CHAPTER 10 Making Capital Investment Decisions Answers to Concepts Review and Critical Thinking Questions 1. An opportunity cost is the most valuable alternative that is foregone if a particular project is undertaken. The relevant opportunity cost is what the asset or input is actually worth today, not, for example, what it cost to acquire. 2. It’s probably only a mild over-simplification. Current liabilities will all be paid presumably. The cash portion of current assets will be retrieved. Some receivables won’t be collected, and some inventory will not be sold, of course. Counterbalancing these losses is the fact that inventory sold above cost (and not replaced at the end of the project’s life) acts to increase working capital. These effects tend to offset. 3. The EAC approach is appropriate when comparing mutually exclusive projects with different lives that will be replaced when they wear out. This type of analysis is necessary so that the projects have a common life span over which they can be compared; in effect, each project is assumed to exist over an infinite horizon of N-year repeating projects. Assuming that this type of analysis is valid implies that the project cash flows remain the same forever, thus ignoring the possible effects of, among other things: (1) inflation, (2) changing economic conditions, (3) the increasing unreliability of cash flow estimates that occur far into the future, and (4) the possible effects of future technology improvement that could alter the project cash flows. 4. Depreciation is a non-cash expense, but it is tax-deductible on the income statement. Thus depreciation causes taxes paid, an actual cash outflow, to be reduced by an amount equal to the depreciation tax shield t cD. A reduction in taxes that would otherwise be paid is the same thing as a cash inflow, so the effects of the depreciation tax shield must be included to get the total incremental aftertax cash flows. 5. There are two particularly important considerations. The first is erosion. Will the essentialized book simply displace copies of the existing book that would have otherwise been sold? This is of special concern given the lower price. The second consideration is competition. Will other publishers step in and produce such a product? If so, then any erosion is much less relevant. A particular concern to book publishers (and producers of a variety of other product types) is that the publisher only makes money from the sale of new books. Thus, it is important to examine whether the new book would displace sales of used books (good from the publisher’s perspective) or new books (not good). The concern arises any time there is an active market for used product. 6. This market was heating up rapidly, and a number of other competitors were planning on entering. Any erosion of existing services would be offset by an overall increase in market demand. 7. Air Canada should have realized that abnormally large profits would dwindle as more supply of services came into the market and competition became more intense. Solutions to Questions and Problems Basic 1. The $4.5 million acquisition cost of the land six years ago is a sunk cost. The $625,000 current appraisal of the land is an opportunity cost if the land is used rather than sold off. The $6 million cash outlay is the initial fixed asset investment needed to get the project going and the $325,000 in site preparation cost is relevant. Therefore, the proper year zero cash flow to use in evaluating this project is: $625,000 + $6,000,000 + $325,000 = $6.95 million. 