Date post: | 04-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | sudeep-bir-tuladhar |
View: | 220 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 41
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
1/41
Erget Printing and Publishing PressCase: Capital Budgeting
Corporate Financial Decision
Submitted to:
Prof. Dr. Radhe S. Pradhan, Ph.D.
Ace Institute of Management
New Baneshwor
Submitted by:
Sachindra Pradhanga
Sagar Nath Upadhyaya
Serish Dhital
Sudeep Bir Tuladhar
Sushil Bajimaya
Chandika Amgain
EMBA, Fall 2011
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
2/41
Contents
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Projects ........................................................................................................................................ 1
Project A: Major Plant Expansion .......................................................................................... 1
Project B: Alternative Plan for Plant Expansion..................................................................... 1
Project C: Purchase of New Press ........................................................................................... 2
Project D: Upgrade of Egrets Video Text Service ................................................................ 2
Question 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Payback, NPV, IRR Determination ........................................................................................ 3
Project Ranking ....................................................................................................................... 3
Project Selection ..................................................................................................................... 4
Appropriate Discount Rate ..................................................................................................... 4
Question 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Calculation of Equivalent Annual Annuity (EAA) for each project ....................................... 8
Question 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 10
Question 4 ..................................................................................................................................... 13
Question 5 ..................................................................................................................................... 20
Question 6 ..................................................................................................................................... 22
Question 7 ..................................................................................................................................... 24
Question 8 ..................................................................................................................................... 27
Question 9 ..................................................................................................................................... 29
Question 10 ................................................................................................................................... 31
Annex ............................................................................................................................................ 32
Calculation of Payback Period .................................................................................................. 32
Project A ............................................................................................................................... 32
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
3/41
Project B................................................................................................................................ 32
Project C................................................................................................................................ 32
Project D ............................................................................................................................... 33
Discounted Payback Period for Project A ............................................................................ 33
Project B................................................................................................................................ 34
Project D ............................................................................................................................... 35
Net Present Value ..................................................................................................................... 36
IRR (Internal Rate of Return) ................................................................................................... 36
Project B................................................................................................................................ 36
Project C................................................................................................................................ 37
Project D ............................................................................................................................... 37
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
4/41
Background
Egret Printing and Publishing Company is a family owned speciality printing business founded
by John and Keith Belford in 1956 after they were retired from the US Army. Patrick Hill, Keith
Belfords son in law, joined the firm in 1979 in the Accounting Department and was promoted as
a treasurer in 1988 and then as the Vice-President of Finance in 1994. Hill has the responsibility
for both external and internal financial operations, but mostly it is internal. John and Keith
Belford were reluctant about long term debt financing their business because they were aware of
the difficulties their father faced during the Great Depression. However, Hill doesnt agree with
this philosophy and feels that all equity capital structure is conservative.
The term capital budgeting refers to the process of decision making by which firms evaluate the
purchase of major fixed assets, including building, machineries, and equipment. Capital
budgeting describes the firms formal planning process for the acquisition and investment of
capital and results in capital budget that is the firms formal plan for the expenditure of money to
purchase new fixed asset for expansion or replacement of business.
Hill is presently occupied with detailed analysis of four major capital investment proposals that
the Belfords have identified as possible candidates for funding in the coming year. A description
of each of the four projects is also given that includes information such as the costs and expected
after-tax cash flows (net income plus depreciation). The four projects are considered to be
equally risky and their risk is about the same as that of the companys other assets.
Projects
Project A: Major Plant Expansion
This project is designed to alleviate the capacity problem by constructing a new wing on the
main plant. This additional space would allow to hold a greater variety of paper stock in
inventory and to reposition its various processes for a more efficient work flow.
Project B: Alternative Plan for Plant Expansion
This project is an alternative of project A. It can be installed much more quickly and will allow
Egret to take several major printing jobs in the next few years.
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
5/41
Project C: Purchase of New Press
This is a dependence project on A or B. So, the existence of this project will not affect the future
cash flow for project A or B. It is basically for covering the extra market of high quality color
calendar demanders.
Project D: Upgrade of Egrets Video Text Service
This is independent project toward video test service in which the firm has made investment
since 1991 and because the number of existing as well as new subscribers has fallen, it is
inherent to invest in this project.
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
6/41
Question 1
Determine the Payback, net present value and the internal rate of return for each project,
using both 15 and 21 percent discount rates; rank the investment proposals considering the
capital budget of $ 1.5 million. Which projects should the company choose and why? (Note:Projects A and B are mutually exclusive).Payback, NPV, IRR Determination
Payback period, Net Present Value and Internal rate of return for all four projects are as follows:
Projects PP DPP@15% DPP@21% NPV@15%($) NPV@21%($) IRR
A 3.148675 3.530375 3.755012 166,167.40 70,720.60 26.62227
B 1.481481 1.857931 2.1122 159,447.70 100,534.00 34.99251
C 3.0959 1.881595 2.068357 625,400.60 309,409.7 29.94826
D 2.8571 3.980313 4.678977 141,480.00 12,032.50 22.10892
Project Ranking
Rank NPV@15%
1 C
2 A
3 B
4 D
For detailed calculations, please refer the annex.
