Victoria Chemicals

Tucker Hansson, the owner of Hansson Private Label, is struggling in whether to execute the $50 million investment proposed by his manufacturing team. Under this situation, the subject of this report is to evaluate the potential investment of expanding production capacity at Hansson Private Label (HBL) and make a recommendation to Tucker Hansson. In this report, I will specifically focus on analyses of the project’s free cash flows (FCFs), weighted average cost of capital (WACC) and net present value (NPV). With a sensitivity analysis, it can help us to observe how change in some key project variables

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.

Evaluating the risks, calculating the probability of success, and factoring in the projected profit from sales will provide a clearer NPV to be compared with other projects in the

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.

The Modified Internal Rate of Return is an underused measure for selection of projects that a company can choose because it is more effective at dealing effectively with periodic free cash flows that develop from the time that an asset is purchased through its life to the point where it is sold, ranking projects and variable rates of return through the project life. The Internal Rate of Return is an inefficient model to make decisions with because it lack the ability to account for the periodic free cash flows, proper ranking and variable returns from certain projects.

As the November Meeting approaches, CFO Doug Scovanner is faced with the problem of choosing which of the five controversial projects available to accept. Our task is to assume this role and evaluate each of the projects based upon two major criteria. The first is determining the firm’s financial motives by quantifying the projected value added to the firm and the risk associated with each project. When determining to accept or reject projects based upon adding value, the most helpful instruments we have are Net Present Value (NPV) and the

Account for time. Time is money. We prefer to receive cash sooner rather than later. Use net present value as a technique to summarize the quantitative attractiveness of the project. Quite simply, NPV can be interpreted as the amount by which the market

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.

We valued the company using four different methods; Net Present Value, Internal Rate of Return, Modified Internal Rate of Return and Profitability Index. We began with the Net Present Value, or NPV, calculation. NPV values an investment’s profitability based on the projected future cash inflows and outflows of the investment, discounted back to present value using the WACC. The calculations for NPV are presented in Appendix 2. We started by separating cash inflows and outflows by each year. We used Bob Prescott’s estimates for the revenue per year and related operating costs of cost of goods sold as

Return on Investment (ROI): An examination of ROI financial analysis and its historical roots with the DuPont Company

However, the polypropylene industry is a fiercely competitive industry that has a cyclical business cycle with periods of strong sales and periods of oversupply that would lower the overall price that polypropylene could be sold for. To account for worries of oversupply and its effect on price, it is necessary to find the variable cost of producing.   After finding Victoria Chemicals variable cost of producing, the variable costs of all other producers can be obtained.   As can be seen in Exhibit 1, the current variable cost of producing at Victoria Chemicals is GBP 597.38 per ton. The variable cost of producing is highest for the next ten largest plants at GBP 652.19 per ton with a market share of 21%.   It is highly unlikely that these

• Will Need a New Tank Car to anticipated growth of the firm in other

In order to analyze the proposal we compared the financial benefits for Axeon to support product manufacturing in the UK versus the Netherlands.   See exhibits 1 and 2 for cash flow comparisons including financial summary.

NTGR was analyzed in this study based on a five year average for years 2009 through 2013 as provided by Investing (Investing, 2014). The objective of the financial analysis is to review and assess NTGR’s position in the market and the strategy required to be successful and maintain its financial health. Financial ratios are often used by companies and investors to evaluate competitors, industry, internal goals and to assess a company’s financial status (Inc., n.d.). Financial ratios are determined by dividing one financial entry by another based on a specific period of time. Additionally, the organizational structure will be reviewed to demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of management and the correlation with profits. The key ratios that will be reviewed will include profitability, liquidity, and growth. Based on the competitors chosen, two with larger market shares and one with a smaller market share, we will first analyze the gross profitability, the ratio of gross profits versus net sales, indicating the effectiveness of a company’s marketing strategy or manufacturing abilities.