Chapter 10

Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting

Instructors Resources
Overview
Chapters 8 and 9 developed the major decision-making aspects of capital budgeting. Cash flows and budgeting models have been integrated and discussed in providing the principles of capital budgeting. However, there are more complex issues beyond those presented. Chapter 10 expands capital budgeting to consider risk with such methods as scenario analysis and simulation. Capital budgeting techniques used to evaluate international projects, as well as the special risks multinational companies face, are also presented. Additionally, two basic risk-adjustment techniques are examined: certainty equivalents and risk-adjusted discount rates. The chapter includes several examples regarding the application of risk-based refinements when capital budgeting in their professional and personal life.

Study Guide
There are no particular Study Guide examples suggested for classroom presentation.

Suggested Answer to Chapter Opening Critical Thinking Question

The State of Mississippi has considered legislation that would require State Farm to continue to issue new policies. How might that affect the premiums of current policyholders? The proposed legislation would almost certainly result in increased premiums for current and new policyholders in the absence of mandatory price controls. An insurance company will endeavor to pass on the increased risk in an uncertain environment to its policyholders. Unlike life insurance, in which policyholders can purchase certain policies that lock rates in for the duration of the policy, property and casualty policies must be renewed semiannually or annually, with opportunities for increased rates at each renewal.

Answers to Review Questions

1. There is usually a significant degree of uncertainty associated with capital budgeting projects. There is the usual business risk along with the fact that future cash flows are an estimate and do not represent exact values. The uncertainly of each project cash flow stream will be different and thus each project has its own unique risk. This uncertainty exists for both independent and mutually exclusive projects. The risk associated with any single project has the capability to change the entire risk of the firm. The firms assets are like a portfolio of assets. If an accepted capital budgeting project has a risk different from the average risk of the assets in the firm, it will cause a shift in the overall risk of the firm.

Chapter 10

Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting

249

2. Risk, in terms of cash inflows from a project, is the variability of expected cash flows, hence the expected returns, of the given project. The breakeven cash inflowthe level of cash inflow necessary in order for the project to be acceptablemay be compared with the probability of that inflow occurring. When comparing two projects with the same breakeven cash inflows, the project with the higher probability of occurrence is less risky. 3. a. Scenario analysis uses a number of possible inputs (cash inflows) to assess their impact on the firms net present value (NPV) return. Scenario analysis can be used to evaluate the impact on return of simultaneous changes in a number of variables, such as cash inflows, cash outflows, and the cost of capital, resulting from differing assumptions relative to economic and competitive conditions. In capital budgeting, the NPVs are frequently estimated for the pessimistic, most likely, and optimistic cash flow estimates. By subtracting the pessimistic outcome NPV from the optimistic outcome NPV, a range of NPVs can be determined. b. Simulation is a statistically based approach using random numbers to simulate various cash flows associated with the project, calculating the NPV or internal rate of return (IRR) on the basis of these cash flows, and then developing a probability distribution of each projects rate of returns based on NPV or IRR criterion. Multinational companies (MNCs) must consider the effect of exchange rate risk, the risk that the exchange rate between the dollar and the currency in which the projects cash flows are denominated will reduce the projects future cash flows. If the value of the dollar depreciates relative to that currency, the dollar value of the projects cash flows will increase as a result. Firms can use hedging to protect themselves against this risk in the short term; for the long term, financing the project using local currency can minimize this risk. Political risk, the risk that a foreign governments actions will adversely affect the project, makes international projects particularly risky, because it cannot be predicted in advance. To take this risk into account, managers should either adjust expected cash flows or use risk-adjusted discount rates when performing the capital budgeting analysis. Adjustment of cash flows is the preferred method. Tax laws differ from country to country. Because only after-tax cash flows are relevant for capital budgeting decisions, managers must account for all taxes paid to foreign governments and consider the effect of any foreign tax payments on the firms U.S. tax liability. Transfer pricing refers to the prices charged by a corporations subsidiaries for goods and services traded between them; the prices are not set by the open market. In terms of capital budgeting decisions, managers should be sure that transfer prices accurately reflect actual costs and incremental cash flows. MNCs cannot evaluate international capital projects from only a financial perspective. The strategic viewpoint often is the determining factor in deciding whether or not to undertake a project. In fact, a project that is less acceptable on a purely financial basis than another may be chosen for strategic reasons. Some reasons for MNC foreign investment include continued market access, the ability to compete with local companies, political and/or social reasons (for example, gaining favorable tax treatment in exchange for creating new jobs in a country), and achievement of a particular corporate objective such as obtaining a reliable source of raw materials.

4. a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

5. Risk-adjusted discount rates (RADRs) reflect the return that must be earned on a given project in order to adequately compensate the firms owners. The relationship between RADRs and the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) is a purely theoretical concept. The expression used to value the expected rate of return of a security ki (ki = RF + [b (km RF)]) is rewritten substituting an asset for a security. Because real corporate assets are not traded in efficient markets and estimation of a market return, km, for a portfolio of such assets would be difficult, the CAPM is not used for real assets.

