Sie sind auf Seite 1von 59

13 - 1

CHAPTER 13
The Basics of Capital Budgeting:
Evaluating Cash Flows
Should we
build this
plant?

Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.


13 - 2

What is capital budgeting?

 Analysis of potential additions to


fixed assets.
 Long-term decisions; involve large
expenditures.
 Very important to firm’s future.

Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.


13 - 3

Steps

1. Estimate CFs (inflows & outflows).


2. Assess riskiness of CFs.
3. Determine k = WACC for project.
4. Find NPV and/or IRR.
5. Accept if NPV > 0 and/or IRR >
WACC.
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 4
What is the difference between
independent and mutually exclusive
projects?

Projects are:
independent, if the cash flows of
one are unaffected by the
acceptance of the other.
mutually exclusive, if the cash
flows of one can be adversely
impacted by the acceptance of the
other.
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 5

An Example of Mutually Exclusive


Projects

BRIDGE vs. BOAT to get


products across a river.
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 6
Normal Cash Flow Project:
Cost (negative CF) followed by a
series of positive cash inflows.
One change of signs.

Nonnormal Cash Flow Project:


Two or more changes of signs.
Most common: Cost (negative
CF), then string of positive CFs,
then cost to close project.
Nuclear power plant, strip mine.
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 7

Inflow (+) or Outflow (-) in Year

0 1 2 3 4 5 N NN
- + + + + + N
- + + + + - NN
- - - + + + N
+ + + - - - N
- + + - + - NN

Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.


13 - 8

What is the payback period?

The number of years required to


recover a project’s cost,

or how long does it take to get the


business’s money back?

Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.


13 - 9

Payback for Project L


(Long: Most CFs in out years)

0 1 2 2.4 3

CFt -100 10 60 100 80


Cumulative -100 -90 -30 0 50

PaybackL = 2 + 30/80 = 2.375 years

Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.


13 - 10

Project S (Short: CFs come quickly)

0 1 1.6 2 3

CFt -100 70 100 50 20

Cumulative -100 -30 0 20 40

PaybackS = 1 + 30/50 = 1.6 years

Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.


13 - 11
Strengths of Payback:
1. Provides an indication of a
project’s risk and liquidity.
2. Easy to calculate and understand.

Weaknesses of Payback:
1. Ignores the TVM.
2. Ignores CFs occurring after the
payback period.
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 12

Discounted Payback: Uses discounted


rather than raw CFs.
0 1 2 3
10%

CFt -100 10 60 80
PVCFt -100 9.09 49.59 60.11
Cumulative -100 -90.91 -41.32 18.79
Discounted
payback = 2 + 41.32/60.11 = 2.7 yrs

Recover invest. + cap. costs in 2.7 yrs.


Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 13

NPV: Sum of the PVs of inflows and


outflows.
CFt
n
NPV = ∑ .
t = 0 (1 + k )
t

Cost often is CF0 and is negative.


n
CFt
NPV = ∑ − CF0 .
t =1 (1+ k) t

Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.


13 - 14

What’s Project L’s NPV?

Project L:
0 1 2 3
10%

-100.00 10 60 80

9.09
49.59
60.11
18.79 = NPVL NPVS = $19.98.
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 15

Calculator Solution

Enter in CFLO for L:


-100 CF0

10 CF1

60 CF2

80 CF3

10 I NPV = 18.78 = NPVL


Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 16

Rationale for the NPV Method

NPV = PV inflows - Cost


= Net gain in wealth.

Accept project if NPV > 0.

Choose between mutually


exclusive projects on basis of
higher NPV. Adds most value.
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 17

Using NPV method, which project(s)


should be accepted?

 If Projects S and L are mutually


exclusive, accept S because
NPVs > NPVL .
 If S & L are independent,
accept both; NPV > 0.

Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.


13 - 18

Internal Rate of Return: IRR

0 1 2 3

CF0 CF1 CF2 CF3


Cost Inflows

IRR is the discount rate that forces


PV inflows = cost. This is the same
as forcing NPV = 0.
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 19

NPV: Enter k, solve for NPV.


n CFt
∑ = NPV.
t = 0 (1 + k )
t

IRR: Enter NPV = 0, solve for IRR.


n CFt
∑ t = 0.
t = 0 (1 + IRR)

Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.


13 - 20

What’s Project L’s IRR?

0 1 2 3
IRR = ?

-100.00 10 60 80
PV1
PV2
PV3
0 = NPV
Enter CFs in CFLO, then press IRR:
IRRL = 18.13%. IRRS = 23.56%.
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 21
Find IRR if CFs are constant:
0 1 2 3
IRR = ?

