Lockerheed tristar case study
Executive Summary
Professor Gupta, many organizations use financial methods to determine the viability of projects and decisions based in the initial required investment. The financial industry has many standards regarding these methods, with the most commonly used being Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and Net Present Value (NPV). Each method encompasses positives and negatives; however if either are used without fully understanding what their prospective results reveal, mistakes can be made and under-estimations of return will happen. In a recent case Lockheed Martin chose to use the Internal Rate of Return to value their Tri Star project. We have determined this to be a mistake and, through this case
…show more content…
In addition, the market conditions were grossly overestimated. They anticipated a rapid growth in the airline industry that was unsupported by the economic conditions during the 1970s. Ultimately this poor decision resulted in dramatic loss of wealth for the Lockheed shareholders totaling a loss of $757 million in stock value.
APPENDIX
I. Rainbow Products—Case Analysis
Rainbow Products is considering the purchase of a paint-mixing machine to reduce labor costs. In addition to simply analyzing the purchase of the machine alone, Rainbow also has the option to purchase a service contract along with the machine or, instead, choose to reinvest some of the productivity savings from the equipment back into the machinery in lieu of service. Here is the analysis of all three scenarios.
What we know:
Annual CF=$5,000
Initial cost=$35,000
N=15 years i=12% A. Payback, NPV, and IRR of paint-mixing machine.
i. Payback of the machinery is 7 years ($35,000/$5,000) ii. NPV of the machinery is $-945.67 (CFO=-35,000; CF1-CF15= 5,000; IRR=12) iii. IRR of the machinery is 11.49
Conclusion: Based on both the NPV and the IRR of the machine, Rainbow should reject this purchase.
B. NPV of paint mixing machine including a service contract
i. NPV = $2,000 = -35,500 +37,500
Conclusion: Based on the NPV, Rainbow should purchase the machine with the service contract.
C. NPV of paint mixing machine and reinvestment of savings in
Free cash flows of the project for next five years can be calculated by adding depreciation values and subtracting changes in working capital from net income. In 2010, there will be a cash outflow of $2.2 million as capital expenditure. In 2011, there will be an additional one time cash outflow of $300,000 as an advertising expense. Using net free cash flow values for next five years and discount rate for discounting, NPV for the project comes out to be $2907, 100. The rate of return at which net present value becomes zero i.e.
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 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:
3. Estimate the project’s NPV. Would you recommend that Tucker Hansson proceed with the investment?
In order to meet customer demands for higher product quality, to comply with federally-mandated environmental regulations, and to reduce production costs, HCC must spend $2,000,000 within the next three years to upgrade equipment. The upgrade is expected to result in production efficiencies that will lower material and labor costs by reducing defective products, process waste, in-process inventory, and production man-hours through simplified work processes. It has been over a decade since significant modifications were made to the production facilities. Those changes were mostly technical in nature and did not substantially alter work processes or reduce overall employment. The average productivity gain in the industry for the past five years has been 3% per year. Financing for the loan to purchase the equipment
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).
Following this review, it is my recommendation that we enter into a contract for the purchase of the equipment in question before the end of the year for the following reasons. Currently, our tax rate is not particularly favorable. We have experienced some small reductions in the late 1970’s, however the introduction of Supply-Side economics
ML had developed a policy of selling manual machines and renting automatic machines. Manual machines did not cost much, did not require service, and could be modified to attach different fasteners inexpensively. Automatic machines were rented on an annual basis because they would have been more expensive to sell and it provided annual income to ML. However, about 700 of the rented machines were returned each year. During the time that machines were in inventory, ML would modify the machines to attach different fasteners. This was expensive with an average cost per modification of $2000. If all 700 machines were modified during a given year this would have cost $1.4 million per year. It was also industry practice to provide preventative maintenance and
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.
A key factor in determining a project's viability is its cost of capital [WACC]. The estimation of Boeing's WACC must be consistent with the overall valuation approach and the definition of cash flows to be discounted. Note that this process is a forward looking focus and is laden with uncertainty. It is how the assumptions are modeled that many costly mistakes can be made. While finding a rate of return for an individual project, it is important to remember that WACC is only appropriate for an individual project.
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
In 1997, Boeing lost $1.6 billion against their earnings due to problems with the supply of critical components. They had to halt the production of the 737 and the 747. In 2006, suppliers for Boeing’s 787 fell behind schedule which resulted in a delay of production.
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.
When looking at the incremental cash flows for the new project, replacing the old machine with the Zinser machine is a good investment. The NPV of the investment is $6.33 million and the IRR is 28%, much higher than the 10% hurdle rate (see exhibit 4). While all the assumptions made could affect the NPV of the project, the major concern that could erode the value of the project is whether Aurora can survive for 10 years. In our early termination