250

Gitman Principles of Managerial Finance, Twelfth Edition

6. A firm whose stock is actively traded in security markets generally does not increase in value through diversification. Investors themselves can more efficiently diversify their portfolio by holding a variety of stocks. Since a firm is not rewarded for diversification, the risk of a capital budgeting project should be considered independently rather than in terms of their impact on the total portfolio of assets. In practice, management usually follows this approach and evaluates projects based on their total risk. 7. RADRs are most often used in practice for two reasons: (1) financial decision makers prefer using rate of return-based criteria, and (2) they are easy to estimate and apply. In practice, risk is subjectively categorized into classes, each having a RADR assigned to it. Each project is then subjectively placed in the appropriate risk class. 8. A comparison of NPVs of unequal-lived mutually exclusive projects is inappropriate because it may lead to an incorrect choice of projects. The annualized net present value (ANPV) converts the NPV of unequal-lived projects into an annual amount that can be used to select the best project. The expression used to calculate the ANPV follows:
ANPV = NPVj PVIFAr %, nj

9. Real options are opportunities embedded in real assets that are part of the capital budgeting process. Managers have the option of implementing some of these opportunities to alter the cash flow and risk of a given project. Examples of real options include: Abandonmentthe option to abandon or terminate a project prior to the end of its planned life. Flexibilitythe ability to adopt a project that permits flexibility in the firms production process, such as being able to reconfigure a machine to accept various types of inputs. Growththe option to develop follow-on projects, expand markets, expand or retool plants, and so on, that would not be possible without implementation of the project that is being evaluated. Timingthe ability to determine the exact timing of when various action of the project will be undertaken. 10. Strategic NPV incorporates the value of the real options associated with the project while traditional NPV includes only the identifiable relevant cash flows. Using strategic NPV could alter the final accept/reject decision. It is likely to lead to more accept decisions since the value of the options is added to the traditional NPV as shown in the following equation. NPVstrategic = NPVtraditional + Value of real options 11. Capital rationing is a situation where a firm has only a limited amount of funds available for capital investments. In most cases, implementation of the acceptable projects would require more capital than is available. Capital rationing is common for a firm, since unfortunately most firms do not have sufficient capital available to invest in all acceptable projects. In theory, capital rationing should not exist because firms should accept all projects with positive NPVs or IRRs greater than the cost of capital. However, most firms operate with finite capital expenditure budgets and must select the best from all acceptable projects, taking into account the amount of new financing required to fund these projects.

Chapter 10

Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting

251

12. The IRR approach and the NPV approach to capital rationing both involve ranking projects on the basis of IRRs. Using the IRR approach, a cut-off rate and a budget constraint are imposed. The NPV first ranks projects by IRR and then takes into account the present value of the benefits from each project in order to determine the combination with the highest overall net present value. The benefit of the NPV approach is that it guarantees a maximum dollar return to the firm, whereas the IRR approach does not.

Suggested Answer to Critical Thinking Question for Focus on Practice Box

A Monte Carlo simulation program requires the user to first build an Excel spreadsheet model that captures the input variables for the proposed project. What issues and what benefits can the user derive from this process? A good Monte Carlo simulation requires reasonably accurate estimates of data, including projected sales figures, production costs, associated overhead, marketing costs, and other costs related to the project. Gathering this type of data for numerous projects can be expensive in terms of employee-hours. However, any sound evaluation of a project will eventually require such information gathering before a decision can be made. The benefit of the Monte Carlo program is that it can quickly provide a range of probable outcomes as the potential inputs are varied. For example, if the marketing variable is increased, the effect on possible sales outcome can be quickly demonstrated. But even beyond the quick analysis of the effect of changing a project variable is that the need for accurate and reasonable estimates will force project developers to spend some time and effort to develop the proper data for input into the Monte Carlo program. Working diligently to find reliable cost estimates and marketing estimates can only enhance the viability of a proposed project if it meets the companys selection criteria.

Suggested Answer to Critical Thinking Question for Focus on Ethics Box

What are some factors to consider when prioritizing and budgeting environmental compliance initiatives? Environmental compliance has become a core competency for chemical manufacturers, utilities, and municipalities. With increased consumer awareness, it is rapidly becoming a core competency required in food and beverage, consumer products, manufacturing, retail, and service industries. Some factors to consider when prioritizing and budgeting environmental compliance initiatives include the regulatory costs of noncompliance, the cost of repairing environmental damage, the cost of product recalls, the brand opportunity of active environmental compliance, and the degree to which suppliers, customers, and competitors are investing in environmental compliance. In this era of environmental awareness, environmental compliance can give a company a competitive advantage over its competitors.

Answers to Warm-Up Exercises

Sensitivity analysis

E10-1.

Answer: Using the 12% cost of capital to discount all of the cash flows for each scenario to yield the following NPVs, resulting in a NPV range of $19,109.78: Pessimistic $3,283.48 Most Likely $6,516.99 Optimistic $15,826.30

252

Gitman Principles of Managerial Finance, Twelfth Edition

E10-2.

Using IRR as selection criteria

Answer: The minimum amount of annual cash inflow needed to earn 8% is $11,270 45,000/PVIFA8%,5 $45,000/3.993 = $11,269.72 Calculator solution = $11,270.54 The IRR of the project is 12.05%. The project is acceptable since its IRR exceeds the firms 8% cost of capital. Since the required cash flow is much less than the anticipated cash flow, one would expect the IRR to exceed the required rate of return. E10-3. Risk-adjusted discount rates

Answer: Project Sourdough RADR = 7.0% NPV $17,141.09 Project Greek Salad RADR = 8.0% NPV $13,325.48 Yeastime should select Project Sourdough. E10-4. ANPV

Answer: You may use a financial calculator to determine the IRR of each project. Choose the project with the higher IRR. Project M Step 1: Find the NPV of the project Step 2: NPV = $21,359.55 Find the ANPV PV N I = 21,360 =3 =8

PMT = $8,288.22 Project N Step 1: Find the NPV of the project Step 2: NPV = $13,235.82 Find the ANPV PV N I = 13,235.82 =7 =8

PMT = $2,542.24 Based on ANPV, you should advise Outcast, Inc. to choose Project M.