353 2. Sales due solely to the new product line are 13,500($10,000) = $135 million. Increased sales of the motor home line occur because of the new product line introduction; thus 3,500($37,500) = $131.25 million in new sales is relevant. Erosion of luxury motor coach sales is also due to the new mid-size campers; thus 1,200($62,000) = $74.4 million loss in sales is relevant. The net sales figure to use in evaluating the new line is thus $135 million + $131.25 million – $74.4 million = $191.85 million. 3. Sales Variable costs Fixed costs CCA EBT Taxes@27% Net income $ 825,000.00 453,750.00 200,000.00 60,000.00 $ 111,250.00 30,037.50 $ 81,212.50 4. Sales Costs CCA EBT Taxes@30% Net income $1,050,000 560,000 115,000 $ 375,000 112,500 $ 262,500 5. Sales $175,000.00 Costs CCA EBT Taxes@30% Net income 85,000.00 4,500.00 $ 85,500.00 25,650.00 $ 59,850.00 6. 7. OCF = EBIT + D – T = 375,000 + 115,000 – 112,500 = $377,500 CCA tax shield = tcD = .30($115,000) = $34,500 a. b. c. OCF = EBIT + D – T = 85,500 + 4,500 – 25,650 OCF = S – C – T = 175,000 – 85,000 – 25,650 OCF = (S – C)(1 – tc) + tcD = (175,000 – 85,000)(1 – .30) + .30(4,500) = $64,350.00 = $64,350.00 = $64,350.00 d. OCF = NI + D = 59,850 + 4,500 = $64,350.00 Sales Variable costs Fixed costs CCA EBIT Taxes@37% Net income $ 800,000 400,000 180,000 92,000 $ 128,000 47,360 $ 80,640 Cash flow year 0 = -830,000 Cash flow years 1 through 5 = 455,000(1 – .37) = $286,650 PV of CCATS = 830,000(.3)(.37) x (1 + .5(.12)) .12 + .3 1 + .12 = $207,606 NPV = -830,000 + 286,650 x PVIFA (5, 12%) + 207,606 = $410,915 354 8. Cash flow year 0 = -830,000 - 37,500 = -$867,500 Cash flow years 1 through 5 = 455,000(1 – .37) = $286,650 Ending cash flow = 110,000 + 37,500 = $147,500 PV of CCATS = 830,000(.3)(.37) x (1 + .5(.12)) .12 + .3 1 + .12 -110,000(.3)(.37) x 1 .12 + .3 (1.12) 5 = $191,110 NPV = -867,500 + 286,650 x PVIFA(5, 12%) + (147,500)/(1.12) 5 + 191,110 = $440,615 9. The NPV will be smaller because the Capital Cost Allowances are smaller early on. PV of CCATS = 830,000(.25)(.37) x (1 + .5(.12)) .12 + .25 1 + .12 -110,000(.25)(.37) x 1 .12 + .25 (1.12) 5 = $180,780 Therefore with a 25% CCA rate, the NPV = 440,615 + (180,780 – 191,110) = $430,285 10. Neither one is correct. What should be considered is the opportunity cost of using the land, at the very least what the land could be sold for today. 11. As long as there are other assets in the class, the pool remains open and there are no tax effects from the sale as long as the undepreciated capital cost (UCC) of the class does not become negative as a result of the sale. We have no information about the other assets in the pool and therefore make the reasonable assumption that the company should be considered as a going concern. This implies that there are other assets in this class. Beyond the first year, the UCC at the beginning of the N th year is given by the formula: N 2 d UCCN C 1 1 d where C = installed capital cost; d = CCA rate. Note that the half-year rule 2 has been incorporated. In this case: UCC7.