The Lazy Mower

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%.

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

The IRR of the home appliance project is 11.29% and the IRR of the agricultural machinery project is 10.70%, which are both greater than the calculated cost of capitals. Therefore, in

Now we want to examine the analysis business report concerning the cost of capital that has been increased at 28% in accordance with the Net Present Value which is $500,000 the question being would still be worth it to make the investment to the company (Needles, 2010). While at the same time the internal rate of return is still at 21% which is lower than the 25% in the expenditures. In reflection of these calculations the investment would not

30) Calculate the IRR for the following investment project: initial investment is $75,000; inflows are $20,000 for the next five years; required rate of return is 15%. (Round your answer to the nearest whole percentage)

An investment project should be accepted only if the NPV is equal to the initial cash flow.

7) See Table 1 NPV=42,318.71 IRR = 14% MIRR = 12% Payback period= 2.93 years. Yes the project should be undertaken.

Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis of factors such as the cost of raw materials, selling price per unit and capacity utilization demonstrates that a small change in any one of these variables could have a major impact on the project’s bottom line. In Appendix B, I examine a scenario in which the selling price per unit decreases by 1% and the cost of raw materials per unit increases by 1% at the outset of the project. In this scenario, the resulting NPV changes from a positive $5.4 million to a loss of $666,000, and the IRR falls below the discount rate to 9.15%. This, to me, reveals that the potential upside of this project is not large enough to account for discrepancies due to imprecise projections, flawed assumptions, or unforeseen risks.

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

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.

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

After calculating the Total Cash Flow for all three scenarios, the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and Net Present Value (NPV) for the project can be calculated as well. See Question 3 for details regarding WACC calculation. The IRR and NPV for each scenario are shown in Table 4 below:

4. Based on the information provided in the case, our group calculated the NPV for the project under both tax environment and tax-free condition, respectively, by using the excel spreadsheet and the NPV function. (For a detailed calculation of NPV, please refer to Appendix Under 15-yr.) According to our calculation, we have the following results: In the first case scenario, which the firm is in a tax environment (35% income tax), the NPV of the project equals to -$6,366,054.53

5. The project is assumed to end in year 4. Do you think that this is realistic? Can you estimate the value of the project’s operating cash flows beyond year 4? State any assumptions you made.

The proposal seems to be an attractive one due to the fact that there seems to be a need in the district for this particular district to have the ability to perform some preproduction processing which is beneficial to local customers. The investment seems to be within company parameters and sounds attractive.