Chapter 10

Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting

253

E10-5.

NPV profiles

Answer: The investment opportunity schedule (IOS) in this problem does not allow us to determine the maximum NPV allowed by the budget constraint. In order to determine whether the IOS maximizes the NPV for Longchamps Electric, we will need to know the NPV for each of the six projects. However, it does appear likely that Longchamps Electric will maximize firm value by selecting Project 4 (IRR =11%), Project 2 (IRR = 10%), and Project 5 (IRR = 9%). The total investment in these three projects will be $135,000, leaving $15,000 excess cash for future investment opportunities.

Solutions to Problems

P10-1. LG 1: Recognizing risk Basic a&b Project A Risk Low Reason The cash flows from the project can be easily determined since this expenditure consists strictly of outflows. The amount is also relatively small. The competitive nature of the industry makes it so that Caradine will need to make this expenditure to remain competitive. The risk is only moderate since the firm already has clients in place to use the new technology. Since the firm is only preparing a proposal, their commitment at this time is low. However, the $450,000 is a large sum of money for the company and it will immediately become a sunk cost. Although this purchase is in the industry in which Caradine normally operates, they are encountering a large amount of risk. The large expenditure, the competitiveness of the industry, and the political and exchange risk of operating in a foreign country adds to the uncertainty.

Medium

Medium

High

Note: Other answers are possible depending on the assumptions a student may make. There is too little information given about the firm and industry to establish a definitive risk analysis. P10-2. LG 2: Breakeven cash flows Intermediate a. $35,000 = CF(PVIFA14%,12) $35,000 = CF(5.66) CF = $6,183.75 Calculator solution: $6,183.43 b. $35,000 = CF(PVIFA10%,12) $35,000 = CF(6.814) CF = $5,136.48 Calculator solution: $5,136.72 The required cash flow per year would decrease by $1,047.27.

254

Gitman Principles of Managerial Finance, Twelfth Edition

P10-3. LG 2: Breakeven cash inflows and risk Intermediate a. Project X Project Y PVn = PMT (PVIFA15%,5 yrs.) PVn = PMT (PVIFA15%,5 yrs.) PVn = $15,000 (3.352) PVn = $10,000 (3.352) PVn = $50,280 PVn = $33,520 NPV = PVn initial investment NPV = PVn initial investment NPV = $33,520 $30,000 NPV = $50,280 $40,000 NPV = $3,520 NPV = $10,280 Calculator solution: $3,521.55 Calculator solution: $10,282.33 b. Project X Project Y $CF 3.352 = $30,000 $CF 3.352 = $40,000 $CF = $30,000 3.352 $CF = $40,000 3.352 $CF = $8,949.88 $CF = $11,933.17 Calculator solution: $8,949.47 Calculator solution: $11,932.62 c. Project X Project Y Probability = 60% Probability = 25% d. Project Y is more risky and has a higher potential NPV. Project X has less risk and less return while Project Y has more risk and more return, thus the riskreturn tradeoff. e. Choose Project X to minimize losses; to achieve higher NPV, choose Project Y. P10-4. LG 2: Basic scenario analysis Intermediate a. Range A = $1,800 $200 = $1,600 Range B = $1,100 $900 = $200 b. NPV Project A Outcome Pessimistic Most likely Optimistic Range c. Table Value $ 6,297 514 7,325 $13,622 Calculator Solution $ 6,297.29 513.56 7,324.41 $13,621.70 Table Value $ 337 514 1,365 $1,702 Project B Calculator Solution $ 337.79 513.56 1,364.92 $1,702.71

Since the initial investment of Projects A and B are equal, the range of cash flows and the range of NPVs are consistent. d. Project selection would depend upon the risk disposition of the management. (A is more risky than B but also has the possibility of a greater return.)

Chapter 10

Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting

255

P10-5. LG 2: Scenario analysis Intermediate a. Range P = $1,000 $500 = $500 Range Q = $1,200 $400 = $800 b. NPV Project P Outcome Pessimistic Most likely Optimistic c. Table Value $73 1,609 3,145 Calculator Solution $72.28 1,608.43 3,144.57 Table Value $542 1,609 4,374 Project Q Calculator Solution $542.17 1,608.43 4,373.48

Range P = $3,145 $73 = $3,072 (Calculator solution: $3,072.29) Range Q = $4,374 ($542) = $4,916 (Calculator solution: $4,915.65) Each computer has the same most likely result. Computer Q has both a greater potential loss and a greater potential return. Therefore, the decision will depend on the risk disposition of management.

