Exxon Mobile Argentina Project

The relatively well posed project with promises of great future pay offs must be examined closely nevertheless to determine its true profitability. As such, the Super Project’s NPV must be calculated, however before we proceed we must acknowledge the relevant cash flows. The project incurred an expense of testing the market. This expense, however, must not be included in our cash flow analysis because it can be considered a sunk cost. This expense is required for ‘taking a temperature’ of the market and will not be recovered. Other sources of cash flow include:

According to the estimated net present value of the investment in Nueva Aldea project, we would suggest the company to go ahead with the investment (The project Net Present Value estimations are shown in Exhibit 1).

Decision Making Area 3:Investment Decisions * Table of Articles * Summary of Articles * Observations * Conclusion

To get a better handle on the options and the risks associated with them, the company estimates the severity of each event and calculates the level of risk (based on severity of the event and the probability of occurrence). The events are then ranked with those exhibiting the highest risks placed at the top of the list. Next, the source of high-risk events is investigated.

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.

Grappling with the potential purchase of Olive Hill Farm, we decided to conduct a financial analysis to determine whether the project should be taken or not. Our financial analysis include scenarios for the best, worse, and most likely outcomes of purchasing the farm. For each scenario a Net Present Worth (NPW) and an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) was calculated and compared. This revealed that there was little gain for the worst case scenario and large gains for the other two scenarios. A sensitivity analysis and a break-even analysis was also conducted. The sensitivity analysis identified the most influential factors on the NPW. In the end, the analysis favored buying Olive Hill Farm because it would be a low risk, high reward investment.

Southwest traditionally uses a 5% premium over the weighted average cost of capital as a discount rate for long-term projects. This makes certain that the project will only have a positive net present value and be worth the investment if it gives investors a premium for the additional risk they must take on. The expected return on the project of 14.5% gives a 5.9% premium over the calculated

Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis of factors such as the cost of raw materials, selling price per unit and capacity utilization demonstrates that a small change in any one of these variables could have a major impact on the project’s bottom line. In Appendix B, I examine a scenario in which the selling price per unit decreases by 1% and the cost of raw materials per unit increases by 1% at the outset of the project. In this scenario, the resulting NPV changes from a positive $5.4 million to a loss of $666,000, and the IRR falls below the discount rate to 9.15%. This, to me, reveals that the potential upside of this project is not large enough to account for discrepancies due to imprecise projections, flawed assumptions, or unforeseen risks.

Groupe Ariel SA of France is considering a project in Mexico. They need to analyze the net present value of the project, keeping in mind the exchange rates between Mexican Pesos and Euros in order to maximize their return. They also need to keep in mind the inflation rates over time and the risks involved with this type of investment.

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

There are several traditional methods that can be used in appraising investment decisions. For instance, the net present value method (NPV) which entails estimating the costs and revenues of a project and discounting these figures to get their present values. Projects with the biggest positive net present value are the ones chosen as they represent the best stream of benefits of investing in the project over and above recovering the cost of initiating the projects. The discount rate is another method which is similar to the net present value method but reflects more on the time preference. This approach may focus on the opportunity cost of

It is important to indicate that a country risk analysis is not static. As factors of the analysis change within the country, the risk of investing in that country also changes. These analyses are fluid and are always fluctuating. Changes can be indicative of deliberate governmental action taken by the country while other times the risks may change because of an action other countries have taken. The purpose of this paper is to create a risk analysis for the Republic of Nicaragua and to explain the

This project evaluates the discounted Net Present Value which shows the estimated cash flow. The cash flow forecast is for 10 year which incorporates International complexities as well as the cost of capital.

One of the critical problems confronting management and the board of Pioneer Petroleum Corporation was the determination of a minimum acceptable rate of return on new capital investments, The company’s basic capital budgeting approach was to accept all proposed investments with a positive net present value when discounted at the appropriate cost of capital. At issue was how the appropriate discount rate would be determined.