This preview has intentionally blurred parts. Sign up to view the full document

View Full Document

Unformatted Document Excerpt

10 Risk CHAPTER and Refinements in Capital Budgeting INSTRUCTORS RESOURCES Overview Chapters 8 and 9 developed the major decision-making aspects of capital budgeting. Cash flows and budgeting models have been integrated and discussed in providing the principles of capital budgeting. However, there are more complex issues beyond those presented. Chapter 10 expands capital budgeting to consider risk with such methods as sensitivity analysis, scenario analysis, and simulation. Capital budgeting techniques used to evaluate international projects, as well as the special risks multinational companies face, are also presented. Additionally, two basic risk-adjustment techniques are examined: certainty equivalents and risk-adjusted discount rates. PMF DISK PMF Tutor A topic covered for this is risk-adjusted discount rates (RADRs). PMF Problem-Solver: Capital Budgeting Techniques This module allows the student to compare the annualized net present value of projects with unequal lives. PMF Templates No spreadsheet templates are provided for this chapter. Study Guide There are no particular Study Guide examples suggested for classroom presentation. 7 Part 3 Long-Term Investment Decisions ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS 10-1 There is usually a significant degree of uncertainty associated with capital budgeting projects. There is the usual business risk along with the fact that future cash flows are an estimate and do not represent exact values. This uncertainty exists for both independent and mutually exclusive projects. The risk associated with any single project has the capability to change the entire risk of the firm. The firm's assets are like a portfolio of assets. If an accepted capital budgeting project has a risk different from the average risk of the assets in the firm, it will cause a shift in the overall risk of the firm. 10-2 Risk, in terms of cash inflows from a project, is the variability of expected cash flows, hence the expected returns, of the given project. The breakeven cash inflow level of cash inflow necessary in order for the project to be the acceptable may be compared with the probability of that inflow occurring. When comparing two projects with the same breakeven cash inflows, the project with the higher probability of occurrence is less risky. 10-3 a. Sensitivity analysis uses a number of possible inputs (cash inflows) to assess their impact on the firm's return (NPV). In capital budgeting, the NPVs are estimated for the pessimistic, most likely, and optimistic cash flow estimates. By subtracting the pessimistic outcome NPV from the optimistic outcome NPV, a range of NPVs can be determined. b. Scenario analysis is used to evaluate the impact on return of simultaneous changes in a number of variables, such as cash inflows, cash outflows, and the cost of capital, resulting from differing assumptions relative to economic and competitive conditions. These return estimates can be used to roughly assess the risk involved with respect to the level of inflation. c. Simulation is a statistically based approach using random numbers to simulate various cash flows associated with the project, calculating the NPV or IRR on the basis of these cash flows, and then developing a probability distribution of each project's rate of returns based on NPV or IRR criterion. 10-4 a. Multinational companies (MNCs) must consider the effect of exchange rate risk, the risk that the exchange rate between the dollar and the currency in which the project's cash flows are denominated will reduce the project's future cash flows. If the value of the dollar depreciates relative to that currency, the market value of the project's cash flows will decrease as a result. Firms can use hedging to protect themselves against this risk in the short term; for the long term, financing the project using local currency can minimize this risk. 8 Chapter 10 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting b. Political risk, the risk that a foreign government's actions will adversely affect the project, makes international projects particularly risky, because it cannot be predicted in