= $350,000 (1 – (0.2/2)) (1-0.2)7-2 = $103,219.20 This is the book value of the asset at the end of the 6th year (beginning of the seventh). The asset is sold at a gain to book value and the UCC of the class is reduced by the value of the sale. There are no direct tax effects. Therefore: After-tax salvage value = $100,000 12. A/R fell by $5,000, and inventory increased by $2,605, so net current assets fell by $2,395. A/P rose by $4,100. ∆NWC = ∆(CA – CL) = –2,395 – 4,100 = – 6,495 Net cash flow = S – C – ∆NWC = 65,500 – 26,400 – (– 6,495) = $45,595 355 13. CCA1 = 0.3($1.65M/2) = $247,500 ; CCA2 = 0.3(1.65M – $247,500) = $420,750 ; CCA3 = 0.3($1.65M – 247,500 – 420,750) = $294,525. OCF1 = (S – C)(1 – tc) + tcD = ($1.925M – $595K)(1 – 0.4) + 0.4($247,500) = $897,000 OCF2 = (S – C)(1 – tc) + tcD = ($1.925M – $595K)(1 – 0.4) + 0.4($420,750) = $966,300 OCF3 = (S – C)(1 – tc) + tcD = ($1.925M – $595K)(1 – 0.4) + 0.4($294,525) = $915,810 14. After-tax net revenue year 0 = -$1,650,000 After-tax net revenue years 1-3 = (S – C)(1 – Tc) = ($1,925,000 – 595,000)(1 – 0.4) = $798,000 Ending cash flows (year 3) = salvage value = $687,225 PV of CCATS = 1,650,000(.3)(.4) x (1 + .5(.22)) .22 + .3 1 + .22 -687,225(.3)(.4) x .22 + .3 1 (1.22) 3 = $259,101 NPV = – $1.65M + $798,000(PVIFA22%, 3) + $259,101 + $687,225(PVIF22%, 3) = $617,269 15. After-tax net revenue year 0 = -$1,650,000 – 245,000 = -$1,895,000 After-tax net revenue years 1-3 = (S – C)(1 – Tc) = ($1,925,000 – 595,000)(1 – 0.4) = $798,000 Ending cash flows (year 3) = recovery of NWC + salvage value = $245,000 + 450,000 = $695,000 PV of CCATS = 1,650,000(.3)(.4) x (1 + .5(.22)) .22 + .3 1 + .22 -450,000(.3)(.4) x .22 + .3 1 (1.22) 3 = $289,249 NPV = –$1.895M + $798,000(PVIFA22%,3) + $289,249 + $695,000/1.223 = $406,699 16. After-tax net revenue year 0 = -600,000 – 150,000 = -$750,000 After-tax net revenue years 1 through 5 = (6,450,000 – 4,500,000 – 195,000)(1 – .37) = $1,105,650 Ending cash flows (year 5) = $150,000 PV of CCATS = 600,000(.25)(.37) x (1 + .5(.17)) .17 + .25 (1 + .17) = $122,543 NPV = -750,000 + 122,543 + 1,105,650 x PVIFA(17%,5) + 150,000/(1.17) 5 = $2,978,317 Since the NPV is positive, it is probably a good project. 17. $7,500 – 4,300 = $3,200 356 18. Management’s discretion to set the firm’s capital structure is applicable at the firm level. Since any one particular project could be financed entirely with equity, another project could be financed with debt, and the firm’s overall capital structure remains unchanged, financing costs are not relevant in the analysis of a project’s incremental cash flows according to the stand-alone principle. 19. The $7.5 million acquisition cost of the land eight years ago is a sunk cost. The $965,000 current appraisal of the land is an opportunity cost if the land is used rather than sold off. The $20.45 million cash outlay is the initial fixed asset investment needed to get the project going. Therefore, the proper year zero cash flow to use in evaluating this project is $21.415 million. 20. Currently the firm has sales of 17,500($11,000) + (36,500) ($41,600) = $1,710,900,000. With the introduction of a new mid-sized car its sales will change by (24,000) ($31,500) + (9,000) ($11,000) – (7,500) ($41,600) = $543,000,000. This amount is the incremental sales and is the amount that should be considered when evaluating the project. 