P10-6

LG2: Impact of inflation on investments Easy (a) (c) Investment Cash Flows (7,500) 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,500 1,500 Current Rate PVIF (6.50%) 1.0000 0.9390 0.8817 0.8278 0.7773 0.7299 Higher Inflation PVIF (7.50%) 1.0000 0.9302 0.8653 0.8050 0.7488 0.6966 Lower Inflation PVIF (5.5%) 1.0000 0.9479 0.8985 0.8516 0.8072 0.7651 Higher Lower Current Inflation Inflation NPV (a) NPV (b) NPV (c) (7,500) 1,878 1,763 1,656 1,166 1,095 $ 58 (7,500) 1,860 1,731 1,610 1,123 1,045 $ (131) (7,500) 1,896 1,797 1,703 1,211 1,148 $ 254

Year 0 1 2 3 4 5

Total NPV

d. As the inflation rate rises the NPV of a given set of cash flows declines. P10-7. LG 2: Simulation Intermediate a. Ogden Corporation could use a computer simulation to generate the respective profitability distributions through the generation of random numbers. By tying various cash flow assumptions together into a mathematical model and repeating the process numerous times, a probability distribution of project returns can be developed. The process of generating random numbers and using the probability distributions for cash inflows and outflows allows values for each of the variables to be determined. The use of the computer also allows for more sophisticated

256

Gitman Principles of Managerial Finance, Twelfth Edition

simulation using components of cash inflows and outflows. Substitution of these values into the mathematical model yields the NPV. The key lies in formulating a mathematical model that truly reflects existing relationships. b. The advantages to computer simulations include the decision makers ability to view a continuum of riskreturn tradeoffs instead of a single-point estimate. The computer simulation, however, is not feasible for risk analysis. P10-8. LG 4: Riskadjusted discount ratesBasic Intermediate a. Project E PVn = $6,000 (PVIFA15%,4) PVn = $6,000 2.855 PVn = $17,130 NPV = $17,130 $15,000 NPV = $2,130 Calculator solution: $2,129.87 Project F Year 1 2 3 4 CF $6,000 4,000 5,000 2,000 PVIF15%,n 0.870 0.756 0.658 0.572 PV $ 5,220 3,024 3,290 1,144 $12,678

NPV = $12,678 $11,000 NPV = $1,678 Calculator solution: $1,673.05 Project G Year 1 2 3 4 CF $4,000 6,000 8,000 12,000 PVIF15%,n 0.870 0.756 0.658 0.572 PV $ 3,480 4,536 5,264 6,864 $20,144

NPV = $20,144 $19,000 NPV = $1,144 Calculator solution: $1,136.29 Project E, with the highest NPV, is preferred. b. RADRE = 0.10 + (1.80 (0.15 0.10)) = 0.19 RADRF = 0.10 + (1.00 (0.15 0.10)) = 0.15 RADRG = 0.10 + (0.60 (0.15 0.10)) = 0.13

Chapter 10

Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting

257

c.

Project E $6,000 (2.639) = $15,834 NPV = $15,834 $15,000 NPV = $834 Calculator solution: $831.51 Project F Same as in part a, $1,678 (Calculator solution: $1,673.05) Project G Year 1 2 3 4 CF $4,000 6,000 8,000 12,000 PVIF13%,n 0.885 0.783 0.693 0.613 PV $3,540 4,698 5,544 7,356 $21,138

NPV = $21,138 $19,000 NPV = $2,138 Calculator solution: $2,142.93 Rank 1 2 3 Project G F E

b. RADRE = 0.10 + (1.80 (0.15 0.10)) = 0.19 RADRF = 0.10 + (1.00 (0.15 0.10)) = 0.15 RADRG = 0.10 + (0.60 (0.15 0.10)) = 0.13 c. Project E $6,000 (2.639) = $15,834 NPV = $15,834 $15,000 NPV = $834 Calculator solution: $831.51 Project F Same as in part a, $1,678 (Calculator solution: $1,673.05) Project G Year 1 2 3 4 CF $4,000 6,000 8,000 12,000 PVIF13%,n 0.885 0.783 0.693 0.613 PV $ 3,540 4,698 5,544 7,356 $21,138

258

Gitman Principles of Managerial Finance, Twelfth Edition

NPV = $21,138 $19,000 NPV = $2,138 Calculator solution: $2,142.93 Rank 1 2 3 Project G F E

d. After adjusting the discount rate, even though all projects are still acceptable, the ranking changes. Project G has the highest NPV and should be chosen. P10-9. LG 4: Riskadjusted discount ratestabular Intermediate a. NPVA = ($7,000 3.993) $20,000 NPVA = $7,951 (Use 8% rate) Calculator solution: $7,948.97 NPVB = ($10,000 3.443) $30,000 NPVB = $4,330 (Use 14% rate) Calculator solution: $4,330.81 Project A, with the higher NPV, should be chosen. b. Project A is preferable to Project B, since the NPV of A is greater than the NPV of B. P10-10. LG 4: Mutually exclusive investment and risk Intermediate a. Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 Cash Flows $ (12,000) 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 PVIF @ 8.5% 1.0000 0.9050 0.8190 0.7412 0.6707 0.6070 NPV $ (12,000) 3,439 3,112 2,816 2,549 2,307 $ 2,223 Cash Flows $ (10,000) 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 PVIF @ 8.5% 1.0000 0.9217 0.8495 0.7829 0.7216 0.6650 NPV $ (10,000) 2,765 2,548 2,349 2,165 1,995 $ 1,822

