Dilema at Day-Pro

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.

NPV analysis uses future cash flows to estimate the value that a project could add to a firm’s shareholders. A company director or shareholders can be clearly provided the present value of a long-term project by this approach. By estimating a project’s NPV, we can see whether the project is profitable. Despite NPV analysis is only based on financial aspects and it ignore non-financial information such as brand loyalty, brand goodwill and other intangible assets, NPV analysis is still the most popular way evaluate a project by companies.

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.

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.

Moreover, Robert Gates’ estimation of the price increase (2.0%) differs from the information provided in the case (1.7%). This overestimates revenue and thereby FCF. To make better projections for the firms’ FCF, Robert Gates would also have to consider the opportunity cost of alternative investments, the risk exposure throughout the project and operational risks after three years.

Evaluating the risks, calculating the probability of success, and factoring in the projected profit from sales will provide a clearer NPV to be compared with other projects in the

a) In the first set of calculations, the staff used a discount rate of 20%, a five-year time horizon, and ignored taxes and terminal value. What is the relative attractiveness of these three alternatives?

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.

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 analysis of the financial projection in this report is based on the assumptions and the information which you (client) provided. These assumptions and information can be change with the passage of time. The

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 four measures were net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), the payback period and increases in earnings per share (EPS). Other strategic factors must be considered that are not reflected in the financial tests. James Fawn and his ICG analyst team must decide which project is the best value for the short-term and the long-term. Utilizing these financial hurdles and contemplating other strategic factors, Victoria Chemicals will choose the project that will give the firm the most 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

5. The project is assumed to end in year 4. Do you think that this is realistic? Can you estimate the value of the project’s operating cash flows beyond year 4? State any assumptions you made.

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.