21. After-tax net revenue year 0 = -425,000 – 23,500 = -$448,500 After-tax net revenue years 1 through 6 = (104,500) (1 – .37) = $65,835 Ending cash flows (year 6) = $100,000 + 23,500 = $123,500 PV of CCATS = 425,000(.2)(.37) x (1 + .5(.11)) – 100,000(.2)(.37) x 1 .11 + .2 (1 + .11) .11 + .2 (1.11) 6 = $83,662 NPV = -448,500 + 83,662 + 65,835 x PVIFA(11%, 6) + 123,500/(1.11) 6 = -$20,292 22. After-tax net revenue year 0 = -1,100,000 + 100,000 = -$1,000,000 After-tax net revenue years 1 through 5 = (375,000)(1 – .34) = $247,500 Ending cash flows (year 5) = $250,000 – 100,000 = $150,000 PV of CCATS = $235,000 NPV = 0 = -1,000,000 + 235,000 + 247,500 x PVIFA(IRR%,5) + 150,000/(1+IRR) 5 IRR = 21.96% 23. $350,000 cost saving case After-tax net revenue year 0 = -$1,000,000 After-tax net revenue years 1 through 5 = (350,000)(1 – .34) = $231,000 Ending cash flows (year 5) = $250,000 – 100,000 = $150,000 PV of CCATS = $204,899 NPV = -1,000,000 + 204,899 + 231,000 x PVIFA(15%,5) + 150,000/(1+.15) 5 = $53,823.34 Accept the project. $250,000 cost saving case After-tax net revenue year 0 = -$1,000,000 After-tax net revenue years 1 through 5 = (250,000)(1 – .34) = $165,000 Ending cash flows (year 5) = $250,000 – 100,000 = $150,000 PV of CCATS = $204,899 NPV = -1,000,000 + 204,899 + 165,000 x PVIFA(15%,5) + 150,000/(1+.15) 5 = -$167,418.90 Reject the project. Required pretax cost saving case (RCS) After-tax net revenue year 0 = -$1,000,000 Ending cash flows (year 5) = $250,000 – 100,000 = $150,000 357 PV of CCATS = $204,899 NPV = 0 = -1,000,000 + 204,899 + RCS(1 – .34) x PVIFA(15%,5) + 150,000/(1+.15)5 Solve for RCS RCS = Required pretax cost saving = $325,672.21. 24. Capital Spending Salvage Additions to NWC Cash flow -750,000 375,000 -175,000 175,000 Year 0 3 0 3 1 to 3 Aftertax operating income Tax shield on CCA* NPV Solving for PV of after-tax operating income we obtain: Dividing by PVIFA(20%,3) we find that annual after-tax operating income must be $246,702 PV @ 20% -$750,000 217,014 -175,000 101,273 ? 87,040 0 $ 519,673 Consequently, sales must be $246,702 / (1 – .37) + 50($75,000) = $4,141,590 in order to break even. Therefore the selling price should be no less than $4,141,590/50 or $82,832 per system. *PV of CCATS = 750,000(.2)(.37) x (1 + .5(.2)) .2 + .2 1 + .2 - 375,000(.2)(.37) x 1 .2 + .2 (1.2) 3 = $87,040 Note: Problems related to Equivalent Annual Cost (EAC) have been solved under the assumption that from the firm’s point of view, a cost is an outflow. Accordingly, for these problems (#25, #26, #27, #28, #29, #30, #36, #39, #40 and #50), the negative signs for EAC and PV(Costs) have been dropped. This treatment is inconsistent with that of the textbook (where negative signs have been retained). An adjustment will be made in the next edition of the textbook. 25. Method 1: PV @12%(Costs) = $6,565 Method 2: PV @12%(Costs) = $10,040 Difference= $3,475 in favour of Method 1 Without replacement: On this basis we would need to know whether the benefit of 1 more year’s use is sufficient to offset the additional cost of $3,475. With replacement: Method 1: EAC=$2,733 Method 2: EAC=$3,306 On this basis, Method 2 is more expensive. 26. Method 1: CF0 = -$5,700 PVCCATS = (5,700)(.35)(.25)(1.06)/[(.12 + .25)(1.12)] = $1,275.76 PV(Costs) = 360(1 – .35)PVIFA (12%, 3) + 5,700 – 1,276 = $4,986 EAC = $4,986/PVIFA(12%, 3) = $2,076 358 Method 2: CF0 = -$8,400 PVCCATS = (8,400)(.35)(.25)(1.06)/[(.12 + .25)(1.12)] = $1,880 PV(Costs) = 540(1 – .35)PVIFA (12%, 4) + 8,400 – 1,880 = $7,586 EAC = $7,586/PVIFA(12%, 4) = $2,498 Method 2 is more expensive. 