-100 40 40 40

INPUTS 3 -100 40 0
N I/YR PV PMT FV
OUTPUT 9.70%

Or, with CFLO, enter CFs and press


IRR = 9.70%.
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 22
Q. How is a project’s IRR
related to a bond’s YTM?
A. They are the same thing.
A bond’s YTM is the IRR
if you invest in the bond.

0 1 2 10
IRR = ? ...
-1,134.2 90 90 1,090

IRR = 7.08% (use TVM or CFLO).


Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 23

Rationale for the IRR Method

If IRR > WACC, then the project’s


rate of return is greater than its
cost-- some return is left over to
boost stockholders’ returns.

Example: WACC = 10%, IRR = 15%.


Profitable.

Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.


13 - 24

IRR Acceptance Criteria

 If IRR > k, accept project.

 If IRR < k, reject project.

Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.


13 - 25

Decisions on Projects S and L per IRR

 If S and L are independent, accept


both. IRRs > k = 10%.
 If S and L are mutually exclusive,
accept S because IRRS > IRRL .

Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.


13 - 26

Construct NPV Profiles

Enter CFs in CFLO and find NPVL and


NPVS at different discount rates:
k NPVL NPVS
0 50 40
5 33 29
10 19 20
15 7 12
20 (4) 5
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 27
NPV ($)
k NPVL NPVS
60
0 50 40
50 5 33 29
40
Crossover 10 19 20
Point = 8.7% 7 12
15
30
20 (4) 5
20
S
IRRS = 23.6%
10 L
0 Discount Rate (%)
0 5 10 15 20 23.6
-10
IRRL = 18.1%

Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.


13 - 28
NPV and IRR always lead to the same
accept/reject decision for independent
projects:
NPV ($)
IRR > k k > IRR
and NPV > 0 and NPV < 0.
Accept. Reject.

k (%)
IRR
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 29

Mutually Exclusive Projects

NPV k < 8.7: NPVL> NPVS , IRRS > IRRL


CONFLICT
L k > 8.7: NPVS> NPVL , IRRS > IRRL
NO CONFLICT

S IRRS

k 8.7 k %
IRRL
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 30

To Find the Crossover Rate

1. Find cash flow differences between the


projects. See data at beginning of the
case.
2. Enter these differences in CFLO register,
then press IRR. Crossover rate = 8.68%,
rounded to 8.7%.
3. Can subtract S from L or vice versa, but
better to have first CF negative.
4. If profiles don’t cross, one project
dominates the other.
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 31

Two Reasons NPV Profiles Cross

1. Size (scale) differences. Smaller


project frees up funds at t = 0 for
investment. The higher the opportunity
cost, the more valuable these funds, so
high k favors small projects.
2. Timing differences. Project with faster
payback provides more CF in early
years for reinvestment. If k is high,
early CF especially good, NPVS > NPVL.
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 32

Reinvestment Rate Assumptions

 NPV assumes reinvest at k


(opportunity cost of capital).
 IRR assumes reinvest at IRR.
 Reinvest at opportunity cost, k, is
more realistic, so NPV method is
best. NPV should be used to choose
between mutually exclusive projects.
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 33

Managers like rates--prefer IRR to NPV


comparisons. Can we give them a
better IRR?
Yes, MIRR is the discount rate which
causes the PV of a project’s terminal
value (TV) to equal the PV of costs.
TV is found by compounding inflows
at WACC.

Thus, MIRR assumes cash inflows are


reinvested at WACC.
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 34

MIRR for Project L (k = 10%)


0 1 2 3
10%

-100.0 10.0 60.0 80.0


10%
66.0
10%
12.1
MIRR = 16.5%
158.1
-100.0 $158.1 TV inflows
$100 =
(1+MIRRL)3
PV outflows
MIRRL = 16.5%
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 35
To find TV with 10B, enter in CFLO:

CF0 = 0, CF1 = 10, CF2 = 60, CF3 = 80


I=
10 = 118.78 = PV of inflows.
NPV
Enter PV = -118.78, N = 3, I = 10, PMT =
0.
Press FV == 158.10,
Enter FV 158.10 =PV
FV= of inflows.
-100, PMT = 0,
N = 3.
Press I = 16.50% = MIRR.
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 36

Why use MIRR versus IRR?

MIRR correctly assumes reinvestment


at opportunity cost = WACC. MIRR
also avoids the problem of multiple
IRRs.
Managers like rate of return
comparisons, and MIRR is better for
this than IRR.

Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.


13 - 37

Pavilion Project: NPV and IRR?

0 1 2
k = 10%

-800 5,000 -5,000

Enter CFs in CFLO, enter I = 10.