Chapter 10

Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting

259

c. Using NPV as her guide, Lara should select the second investment. It has a higher NPV. d. The second investment is riskier. The higher required return implies a higher risk factor. P10-11. LG 4: Risk-adjusted rates of return using CAPM Challenge a. rX = 7% + 1.2(12% 7%) = 7% + 6% = 13% rY = 7% + 1.4(12% 7%) = 7% + 7% = 14% NPVX = $30,000(PVIFA13%,4) $70,000 NPVX = $30,000(2.974) $70,000 NPVX = $89,220 $70,000 = $19,220 Calculator solution: $19,234.14 NPVY = $22,000(PVIF14%,1) + $32,000(PVIF14%,2) + $38,000(PVIF14%3) + $46,000(PVIF14%,4) $78,000 NPVY = $22,000(0.877) + $32,000(0.769) + $38,000(0.675) + $46,000(0.592) $78,000 NPVY = $19,294 + $24,608 + $25,650 + $27,232 78,000 = $18,805.82 Calculator solution: $18,805.82 b. The RADR approach prefers Project Y over Project X. The RADR approach combines the risk adjustment and the time adjustment in a single value. The RADR approach is most often used in business. P10-12. LG 4: Risk classes and RADR Basic a. Project X Year 1 2 3 4 5 CF $80,000 70,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 PVIF22%,n 0.820 0.672 0.551 0.451 0.370 PV $ 65,600 47,040 33,060 27,060 22,200 $194,960

NPV = $194,960 $180,000 NPV = $14,960 Calculator solution: $14,930.45 Project Y Year 1 2 3 4 5 CF $50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 PVIF13%,n 0.885 0.783 0.693 0.613 0.543 PV $ 44,250 46,980 48,510 49,040 48,870 $237,650

260

Gitman Principles of Managerial Finance, Twelfth Edition

NPV = $237,650 $235,000 NPV = $2,650 Calculator solution: $2,663.99 Project Z Year 1 2 3 4 5 CF $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 PVIFA15%,5 PV

3.352

$301,680

NPV = $301,680 $310,000 NPV = $8,320 Calculator solution: $8,306.04 b. Projects X and Y are acceptable with positive NPVs, while Project Z with a negative NPV is not. Project X with the highest NPV should be undertaken. P10-13. LG 5: Unequal livesANPV approach Intermediate a. Machine A PVn = PMT (PVIFA12%,6 yrs.) PVn = $12,000 (4.111) PVn = $49,332 NPV = PVn initial investment NPV = $49,332 $92,000 NPV = $42,668 Calculator solution: $42,663.11 Machine B Year 1 2 3 4 CF $10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 PVIFA12%,n 0.893 0.797 0.712 0.636 PV $8,930 15,940 21,360 25,440 $71,670

NPV = $71,670 $65,000 NPV = $6,670 Calculator solution: $6,646.58 Machine C PVn = PMT (PVIFA12%,5 yrs.) PVn = $30,000 3.605 PVn = $108,150

Chapter 10

Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting

261

NPV = PVn initial investment NPV = $108,150 $ 100,500 NPV = $7,650 Calculator solution: $7,643.29 Rank 1 2 3 Machine C B A

(Note that Machine A is not acceptable and could be rejected without any additional analysis.) NPVj b. ANPV(ANPVj ) = PVIFAk %, nj Machine A ANPV = $42,668 4.111 (12%, 6 years) ANPV = $10,378 Calculator solution: $10,376.77 Machine B ANPV = $6,670 3.037 (12%, 4 years) ANPV = $2,196 Calculator solution: $2,188.28 Machine C ANPV = $7,650 3.605 (12%, 5 years) ANPV = $2,122 Calculator solution: $2,120.32 Rank 1 2 3 c. Project B C A

Machine B should be acquired since it offers the highest ANPV. Not considering the difference in project lives resulted in a different ranking based in part on Machine Cs NPV calculations.

P10-14. LG 5: Unequal livesANPV approach Intermediate a. Project X Year 1 2 3 4 CF $17,000 25,000 33,000 41,000 PVIF14%,n 0.877 0.769 0.675 0.592 PV $14,909 19,225 22,275 24,272 $80,681

NPV = $80,681 $78,000 NPV = $2,681 Calculator solution: $2,698.32

262

Gitman Principles of Managerial Finance, Twelfth Edition

Project Y Year 1 2 CF $28,000 38,000 PVIF14%,n 0.877 0.769 PV $24,556 29,222 $53,778

NPV = $53,778 $52,000 NPV = $1,778 Calculator solution: $1,801.17 Project Z PVn = PMT (PVIFA14%,8 yrs.) PVn = $15,000 4.639 PVn = $69,585 NPV = PVn initial investment NPV = $69,585 $66,000 NPV = $3,585 Calculator solution: $3,582.96 Rank 1 2 3 b. Project Z X Y
NPVj PVIFAr %, nj

ANPV (ANPVj ) =

Project X ANPV = $2,681 2.914 (14%, 4 yrs.) ANPV = $920.04 Calculator solution: $926.08 Project Y ANPV = $1,778 1.647 (14%, 2 yrs.) ANPV = $1,079.54 Calculator solution: $1093.83 Project Z ANPV = $3,585 4.639 (14%, 8 yrs.) ANPV = $772.80 Calculator solution: $772.38 Rank 1 2 3 c. Project Y X Z

Project Y should be accepted. The results in Parts a and b show the difference in NPV when differing lives are considered.

Chapter 10

Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting

263

P10-15. LG 5: Unequal livesANPV approach Intermediate a. Sell Year 1 2 CF $200,000 250,000 PVIF12%,n 0.893 0.797 PV $178,600 199,250 $377,850

NPV = $377,850 $200,000 NPV = $177,850 Calculator solution: $177,869.90 License Year 1 2 3 4 5 CF $250,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 PVIF12%,n 0.893 0.797 0.712 0.636 0.567 PV $223,250 79,700 56,960 38,160 22,680 $420,750

NPV = $420,750 $200,000 NPV = $220,750 Calculator solution: $220,704.25 Manufacture Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 CF $200,000 250,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 PVIF12%,n 0.893 0.797 0.712 0.636 0.567 0.507 PV $178,600 199,250 142,400 127,200 113,400 101,400 $862,250

NPV = $862,250 $450,000 NPV = $412,250 Calculator solution: $412,141.16 Rank 1 2 3 Alternative Manufacture License Sell

264

Gitman Principles of Managerial Finance, Twelfth Edition

b.