advance. To take this risk into account, managers should either adjust expected cash flows or use risk-adjusted discount rates when performing the capital budgeting analysis. Adjustment of cash flows is the preferred method. c. Tax laws differ from country to country. Because only after-tax cash flows are relevant for capital budgeting decisions, managers must account for all taxes paid to foreign governments and consider the effect of any foreign tax payments on the firm's U.S. tax liability. d. Transfer pricing refers to the prices charged by a corporation's subsidiaries for goods and services traded between them; the prices are not set by the open market. In terms of capital budgeting decisions, managers should be sure that transfer prices accurately reflect actual costs and incremental cash flows. e. MNCs cannot evaluate international capital projects from only a financial perspective. The strategic viewpoint often is the determining factor in deciding whether or not to undertake a project. In fact, a project that is less acceptable on a purely financial basis than another may be chosen for strategic reasons. Some reasons for MNC foreign investment include continued market access, the ability to compete with local companies, political and/or social reasons (for example, gaining favorable tax treatment in exchange for creating new jobs in a country), and achievement of a particular corporate objective such as obtaining a reliable source of raw materials. 10-5 Risk-adjusted discount rates reflect the return that must be earned on a given project in order to adequately compensate the firm's owners. The relationship between RADRs and the CAPM is a purely theoretical concept. The expression used to value the expected rate of return of a security k i (ki = RF + [b x (km - RF)]) is rewritten substituting an asset for a security. Because real corporate assets are not traded in efficient markets and estimation of a market return, k m, for a portfolio of such assets would be difficult, the CAPM is not used for real assets. 10-6 A firm whose stock is actively traded in security markets generally does not increase in value through diversification. Investors themselves can more efficiently diversify their portfolio by holding a variety of stocks. Since a firm is not rewarded for diversification, the risk of a capital budgeting project should be considered independently rather than in terms of their impact on the total portfolio of assets. In practice, management usually follows this approach and evaluates projects based on their total risk. 9 Part 3 Long-Term Investment Decisions 10-7 Yet RADRs are most often used in practice for two reasons: 1) financial decision makers prefer using rate of return-based criteria, and 2) they are easy to estimate and apply. In practice, risk is subjectively categorized into classes, each having a RADR assigned to it. Each project is then subjectively placed in the appropriate risk class. 10-8 A comparison of NPVs of unequal-lived mutually exclusive projects is inappropriate because it may lead to an incorrect choice of projects. The annualized net present value converts the net present value of unequal-lived projects into an annual amount that can be used to select the best project. The expression used to calculate the ANPV follows: ANPV = 10-9 NPVj PVIFAk%, nj Real Options are opportunities embedded in real assets that are part of the capital budgeting process. Managers have the option of implementing some of these opportunities to alter the cash flow and risk of a given project. Examples of real options include: Abandonment the option to abandon or terminate a project prior to the end of its planned life. Flexibility - the ability to adopt a project that permits flexibility in the firms production process, such as be able to reconfigure a machine to accept various types of inputs. Growth - the option to develop follow-on projects, expand markets, expand or retool plants, and so on, that would not be possible without implementation the project that is being evaluated. Timing - the ability to determine the exact timing of when various action of the project will be undertaken. 