The projects are ranked on the basis of their NPV values. NPV is for ranking the projects
because of the following reasons:
It takes into account all cash flows. All cash flows are discounted at the appropriate market-determined opportunity cost of
capital.
NPV of a project is exactly the same as the increase in shareholders wealth as can beseen from below:
Pay off all interest payments to creditors.
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
7/41
Pay off all expected returns to shareholders. Pay off the original investment.
Project Selection
Project Combination Required Investment NPV@15% Rank NPV@ 21% Rank
A and C 1,500,000 $791,568.00 1 $380,130.3 2
B and C 1,500,000 $784.848.3 2 $409,943.7 1
C and D 1,500,000 $766.880.6 3 $321,442.2 3
A and D 1,000,000 $307.647.4 4 $82,753.1 5
B and D 1,000,000 $300.927.7 5 $112,566.5 4
If the discount rate is 15%, then the company should choose the combination of projects A and
C. If the discount rate is 21%, then company should choose the combination of projects B and C.
The NPV of combination give highest value compared to others. The combination C and D is not
feasible because project C cannot be implemented if both projects A and B are rejected.
Appropriate Discount Rate
Since the net present value at 15% discount rate is higher than that of 21%, 15% is more
appropriate percentage for discounting.
Comparison of Different Projects
Payback period, discounted payback period, net present values and internal rates of return for all
of the projects are compared with each other in the following graphs.
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
8/41
Figure 1: Comparison of NPV of different projects
Figure 2: Comparison of payback period
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
9/41
Figure 3: Comparison of IRR of all the projects
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
IRR
Project A
Project B
Project C
Project D
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
10/41
Question 2
Do you find anything wrong in choosing the projects based on payback, NPV and IRR as
stated above? What suggestions can be made to the company? How should the projects
with unequal lives be dealt with? Determine the equivalent annual annuity (EAA) for eachproject and based on the calculations, which projects should Egret Printing and Publishing
Company accept for the coming year and why?
Payback Period is the number of years required to recover the initial capital expenditure on a
project. Payback period is also the ratio of Original Investment to Annual cash flow having
condition, if cash are equal or even. Since payback period is easy to calculate it is being widely
used. But it has some limitations like: It does not consider time value of money; it is not capable
to measure profitability, Ignores cash flows occurring after the payback period. Due to some of
these limitations the firm cannot fully rely on this method only for choosing among the projects.
Net Present Value (NPV) requires finding the present value of the expected net cash flows of an
investment, discounted at the cost of capital, and subtracting from it the initial cost outlay of the
project. NPV is considered feasible only if the firm knows the cost of capital or discounted
factor, which may not be the current cost existing in the market. NPV is a useful starting point to
value investments, but certainly not a definitive answer that an investor can rely on for all
investment decisions.
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is the interest rate that equates the present value of the expected
future cash flows, or receipts, to the initial cost outlay. If IRR is greater than cost of capital we
accept the project else we reject it. The main drawback of IRR is, it is difficult to understand as
there may be two experimental rates because of unequal present value of cash inflow with
present value of cash outflow; it is not helpful for comparing two mutually exclusive investments
and comparing two projects.
Project choice based on Payback, NPV and IRR are not always consistent. They may give
different indications about the projects financial characteristics. Moreover the decision on
different age of projects cant be sufficed by calculating NPV without taking consideration of
project life. The reason for this potential problem is the timing of the cash flows of the mutually
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
11/41
exclusive projects. As a result, there is a need to adjust for the timing issue in order to correct
this problem.
Project with unequal lives can be dealt with two methods they are:
1. Replacement-chain method: In this approach the projects under the evaluation are madeby making the lives of the project common or equal lives.
2. Equivalent annual annuity: in this approach the constant annual annuity is calculated forthe projects that has the same NPV as that calculated in the projects.
The company can be suggested to calculate the Equivalent Annual Annuity (EAA) by
eliminating the effect of the life of the project. EAA will give the average annual return that each
project will provide. So comparing the same annual return is realistic. The project having the
highest EAA should be chosen as higher EAA is associated with higher NPV. But we should
equally take care on whether the given annual return can be replicated by short life projects in
the same way.
Calculation of Equivalent Annual Annuity (EAA) for each project
Project Years NPV@15%PMT=
NPV/PVIFA15%,4years
NPV @ 21%
PMT=NPV/PVIFA21%, 4years
A 4 164,577.60 57,645.39 71,043.60 27,969.92
B 4 156,038.00 54,654.29 100,488.00 39,562.20
C 10 621,137.00 122,006.87 310,088.00 76,489.39
D 5 86,775.00 25,887.53 2,225.00 4,178.06
Particulars Project A Project B Project C Project D
EAA @15% 57645.39 54654.29 122006.87 25887.53
EAA @21% 27969.92 39562.2 76489.39 4178.06
mailto:NPV@15%25mailto:NPV@15%25mailto:NPV@15%257/29/2019 EPPP Report-
12/41
ProjectCombination
EAA @ 15% Rank EAA at 21% Rank
A and C $179,652.26 1 $104,459.31 2
B and C $176,661.16 2 $116,051.59 1C and D $147,894.40 3 $80,667.45 3
A and D $83,532.92 4 $32,147.98 5
B and D $80,541.82 5 $43,740.26 4
Hence from the above calculation we can conclude that: at 15% A and Cs combination is the
best and at 21% B and Cs combination is the best as both combination has highest EAA
achieved.