ANPV (ANPVj ) =

NPVj PVIFAk %, nj

Sell ANPV = $177,850 1.690 (12%, 2yrs.) ANPV = $105,236.69 Calculator solution: $105,245.28 Manufacture ANPV = $412,250 4.111 (12%, 6 yrs.) ANPV = $100,279.74 Calculator solution: $100,243.33 Rank 1 2 3 c. Alternative Sell Manufacture License

License ANPV = $220,750 3.605 (12%,5yrs.) ANPV = $61,234.40 Calculator solution: $61,225.51

Comparing the NPVs of projects with unequal lives gives an advantage to those projects that generate cash flows over the longer period. ANPV adjusts for the differences in the length of the projects and allows selection of the optimal project. This technique implicitly assumes that all projects can be selected again at their conclusion an infinite number of times.

P10-16. LG: 5: NPV and ANPV decisions Challenge a. b. Unequal-Life Decisions Annualized Net Present Value (ANPV) Samsung Cost Benefits Life Terminal value Required rate of return PVIFA PVIF NPV* ANPV** $ (2,350) $ 900 3 years $ 400 9.0% 2.5313 0.7722 $ 237 $ 94 Sony $ (2,700) $ 1000 4 years $ 350 9.0% 3.2397 0.7084 $ 788 $ 243

* NPV = [$Benefits (PVIFA) + Terminal Value (PVIF) ** ANPV = NPV PVIFA

c.

Richard and Linda should select the Sony set because its ANPV of $243 is greater than the $94 ANPV of Samsung.

P10-17. LG 6: Real options and the strategic NPV Intermediate a. Value of real options = value of abandonment + value of expansion + value of delay Value of real options = (0.25 $1,200) + (0.30 $3,000) + (0.10 $10,000) Value of real options = $300 + $900 + $1,000 = $2,200 NPVstrategic = NPVtraditional + Value of real options = 1,700 + 2,200 = $500

Chapter 10

Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting

265

b. Due to the added value from the options Rene should recommend acceptance of the capital expenditures for the equipment. c. In general this problem illustrates that by recognizing the value of real options a project that would otherwise be unacceptable (NPVtraditional < 0) could be acceptable (NPVstrategic > 0). It is thus important that management identify and incorporate real options into the NPV process. P10-18. LG 6: Capital rationingIRR and NPV approaches Intermediate a. Rank by IRR Project F E G C B A D IRR 23% 22 20 19 18 17 16 Initial Investment $2,500,000 800,000 1,200,000 Total Investment $2,500,000 3,300,000 4,500,000

Projects F, E, and G require a total investment of $4,500,000 and provide a total present value of $5,200,000, and therefore a NPV of $700,000. b. Rank by NPV (NPV = PV Initial investment) Project F A C B D G E NPV $500,000 400,000 300,000 300,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Initial Investment $2,500,000 5,000,000 2,000,000 800,000 1,500,000 1,200,000 800,000

Project A can be eliminated because, while it has an acceptable NPV, its initial investment exceeds the capital budget. Projects F and C require a total initial investment of $4,500,000 and provide a total present value of $5,300,000 and a net present value of $800,000. However, the best option is to choose Projects B, F, and G, which also use the entire capital budget and provide an NPV of $900,000. c. The internal rate of return approach uses the entire $4,500,000 capital budget but provides $200,000 less present value ($5,400,000 $5,200,000) than the NPV approach. Since the NPV approach maximizes shareholder wealth, it is the superior method.

d. The firm should implement Projects B, F, and G, as explained in Part c.

266

Gitman Principles of Managerial Finance, Twelfth Edition

P10-19. LG 4: Capital Rationing-NPV Approach Intermediate a. Project A B C D E F G PV $384,000 210,000 125,000 990,000 570,000 150,000 960,000

b. The optimal group of projects is Projects C, F, and G, resulting in a total net present value of $235,000. Project G would be accepted first because it has the highest NPV. Its selection leaves enough of the capital budget to also accept Project C and Project F. P10-20. Ethics problem Challenge Student answers will vary. Some students might argue that companies should be held accountable for any and all pollution that they cause. Other students may take the larger view that the appropriate goal should be the reduction of overall pollution levels and that carbon credits are a way to achieve that goal. From an investor standpoint, carbon credits allow the polluting firm to meet legal obligations in the most cost-effective manner, thus improving the bottom line for the company and investor.