10-10 Strategic NPV incorporates the value of the real options associated with the project while traditional NPV includes only the identifiable relevant cash flows. Using strategic NPV could alter the final accept/reject decision. It is likely to lead to more accept decisions since the value of the options is added to the traditional NPV as shown in the following equation. NPVstrategic = NPVtraditional = Value of real options 10-11 Capital rationing is a situation where a firm has only a limited amount of funds available for capital investments. In most cases, implementation of the acceptable projects would require more capital than is available. Capital rationing is common for a firm, since unfortunately most firms do not have sufficient capital available to invest in all acceptable projects. In theory, capital rationing should not exist because firms should accept all projects with positive NPVs or IRRs greater than the cost of capital. However, most firms operate with finite capital 10 Chapter 10 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting expenditure budgets and must select the best from all acceptable projects, taking into account the amount of new financing required to fund these projects. 10-12 The internal rate of return approach and the net present value approach to capital rationing both involve ranking projects on the basis of IRRs. Using the IRR approach, a cut-off rate and a budget constraint are imposed. The NPV first ranks projects by IRR and then takes into account the present value of the benefits from each project in order to determine the combination with the highest overall net present value. The benefit of the NPV approach is that it guarantees a maximum dollar return to the firm, whereas the IRR approach does not. 11 Part 3 Long-Term Investment Decisions SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS 10-1 LG 1: Recognizing Risk a. & b. Project A Risk Low B Medium C Medium D High Reason The cash flows from the project can be easily determined since this expenditure consists strictly of outflows. The amount is also relatively small. The competitive nature of the industry makes it so that Caradine will need to make this expenditure to remain competitive. The risk is only moderate since the firm already has clients in place to use the new technology. Since the firm is only preparing a proposal, their commitment at this time is low. However, the $450,000 is a large sum of money for the company and it will immediately become a sunk cost. Although this purchase is in the industry in which Caradine normally operates, they are encountering a large amount of risk. The large expenditure, the competitiveness of the industry, and the political and exchange risk of operating in a foreign country adds to the uncertainty. NOTE: Other answers are possible depending on the assumptions a student may make. There is too little information given about the firm and industry to establish a definitive risk analysis. 10-2 LG 2: Breakeven Cash Flows a. $35,000 = CF(PVIFA14%,12) $35,000 = CF(5.66) CF = $6,183.75 Calculator solution: $6,183.43 b. $35,000 = CF(PVIFA10%,12) $35,000 = CF(6.814) CF = $5,136.48 Calculator solution: $5,136.72 The required cash flow per year would decrease by $1,047.27. 12 Chapter 10 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting 10-3 LG 2: Breakeven Cash Inflows and Risk a. Project X PVn = PMT x (PVIFA15%,5 yrs.) PVn = $10,000 x (3.352) PVn = $33,520 Project Y PVn = PMT x (PVIFA15%,5 yrs.) PVn = $15,000 x (3.352) PVn = $50,280 NPV = PVn - Initial investment NPV = $33,520 - $30,000 NPV = $3,520 Calculator solution: $3,521.55 NPV = PVn - Initial investment NPV = $50,280 - $40,000 NPV = $10,280 Calculator solution: $10,282.33 b. Project X $CF x 3.352 = $30,000 $CF = $30,000 3.352 $CF = $8,949.88 Project Y $CF x 3.352 = $40,000 $CF = $40,000 3.352 $CF = $11,933.17 c. Project X Probability = 60% Project Y Probability = 25% d. Project Y is more risky and has a higher potential NPV. Project X has less risk and less return while Project Y has more risk and more return, thus the risk-return trade-off. e. Choose Project X to minimize losses; to achieve higher NPV, choose Project Y. 10-4 LG 2: Basic Sensitivity Analysis a. Range A = $1,800 - $200 = $1,600 Range B = $1,100 - $900 = $200 b. NPV Outcome Pessimistic Most likely Optimistic Range Project A Table Value - $ 6,297 514 7,325 $13,622 Calculator Solution - $ 6,297.29 513.56 7,324.41 $13,621.70 Project B Calculator Table Value Solution - $ 337 - $ 337.79 514 513.56 1,365 1,364.92 $1,702 $1,702.71 c. Since the initial investment of projects A and B are equal, the range of cash flows and the range of NPVs are consistent. d. Project selection would depend upon the risk disposition of the management. (A is more risky than B but also has the possibility of a greater return.) 