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
13/41
Question 3
Draw the graph of NPV versus discount rate for projects A and B (a present value profile)
using, in part, your answers for the IRR and NPV in Question 1. Also determine the
crossover rate by following the computational procedure. Which Project appears to besuperior? Why?
Calculation for the Graph
Project A
ProjectA
PVIF@0%
PV@ 0%
PVIF@
10%PV
@ 10%
PVIF@
20%PV
@ 20%PVIF
@ 30%PV
@30%
PVIF@
40%PV40
-500,000 1 -500,000 1 -500,000 1 -500,000 1 -500,000 1 -500
136,000 1 136,000 0.909 123,624 0.833 113,288 0.769 104,584 0.714 97,1
136,000 1 136,000 0.826 112,336 0.694 94,384 0.592 80,512 0.51 69,3
136,000 1 136,000 0.751 102,136 0.579 78,744 0.455 61,880 0.364 49,5
618,800 1 618,800 0.683 422,640.4 0.482 298,261.6 0.35 216,580 0.26 160
526,800 260,736.4 84677.6 -36,444 -123
Project B
ProjectB
PVIF@0%
PV @0%
PVIF@
10%PV @10%
PVIF@
20%PV @20%
PVIF@
30%PV
@30%
PVIF@
40%PV40
-500,000 1 -500,000 1 -500,000 1 -500,000 1 -500,000 1 -50
370,000 1 370,000 0.909 336,330 0.833 308,210 0.769 284,530 0.714 26
270,000 1 270,000 0.826 223,020 0.694 187,380 0.592 159,840 0.51 13
155,000 1 155,000 0.751 116,405 0.579 89,745 0.455 70,525 0.364 5
49,000 1 49,000 0.683 33,467 0.482 23,618 0.35 17,150 0.26 1
344,000 209,222 108,953 32,045 -2
Calculation of Crossover rate
Year project A(CF)
Project B(CF)
Diff.(CF)
PVIF@16%
PV PVIF@17%
PV
0 -500000 -500000 0 1 0 1 0
1 136000 370000 234000 -0.862 -201708 0.8547 -199999.8
2 136000 270000 -134000 0.7431 -99575.4 0.7305 -97887
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
14/41
3 136000 155000 -19000 0.6407 -12173.3 0.6243 -11861.7
4 618800 49000 569800 0.5523 314700.54
0.5336 304045.28
1243.84 -5703.22
The crossover chart shows the crossover rate is 16.17 %. It means both the project have same
NPV i.e. 144320 at this rate. Strictly from quantitative view, below the crossover rate, Project A
is better whereas above the crossover rate, Project B is better in terms of NPV. The relative
stability of NPV of project B over project A may be added factor that will provide us qualitative
reason to choose project B at some rate below crossover rate. Not only this, Project B is
relatively stable. It is because the significant portion of cash inflow of project B occurs at the
beginning years whereas the highest cash flow of project A occurs at the end of year 4. Therefore
the fluctuation on WACC will also have less impact on the Project B whereas project A is highly
sensitive. IRR also supports project B but IRR is not a sole determinant in the decision to select
project B and it is NPV that matters most.
In this case, Project B is our obvious choice because the required rate is 21 % which is above
crossover rate where NPV is higher for project B than project A. The conflict only arises in
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
15/41
choosing project if the required rate drops below crossover rate. In that case we may choose
project A if there is certainty that the required rate will not cross the crossover rate significantly
during the project life. Otherwise project B is best.
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
16/41
Question 4
Now suppose that Hill made a mistake in the projected cash flows for Project D they
should have been $195,000 per year. Determine the effect of this change would have on
capital budgeting. Would this situation bear on the decision about the mutually exclusiveprojects? Explain.