Case

Evaluating Cherone Equipments Risky Plans for Increasing Its Production Capacity
1. a. Plan X Year 1 2 3 4 5 CF $470,000 610,000 950,000 970,000 1,500,000 PVIF12%,n 0.893 0.797 0.712 0.636 0.567 PV $419,710 486,170 676,400 616,920 850,500 $3,049,700

Chapter 10

Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting

267

NPV = $3,049,700 $2,700,000 NPV = $349,700 Calculator solution: $349,715.18 Plan Y Year 1 2 3 4 5 CF $380,000 700,000 800,000 600,000 1,200,000 PVIF12%,n 0.893 0.797 0.712 0.636 0.567 PV $ 339,340 557,900 569,600 381,600 680,400 $2,528,840

NPV = $2,528,840 $2,100,000 NPV = $428,840 Calculator solution: $428,968.70 b. Using a financial calculator the IRRs are: IRRX = 16.22% IRRY = 18.82% Both NPV and IRR favor selection of Project Y. The NPV is larger by $79,140 ($428,840 $349,700) and the IRR is 2.6% higher. 2. Plan X Year 1 2 3 4 5 CF $470,000 610,000 950,000 970,000 1,500,000 PVIF13%,n 0.885 0.783 0.693 0.613 0.543 PV $ 415,950 477,630 658,350 594,610 814,500 $2,961,040

NPV = $2,961,040 $2,700,000 NPV = $261,040 Calculator solution: $261,105.40 Plan Y Year 1 2 3 4 5 CF $380,000 700,000 800,000 600,000 1,200,000 PVIF15%,n 0.870 0.756 0.658 0.572 0.497 PV $ 330,600 529,200 526,400 343,200 596,400 $2,325,800

268

Gitman Principles of Managerial Finance, Twelfth Edition

NPV = $2,325,800 $2,100,000 NPV = $225,800 Calculator solution: $225,412.37 The RADR NPV favors selection of Project X. Ranking Plan X Y 3. NPV 2 1 IRR 2 1 RADRs 1 2

Both NPV and IRR achieved the same relative rankings. However, making risk adjustments through the RADRs caused the ranking to reverse from the nonrisk adjusted results. The final choice would be to select Plan X since it ranks first using the risk-adjusted method. Plan X Value of real options = 0.25 $100,000 = $25,000 NPVstrategic = NPVtraditional + Value of real options NPVstrategic = $261,040 + $25,000 = $286,040 Calculator solution: $286,105.40 Plan Y Value of real options = 0.20 $500,000 = $100,000 NPVstrategic = NPVtraditional + Value of real options Calculator solution: $325,412 NPVstrategic = $225,800 + $100,000 = $325,800

4.

5. 6.

With the addition of the value added by the existence of real options the ordering of the projects is reversed. Project Y is now favored over project X using the RADR NPV for the traditional NPV. Capital rationing could change the selection of the plan. Since Plan Y requires only $2,100,000 and Plan X requires $2,700,000, if the firms capital budget was less than the amount needed to invest in Project X, the firm would be forced to take Y to maximize shareholders wealth subject to the budget constraint.

Spreadsheet Exercise

The answer to Chapter 10s Isis Corporation spreadsheet problem is located in the Instructors Resource Center on the textbooks companion website at www.prenhall.com/irc.

Group Exercises

Risk within long-term investment decisions is the topic of this chapter. The investment projects of the previous two chapters will now have risk variables introduced. The cash flows estimated previously will now be characterized by a lack of certainty. Each estimated dollar flow is now assigned three possible levels for three possible states of the worlds: pessimistic, most likely and optimistic. Original estimates serve as the most likely value and the others are placed around this value.

Chapter 10

Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting

269

Analysis of these estimates begins with a calculation of the ranges for each outcome. A simplified RADR is then calculated using the previously-determined discount rate. The risk-adjusted NPV is then calculated. The final task is to complete this three-chapter odyssey. Using information from Chapters 8, 9 and 10 the groups are asked to defend their choice of investment projects. As pointed out in the assignment, groups should use this assignment to defend their choices in the form of documents as presented to their board of directors. This conclusion should summarize all the work done across the chapters and students should take pride in the quantity of their effort.

A Note on Web Exercises

A series of chapter-relevant assignments requiring Internet access can be located at the Instructors Resource Center (http://www.prenhall.com/gitman). In the course of completing the assignments students access information about a firm, its industry, and the macro economy, and conduct analyses consistent with those found in each respective chapter.

Integrative Case 3: Lasting Impressions Company

Integrative Case 3 involves a complete long-term investment decision. The Lasting Impressions Company is a commercial printer faced with a replacement decision in which two mutually exclusive projects have been proposed. The data for each press have been designed to result in conflicting rankings when considering the NPV and IRR decision techniques. The case tests the students understanding of the techniques as well as the qualitative aspects of risk and return decision making. 1. a. Calculation of initial investment for Lasting Impressions Company: Press A Installed cost of new press = Cost of new press $830,000 40,000 + Installation costs Total cost-new press After-tax proceeds-sale of old asset = Proceeds from sale of old press 420,000 * 121,600 + Tax on sale of old press Total proceeds-sale of old press ** + Change in net working capital Initial investment
* Sale price Book value Gain Tax rate (40%) Cash Accounts receivable Inventory Increase in current assets Increase in current liabilities Increase in net working capital $420,000 116,000 $304,000 121,600 $ 25,400 120,000 (20,000) $125,400 (35,000) $ 90,400

Press B $640,000 20,000

$870,000 420,000 121,600 (298,400) 90,400 $662,000

$660,000

(298,400) 0 $361,600

Book value = $400,000 - [(0.20 + 0.32 +0.19) $400,000] = $116,000 **

270

Gitman Principles of Managerial Finance, Twelfth Edition

b. Depreciation Year Press A 1 2 3 4 5 6 Press B 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cost $870,000 870,000 870,000 870,000 870,000 870,000 $660,000 660,000 660,000 660,000 660,000 660,000 Rate 0.20 0.32 0.19 0.12 0.12 0.05 0.20 0.32 0.19 0.12 0.12 0.05 Depreciation $174,000 278,400 165,300 104,400 104,400 43,500 $870,000 $132,000 211,200 125,400 79,200 79,200 33,000 $660,000 $48,000 48,000 20,000 0 0 0 $116,000