13 Part 3 Long-Term Investment Decisions 10-5 LG 4: Sensitivity Analysis a. Range P = $1,000 - $500 Range Q = $1,200 - $400 = $500 = $800 b. NPV Outcome Pessimistic Most likely Optimistic c. Project A Table Value $73 1,609 3,145 Calculator Solution $ 72.28 1,608.43 3,144.57 Project B Calculator Table Value Solution -$ 542 -$ 542.17 1,609 1,608.43 4,374 4,373.48 Range P = $3,145 - $73 = $3,072 (Calculator solution: $3,072.29) Range Q = $4,374 - (-$542) = $4,916 (Calculator solution: $4,915.65) Each computer has the same most likely result. Computer Q has both a greater potential loss and a greater potential return. Therefore, the decision will depend on the risk disposition of management. 10-6 LG 2: Simulation a. Ogden Corporation could use a computer simulation to generate the respective profitability distributions through the generation of random numbers. By tying various cash flow assumptions together into a mathematical model and repeating the process numerous times, a probability distribution of project returns can be developed. The process of generating random numbers and using the probability distributions for cash inflows and outflows allows values for each of the variables to be determined. The use of the computer also allows for more sophisticated simulation using components of cash inflows and outflows. Substitution of these values into the mathematical model yields the NPV. The key lies in formulating a mathematical model that truly reflects existing relationships. b. The advantages to computer simulations include the decision maker's ability to view a continuum of risk-return trade-offs instead of a single-point estimate. The computer simulation, however, is not feasible for risk analysis. 14 Chapter 10 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting 10-7 LG 4: RiskAdjusted Discount Rates-Basic a. Project E: PVn = $6,000 x (PVIFA15%,4) PVn = $6,000 x 2.855 PVn = $17,130 NPV = $17,130 - $15,000 NPV = $2,130 Calculator solution: $2,129.87 Project F: Year PVIF15%,n $6,000 4,000 5,000 2,000 1 2 3 4 CF .870 .756 .658 .572 PV $5,220 3,024 3,290 1,144 $12,678 NPV = $12,678 - $11,000 NPV = $1,678 Calculator solution: $1,673.05 Project G: Year 1 2 3 4 CF PVIF15%,n $ 4,000 6,000 8,000 12,000 .870 .756 .658 .572 NPV = $20,144 - $19,000 NPV = $1,144 Calculator solution: $1,136.29 Project E, with the highest NPV, is preferred. b. RADRE RADRF RADRG c. Project E: = .10 + (1.80 x (.15 - .10)) = .19 = .10 + (1.00 x (.15 - .10)) = .15 = -.10 + (0.60 x (.15 - .10)) = .13 $6,000 x (2.639) = $15,834 NPV = $15,834 - $15,000 NPV = $834 Calculator solution: $831.51 15 PV $3,480 4,536 5,264 6,864 $20,144 Part 3 Long-Term Investment Decisions Project F: Same as in a., $1,678 (Calculator solution: $1,673.05) Project G: Year PVIF13%,n $ 4,000 6,000 8,000 12,000 1 2 3 4 CF .885 .783 .693 .613 PV $ 3,540 4,698 5,544 7,356 $ 21,138 NPV = $21,138 - $19,000 NPV = $2,138 Calculator solution: $2,142.93 Rank: 1 2 3 Project G F E d. After adjusting the discount rate, even though all projects are still acceptable, the ranking changes. Project G has the highest NPV and should be chosen. 10-8 LG 4: Risk-adjusted Discount rates-Tabular a. NPVA = ($7,000 x 3.993) - $20,000 NPVA = $7,951 (Use 8% rate) Calculator solution: $ 7,948.97 NPVB = ($10,000 x 3.443) - $30,000 NPVB = $4,330 (Use 14% rate) Calculator solution: $ 4,330.81 Project A, with the higher NPV, should be chosen. b. Project A is preferable to Project B, since the net present value of A is greater than the net present value of B. 10-9 LG 4: Risk-adjusted Rates of Return using CAPM a. kX = 7% + 1.2(12% - 7%) = 7% + 6% = 13% kY = 7% + 1.4(12% - 7%) = 7% + 7% = 14% NPVX = $30,000(PVIFA13%,4) - $70,000 NPVX = $30,000(2.974) - $70,000 NPVX = $89,220 - $70,000 = $19,220 16 Chapter 10 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting NPVY $22,000(PVIF14%,1) = + $32,000(PVIF14%,2) + $38,000(PVIF14%3) + $46,000(PVIF14%,4) - $70,000 NPVY = $22,000(.877) + $32,000(.769) + $38,000(.675) + $46,000(.592) $70,000 NPVY = $19,294 + $24,608 + $25,650 + $27,232 - 70,000 = $26,784 b. The RADR approach prefers Y over X. The RADR approach combines the risk adjustment and the time adjustment in a single value. The RADR approach is most often used in business. 