Project D
After correction in Cash Flows
a) Ordinary Payback PeriodCash Flows Cumulative Cash Flows
Original Investment -500,000 -500,000
Year 1 195,000 -305,000
Year 2 195,000 -110,000
Year 3 195,000 85,000
Year 4 195,000 200,000
Year 5 195,000 375,000
Payback Period = (500,000/195,000)
= 2.56 years
b) Discounted Payback PeriodProject D @ 15% discount rate:
Year Cash Flows PVIF@15% PV Cumulative CFs
0 -500,000 1 -500,000 -500,000
1 195,000 0.87 169,650 -330,350
2 195,000 0.756 147,420 -182,930
3 195,000 0.658 128,310 -54,620
4 195,000 0.572 111,540 56,9205 195,000 0.497 96,915 153,835
NPV 153,835
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
17/41
Discounted Payback Period = 3 + (54,620/111,540)
= 3.48 years
Project D @ 21% discount rate:
Year Cash Flows PVIF@21% PV Cumulative CFs
0 -500,000 1 -500,000 -500,000
1 195,000 0.826 161,070 -338,930
2 195,000 0.683 133,185 -205,745
3 195,000 0.565 110,175 -95,570
4 195,000 0.467 91,065 -4,505
5 195,000 0.386 75,270 70,765NPV 70,765
Discounted Payback Period = 4 + (4,505/75,270)
= 4.05 years
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
18/41
c) IRR
Year CFs PVIF @ 27% PV Cumulative CFs
0 -500,000 1 -500,000 -500,000
1 195,000 0.787 153,465 -346,5352 195,000 0.62 120,900 -225,635
3 195,000 0.488 95,160 -130,475
4 195,000 0.384 74,880 -55,595
5 195,000 0.303 59,085 3,490
NPV 3,490
Year CFs PVIF @ 28% PV Cumulative CFs
0 -500,000 1 -500,000 -500,000
1 195,000 0.781 152,295 -347,7052 195,000 0.61 118,950 -228,755
3 195,000 0.477 93,015 -135,740
4 195,000 0.373 72,735 -63,005
5 195,000 0.291 56,745 -6,260
NPV -6,260
IRR = Lower Rate + {NPV of LR / (NPV of LR - NPV of HR)}* (HRLR)
= 27% + {3,490/ (3,490+6260)}* (28-27)
= 27% + 0.36 = 27.36
Changes on Project D, after correction in cash flows
Criterion
Project D (cashflow of Rs.175,000
each year)
Project D (cash flowof Rs. 195,000 each
year) Changes ResultOrdinaryPaybackperiod 2.86 2.56 0.3
Decrease inpayback period
NPV @ 15 % 86,775 153,835 -67,060.00
Increase in NPVNPV @ 21% 12,225 70,765 -58,540.00
IRR 22.11 27.36 -5.25 Increase in IRRDiscountedpayback period
@ 15%4.02 3.48 0.54
Decrease indiscounted paybackDiscounted
payback period@ 21%
4.82 4.05 0.77
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
19/41
Comparison of Different Projects
Year Project A Project B Project C Project D
0 -500,000.00 -500000 -1,000,000.00 -500,000.00
1 136,000.00 370000 323,000.00 195,000.002 136,000.00 270000 323,000.00 195,000.00
3 136,000.00 155000 323,000.00 195,000.00
4 618,800.00 49000 323,000.00 195,000.00
5 323,000.00 195,000.00
6 323,000.00
7 323,000.00
8 323,000.00
9 323,000.00
10 323,000.00NPV @ 15% $164,577.60 $156,038 $621,137 $153,835
NPV @ 21% $71,043.60 $100,488 $310,088 $70,765
IRR 26.61% 35.02% 29.94% 27.36%
Payback period 3.15 years 1.48 years 3.1 years 2.56 years
Discounted paybackperiod @ 15% 3.54 years 1.87 years 4.48 years 3.48 years
Discounted paybackperiod @ 21% 3.75 years 2.11 years 5.53 years 4.05 years
Above calculation shows that NPV of Project D increased from $86,775 to $153,835 when
the annual cash flow changed from $175,000 to $195,000 when the discount rate is 15%. When
the discount rate is 21%, the NPV of this project increased from $12,050 to $70,570. Similarly,
the IRR of the project has also increased from 22.16% to 27.46%. With the changed cash flow of
Project D, the payback periods at both discounting rates of 15% and 21% have also decreased
slightly.
The calculation of NPV, IRR and payback periods all imply that Project D is feasible. However,
due to the constraints of the capital budget, the selection of Project D cannot be considered since
Project A and Project C has been recommended which adds up to the available budget of $1.5
million. In order to select Project D, the company would have to acquire a long-term debt of
$500,000. The new debt of $500,000 for Project D, however, would not make any difference to
the mutually exclusive projects.
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
20/41
Changes on Project D, after correction in class flows
Comparison of Payback Period (years), IRR (%) and Discounted payback period at different
rates of Project D, after changes in Cash Flows
Comparison of NPV at different rates of Project D, after changes in Cash Flows
-
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
Payback IRR Discounted
payback period
@ 15%
Discounted
payback period
@ 21%
Project D (cash flow of
Rs.175,000 each year)
Project D (cash flow of Rs.
195,000 each year)
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
NPV @ 15 % NPV @ 21%
Project D (cash flow of
Rs.175,000 each year)
Project D (cash flow of Rs.
195,000 each year)
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
21/41
Comparison of Different Projects(after change in Cash Flows of Project D)
Comparison of NPV at different rates of all the projects, before and after changes in Cash Flows
of Project D
Comparison of IRR of all the projects, before and after changes in Cash Flows of Project D
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
NPV @ 15% NPV @ 21%
Project A
Project B
Project C
Project D (Rs. 195,000)
Project D (Rs. 175,000)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
IRR
Project A
Project B
Project C
Project D (Rs. 195,000)
Project D (Rs. 175,000)
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
22/41
Comparison of Different Projects(after change in Cash Flows of Project D)
Comparison of Payback period and discounted payback period at different rates of all the
projects, before and after changes in Cash Flows of Project D
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Payback period Discounted paybackperiod @ 15%
Discounted paybackperiod @ 21%
Project A
Project B
Project C
Project D (Rs. 195,000)
Project D (Rs. 175,000)
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
23/41
Question 5
Assuming that the return on Project A is representative of the investment opportunitities
generally found on the printing industry, would it be reasonable for Hill to claim that
project B will generate a return of approximately 35 percent over its four year life?Explain in terms of available reinvestment rates.