27. PV(Costs) = $210,000 + $45,000 + 17,500(PVIFA14%,6) – $45,000/1.146 = $302,550.29 EAC = $302,550.29 / (PVIFA14%,6) = $77,803.07 28. Assuming a carry-forward on taxes: Both cases: salvage value = $50,000 Techron I: After-tax operating costs = $37,000(1 – 0.4) = $22,200 PVCCATS = (250,000)(.4)(.20)(1.10)/[(.20 + .20)(1.20)] – {[(50,000)(0.20)(0.40)/[0.20 + 0.20]] (1/1.20)3}= $40,046.30 PV(Costs) = $250,000 + 22,200(PVIFA20%,3) – (50,000/1.203) – 40,046.30 = $227,782.40 EAC = $227,782.40 / (PVIFA20%,3) = $108,134 Techron II: After-tax operating costs = $15,000(1 – 0.4) = $9,000 PVCCATS = (375,000)(.4)(.20)(1.10)/[(.20 + .20)(1.20)] – {[(50,000)(0.20)(0.40)/[0.20 + 0.20]] (1/1.20)6}= $65,401.02 PV(Costs) = $375,000 + 9,000(PVIFA20%,6) – (50,000/1.206) – 65,401.02 = $322,783.67 EAC = $322,783.67 / (PVIFA20%,6) = $97,063 The two milling machines have unequal lives, so they can only be compared by expressing both on an equivalent annual basis which is what the EAC method does. Thus, you prefer the Techron II because it has the lower annual cost. 29. Pre-fab segments Given: Initial cost = $4.5M; d = 4%; k = 15%; T = 40%; S = .25 x $4.5M = $1,125,000; n = 20 PVCCATS = $348,444.96 Assuming end of year costs: PV(Costs) = $100,000 x PVIFA(15%, 20) = $625,933.15 Total PV(Costs) = $625,933.15 – $348,444.96 – $1,125,000PVIF(15%, 20) = $208,750.38 EAC = $208,750.38/PVIFA(15%, 20) = $33,350 Carbon-fibre technology Given: Initial cost = $6.0M; d = 4%; k = 15%; T = 40%; S = .25 x $6.0M = $1,500,000; n = 40 PVCCATS = $471,839.65 Assuming end of year costs: PV(Costs) = $500,000[PVIF(15%, 10) + PVIF(15%, 20) + PVIF(15%, 30) + PVIF(15%, 40)] = $163,560.64 Total PV(Costs) = $163,560.64 – $471,839.65 – $1,500,000PVIF(15%, 40) = -$313,878.88 EAC = -$313,878.88/PVIFA(15%, 40) = -$47,258.26 or an annual gain The carbon-fibre technology is the better choice. 30. The present value of the operating costs can be evaluated as a growing annuity. The first annual after-tax operating cost = C =$15,000(1 – .34) = $9,900. We know that: T 7 C 1 g $9,900 1 .04 PV(Growing annuity) = 1 1 $50, 086.49 r g 1 r .12 .04 1 .12 PVCCATS = $45,086.58 PV(Costs) = $300,000 – $45,086.58 + $50,086.49 – $100,000/(1.12)7 = $259,764.99 EAC = $259,764.99/PVIFA(12%,7) = $56,919.12 31. Given: Initial cost = $555,000; d = 30%; k = 20%; T = 35%; S = $80,000; n = 5 PVCCATS = $100,085.96 NPV = $0 = – $555,000 – 77,000 + 100,085.96 + (After-tax net revenue)(PVIFA20%,5) + [(77,000 + 80,000) / 1.205] After-tax net revenue = $468,819.26 / PVIFA20%,5 = $156,763.65 $156,763.65 = [ (P–v)Q – FC ](1 – tc) = [(P – 6.50)175,000 – 180,000](.65) 359 Solve for P to find: P = $8.91 Intermediate 32. PVCCATS = $66,183.28 Annual after-tax savings = $160,000(1 – .37) = $100,800 In each year there is any additional cash outflow of $2,500 to finance inventory costs. At the end of the project, there is a recovery of the initial and annual outflows = $21,000 + 4($2,500) = $31,000. NPV = – $400,000 – $21,000 + $66,183.28 + ($100,800 – $2,500)PVIFA(17%,4) + ($75,000 + $31,000)/1.15 4 = -$24,551 Reject project 33. CF0=-11,300,000 – 950,000 = -12,250,000 1 2 3 4 5 Sales 15,215,000 19,690,000 25,328,500 26,850,000 9,397,500 