10-10 LG 4: Risk Classes and RADR a. Project X: Year 1 2 3 4 5 CF PVIF22%,n PV $80,000 70,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 .820 .672 .551 .451 .370 $65,600 47,040 33,060 27,060 22,200 $194,960 NPV = $194,960 - $180,000 NPV = $14,960 Calculator solution: $14,930.45 Project Y: Year 1 2 3 4 5 CF PVIF13%,n PV $50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 .885 .783 .693 .613 .543 $ 44,250 46,980 48,510 49,040 48,870 $237,650 NPV = $237,650 - $235,000 NPV = $2,650 Calculator solution: $2,663.99 Project Z: Year 1 2 3 4 5 CF PVIFA15%,5 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 3.352 NPV = $ 301,680 - $ 310,000 NPV = - $ 8,320 Calculator solution: -$8,306.04 17 PV $ 301,680 Part 3 Long-Term Investment Decisions b. Projects X and Y are acceptable with positive NPV's, while Project Z with a negative NPV is not. Project X with the highest NPV should be undertaken. 10-11 LG 5: Unequal LivesANPV Approach a. Machine A PVn = PMT x (PVIFA12%,6 yrs.) PVn = $12,000 x (4.111) PVn = $49,332 NPV = NPV = NPV = Calculator PVn - Initial investment $ 49,332 - $ 92,000 - $ 42,668 solution: - $ 42,663.11 Machine B Year 1 2 3 4 CF PVIFA12%,n PV .893 .797 .712 .636 $ 8,930 15,940 21,360 25,440 $ 71,670 $10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 NPV = $71,670 - $65,000 NPV = $6,670 Calculator solution: $6,646.58 Machine C PVn = PMT x (PVIFA12%,5 yrs.) PVn = $ 30,000 x 3.605 PVn = $ 108,150 NPV = PVn - Initial investment NPV = $ 108,150 - $ 100,500 NPV = $ 7,650 Calculator solution: $ 7,643.29 Rank 1 2 3 Project C B A (Note that A is not acceptable and could be rejected without any additional analysis.) 18 Chapter 10 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting b. Annualized NPV (ANPVj) = NPVj PVIFAk%, nj Machine A: ANPV = - $ 42,668 4.111 (12%,6 years) ANPV = - $ 10,378 Machine B: ANPV = $ 6,670 3.037 (12%,4 years) ANPV = $ 2,196 Machine C ANPV = $ 7,650 3.605 (12%,5 years) ANPV = $ 2,122 Rank 1 2 3 c. Project B C A Machine B should be acquired since it offers the highest ANPV. Not considering the difference in project lives resulted in a different ranking based in part on C's NPV calculations. 10-12 LG 5: Unequal LivesANPV Approach a. Project X Year 1 2 3 4 CF PVIF14%,n $ 17,000 25,000 33,000 41,000 .877 .769 .675 .592 PV $ 14,909 19,225 22,275 24,272 $ 80,681 NPV = $80,681 - $78,000 NPV = $2,681 Calculator solution: $2,698.32 19 Part 3 Long-Term Investment Decisions Project Y Year 1 2 CF PVIF14%,n $ 28,000 38,000 .877 .769 $ 24,556 29,222 $ 53,778 NPV = $53,778 - $52,000 NPV = $1,778 Calculator solution: $1,801.17 Project Z PVn = PMT x (PVIFA14%,8 yrs.) PVn = $15,000 x 4.639 PVn = $69,585 NPV = PVn - Initial investment NPV = $69,585 - $66,000 NPV = $3,585 Calculator solution: $3,582.96 Rank 1 2 3 b. Project Z X Y Annualized NPV (ANPVj) = NPVj PVIFAk%, nj Project X ANPV = $2,681 2.914 (14%,4 yrs.) ANPV = $920.04 Project Y ANPV = $1,778 1.647 (14%,2 yrs.) ANPV = $1,079.54 Project Z ANPV = $3,585 4.639 (14%, 8 yrs.) ANPV = $772.80 Rank 1 2 3 PV Project Y X Z 20 Chapter 10 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting c. Project Y should be accepted. The results in a and b show the difference in NPV when differing lives are considered. 