Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Chapter 12
Capital budgeting: process by which organization evaluates and selects long-term investment projects
Ex. Investments in capital equipment, purchase or lease of buildings, purchase or lease of vehicles, etc.
Payback
Small businesses use this method because it is simple Requires calculation of number of years required to pay back original investment Payback-based decisions:
Between two mutually exclusive investment projects, choose project with shortest payback period Set a predetermined standard
Ex. Accept all projects with payback of less than 5 years and reject all others
Payback
Poor method on which to rely for allocation of scarce capital resources because:
1. 2. Payback ignores time value of money Payback ignores expected cash flows beyond payback period. PROJECT A
Cost = $100,000 Expected Future Cash Flow: Year 1 $50,000 Year 2 $50,000 Year 3 $110,000 Year 4 and thereafter: None Total = $210,000 Payback = 2 years
Ex.:
PROJECT B
Cost = $100,000 Expected Future Cash Flow: Year 1 $100,000 Year 2 $5,000 Year 3 $5,000 Year 4 and thereafter: None Total = $110,000 Payback = 1 year
-Payback period for Project B is shorter, but Project A provides higher return -Project A is superior to Project B.
Project A is superior to Project B because PVBa > PVCa and PVBb < PVCb Return on Project B is insufficient to justify investment given firms cost of capital.
Profitability Index
Also benefit/cost ratio Calculated as ratio of present value of benefits of investment to cost of investment
PI = NPV(benefits)/NPV(costs)
General rule: All projects with PI > 1.0 should be accepted. Between two or more mutually exclusive projects having different costs, choose project with highest profitability index.
Profitability Index
Investment decisions based on profitability index will be same as decisions made using net present value. All projects having positive net present value have profitability index larger than 1.0 and therefore are acceptable.
Selection of Method
All 3 methods (net present value, internal rate of return, profitability index) result in same accept-reject decision for given investment opportunity. There are three important circumstances under which methods may yield conflicting decisions.
Selection of Method
1. Choosing from among mutually exclusive investment projects with similar costs, but radically differing time patterns of cash inflows. Ex. One project provides large cash flows in early years and small cash flows in later years compared with another project providing small cash flows in early years but large cash flows in later years.
Project having highest net present value and profitability may have lowest internal rate of return.
Selection of Method
1. (continued)
Choice of method depends on which assumption is closest to reality. Choice should be based on which reinvestment rate is closest to rate that firm will be able to earn on cash flows generated by project.
If cash flows can be reinvested at cost of capital, select project with higher net present value. If cash inflows can be reinvested at IRR of project, select project with higher IRR.
Selection of Method
1. (continued)
General rule: NPV method should be preferred if conflict arises because projects with very high IRRs relative to firms cost of capital are rare. In most cases, reinvestment rate will be closer to cost of capital than to IRR and thus, NPV method is normally preferred to IRR method.
Selection of Method
2. Choosing from among mutually exclusive projects with widely differing costs.
If project with highest NPV has lowest PI and IRR, in general, give preference to project with highest NPV since this will maximize value of firm. If project with highest PI and IRR is substantially less expensive than competing project, former is selected because lower-cost project may be perceived as less risky than higher-cost project.
Selection of Method
3. Capital rationing where insufficient capital is available to accept all projects having positive NPVs.
Rank-order projects from highest IRR to lowest and select projects that firm has sufficient capital to accept.
Case Study
Droppitt Parcel Company is considering purchasing new equipment to replace existing equipment that has book value of zero and market value of $15,000. New equipment costs $90,000 and is expected to provide production savings and increased profits of $20,000 per year for the next 10 years. New equipment has expected useful life of 10 years, after which its estimated salvage value would be $10,000. Straight-line depreciation
Effective tax rate: 34% Cost of capital: 12%
Case Study
See Exhibit 12.4 1. Effective cost of new equipment: $80,100
Droppits trades its old equipment in for new equipment by selling it and applying sale proceeds to new equipment.
Case Study
2. Calculate present value of expected benefits of new equipment.
All benefits have been converted to after-tax basis before present values are calculated. Profit increase is multiplied by 0.66 (1.00 tax rate) to determine increased profit remaining after tax. Calculate tax benefit resulting from effect of depreciation by multiplying annual depreciation deduction by effective tax rate. Reflects salvage value of new equipment at end of its expected useful life. No tax effect here because there is no profit or loss involved.
Case Study
3. NPV: $13,068 4. IRR (solved by trial and error using electronic calculator): 15.7% New machine should be purchased to replace old machine since NPV is positive and IRR exceeds cost of capital.