# Misc 2 - We need to calculate the NPV of the two options go...

This preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

We need to calculate the NPV of the two options, go directly to market now, or utilize test marketing first. The NPV of going directly to market now is: NPV = CSuccess (Prob. of Success) + CFailure (Prob. of Failure) NPV = \$20,000,000(0.50) + \$5,000,000(0.50) NPV = \$12,500,000 Now we can calculate the NPV of test marketing first. Test marketing requires a \$2 million cash outlay. Choosing the test marketing option will also delay the launch of the product by one year. Thus, the expected payoff is delayed by one year and must be discounted back to year 0. NPV= C0 + {[CSuccess (Prob. of Success)] + [CFailure (Prob. of Failure)]} / (1 + R ) t NPV = –\$2,000,000 + {[\$20,000,000 (0.75)] + [\$5,000,000 (0.25)]} / 1.15 NPV = \$12,130,434.78 The company should go directly to market with the product since that option has the highest expected payoff. 7. We need to calculate the NPV of each option, and choose the option with the highest NPV. So, the NPV of going directly to market is: NPV = CSuccess (Prob. of Success) NPV = \$1,200,000 (0.50) NPV = \$600,000

This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document
This is a government to government process. Each party is equal. The procedures and protocols of First Nation processes must have equal standing to those of the government of Canada (BCTC Chief Commissioner, Miles Richardson). 19 In both of these statements, one can observe the reliance on the dialogical rationality of opposing parties to forge just agreements through fair and equal negotiations. The second statement, however, advises that the procedural basis of justice must be founded on equality — an equality that permits each party to incorporate their own cultural specificity into the process. This is what Tully (1995 and 2000) refers to when he stresses the importance of the parties entering the process as “equals.”20 Unfortunately, although each of the parties prior to entering the B.C. Treaty Process played a role on the B.C. Claims Task Force, and therefore had a hand in designing the process, this equality of condition has not been a clear principle of treaty-making to date in B.C. Instead, the parties begin negotiations with a terrible disparity in resources and power, which limits the ability of First Nations to influence the process and to establish their own protocols. Ovide Mercredi, the former Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, offers a very bleak view of this disparity: “ wherever we are forced to get involved in these tables we are forced to assimilate. Tables are not about culture. First Nations are forced to assimilate every step of the way .”21
The belief that “good faith” negotiations can provide access to just settlements is confronted by the obstacles standing in the way of approximating what Habermas refers to as the “ideal speech situation.”22 Interactions within the ideal speech situation ideally assist the parties in seeking consensus on normative issues, but these interactions must be based on principles of fairness, equality and uncoerced discussion (Baert, 1998). In effect, parties are required

This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

## This note was uploaded on 02/26/2012 for the course MBA IT DOM1 taught by Professor Kviswanathan during the Spring '12 term at Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai.

### Page1 / 7

Misc 2 - We need to calculate the NPV of the two options go...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document
Ask a homework question - tutors are online