10-13 LG 5: Unequal LivesANPV Approach a. Sell Year CF PVIF12%,n 1 2 $ 200,000 250,000 .893 .797 PV $ 178,600 199,250 $ 377,850 NPV = $377,850 - $200,000 NPV = $177,850 Calculator solution: $177,786.90 License Year 1 2 3 4 5 CF $ 250,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 PVIF12%,n .893 .797 .712 .636 .567 PV $ 223,250 79,700 56,960 38,160 22,680 $ 420,750 NPV = $420,750 - $200,000 NPV = $220,750 Calculator solution: $220,704.25 Manufacture Year CF 1 2 3 4 5 6 $ 200,000 250,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 PVIF12%,n .893 .797 .712 .636 .567 .507 $ 178,600 199,250 142,400 127,200 113,400 101,400 $ 862,250 NPV = $862,250 - $450,000 NPV = $412,250 Calculator solution: $412,141.16 Rank 1 2 PV Alternative Manufacture License 21 Part 3 Long-Term Investment Decisions 3 b. Sell Annualized NPV (ANPVj) = NPVj PVIFAk%, nj Sell License ANPV = $177,850 1.690 (12%,2yrs.) ANPV = $220,750 3.605 (12%,5yrs.) ANPV = $105,236.69 ANPV = $61,234.40 Manufacture ANPV = $412,250 4.111 (12%,6 yrs.) ANPV = $100,279.74 Rank 1 2 3 c. Alternative Sell Manufacture License Comparing projects of unequal lives gives an advantage to those projects that generate cash flows over the longer period. ANPV adjusts for the differences in the length of the projects and allows selection of the optimal project. 10-14 LG 6: Real Options and the Strategic NPV a. Value of real options = value of abandonment + value of expansion + value of delay Value of real options = (.25 x $1,200) + (.30 x $3,000) + (.10 x $10,000) Value of real options = $300 + $900 + $1,000 Value of real options = $2,200 NPVstrategic = NPVtraditional + Value of real options NPVstrategic = -1,700 + 2,200 = $500 b. Due to the added value from the options Rene should recommend acceptance of the capital expenditures for the equipment. c. In general this problem illustrates that by recognizing the value of real options a project that would otherwise be unacceptable (NPV traditional < 0) could be acceptable (NPVstrategic > 0). It is thus important that management identify and incorporate real options into the NPV process. 22 Chapter 10 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting 10-15 LG 6: Capital Rationing-IRR and NPV Approaches a. Rank by IRR Project F E G C B A D IRR 23% 22 20 19 18 17 16 Initial investment $ 2,500,000 800,000 1,200,000 Total Investment $ 2,500,000 3,300,000 4,500,000 Projects F, E, and G require a total investment of $4,500,000 and provide a total present value of $5,200,000, and therefore a net present value of $700,000. b. Rank by NPV (NPV = PV - Initial investment) Project F A C B D G E NPV $500,000 400,000 300,000 300,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Initial investment $2,500,000 5,000,000 2,000,000 800,000 1,500,000 1,200,000 800,000 Project A can be eliminated because, while it has an acceptable NPV, its initial investment exceeds the capital budget. Projects F and C require a total initial investment of $4,500,000 and provide a total present value of $5,300,000 and a net present value of $800,000. However, the best option is to choose Projects B, F, and G, which also use the entire capital budget and provide an NPV of $900,000. c. The internal rate of return approach uses the entire $4,500,000 capital budget but provides $200,000 less present value ($5,400,000 - $5,200,000) than the NPV approach. Since the NPV approach maximizes shareholder wealth, it is the superior method. d. The firm should implement Projects B, F, and G, as explained in part c. 23 Part 3 Long-Term Investment Decisions 10-16 LG 6: Capital Rationing-NPV Approach a. Project A B C D E F G PV $ 384,000 210,000 125,000 990,000 570,000 150,000 960,000 b. The optimal group of projects is Projects C, F, and G, resulting in a total net present value of $235,000. 24 Chapter 10 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting Chapter 10 Case Evaluating Cherone Equipment's Risky Plans for Increasing Its Production Capacity a. (1) Plan X Year 1 2 3 4 5 CF $ 470,000 610,000 950,000 970,000 1,500,000 PVIF12%,n .893 .797 .712 .636 .567 PV $ 419,710 486,170 676,400 616,920 850,500 $3,049,700 NPV = $3,049,700 - $2,700,000 NPV = $349,700 Calculator solution: $349,700 Plan Y Year 1 2 3 4 5 CF $ 380,000 700,000 800,000 600,000 1,200,000 PVIF12%,n .893 .797 .712 .636 .567 PV $ 339,340 557,900 569,600 381,600 680,400 $2,528,840 NPV = $2,528,840 - $2,100,000 NPV = $428,840 Calculator solution: $428,968.70 (2) Using a financial calculator the IRRs are: IRRX = 16.22% IRRY = 18.82% Both NPV and IRR favor selection of project Y. The NPV is larger by $79,140 ($428,840 - $349,700) and the IRR is 2.6% higher. 