NPV = -386.78
IRR = ERROR. Why?
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 38
We got IRR = ERROR because there
are 2 IRRs. Nonnormal CFs--two sign
changes. Here’s a picture:

NPV NPV Profile

IRR2 = 400%
450
0 k
100 400
IRR1 = 25%
-800
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 39

Logic of Multiple IRRs

1. At very low discount rates, the PV of


CF2 is large & negative, so NPV < 0.
2. At very high discount rates, the PV of
both CF1 and CF2 are low, so CF0
dominates and again NPV < 0.
3. In between, the discount rate hits CF2
harder than CF1, so NPV > 0.
4. Result: 2 IRRs.
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 40
Could find IRR with calculator:
1. Enter CFs as before.
2. Enter a “guess” as to IRR by
storing the guess. Try 10%:
10 STO
IRR = 25% = lower IRR
Now guess large IRR, say, 200:
200 STO
IRR = 400% = upper IRR
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 41

When there are nonnormal CFs and


more than one IRR, use MIRR:

0 1 2

-800,000 5,000,000 -5,000,000

PV outflows @ 10% = -4,932,231.40.


TV inflows @ 10% = 5,500,000.00.
MIRR = 5.6%
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 42

Accept Project P?

NO. Reject because MIRR =


5.6% < k = 10%.

Also, if MIRR < k, NPV will be


negative: NPV = -$386,777.

Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.


13 - 43

S and L are mutually exclusive and


will be repeated. k = 10%. Which is
better? (000s)

0 1 2 3 4

Project S:
(100) 60 60
Project L:
(100) 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5

Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.


13 - 44

S L
CF0 -100,000 -100,000
CF1 60,000 33,500
Nj 2 4
I 10 10

NPV 4,132 6,190


NPVL > NPVS. But is L better?
Can’t say yet. Need to perform
common life analysis.
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 45

 Note that Project S could be


repeated after 2 years to generate
additional profits.
 Can use either replacement chain
or equivalent annual annuity
analysis to make decision.

Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.


13 - 46

Replacement Chain Approach (000s)

Project S with Replication:


0 1 2 3 4

Project S:
(100) 60 60
(100) 60 60
(100) 60 (40) 60 60

NPV = $7,547.
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 47

Or, use NPVs:

0 1 2 3 4

4,132 4,132
3,415 10%
7,547

Compare to Project L NPV = $6,190.


Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 48

If the cost to repeat S in two years


rises to $105,000, which is best? (000s)

0 1 2 3 4

Project S:
(100) 60 60
(105) 60 60
(45)
NPVS = $3,415 < NPVL = $6,190.
Now choose L.
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 49

Consider another project with a 3-year


life. If terminated prior to Year 3, the
machinery will have positive salvage
value.

Year CF Salvage Value


0 ($5,000) $5,000
1 2,100 3,100
2 2,000 2,000
3 1,750 0

Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.


13 - 50

CFs Under Each Alternative (000s)

0 1 2 3
1. No termination (5) 2.1 2 1.75
2. Terminate 2 years (5) 2.1 4
3. Terminate 1 year (5) 5.2

Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.


13 - 51

Assuming a 10% cost of capital, what is


the project’s optimal, or economic life?

NPV(no) = -$123.
NPV(2) = $215.
NPV(1) = -$273.

Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.


13 - 52

Conclusions

 The project is acceptable only if


operated for 2 years.
 A project’s engineering life does not
always equal its economic life.

Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.


13 - 53

Choosing the Optimal Capital Budget

 Finance theory says to accept all


positive NPV projects.
 Two problems can occur when there
is not enough internally generated
cash to fund all positive NPV projects:
An increasing marginal cost of
capital.
Capital rationing
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 54

Increasing Marginal Cost of Capital

 Externally raised capital can have


large flotation costs, which increase
the cost of capital.
 Investors often perceive large capital
budgets as being risky, which drives
up the cost of capital.
(More...)
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 55

 If external funds will be raised, then


the NPV of all projects should be
estimated using this higher marginal
cost of capital.

Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.


13 - 56

Capital Rationing

 Capital rationing occurs when a


company chooses not to fund all
positive NPV projects.
 The company typically sets an
upper limit on the total amount
of capital expenditures that it will
make in the upcoming year.
(More...)

Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.


13 - 57

Reason: Companies want to avoid the


direct costs (i.e., flotation costs) and
the indirect costs of issuing new
capital.
Solution: Increase the cost of capital
by enough to reflect all of these costs,
and then accept all projects that still
have a positive NPV with the higher
cost of capital.
(More...)
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 58

Reason: Companies don’t have


enough managerial, marketing, or
engineering staff to implement all
positive NPV projects.

Solution: Use linear programming to


maximize NPV subject to not
exceeding the constraints on staffing.
(More...)
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.
13 - 59

Reason: Companies believe that the


project’s managers forecast
unreasonably high cash flow estimates,
so companies “filter” out the worst
projects by limiting the total amount of
projects that can be accepted.
Solution: Implement a post-audit
process and tie the managers’
compensation to the subsequent
performance of the project.
Copyright © 2002 Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen