive projects incorrectly. With certain patterns of cash flows, the IRR equation has more than one solution, which confuses the decision rule. IRR is slightly more

Similarly, Karaoke Beach Pub ranked first in terms of IRR and NPV. Evaluation using IRR might have multiple values and assumes that interim cash flows can be reinvested at the IRR, which may not be as accurate as desired. Using NPV for project evaluations can show actual economic gain with respect to the time value of money. However, it is not appropriate for comparing projects with different lifetimes. Thus, the four criteria are still not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion.

Star Appliance is looking to expand their product line and is considering three different projects: dishwashers, garbage disposals, and trash compactors. We want to determine which project would be worth doing by determining if they will add value to Star. Thus, the project(s) that will add the most value to Star Appliance will be worth pursuing. The current hurdle rate of 10% should be re-evaluated by finding the weighted average cost of capital (WACC). Then by forecasting the cash flows of each project and discounting them by the WACC to find the net present value, or by solving for the internal rate of return, we should be able to see which projects Star should undertake.

We believe that Company I represents the Smaller Producer of printing papers and Company J represents the World’s Largest Market of Paper.

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.

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

In fully investigating all of our calculations we are fully invested in using the Net Present Value figures we calculated as a means of ranking the eight projects. In doing so we found reasons in which why the Net Present Value was our benchmark for ranking the projects and why we did not use the Payback Method. The Payback Method ignores the time value of money, requires and arbitrary cutoff point, ignores cash flows beyond the cutoff date, and is biased against long-term projects, such as research and development and new projects. When comparing the Average Accounting Return Method to the Net Present Value method we found that the Average Accounting Return Method is a worse option than using the Payback Method. The Average Accounting Return Method is not a true rate of return and the time value of money is ignored, it uses an arbitrary benchmark cutoff rate, and is based on accounting net income and book values, not cash flows and market values. Plain and simply put, the Net Present Value method is the best criterion to use when ranking these eight

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,

What aspects of the project might invalidate the ranking you just derived? How should we correct for each investment’s time value of money, unequal lifetimes, riskiness and size?

Company A is Johnson & Johnson, which is a diversified manufacturer of prescription pharmaceuticals, health and beauty aids, over-the-counter drugs, and medical devices. Company B is Pfizer Inc., which develops, manufactures, and markets patented pharmaceuticals such as Liptor and Celebrex. The most significant strategic differences between the two firms lie in their product mix and their customer focus. J&J sells most of its products directly to the consumer while Pfizer sells exclusively to doctors and institutions.

Newspaper Owner 1 is a “diversified media company that generates most of its revenues through newspapers sold around the country and around the world” (pg. 122). Competition for subscribers and advertising revenues

The internal rate of return (IRR) and the net present value (NPV) techniques are 2 investment decision tools that satisfy the 2 major criteria for the correct evaluation of capital projects. This criterion is that the techniques should incorporate the use of cash flows and the use of the time value of money. This makes them viable techniques for evaluating investment proposals.

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).