25 Part 3 Long-Term Investment Decisions b. Plan X Year 1 2 3 4 5 CF $ 470,000 610,000 950,000 970,000 1,500,000 PVIF13%,n .885 .783 .693 .613 .543 PV $ 415,950 477,630 658,350 594,610 814,500 $2,961,040 NPV = $2,961,040 - $2,700,000 NPV = $261,040 Calculator solution: $261,040 Plan Y Year 1 2 3 4 5 CF $ 380,000 700,000 800,000 600,000 1,200,000 PVIF15%,n .870 .756 .658 .572 .497 PV $ 330,600 529,200 526,400 343,200 596,400 $2,325,800 NPV = $2,325,800 - $2,100,000 NPV = $225,800 Calculator solution: $225,412.37 The RADR NPV favors selection of project X. Ranking Plan X Y c. d. NPV 2 1 IRR 2 1 RADRs 1 2 Both NPV and IRR achieved the same relative rankings. However, making risk adjustments through the RADRs caused the ranking to reverse from the non-risk adjusted results. The final choice would be to select Plan X since it ranks first using the risk-adjusted method. Plan X Value of real options = .25 x $100,000 = $25,000 NPVstrategic = NPVtraditional + Value of real options NPVstrategic = $261,040 + $25,000 = $286,040 26 Chapter 10 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting Plan Y Value of real options = .20 x $500,000 = $100,000 NPVstrategic = NPVtraditional + Value of real options NPVstrategic = $225,412 + $100,000 = $328,412 e. The addition of the value added by the existence of real options the ordering of the projects is reversed. Project Y is now favored over project X using the RADR NPV for the traditional NPV. f. Capital rationing could change the selection of the plan. Since Plan Y requires only $2,100,000 and Plan X requires $2,700,000, if the firm's capital budget was less than the amount needed to invest in project X, the firm would be forced to take Y to maximize shareholders' wealth subject to the budget constraint. 27 Part 3 Long-Term Investment Decisions INTEGRATIVE CASE 3 LASTING IMPRESSIONS COMPANY Integrative Case III involves a complete long-term investment decision. The Lasting Impressions Company is a commercial printer faced with a replacement decision in which two mutually exclusive projects have been proposed. The data for each press have been designed to result in conflicting rankings when considering the NPV and IRR decision techniques. The case tests the students' understanding of the techniques as well as the qualitative aspects of risk and return decision-making. a. (1) Calculation of initial investment for Lasting Impressions Company: Press A Press B Installed cost of new press = Cost of new press $830,000 $640,000 + Installation costs 40,000 20,000 Total cost-new press $870,000 $660,000 - After-tax proceeds-sale of old asset = Proceeds from sale of old press 420,000 420,000 + Tax on sale of old press* 121,600 121,600 Total proceeds-sale of old press (298,400) (298,400) + Change in net working capital" 90,400 0 Initial investment $662,000 $361,600 * Sale price - Book value Gain x Tax rate (40%) $420,000 116,000 $304,000 121,600 Book value = $ 400,000 = [(.20 +.32 +.19) x $400,000] = $116,000 **Cash Accounts receivable Inventory Increase in current assets Increase in current liabilities Increase in net working capital $ 25,400 120,000 (20,000) $125,400 ( 35,000) $ 90,400 28 Chapter 10 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting (2) Depreciation Press A Cost 1 $870,000 2 870,000 3 870,000 4 870,000 5 870,000 6 870,000 Rate .20 .32 .19 .12 .12 .05 Depreciation $ 174,000 278,400 165,300 104,400 104,400 43,500 $ 870,000 Press B 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cost $660,000 660,000 660,000 660,000 660,000 660,000 Rate .20 .32 .19 .12 .12 .05 Depreciation $132,000 211,200 125,400 79,200 79,200 33,000 $ 660,000 Existing Press 1 2 3 4 5 6., Cost $400,000 400,000 400,000 0 0 0 Rate .12 (Yr. 4) .12 (Yr. 5) .05 (Yr. 6) 0 0 0 Depreciation $ 48,000 48,000 20,000 0 0 0 $116,000 29 Part 3 Long-Term Investment Decisions Operating Cash Inflows Existing Earnings Before Press Depreciation Year and Taxes Depreciation 1 $ 120,000 $ 48,000 2 120,000 48,000 3 120,000 20,000 4 120,000 0 5 120,000 0 6 0 0 Earnings Before Taxes $ 72,000 72,000 100,000 120,000 120,000 0 Earnings After Taxes $ 43,200 43,200 60,000 72,000 72,000 0 Press A Earnings Before Depreciation Year and Taxes Depreciation 1 $ 250,000 $ 174,000 2 270,000 278,400 3 300,000 165,300 4 330,000 104,400 5 370,000 104,400 6 0 43,500 Earnings Before Taxes $ 76,000 - 8,400 134,700 225,600 265,600 - 43,500 Earnings After Taxes $ 45,600 - 5,040 80,820 135,360 159,360 - 26,100 Cash Flow $ 219,000 273,360 246,120 239,760 263,760 17,400 Old