We Know that the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is the discounting factor that makes the NPV of
the project zero. In this case the IRR of project A is approximately 27%. Since project As IRR is
equal to reinvestment rate, reinvestment rate would be 27% as well. Similarly, the IRR of project
B is 35%. Hence the representative of investment opportunities for printing industry is only 27%
which is much lower than 35% it would not be reasonable to claim that Project B will generate a
return of approximately 35% over four year life.
Calculation of MIRR:
For Project B
Year Cash Inflows FVIF @ 27% FV of Inflows
1 $370,000.00 2.0483 $757,871.00
2 $270,000.00 1.6129 $435,483.00
3 $155,000.00 1.27 $196,850.00
4 $49,000.00 1 $49,000.00
Terminal Value of Cash Inflows $1,439,204.00
MIRR is calculated to determine the rate at which the present value of a projects outflow equals
the terminal value of the projects inflows. Trying at 35% and 25%, we get
PVIF @35%
PV @ 35% PVIF @ 25% PV@ 25%
Present Value of
Terminal Cash Inflow
$1,439,204 0.3011 $433,344.32 0.4096 $589,497.96
Present Value ofOutflow
$500,000 1 $500,000 1 $500,000
NPV ($66,655.68) $89,497.96
MIRR= 25% + 89,497.96/ (89497.96+66,655.68) * (35-25)
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
24/41
= 30.73%
As we can see in the above calculation, MIRR of the project B is 30.73% at reinvestment rate of
around 27%. Therefore, it can be concluded that for reinvestment of around 27%, project B will
generate return around 30.73%
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
25/41
Question 6
If Hill is confident that he will be a ble to generate more and better projects in the years to
come, but relatively doubtful that he will be able to persuade the Belford brothers to
employ debt financing, how might this influence his recommendation. Could there ever bea situaltion in which project D is advisable? Explain.
Egret Printing and Publishing Company has stuck to an extremely conservative approach of
capital structure by adapting all equity capital. The cost of equity capital is 15% for the capital
budget of $1.5 million. The company is reluctant to modify its financing style due to some bad
experience in the past. But the company should be open to change if the facts and figures are in
favour. So if debt financing generates higher returns then the company should be open to it as
well.
Patrick Hill has done his homework. He has discussed with the bank about debt financing and
has got an assurance of $500,000 at the rate of 12%. From the discussions with Belfords, Hill has
come to a conclusion that their opportunity cost on outside investments is 21%. Funds over and
above the $1.5million that will be generated internally are available, but the marginal cost of this
extra capital is 21% rather than 15% cost of internal funds. Though Belford brothers have
resisted the attempts to convince them to use debt, they are always willing to listen to new
arguments on the subject.
If Belford Brothers are convinced to opt for a debt financing of $500,000 then the total capital of
the company will increase from $1.5million to $2million.
Then the new capital structure will be:
Type of capital Amount ($) Weight After tax cost WeightedCost
Long term debt 500,000 0.25 6.48% 1.62%
Preferred stock 0 0 0 0
Common equity 1,500,000 0.75 15% 11.25%
Weighted average cost of capital 12.87%
Calculation of kdt:
Interest rate of debt (kd) = 12%
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
26/41
After tax cost of debt (kdt) = kd*(1-tax rate) = 12*(1-0.46) = 6.48%
Where,
Weight of debt = 500,000 /2,000,000 =0.25
Weight of equity= 1500,000 /2,000,000= 0.75
This shows that the weighted average cost of capital has decreased from 15% to 12.87%. Also
the increase in capital will allow the company to undertake an additional project. Projects A and
Project B are purposed as alternatives and we have recommended one of them so the next option
is project D with a total investment of $500,000. So project D is advisable in this scenario.
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
27/41
Question 7
If the Belfords agree to Hills proposal to use a modest amount of debt to finance the
projects this year, what would be its implication on the present capital structure and the
cost of capital? In terms of the future returns to the Belfords families, what would be theimpactfrom using this debt financing or what would be the extra value addition in the
present values of the selected projects? (Revise your computations using a new discount
rate and conclude about the projects to be chosen.)
If Belfords agree to Hills proposal to use debt financing, they will use $500,000 debt at 12%
interest rate. So, the company has now, $ 2 million to invest in the projects and can choose three
projects. From the investment of 2,000,000 we can select three projects, we can choose either (A,
C & D) or (B, C & D) since Project A and Project B are presented as alternatives in the case.
Calculation of the new cost of capital with their respective financial source weights is already
shown in the previous section. This gave the weighted average cost of capital to be 12.87%.
