Glaxo Italia Case Essay

In the case of Worldwide Paper Company we performed calculations to decide whether they should accept a new project or not. We calculated their net income and their cash flows for this project (See Table 1.6 and 1.5). We computed WPC’s weighted average cost of capital as 9.87%. We then used the cash flows to calculate the company’s NPV. We first calculated the NPV by using the 15% discount rate; by using that number we calculated a negative NPV of $2,162,760. We determined that the discount rate of 15% was out dated and insufficient. To calculate a more accurate NPV for the project, we decided to use the rate of 9.87% that we computed. Using this number we got the NPV of $577,069. With the NPV of $577,069 our conclusion is to accept this

Net Present Value (NPV) calculates the sum of discounted future cash flows and subtracting that amount with the initial investment of the project. If the NPV of a project results in a positive number, the project should be undertaken. It is the most widely used method of capital budgeting. While discount rate used in NPV is typically the organization’s WACC, higher risk projects would not be factored in into the calculation. In this case, higher discount rate should be used. An example of this is when the project to be undertaken happens to be an international project where the country risk is high. Therefore, NPV is usually used to determine if a project will add value to the company. Another disadvantage of NPV method is that it is fairly complex compared to the other methods discussed earlier.

Account for time. Time is money. We prefer to receive cash sooner rather than later. Use net present value as a technique to summarize the quantitative attractiveness of the project. Quite simply, NPV can be interpreted as the amount by which the market

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.

Introduction AstraZeneca PLC (AstraZeneca, AZN:NYSE, AZN:LSE) is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. It was formed in 1999 from the merger of Sweden’s Astra AB and UK’s Zeneca Group plc. Core Activities AstraZeneca is engaged in the discovery, development, manufacturing and marketing of prescription pharmaceuticals and biological products for important areas of healthcare: Cardiovascular, Gastrointestinal, Infection, Neuroscience, Oncology, and Respiratory and Inflammation. One of the key benefits of the merger between Astra and Zeneca is seen as their portfolio of new products in development: AstraZeneca call this their 'product pipeline'.

The pharmaceutical industry is praised as one of the leading industrial sectors. The fruits of its extensive research and development are traded worldwide and have improved the length and quality of life of countless individuals. At the same time, however, the industry is criticized for its marketing and pricing practices—and even for its research and development priorities. Industry's consistently high profits and large expenditures on research and development as well as on marketing that foster scrutiny and criticism.

The company is so large that no one drug can lift it from its current sales doldrums. In addition, the company was once highly attractive to investors, but its recent stock price fell to 1997 lows. This may put pressure on the company to attempt acquisitions at a time when the company is ill-equipped to integrate a new company into its organization, and it is engaged in a cost-cutting program at a time when it may need to invest even more in research and development (McTigue Pierce, 2005).

If the IRR exceeds the required rate of return (10%), the project should be accepted. Otherwise, it should be rejected.

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

GSK is the 2nd largest pharmaceutical firm in the world, and the largest in the UK by sales and profits, it is responsible for 7% of the worlds pharmaceutical market, and has its stocks listed both in UK and US (O 'Rourke, 2002). The origin of the so called blockbuster model, is partly linked with Glaxo (as it was previously known). In the early 80’s, then Glaxo brought to light their first blockbuster drug, Zantac, which was an anti-ulcer drug, which was very similar to the a pre existing drug Tagamet (first ever blockbuster) sold by Smith Kline & French, their completion at the time (MONTALBAN and SAKINÇ, 2011). The introduction of this drug, brought about an increasing sales force in the US, the company soon became dependent on the drug, because it represented a large part of their profit. In 2002, 8 blockbusters of GSK contributed to $14.240 million sales revenue, taking up 53% of its total ethical sales (Froud et al 2006). However, due to the nature of the pharmaceutical industry, the patent began to expire, in other to avoid the patent cliff, Glaxo merged with Wellcome in 1995, which ensured a growing number of sales force, and with Beecham in 2000 (Froud et al., 2006) this merger, boosted the confidence of investors, by growing the business inorganically. For Big Pharma, this block buster model is very profitable, because with the high cost of R&D, the drugs are able to generate ample profit, to cover the sunk costs

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.

Competition, typically the most powerful external force, is increased by the advent of globalization. The number of companies and the number of countries where these companies operate and the way governments are dealing with the impacts of globalization is accelerating. The interaction of changes in government policy and business innovation has actually made globalization even faster. If a company does not become a global, it would simply be shut out of new markets. The reasons for the turmoil are numerous: a sputtering economy, increased global competition, the implementation of new technologies that displace jobs, the deregulation of certain industries, and the general

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.

Traditionally when a pharmaceutical product is launched the product positioning is based on the product licence i.e. its indications and the established efficacy, safety and tolerability seen in registration clinical studies. Post launch studies then tend to lead to a broadening of the

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