Variable costs 11,645,000 15,070,000 19,385,500 20,550,000 7,192,500 Fixed costs 47,700 47,700 47,700 47,700 47,700 Net profit 3,522,300 4,572,300 5,895,300 6,252,300 2,157,300 Taxes(40%) 1,408,920 1,828,920 2,358,120 2,500,920 862,920 Net profit after-tax 2,113,380 2,743,380 3,537,180 3,751,380 1,294,380 NWC 5,629,550 7,285,300 9,371,545 9,934,500 3,477,075 ∆NWC 4,679,550 1,655,750 2,086,245 562,955 -6,457,425 Net profit after-tax - (∆NWC or NWC -2,566,170 1,087,630 1,450,935 3,188,425 4,771,455 recovered) Salvage value 3,390,000 PVCCATS = $1,799,193.67 NPV = -$12,250,000 + $1,799,194 – $2,566,170*PVIF(20%, 1) + $1,087,630*PVIF(20%, 2) + $1,450,935*PVIF(20%, 3) + $3,188,425*PVIF(20%, 4) + $4,771,455*PVIF(20%, 5) + $3,390,000*PVIF(20%, 5) = -$6,176,787 The project should be rejected. 34. New excavator costs=$775,000 but SV0=$35,000; Therefore, CF0 = $740,000. Operating revenues =$65,000 and SV10=100,000 – 5,000=$95,000. PV of CCATS = 740,000(.25)(.4) x (1 + .5(.14)) .14 + .25 1 + .14 - 95,000(.25)(.4) x .14 + .25 1 10 (1.14) = $171,521.99 NPV = 65,000(1 – .4) x PVIFA (14%, 10) + 95,000 x PVIF (14%, 10) + 171,521.99 – 740,000 = -$339,424 Do not replace the existing excavator. 35. CF0 = 8,500 – 275 = $8,225, SV4 = 1,100 – 150 = $950, and Operating revenues = $7,600. PV of CCATS = 8,225(.25)(.24) x (1 + .5(.19)) .19 + .5 1 + .19 - 950(.25)(.24) x .19 + .2 1 4 (1.19) 360 = $967.45 NPV = 7,600(1 – .24) x PVIFA (19%, 4) + 967.45 + 950 x PVIF (19%, 4) – 8,225 = $8,456.66 The student should buy the new equipment. 36. Underground (U): CF0 = $9.5M, annual costs = $55,000, n=20 PV(CostsU) = [$55,000(1 – .36) – ($9.5M/20)(.36)] x PVIFA (12%, 20) + $9.5M = $8,485,649.56 EACU = $8,485,649.56/PVIFA(12%, 20) = $1,136,048 Above ground (A): CF0 = $4.5M, annual costs = $165,000, n = 9 PV(CostsA) = [$165,000(1 – .36) – ($4.5M/9)(.36)] x PVIFA (12%, 9) + $4.5M = $4,103,578.22 EACA = $4,103,578.22/PVIFA(12%, 9) = $770,155 The above ground system is cheaper for the firm. 37. Product A: PV of CCATS = 376,000(.2)(.40) x (1 + .5(.16)) .2 + .16 1 + .16 + (96,000/15)(.40) x PVIFA (16%, 15) = $92,066.27 PV (Net cash flows) = (300,500 – 170,000)(1 – .40) x PVIFA (16%, 15) = $436,558.22 NPV = 92,066 + 436,558 – 14,750(1 – .40) x PVIF (16%, 15) – (96,000 + 376,000) = $55,669 Product B: PV of CCATS = 422,000(.2)(.40) x (1 + .5(.16)) + (177,500/15)(.40) x PVIFA (16%, 15) = $113,701 .2 + .16 1 + .16 PV (Net cash flows) = (373,600 – 212,000)(1 – .40) x PVIFA (16%, 15) = $540,596 NPV = 113,701 + 540,596 – 112,550(1 – .40) x PVIF (16%, 15) – (177,500 + 422,000) = $47,509 Continue to rent: NPV = 45,000(1 – .40) x PVIFA (16%, 15) = $150,537 Continue to rent the building (highest NPV). Note: If the lost rent from renovations is included as an opportunity cost in the evaluation of Products A and B, their NPVs would be negative, indicating that the firm should not produce either of those items and, instead, continue to rent the facility. 38. The rule is to discount nominal cash flows using nominal rates and real cash flows using real rates. Our choice is simple here. We should use nominal values for cash flows and rates since the rate of inflation is not provided. V = ($750K/.15) + ($1,650,000 – $1,100,000) = $5,550,000. Therefore, P 0 = 5,550,000/275,000=$20.18/share. 