The Dilemma at Day Pro

To make the most informed decision the IRRs and payback periods of the projects should be compared in conjunction with the NPVs of the two projects. The NPV analysis of the two projects under consideration indicates that the MMDC Project is the better of the two projects.

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.

2. Net Present Value – Secondly, Peter needs to investigate the Net Present Value (NPV) of each project scenario, i.e. job type, gross margin, and # new diamonds drills purchased. The NPV will measure the variance of the present value of cash outflow (drilling equipment investment) versus the future value of cash inflows (future profits), at the benchmark hurdle rate of 20%. A positive NPV associated with the investment means that the investment should be undertaken as it exceeds the minimum rate of return. A higher NPV determines which project scenario will have the highest return on cash flow, hence determining the most profitable investment in terms of present money value.

IRR uses all cash flows and incorporates the time value of money. When evaluating independent projects, IRR will always lead to the same decision as NPV. Because IRR assumes that cash flows will be reinvested at the internal rate of return, which is not always or even usually the case, it can rank mutually exclusive projects incorrectly. With certain patterns of cash flows, the IRR equation has more than one solution, which confuses the decision rule. IRR is slightly more

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.

32) Compute the NPV for the following project. The initial cost is $5,000. The net cash flows are $1,900 for four years. The net salvage value is $1,000 when the project terminates. The cost of capital is 10%.

Net present value (NPV) is the present value (PV) of an investment’s future cash flows minus the initial investment (“Net Present Value,” 2011).   The high-tech alternative has a PV of $13,940,554.49 with an initial investment of $7,000,000, so the NPV = $6,940,554.49.   This positive NPV indicates to

NPV is known as the best technique in the capital budgeting decisions. There were flows in payback as well as discounted pay back periods because it don’t consider the cash flow after the payback and discounted pay back period. To remove this flows net present value (NPV) method, which relies on discounted cash flow (DCF) techniques is used to find the value of the project by considering the cash flow of the project till its life. To implement this approach, we proceed as

A project may have more than one IRR, especially when returns of an investment yield negative cash flows following positive cash flows.

1. The cause to the conflict in the rankings is that while the IRR ranking shows a percentage so that you can see what percentage you are making on certain amount, it does not show the size of the project.

NPV and IRR: When examining the NPV and the IRR of the Merseyside project, the numbers were very attractive. It had a positive net present value and an IRR above 10 percent. By these numbers, along with others,

This analysis will determine whether or not the project is worth pursuing using a net present value (NPV) approach.

If the IRR is less than the capital then that project should be rejected because it is not very feasible. If the Internal Rate of Return is larger than the capital required for the project, it should be accepted while if the IRR is just equal to the capital then the project could be considered because it is at the very least earning its cost of capital and should therefore be accepted at the margin.

Mutually exclusive projects are another situation for which NPV must extend its approach. In such projects, the chosen project is usually one which results in the greatest positive NPV because this will produce the greatest addition to shareholders’ wealth. In the case of mutually exclusive investments, ranking becomes crucial as only