Now,
Yr.PVIF
@12.87Cash
Flow(A)Cash
Flow(B)Cash
Flow(C)Cash
Flow(D) PV(A) PV(B) PV(C) PV(D)
0 1 -500,000-
500,000 -1,000,000 -500,000 -500,000 -500,000 -1,000,000 -500,0
1 0.886 136,000 370,000 323,000 175,000 120,496 327,810.756 286,169.93 155,045.6
2 0.785 136,000 270,000 323,000 175,000 106,760 211,936.967 253,539.408 137,366.5
3 0.695 136,000 155,000 323,000 175,000 945,74.4 107,794.381 224,629.581 121,703.3
4 0.616 618,800 49,000 323,000 175,000 381,242.68 301,91.3116 199,016.197 107,826.1
5 0.546 323,000 175,000 176,323.378 955,31.24
6 0.484 323,000 156,218.107
7 0.428 323,000 138,405.34
8 0.38 323,000 122,623.673
9 0.336 323,000 108,641.511
10 0.298 323,000 96,253.6643
TPV of Inflows 703,073.08 677,733.415 1,761,820 617,472.8
NPV 203,073.08 177,733.415 761,820.79 117,472.8
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
28/41
Net present value of project A, C & D = NPV of Projects (A + C +D)
= $(203,073.08+ 761,820.79+ 117,472.868)
=$ 1,082,366.738
Net present value of project B, C & D = NPV of Projects (B + C +D)
= $(177733.415+ 761820.79+ 117472.868)
=$ 1,057,027.073
Profitability Index of Projects:
Discount rateCombination
of ProjectsInitial
Investment NPV PV of InflowProfitability
Index(PI)
12.87% A, C & D 2 million 1,082,366.74 3,082,366.74 1.54
12.87% B, C & D 2 million 1,057,027.07 3,057,027.07 1.52
From this table we can select projects A, C and D when the company takes the debt financing
with 12.87% cost of capital. When 15% cost of capital was taken as discounting factor, the
combined NPV of project A& C reveals higher value. So, this was selected as the best
combination. Also, there was internal financing through retained earnings and excluded external
financing through debt.
With all Equity financing at 15% cost of Capital:
Net present value of project A & C = NPV of Projects (A + C)
= $(166,167.40+625,400.60)
=$791,568.00
The impact of using this debt financing is shown by the extra value addition in present values of
selected project:
Particulars Amount
Net present value of selected projects after inclusion of debt in capital structure $1,082,366.74
Less: Net present value of selected projects before inclusion of debt in capitalstructure.
$791,568
Extra value additional due to use of debt financing $290,798.74
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
29/41
This shows that when debt financing is used the company can yield more NPV as debt financing
helps to leverage the capital structure. Debt financing is relatively cheaper financing method as
the company can utilize capital with lower rate. Therefore, instead of using the combination of
projects A & C, the combination of A, C & D should be selected considering the profitability
index which is calculated on the basis of NPV and Total PV of inflows.
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
30/41
Question 8
Assuming that the $1.5 million of internal funds available to finance new investment is
after paying a dividend of $300,000 and represents an average addition to retained
earnings, do you consider the use of $500,000 of debt to increase the risk to the Belfords byvery much? Explain by considering times interest earned ratio.
Calculation of Net Profit:
Particulars Amount
Dividend 300,000
Retained Earning 1,500,000Net Profit 1,800,000
Calculation of EBIT:
Particulars Amount
EBIT 3,393,333.33
Less: Interest 60,000
EBT 3,333,333.33
Less: Tax @ 46% 1,533,333.33
Net Profit 1,800,000
Thus it is seen that the internal funds of $1.5 million after paying a dividend of $300,000 will
yield interest earned ration of 56.55 with use of $500,000 of debt. This represents a very healthy
ratio. The reason behind this high interest earned ratio is low amount of debt capital used by the
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
31/41
company and only a small portion of EBIT will be required to pay the interest expense. Hence it
is clear that the use of $500,000 of debt will not increase the risk to the Belfords very much.
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
32/41
Question 9
The case stated that Project C would be feasible unless either Project A or Project B was
also accepted. What is the implication of this statement on the current capital budgeting
analysis? Do you think that the way Project C is handled earlier in the case valid? Why orwhy not?
As mentioned in the case, projects A and B are mutually exclusive so that either of this project
can be chosen at one particular time whereas project C cannot be feasible unless projects A or B
is accepted. Basically projects A and B are related to alleviating capacity problem by expansion
of the plant where as project C is related to purchase of new printing equipment and press. Once
the new equipment and press is bought, it will require additional space to function. So project A
and B provides the basis required for project C to be implemented. Therefore the feasibility of
project C is very much dependent on acceptance of either project A or project B.
Moreover, project C does not have any side effect on viability and profitability of project A and
project B. Hence, project A and B are independent upon C whereas project C is dependent on
either of them.
Another implication is that a project combination of C and D could never be used. Although a
project combination of C and D requires $1,500,000, however, for C to be implemented, further
$500,000 needs to be invested in either Project A or B. This would take the total investment to
$2 million which requires debt and the firm is not in a position to use the debt capital.
The way project C is handled is not very logical we already know that project C is dependent on
acceptance of project A or B. It will be very convenient and logical if we can take dependent
projects as a single alternative and deal as a joint project like projects A & C and projects B& C
should have been treated as single projects. Hence the number of options to rank should have
been 5 and they are: project A, project B, project A&C, project B&C and project D. The cash
flow and project outlay of the joint projects also should have been combined. Due to its
dependency, project C has reduced the alternatives. It has made the combination of project C and
project D as unfeasible alternative.
Moreover, the ranking of the projects also has been affected by the dependency of project C. Had
there not been any dependent project among the alternatives, all the projects could have been
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
33/41
ranked solely based on their merits. However, in our case we are compelled to consider
dependency condition first and then only other ranking parameters which will not lead us to the
optimum result. So dependent projects should be treated as single projects as explained above.