Incremental Cash Flow Cash Flow $ 91,200 $ 128,400 91,200 182,160 80,000 166,120 72,000 167,760 72,000 191,760 0 17,400 Press B Earnings Before Depreciation Year and Taxes Depreciation 1 $ 210,000 $ 132,000 2 210,000 211,200 3 210,000 125,400 4 210,000 79,200 5 210,000 79,200 6 0 33,000 Earnings Before Taxes $ 78,000 - 1,200 84,600 130,800 130,800 - 33,000 Earnings After Taxes $ 46,800 - 720 50,760 78,480 78,480 - 19,800 Cash Flow $ 178,800 210,480 176,160 157,680 157,680 13,200 Old Incremental Cash Flow Cash Flow $ 91,200 $ 87,600 91,200 119,280 80,000 96,160 72,000 85,680 72,000 85,680 0 13,200 30 Cash Flow $ 91,200 91,200 80,000 72,000 72,000 0 Chapter 10 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting (3) Terminal cash flow: Press A Press B After-tax proceeds-sale of new press = Proceeds on sale of new press $ 400,000 $ 330,000 Tax on sale of new press* (142,600) (118,800) Total proceeds-new press $257,400 $211,200 - After-tax proceeds-sale of old press = Proceeds on sale of old press (150,000) (150,000) + Tax on sale of old press** 60,000 60,000 Total proceeds-old press (90,000) (90,000) + Change in net working capital 90,400 0 Terminal cash flow $257,800 $121,200 * Press A Sale price $400,000 Less: Book value (Yr. 6) 43,500 Gain $356,500 Tax rate x.40 Tax $142,600 Press B Sale price Less: Book value (Yr. 6) Gain Tax rate Tax ** Sale price $150,000 Less: Book value (Yr. 6) 0 Gain $150,000 Tax rate x.40 Tax $ 60,000 Initial Investment Year 1 2 3 4 5* * Press A Press B $662,000 $361,600 Cash Inflows $128,400 $ 87,600 182,160 119,280 166,120 96,160 167,760 85,680 449,560 206,880 Year 5 Operating cash flow Terminal cash inflow Total Press A $191,760 257,800 $449,560 31 Press B $ 85,680 121,200 $206,880 $330,000 33,000 $297,000 x .40 $118,800 Part 3 Long-Term Investment Decisions b. Press A | 0 $128,400 | 1 $182,160 | 2 Cash Flows $166,120 $167,760 | | 3 4 End of Year $449,560 | 5 | 6 $119,280 | 2 Cash Flows $96,160 $85,680 | | 3 4 End of Year $206,880 | 5 | 6 Press B $87,600 | 1 | 0 c Relevant cash flow Cumulative Cash Flows Press A Press B $ 128,400 $ 87,600 310,560 206,880 476,680 303,040 644,440 388,720 1,094,000 595,600 Year 1 2 3 4 5 (2) Press A: Payback Payback 4 years + [(662,000 - 644,440) 191,760] = 4 + (17,560 191,760) = 4.09 years Press B: Payback Payback (1) 3 years + [(361,600 - 303,040) 85,680] = 3 + (58,560 85,680) = 3.68 years Press A: Year Cash Flow 1 2 3 4 5 $ 128,400 182,160 166,120 167,760 449,560 Net present value = $697,455 - $662,000 Net present value = $35,455 Calculator solution: $35,738.83 32 PVlF14%,t .877 .769 .675 .592 .519 PV $ 112,607 140,081 112,131 99,314 233,322 $ 697,455 Chapter 10 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting Press B: Year Cash Flow 1 2 3 4 5 PVlF14%,t $ 87,600 119,280 96,160 85,680 206,880 .877 .769 .675 .592 .519 PV $ 76,825 91,726 64,908 50,723 107,371 $391,553 Net present value = $391,553 - $361,600 Net present value = $29,953 Calculator solution: $30,105.89 (3) Internal rate of return: Press A:15.8% Press B:17.1% d. Net Present Value Profile 500000 450000 400000 Net Present Value ($) 350000 300000 NPV - A 250000 NPV - B 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Discount Rate (%) Data for Net Present Value Profile Discount rate Net Present Value Press A Press B 0% $ 432,000 $ 234,000 14% 35,455 29,953 33 16 18 Part 3 Long-Term Investment Decisions 15.8% 17.1% 0 - 0 When the cost of capital is below approximately 15 percent, Press A is preferred over Press B, while at costs greater than 15 percent, Press B is preferred. Since the firm's cost of capital is 14 percent, conflicting rankings exist. Press A has a higher value and is therefore preferred over Press B using NPV, whereas Press B's IRR of 17.1 percent causes it to be preferred over Press A, whose IRR is 15.8 percent using this measure. e. (1) (2) If the firm has unlimited funds, Press A is preferred. If the firm is subject to capital rationing, Press B may be preferred. f. The risk would need to be measured by a quantitative technique such as certainty equivalents or risk-adjusted discount rates. The resultant net present value could then be compared to Press B and a decision made. 34 ... View Full Document

End of Preview

Sign up now to access the rest of the document