Pros And Cons Of Payback Period

The payback’s reciprocal would be more useful for projects with very long lives. The payback reciprocal is best used when the useful life of an investment is twice the payback period. The IRR rises when the useful life of an investment increase which would then get closer to the higher reciprocal.

EEC calculated the amount of time involved the anticipation of its cost ($3 million). The timeline in recovering their cost of investment ($2 million) initially for the foundation of this investment any profit made in the future of this investment will be justified as a profit for the company. If EEC can anticipate a fast return on its investment it is a profitable wise decision in making the investment financial, it is considered to be an easier way of formulating investments financially. On the basis of one year all cash flows is added together equal to the sum of $2 million originally invested, then it is divided by the annual cash flow of $500,000. The calculation of the payback period would equal four years. After this time frame any financial proceeds will be considered profitable for the company. I conclude that the timeframe is adequate in comparison of the investment in this worthwhile investment financial venture for the company.

33) Each year for eight years, an investment will generate incremental sales of $8,000 and cash operating expenses of $2,500. The applicable tax rate is 30% and depreciation is $2,000. What is the net cash flows for each of the eight years?

In real live project with more cash flow after the pay back period would be more valuable than Project with no cash flow, yet its payback and discounted payback make it look worse. This is the reason, the shorter the payback period, other things held constant, the greater the project’s liquidity. Apart from this, since cash flows expected in the distant future are generally riskier than near-term cash flows, the payback is often used as an indicator of a project’s riskiness because the longer the payback period the higher is the risk associated with the project (Brigham, 2004) (Fabuzzi, 2003).

Rt - The net cash flow (-$100,000, $32,000, $32,000, $32,000, $32,000, $32,000) amount of cash, inflow minus outflow) at time t.

D) The total amount of cash flows remains the same, but more of the cash flows are received in the earlier years and less are received in the later years.

A. The company needs to focus on the free cash flows instead of the accounting profits since these are the funds flow the company will receive and will be able to reinvest. By examining the cash flows they will be adapt to predict the profits and/or expenses timetable. The company’s interests in these cash flows are on an after-tax basis since they are part of the shareholders dividends. Additionally, the additional cash flows are of important, because, after analyzing the project while viewing the company as a whole, the additional cash flows are seen as minimal benefits and will show the elevated value to the company if the decision is made to implement the project.

The capital budget process in place is to use the payback period and return on invested capital (ROIC) for the project. The payback period criterion is a flawed way to determine the value of the project because it does not take into account cash flows after the required payback period (7 years). For example, if the Energy Gel project had not

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).

Cash flows were projected based on the Financial Plan covering a three year period. Cash flows to determine a terminal value were extrapolated using a constant growth rate of 2.5 per cent per annum, which does not exceed the long-term average growth rate for the

A target payback period will be set by the company and the proposals that recover their initial cost within this time will be acceptable. If a comparison is made between two or more options then the choice will be project with the fastest payback.

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

is only three years. Second; the payback period for the project A is 3 years and for G

Internal rate of return (IRR) and Payback period “IRR of a project provides useful information regarding the sensitivity of the project’s NPV to errors in the estimate of its cost of capital” (Pierson et al.2011, pp.157).This proposal also shows the project is profitable by using Excel to get the IRR of 18.9%, which is

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.