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
34/41
Question 10
Do you think that the quantitative measures alone are important in capital budgeting
evaluation? What qualitative factors could also be important in capital budgeting
evaluation?
The main objective of any firm is to increase the shareholders wealth and maximize the profits
for the firm. With the quantitative measures of capital budgeting evaluation, the firm tries to
evaluate additional wealth each projects would generate if undertaken. Basically, quantitative
measures only assist on managerial decision by providing the facts and figures for manager to
prove their decisions to be rational. However, for complete evaluation of capital budgeting,
qualitative measures are equally important.
Some of the important qualitative factors in capital budgeting evaluation are as follows:
First of all, the reliability of figures like cash flows, cost of capital etc which help toevaluate quantitative measures should be ascertained.If these figures are authentic then
only the quantitative measures can be trusted upon.
The vision of judgement of future also plays an important role as factors like marketpotential, possibility of technology change, trend of government policies etc considerably
affect capital budgeting process. The opportunities and constraints of selecting a project, evaluation of qualitative and
quantitative factors, and the weightage on every bit of pros and cons, cost-benefit
analysis are also important in capital budgeting evaluation process.
The effect of capital budgeting on employee moral also has to be considered asemployees are the person who will make the projects successful. Ordering new office
furniture, for example, may not have an immediate, quantifiable payback for the
corporation, but it can boost employee morale and result in greater productivity. Risk associated in all the projects also have to be studied properly and if these risks are
considered then only the outcome capital budgeting process can be reliable.
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
35/41
Annex
Calculation of Payback Period
Project A
Cash Flows Cumulative Cash Flows
Original Investment -500,000 -500,000
Year 1 136,000 -364,000
Year 2 136,000 -228,000
Year 3 136,000 -92,000
Year 4 618,800 526,800
Payback Period = 3 + (92,000/618,000)
= 3.1486 years
Project B
Cash Flows Cumulative Cash Flows
Original Investment -500,000 -500,000
Year 1 370,000 -130,000
Year 2 270,000 140,000
Year 3 155,000 295,000
Year 4 49,000 344,000
Payback Period = 1 + (130,000/270,000)
= 1.4814 years
Project C
Cash Flows Cumulative Cash Flows
Original Investment -1,000,000 -1,000,000
Year 1 323,000 -677,000
Year 2 323,000 -354,000Year 3 323,000 -31,000
Year 4 323,000 292,000
Year 5 323,000 615,000
Year 6 323,000 938,000
Year 7 323,000 1,261,000
Year 8 323,000 1,584,000
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
36/41
Year 9 323,000 1,907,000
Year 10 323,000 2,230,000
Payback Period = 3+(1,000,000/323,000)
= 3.0959 years
Project D
Cash Flows Cumulative Cash Flows
Original Investment -500,000 -500,000
Year 1 175,000 -325,000
Year 2 175,000 -150,000
Year 3 175,000 25,000
Year 4 175,000 200,000
Year 5 175,000 375,000
Payback Period = 2+(500,000/175,000)= 2.86 years
Discounted Payback Period for Project A
At 15 % discount rate
Year Cash Flows PVIF@15% PV Cumulative CFs
0 -500,000 1 -500000 -500000
1 136,000 0.8696 118265.6 -381734.4
2 136,000 0.7695 104652 -277082.4
3 136,000 0.6575 89420 -187662.4
4 618,800 0.5718 353829.84 166167.44
Discounted Payback Period = 3 + (187662.4/353829.84)
= 3.53 years
At 21 % discount rate
Year Cash Flows PVIF@21% PV Cumulative CFs0 -500,000 1 -500000 -500000
1 136,000 0.8264 112390.4 -387609.6
2 136,000 0.683 92888 -294721.6
3 136,000 0.5645 76772 -217949.6
4 618,800 0.4665 288670.2 70720.6
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
37/41
Discounted Payback Period = 3 + (217949.6/288670.2)
= 3.76 years
Project B
At 15 % discount rate
Year Cash Flows PVIF@15% PV Cumulative CFs
0 -500,000 1 -500000 -500000
1 370,000 0.8696 321752 -178248
2 270,000 0.7695 207765 29517
3 155,000 0.6575 101912.5 131429.5
4 49,000 0.5718 28018.2 159447.7