Existing Press 1 $400,000 2 400,000 3 400,000 4 0 5 0 6 0 Operating cash inflows Earnings before Depreciation and Taxes

0.12 (Yr. 4) 0.12 (Yr. 5) 0.05 (Yr. 6) 0 0 0

Year Existing Press 1 2 3 4 5 6 Press A 1 2 3 4 5 6

Depreciation

Earnings Earnings before after Taxes Taxes

Cash Flow

Old Cash Flow

Incremental Cash Flow

$120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 0 $250,000 270,000 300,000 330,000 370,000 0

$48,000 48,000 20,000 0 0 0 $174,000 278,400 165,300 104,400 104,400 43,500

$72,000 72,000 100,000 120,000 120,000 0 $76,000 8,400 134,700 225,600 265,600 43,500

$43,200 43,200 60,000 72,000 72,000 0 $45,600 5,040 80,820 135,360 159,360 26,100

$91,200 91,200 80,000 72,000 72,000 0 $219,600 273,360 246,120 239,760 263,760 17,400 $91,200 $128,400 91,200 182,160 80,000 166,120 72,000 167,760 72,000 191,760 0 17,400

Chapter 10

Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting

271

Year Press B 1 2 3 4 5 6 c.

Earnings before Depreciation and Taxes

Depreciation

Earnings Earnings before after Taxes Taxes

Cash Flow

Old Cash Flow

Incremental Cash Flow

$210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 0

$132,000 211,200 125,400 79,200 79,200 33,000

$78,000 1,200 84,600 130,800 130,800 33,000

$46,800 720 50,760 78,480 78,480 19,800

$178,800 210,480 176,160 157,680 157,680 13,200

$91,200$87,600 91,200119,280 80,000 96,160 72,000 85,680 72,000 85,680 0 13,200

Terminal cash flow Press A After-tax proceeds-sale of new press = Proceeds on sale of new press * Tax on sale of new press Total proceeds-new press After-tax proceeds-sale of old press = Proceeds on sale of old press ** + Tax on sale of old press Total proceeds-old press + Change in net working capital Terminal cash flow
*Press A Sale price Less: Book value (Yr. 6) Gain Tax rate Tax **Sale price Less: Book value (Yr. 6) Gain Tax rate Tax

Press B $330,000 (118,800) $257,400 $211,200 (150,000) 60,000 (90,000) 90,400 $257,800 (90,000) 0 $121,200

$400,000 (142,600)

(150,000) 60,000

$400,000 43,500 $356,500 0.40 $142,600 $150,000 0 $150,000 0.40 $ 60,000

Press B Sale price Less: Book value (Yr. 6) Gain Tax rate Tax

$330,000 33,000 $297,000 0.40 $118,800

272

Gitman Principles of Managerial Finance, Twelfth Edition

Cash Flows Year Initial investment 1 2 3 4 5*

*

Press A ($662,000) $128,400 182,160 166,120 167,760 449,560

Press A $191,760 257,800 $449,560

Press B ($361,600) $ 87,600 119,280 96,160 85,680 206,880

Press B $ 85,680 121,200 $206,880

Year 5

Operating cash flow Terminal cash inflow Total

2. Press A

3.

Relevant cash flow Cumulative Cash Flows Year 1 2 3 4 5 Press A $128,400 310,560 476,680 644,440 1,094,000 Press B $87,600 206,880 303,040 388,720 595,600

Chapter 10

Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting

273

a.

Press A: 4 years + [(662,000 644,440) 191,760] Payback = 4 + (17,560 191,760) Payback = 4.09 years Press B: 3 years + [(361,600 303,040) 85,680] Payback = 3 + (58,560 85,680) Payback = 3.68 years

b. Press A Year 1 2 3 4 5 Cash Flow $128,400 182,160 166,120 167,760 449,560 PVlF14%,t 0.877 0.769 0.675 0.592 0.519 PV $112,607 140,081 112,131 99,314 233,322 $697,455

NPV = $697,455 $662,000 NPV = $35,455 Calculator solution: $35,738.82 Press B Year 1 2 3 4 5 Cash Flow $87,600 119,280 96,160 85,680 206,880 PVlF14%,t 0.877 0.769 0.675 0.592 0.519 PV $ 76,825 91,726 64,908 50,723 107,371 $391,553

NPV = $391,553 $361,600 NPV = $29,953 Calculator solution: $30,105.88 c. IRR: Press A: 15.8% Press B: 17.1%

274

Gitman Principles of Managerial Finance, Twelfth Edition

4.

Data for NPV Profile Discount Rate 0% 14% 15.8% 17.1% NPV Press A Press B $432,000 35,455 0 $234,000 29,953 0

When the cost of capital is below approximately 15 percent, Press A is preferred over Press B, while at costs greater than 15%, Press B is preferred. Since the firms cost of capital is 14%, conflicting rankings exist. Press A has a higher value and is therefore preferred over Press B using NPV, whereas Press Bs IRR of 17.1% causes it to be preferred over Press A, whose IRR is 15.8% using this measure. 5. a. If the firm has unlimited funds, Press A is preferred. b. If the firm is subject to capital rationing, Press B may be preferred. The risk would need to be measured by a quantitative technique such as certainty equivalents or riskadjusted discount rates. The resultant NPV of Press A could then be compared to the risk-adjusted NPV of Press B and a decision made.

6.