Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
11 - 2
Analysis of potential projects. Long-term decisions; involve large expenditures. Very important to firms future.
11 - 3
Estimate cash flows (inflows & outflows). Assess risk of cash flows. Determine r = WACC for project. Evaluate cash flows.
11 - 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.
11 - 5
The number of years required to recover a projects cost, or how long does it take to get the businesss money back?
11 - 6
2.4
3 80 50
60 100 -30 0
= 2.375 years
11 - 7
1.6 2
3 20 40
70 100 50 -30 0 20
11 - 8
Strengths of Payback: 1. Provides an indication of a projects risk and liquidity. 2. Easy to calculate and understand. Weaknesses of Payback: 1. Ignores the TVM. 2. Ignores CFs occurring after the payback period.
11 - 9
11 - 10
CFt NPV ! . t 1 t !0 r
Cost often is CF0 and is negative.
CFt NPV ! CF0 . t 1 t !1 r
n
11 - 11
NPVS = $19.98.
11 - 12
Calculator Solution Enter in CFLO for L: -100 10 60 80 10 CF0 CF1 CF2 CF3 I NPV = 18.78 = NPVL
11 - 13
Rationale for the NPV Method NPV = PV inflows - Cost = Net gain in wealth. Accept project if NPV > 0. Choose between mutually exclusive projects on basis of higher NPV. Adds most value.
11 - 14
If Franchise S and L are mutually exclusive, accept S because NPVs > NPVL . If S & L are independent, accept both; NPV > 0.
11 - 15
IRR is the discount rate that forces PV inflows = cost. This is the same as forcing NPV = 0.
11 - 16
t!0
CF t ! NPV . t 1 r
11 - 17
1 10
2 60
3 80
Enter CFs in CFLO, then press IRR: IRRL = 18.13%. IRRS = 23.56%.
11 - 18
1 40
2 40
-100
PV
3 40
40
PMT
0
FV
9.70%
11 - 19
If IRR > WACC, then the projects rate of return is greater than its cost-- some return is left over to boost stockholders returns. Example: WACC = 10%, IRR = 15%. Profitable.
11 - 20
If S and L are independent, accept both. IRRs > r = 10%. If S and L are mutually exclusive, accept S because IRRS > IRRL .
11 - 21
Construct NPV Profiles Enter CFs in CFLO and find NPVL and NPVS at different discount rates:
r 0 5 10 15 20 NPVL 50 33 19 7 (4) NPVS 40 29 20 12 5
11 - 22
NPV ($)
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 -10 5 10 15 20 23.6
NPVL 50 33 19 7 (4)
NPVS 40 29 20 12 5
IRRS = 23.6%
11 - 23
NPV and IRR always lead to the same accept/reject decision for independent projects:
NPV ($) IRR > r and NPV > 0 Accept. r > IRR and NPV < 0. Reject.
r (%) IRR
11 - 24
r < 8.7: NPVL> NPVS , IRRS > IRRL CONFLICT r > 8.7: NPVS> NPVL , IRRS > IRRL NO CONFLICT
IRRS
8.7
%
IRRL
11 - 25
11 - 26
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 r favors small projects. 2. Timing differences. Project with faster payback provides more CF in early years for reinvestment. If r is high, early CF especially good, NPVS > NPVL.
11 - 27
NPV assumes reinvest at r (opportunity cost of capital). IRR assumes reinvest at IRR. Reinvest at opportunity cost, r, is more realistic, so NPV method is best. NPV should be used to choose between mutually exclusive projects.
11 - 28
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 projects 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.
11 - 29
1 10.0
10% MIRR = 16.5%
2 60.0
10%
-100.0 PV outflows
11 - 30
To find TV with 10B, enter in CFLO: CF0 = 0, CF1 = 10, CF2 = 60, CF3 = 80 I = 10 NPV = 118.78 = PV of inflows. Enter PV = -118.78, N = 3, I = 10, PMT = 0. Press FV = 158.10 = FV of inflows. Enter FV = 158.10, PV = -100, PMT = 0, N = 3. Press I = 16.50% = MIRR.
11 - 31
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.
11 - 32
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.
11 - 33
11 - 34
0 -800
r = 10%
1 5,000
2 -5,000
Enter CFs in CFLO, enter I = 10. NPV = -386.78 IRR = ERROR. Why?
11 - 35
We got IRR = ERROR because there are 2 IRRs. Nonnormal CFs--two sign changes. Heres a picture:
NPV
NPV Profile
IRR2 = 400%
11 - 36
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.
11 - 37
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
11 - 38
When there are nonnormal CFs and more than one IRR, use MIRR:
0 -800,000 1 5,000,000 2 -5,000,000
11 - 39
Accept Project P?
NO. Reject because MIRR = 5.6% < r = 10%. Also, if MIRR < r, NPV will be negative: NPV = -$386,777.
11 - 40
S and L are mutually exclusive and will be repeated. r = 10%. Which is better? (000s) 0 1 2 60 33.5 33.5 33.5 3 4
11 - 41
NPVL > NPVS. But is L better? Cant say yet. Need to perform common life analysis.
11 - 42
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.
11 - 43
2 60 (100) (40)
60 60
60 60
NPV = $7,547.
11 - 44
11 - 45
If the cost to repeat S in two years rises to $105,000, which is best? (000s) 0 1 2 3 4
Franchise S: (100) 60
60 (105) (45)
60
60
11 - 46
Consider another project with a 3-year life. If terminated prior to Year 3, the machinery will have positive salvage value. Year 0 1 2 3 CF ($5,000) 2,100 2,000 1,750 Salvage Value $5,000 3,100 2,000 0
11 - 47
1. No termination
0 (5)
2 2 4
3 1.75
11 - 48
Assuming a 10% cost of capital, what is the projects optimal, or economic life?
11 - 49
Conclusions
The project is acceptable only if operated for 2 years. A projects engineering life does not always equal its economic life.
11 - 50
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:
11 - 51
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...)
11 - 52
If external funds will be raised, then the NPV of all projects should be estimated using this higher marginal cost of capital.
11 - 53
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...)
11 - 54
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...)
11 - 55
Reason: Companies dont 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...)
11 - 56
Reason: Companies believe that the projects 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.