Harris Seafood

For the purpose of calculating the net present value of the project, an appropriate cost of capital has to be calculated at which free cash flows of the project should be discounted. Since the project will be solely financed by selling new shares, cost of equity will be used as the discount rate. Beta for the company can be assumed to be equal to average of the betas of the competitors of the company. This average beta value comes out to be 1.2. Risk free rate is 0.17% while risk premium has been estimated to be 6%. Thus by putting these values in CAPM formula, we can find the cost of equity for the company which is 7.39%.

After evaluating the Super Project for General Foods, the two main things that management needed to address were the relevant incremental and non-incremental cash flows discussed below and incorporate the NPV and the net cash flows (yearly) to make a decision on whether to accept or reject the project. The start-up costs were determined by splitting up the costs of $160,000 in 1967 and $40,000 in 1968. To calculate the yearly cash flows, I used year 1 through 10, and the gross profit was calculated by subtracting out relative cash flows and the before tax depreciation. The NPV of $169,530 is positive for the 10% discount rate, which is less than the IRR of 11.4%.

required return of 24% for a project of it's risk. The dilemma for General Foods was to

We use Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) approach to calculate the cost of equity. The formula of CAPM is re = rf + β × (E[RMkt] – rf).

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.

Our estimated cost of capital, 20.81%, is lower than Ricketts’ expected return, 30%-50%, thus the investment is worthy. However, it’s higher than other pessimistic members’ expected return, 10%-15%, making the decision more complex and requiring further valuation。

New England Seafood Company is a leader in the northeastern United States in harvesting and processing seafood. The company’s senior executives believe that there must be a change in the corporate strategy to maintain their competitive advantage, as foreign producers are affecting their current yields. Currently, New England Seafood Company operates in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico dealing exclusively in saltwater fish. Management feels that a move into the freshwater fish sector will provide the company with a new directive and future stability.

As Pleasure Craft Inc. has publicly held debt; we determined the cost of debt to be the yield to maturity on the outstanding debt on the outboard motor project, so using a financial calculator we establish the YTM to be equal to 2.4827%. Because this is a Semi- annual compounding, rd = YTM * 2 = 4.9654%; for the cost of equity (Rf + β (Rm - Rf)): 12.8420%. The WACC is the discount rate of the projects WACC = rd * (1- Td) * D/V + (re * E/ V) = 4.9654% (1- 35%) * 30% + 12.8420% * 70% = 0.0996, so the WACC is determined to be 9.96% for outboard motors project. The NPV of this project is positive and equal to $35,630,973.63, the IRR for the outboard motors has calculated to be 8%. From these calculation we can know the project’s beta is lower than project front- end loader project and the risk is lower also; from the decision rule the NPV > 0 and IRR > R, so we choose the outboard motor project.

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.

Our approach to valuing the processing plant can easily be decomposed into three distinct steps first, find the value of the foreseeable free cash flows. Next, calculate the terminal value of the project. Finally, take the present value of those flows. The next few paragraphs walk through each of these steps in order of progression.

a. Should Harris Seafoods enter the shrimp processing business by building the new plant? Please assume the firm will be unable to use the Industrial Revenue Bond financing mentioned at the end of the case (we will return to this topic in a later case).

The upgrade of the Rotterdam plant involves implementing the Japanese technology and requires a capital expenditure of £8.0 million with £3.5 million spent today, £2.0 million on year one, £1.0 million on year two and £1.0 million on year three. This will also increase polypropylene output by 7% from current levels at a rate of 2.0% per year. In addition, gross margin will improve by 0.8% per year from 11.5% to 16.0%. After auditing the financial models, it is concluded that the static net present value of the upgrade is -£6.35 million using a discount rate of 10% and an expected inflation rate of 3% annually. The Rotterdam upgrade contains an option to switch to the speculated German technology being available in five years. The current value of the option is zero as it is deeply out-of-the-money. The total net present value of the upgrade is -£6.35 million. The incremental earnings per share of the upgrade is £ 0.0013, the payback period is 14.13 years, and the internal rate of return is 18.7%.

I have been asked to produce a report for management of Matteck plc in which I will evaluate the financial viability of the investment proposal. The company is considering expanding into Asia. This operation would involve the acquisition of a factory, a purchase of several new motor vehicles and a new distribution unit. The following are the estimated costs of the planned investment:

To facilitate the valuation aspect of the analysis, free-cash-flow forecasts are provided in case Exhibit 10 for Hershey as a stand-alone entity. Most students should find it easy to calculate a value for Hershey using the discounted-cash-flow (DCF) method and industry-comparable multiples, which also are provided. As with any valuation case, students must make judgments about the appropriate capital structure, the weighted average cost of capital (WACC), sales growth, and the terminal growth rate. Once students have explored the value drivers for Hershey though sensitivity analysis, they may then evaluate the bids from both Nestlé S.A.–Cadbury Schweppes PLC (NCS) and the Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company. They will want to examine whether the bids are fair from the perspective of HFC shareholders and whether the synergies assumed by the bidders in their offer prices are reasonable.

The net present value (NPV) of each option has been calculated and included in Table 1, based on figures from the study group report. Unfortunately, these figures are flawed in the same manner as Wriston’s current performance and accounting mechanisms in that they don’t properly allocate revenue, nor do they recognize inherent manufacturing complexities. The plant closure option’s expected operational gain seems particularly suspect. A better valuation of the new plant options is perhaps