The Theoretical Rationale For The NPV Approach To Investment Appraisal

The payback period looks at a project only until the costs have been recovered. This analysis tool is often ignored because it does not take into consideration the time value of money. The time value of money limitation of the payback period can be modified by using the discounted cash flows of a project for the analysis of when the outflows will be recovered.

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.

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.

This mini-case provides a review of the methodology and rationale associated with the various capital budgeting evaluation methods such as payback period, discounted payback period, NPV, IRR, MIRR,

The NPV compares the inflow of cash against the flow of cash to make the investment. With the cash flows occurring over a period of time, NPV also takes into account the cost of capital. The cost of capital or discount rate allows the company to weigh the present value of capital today with the investment capital’s present value. Futronics Inc. investment would have an NPV of $138,642.39. The NPV of this investment would add value to Futronics Inc.’ worth.

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.

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).

Virtually all general managers face capital-budgeting decisions in the course of their careers. Among the most common of these is the either/or choice about a capital investment. The following describes some general guidelines to orient the decision-maker in these situations.

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.

The PAYBACK technique is based on cash flows and it measures the time which is required for a proposal’s initial cash outflow to equal its cash inflow generated by the investment, the solution is expressed in years and month or days.

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

In fully investigating all of our calculations we are fully invested in using the Net Present Value figures we calculated as a means of ranking the eight projects. In doing so we found reasons in which why the Net Present Value was our benchmark for ranking the projects and why we did not use the Payback Method. The Payback Method ignores the time value of money, requires and arbitrary cutoff point, ignores cash flows beyond the cutoff date, and is biased against long-term projects, such as research and development and new projects. When comparing the Average Accounting Return Method to the Net Present Value method we found that the Average Accounting Return Method is a worse option than using the Payback Method. The Average Accounting Return Method is not a true rate of return and the time value of money is ignored, it uses an arbitrary benchmark cutoff rate, and is based on accounting net income and book values, not cash flows and market values. Plain and simply put, the Net Present Value method is the best criterion to use when ranking these eight

3. The NPV method is better because it shows the size of the project so you can see how much value a project has not just a percentage. You could have a higher percentage but a much lower value and you would still go for the lower percentage.

The Net Present Value is one of the techniques that are used by firms when evaluating which investment proposals to take on board and which ones to reject. The net present value is calculated by discounting all flows to the present and subtracting the present value of all inflows.

The second criticism of the payback method is that it relates to the method not taking account of the time value of money, similarly to the ARR. However, it does not have value in situations where the useful life of the project is short and difficult to predict. Japanese firms, particularly in consumer electronics, use the payback method when evaluating new products since the product life cycle can be quite short and a new product can be made unexpectedly obsolete by changes in technology. For example, imagine we have