Wriston Manufacturing Case Writeup

The advantage of replacing the manufacturing lines now would be combat the decreasing efficiency rate (within 5 years it has declined from 90% efficiency to 76% efficiency when the target is 80%) and to intervene with the deterioration that has

The third scenario was ignoring the option to invest in the second-generation project and selling the equipment in year 2. We evaluated this option as a put option. First, we calculated the probabilities for going up and down based on the assumption of a risk neutral word. As a result, the probability of going upward is calculated as 0.3375 and downward probability is 0.6625. In order to determine the present value of all the sequence cash flow at the end of year 2, we calculated the upside change rate and downside change rate as 64.87% and -39.35%, respectfully. The next step is to analyze the option value by using the “Binomial Tree” method. In order to determine the present value of all the subsequence cash flow at the end of year 2, we calculated the cash flow at each node on the tree, until 2006. We discounted all the cash flow at the risk free rate at 10%. The End of Year NPV of all the subsequence cash flow at Year 2 is calculated as $7,571,752, and the selling price of the equipment at end of 2 is $4,000,000, which is the salvage value. We found the NPV of selling the machine at end of Year 2 to be -$2,951,861 as of Year 0, which is negative. The APV of the project after adding the option turned out to be -$6,321,932. This negative APV suggest that the

made an attempt to save money by cutting off the Detroit supplier that it had originally used for

From Exhibit 4 the NPV is about $1.5 million. There initial investment is $400,000. Without included debt payments this appears attractive. However, the NPV should include the debt payments for a useful NPV. This reduces the NPV significantly. The investors double their money and the investment appears viable.

Star Appliance is looking to expand their product line and is considering three different projects: dishwashers, garbage disposals, and trash compactors. We want to determine which project would be worth doing by determining if they will add value to Star. Thus, the project(s) that will add the most value to Star Appliance will be worth pursuing. The current hurdle rate of 10% should be re-evaluated by finding the weighted average cost of capital (WACC). Then by forecasting the cash flows of each project and discounting them by the WACC to find the net present value, or by solving for the internal rate of return, we should be able to see which projects Star should undertake.

Our approach to valuing the processing plant can easily be decomposed into three distinct steps first, find the value of the foreseeable free cash flows. Next, calculate the terminal value of the project. Finally, take the present value of those flows. The next few paragraphs walk through each of these steps in order of progression.

8. Given an option cost of $4 million and the value of the option in worksheet 2, should Whirlpool proceed or abandon the project? ______________

Thus, by year three the company will be making a profit off the investment as year three is 86.73 million profit by 55.35 cost giving the company a 31.38 million dollar surplus. Generally, a period of payback of three year or less is acceptable (Reference Entry) causing this project to be viable based off the payback analysis. Although, these calculations are flawed. The reason for this is because the time value of money is not taken into effect when calculating payback periods which is where IRR can further assist in a more realistic financial picture (Reference Entry).

Assessing the likelihood of each option and assigning weight to each possibility is an inexact science, but I believe it in unlikely that in the current political climate we will not see both a reduction in the tax rate and an increase in the length of time over which we are required to depreciate capital assets. I have assigned weights to each option with this in mind, and have come up with an average weighted estimate of the net present value of the investment of: $1.7 million.

Opposition from Unions in different subsidiaries against the layoff could cause serious problems like high severance package and possible strikes

This is beyond the company cost limit set of $16 million capital and $2.6 million yearly payment for improvement. The company is committed to keep the plant but at the basis on the cost limit set.

The upgrade of the Rotterdam plant involves implementing the Japanese technology and requires a capital expenditure of £8.0 million with £3.5 million spent today, £2.0 million on year one, £1.0 million on year two and £1.0 million on year three. This will also increase polypropylene output by 7% from current levels at a rate of 2.0% per year. In addition, gross margin will improve by 0.8% per year from 11.5% to 16.0%. After auditing the financial models, it is concluded that the static net present value of the upgrade is -£6.35 million using a discount rate of 10% and an expected inflation rate of 3% annually. The Rotterdam upgrade contains an option to switch to the speculated German technology being available in five years. The current value of the option is zero as it is deeply out-of-the-money. The total net present value of the upgrade is -£6.35 million. The incremental earnings per share of the upgrade is £ 0.0013, the payback period is 14.13 years, and the internal rate of return is 18.7%.

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.

After year 5, they cash flow will pick up where it left off and increase even higher until they sell the company. The IRR will be around 429%. And the value created from the small investment will be just under $45 million in only a 7 year period.

In the late 1980’s to the mid 1990’s the plant struggled to meet budgetary goals and was faced with potential closure. These struggles stemmed from the plants inability to increase efficiency and reduce cost. Reducing labor