Discounted Payback Period = 1 + (178248/207765)
= 1.86 years
At 21% discount rate
Year Cash Flows PVIF@21% PV Cumulative CFs
0 -500,000 1 -500000 -500000
1 370,000 0.8264 305768 -194232
2 270,000 0.683 184410 -9822
3 155,000 0.5645 87497.5 77675.5
4 49,000 0.4665 22858.5 100534
Discounted Payback Period = 2 + (9822/87497.5) = 2.11 years
Project C @ 15 % discount rate
Year Cash Flows PVIF@15% PV Cumulative CFs
0 -1,000,000 1 -1000000 -500000
1 323,000 0.8696 280880.8 -219119.2
2 323,000 0.7695 248548.5 29429.3
3 323,000 0.6575 212372.5 241801.8
4 323,000 0.5718 184691.4 426493.2
5 323,000 0.4972 160595.6 587088.8
6 323,000 0.4323 139632.9 726721.7
7 323,000 0.3759 121415.7 848137.4
8 323,000 0.3269 105588.7 953726.1
9 323,000 0.2843 91828.9 1045555
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
38/41
10 323,000 0.2472 79845.6 1125400.6
Discounted Payback Period = 1 + (219119.2/248548.5) = 1.88 years
Project C @ 21 % discount rate
Year Cash Flows PVIF@21% PV Cumulative CFs
0 -1,000,000 1 -1000000 -500000
1 323,000 0.8264 266927.2 -233072.8
2 323,000 0.683 220609 -12463.8
3 323,000 0.5645 182333.5 169869.7
4 323,000 0.4665 150679.5 320549.2
5 323,000 0.3855 124516.5 445065.7
6 323,000 0.3186 102907.8 547973.5
7 323,000 0.2633 85045.9 633019.4
8 323,000 0.2176 70284.8 703304.2
9 323,000 0.1799 58107.7 761411.9
10 323,000 0.1486 47997.8 809409.7
Discounted Payback Period = 2 + (12463.8/182333.5)
= 2.07 years
Project D
At 15 % discount rate
Year Cash Flows PVIF@15% PV Cumulative CFs
0 -500,000 1 -500000 -500000
1 175,000 0.8696 152180 -347820
2 175,000 0.7695 134662.5 -213157.5
3 175,000 0.6575 115062.5 -98095
4 175,000 0.5718 100065 1970
5 175,000 0.7972 139510 141480
Discounted Payback Period = 3 + (98095/100065)
= 3.98 years
At 21% discount rate
Year Cash Flows PVIF@21% PV Cumulative CFs
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
39/41
0 -500,000 1 -500000 -500000
1 175,000 0.8264 144620 -355380
2 175,000 0.683 119525 -235855
3 175,000 0.5645 98787.5 -137067.5
4 175,000 0.4665 81637.5 -55430
5 175,000 0.3855 67462.5 12032.5
Discounted Payback Period = 4 + (55430/67462.5)
= 4.68 years
Net Present Value
From above calculation of Discounted Payback Period we can determine the Net Present Value:
Project 15% discount rate 21% discount rate
A 166167.44 70720.6
B 159447.7 100534
C 625400.6 309409.7
D 141480 12032.5
IRR (Internal Rate of Return)
Project A
Year CFs PVIF @ 26% PV PVIF @ 27% PV
0 -500,000 1 -500000 1 -500000
1 136,000 0.7937 107943.2 0.7874 107086.4
2 136,000 0.6299 85666.4 0.62 84320
3 136,000 0.4999 67986.4 0.4882 66395.2
4 618,800 0.3968 245539.84 0.3844 237866.72
NPV 7135.84 -4331.68
IRR = Lower Rate + NPV of LR / NPV of LR - NPV of HR (HRLR)
= 26 + (7135.84/ 7135.84+4331.68) (1)
= 26.62%
Project B
Year CFs PVIF @ 34% PV PVIF @ 35% PV
0 -500,000 1 -500000 1 -500000
1 370,000 0.7463 276131 0.7407 274059
2 270,000 0.5569 150363 0.5487 148149
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
40/41
3 155,000 0.4156 64418 0.4064 62992
4 49,000 0.3102 15199.8 0.3011 14753.9
NPV 6111.8 -46.1
IRR = Lower Rate + NPV of LR / NPV of LR - NPV of HR (HRLR)= 34 + (6111.8/ 6111.8+46.1) (1)
= 34.99%
Project C
Year CFs PVIF @ 29% PV PVIF @ 30% PV
0 -1,000,000 1 -1000000 1 -1000000
1 323,000 0.7752 250389.6 0.7692 248451.6
2 323,000 0.6009 194090.7 0.5917 191119.1
3 323,000 0.4658 150453.4 0.4552 147029.64 323,000 0.3611 116635.3 0.3501 113082.3
5 323,000 0.2799 90407.7 0.2693 86983.9
6 323,000 0.217 70091 0.2072 66925.6
7 323,000 0.1682 54328.6 0.1594 51486.2
8 323,000 0.1304 42119.2 0.1226 39599.8
9 323,000 0.1011 32655.3 0.0943 30458.9
10 323,000 0.0784 25323.2 0.0725 23417.5
NPV 26494 -1445.5
IRR = Lower Rate + NPV of LR / NPV of LR - NPV of HR (HRLR)
= 29 + (26494/26494+1445.5) (1)
= 29.95%
Project D
Year CFs PVIF @ 22% PV PVIF @ 23% PV
0 -500,000 1 -500000 1 -500000
1 175,000 0.8197 143447.5 0.813 142275
2 175,000 0.6719 117582.5 0.661 115675
3 175,000 0.5507 96372.5 0.5374 94045
4 175,000 0.4514 78995 0.4369 76457.5
5 175,000 0.37 64750 0.3552 62160
NPV 1147.5 -9387.5
7/29/2019 EPPP Report-
41/41
IRR = Lower Rate + NPV of LR / NPV of LR - NPV of HR (HRLR
= 22 + (1147.5/ 1147.5+9387.5) (1)
= 22.11%