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.
Sensitivity analysis begins with the base case (or for this analysis, the “most likely case”) developed using expected values for all uncertain variables. The uncertain variables used in this analysis are procedures per day, average net revenue, and building/equipment salvage value.
2. Uncertainty/sensitivity analysis: The effects of uncertainty are considered in the profitability analyses. Examples include calculating or discussing the impact of various potential revenue levels on product line profit margins, and applying the probabilities of successfully negotiating postal outlet and lottery booth contracts.
Using the scenario information supplied, the candidate will undertake a cost-benefit analysis for high-priority change requirements, undertake a risk analysis, identify barriers, and develop
Financial Analysis The sensitivity analysis on IRR provided by the case in Exhibit 9 is demonstrated in Table 3 in Appendix. With reference to the calculated WACC, 11.22%, most of the circumstances considered in the sensitivity analysis suggest the acceptance of the 7E7 project. However, if the air travel demand worsened and sold only 1500 in the first 20 years, the project will be abandoned even if there is a 5% premium in price. If the unit volume sold is equal to
4) A sensitivity analysis could help Alltel pavilion assess potential risks/rewards associated with changes in costs or sales volume. A What-if analysis would be helpful to determine profits given variations in sales. If the pavilion had a strong inclination as to the draw of a particular artist, this would give them the
The first project proposal is Match My Doll Clothing line expansion consisted of expanding matching doll and child’s clothing and accessories. The second project proposal is Design Your Own Doll by creating customizable “one of a kind” doll features through the company’s website. The project selection criteria would base on quantitative and qualitative analysis. The quantitative analysis would base on the evaluation of discounting cash flow forecasts to determining the Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), and the Payback period of each proposed project. The qualitative analysis would include the potential project value of the company’s overall strategy, innovation, key project risks, and the project interdependencies to the whole company.
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
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
All of the 11 projects are primarily ranked based on quantitative measurements. We have to also take into consideration of other quantitative aspects like length of the project, initial investment and anticipated payback period. Moreover, this
A key activity in project management is assessing project constraints. A project has three limitations: scope, budget and schedule. These limitations are project constraints because they are sensitive to change and have an impact on project risk. Risk is exposure to uncertain outcomes. Project constraints are mutually exclusive. If one constraint changes it affects the others and adjustments may be required to compensate and manage risks. For example, a delay in the schedule can increase the risk that the project will not finish on time. Time is money and delays have a negative impact on the budget. To