39. Operating costsA = $127,000(1 – 0.36) = $81,280 PVCCATSA = $109,115.47 PV(CostsA) = $525,000 + $81,280 x PVIFA(18%, 4) – $109,115.47 = $634,533 Operating costsB = $67,500(1 – 0.36) = $43,200 361 PVCCATSB = $124,703.39 PV(CostsB) = $600,000 + $43,200 x PVIFA(18%, 6) – $124,703.39 = $626,393 If the system will not be replaced when it wears out, then system B should be chosen, because it has a lower present value of costs. 40. EACA = $634,533 / PVIFA(18%, 4) = $235,880 EACB = $626,393 / PVIFA(18%, 6) = $179,092 If the system is replaced, system B should be chosen because it has a smaller EAC. 41. Let: After-tax net revenue = ATNR = [(P–v)Q – FC ](1 – tc) Opportunity cost of land = $750,000 Capital gains tax = ($750,000 – $600,000)(0.5)(0.38) = $28,500 Opportunity cost of land net of capital gains tax = $750,000 – $28,500 = $721,500 Salvage value = $475,000 PVCCATS = $614,450.62 NPV = 0 = – $721,500 – $3,100,000 – $500,000 + $614,451 + ATNR*PVIFA(17%, 7) – 60,000*PVIFA(17%, 6) + (475,000 + 860,000)*PVIF(17%, 7) ATNR = $3,046,882 / PVIFA(17%, 7) = $776,794 ATNR = $776,794 = [(P–v)Q – FC ](1 – tc) $776,794 = [(P – 0.016)(32,500,000) – 475,000](1 – 0.38); P = $0.06917 42. SAL5000 12 machines needed cost/machine=$11,500 Op. Costs=$1,500/yr SV6 = $1,500 DET1000 10 machines needed cost/machine=$15,000 Op. Costs=$1,200/yr SV4 = 0 NPVSAL5000=[-1,500 x PVIFA (14%, 6) – 11,500 + 1,500 x PVIF (14%, 6)](12) = -$199,795.46 NPVDET1000=[-1,200 x PVIFA (14%, 4) – 15,000](10) = -$184,964.55 Using a replacement chain, we effectively assume that each alternative is duplicated over identical future periods of time until they both meet at the same point in time. If the SAL5000 is repeated once it will extend out to 12 years. If the DET1000 is repeated twice (two subsequent four-year periods) it will also extend out to the same point in time thus allowing for a more reasonable comparison between the two. NPVSAL5000 = -199,795 – 199,795 x PVIF (14%, 6) = -$290,819 NPVDET1000 = -184,965 – 184,965 x PVIF (14%, 4) – 184,965 x PVIF (14%, 8) = -$359,320 Choose the SAL5000 model. 43. X: C0 = 546,000 Savings/yr. = 198,000 n=5 Y: C0 = 960,000 Savings/yr. = 246,000 n=10 k = 13% NPVX = 198,000 x PVIFA (13%,5) – 546,000 = $150,412 With replacement chain: NPVx = 150,412 + 150,412 x PVIF (13%, 5) = $232,050 NPVY = 246,000 x PVIFA (13%, 10) – 960,000 = $374,856 Choose Mixer Y. 362 Challenge 44. a. Assuming the project lasts four years, the NPV is calculated as follows: Year 0 1 2 3 After-tax profit $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 Change in NWC Capital spending Total cash flow (1,000,000) (5,000,000) ($6,000,000) 0 0 $1,600,000 0 0 $1,600,000 0 0 $1,600,000 4 $1,600,000 1,000,000 0 $2,600,000 PVCCATS = $1,310,439.56 Net present value = $805,716.59 b. Abandoned after one year: Year After-tax profit Change in NWC Capital spending Total cash flow 0 1 $1,600,000 (1,000,000) (5,000,000) ($6,000,000) 1,000,000 4,000,000 $6,600,000 PVCCATS = $321,428.57 Net present value = $214,285.71 Abandoned after two years: Year After-tax profit Change in NWC Capital spending Total cash flow 0 1 $1,600,000 2 $1,600,000 (1,000,000) (5,000,000) ($6,000,000) 0 0 $1,600,000 1,000,000 3,500,000 $6,100,000 1 $1,600,000 2 $1,600,000 3 $1,600,000 0 0 $1,600,000 0 0 $1,600,000 1,000,000 1,750,000 $4,350,000 PVCCATS = $537,774.73 Net present value = $829,228.81 Abandoned after three years: Year 0 After-tax profit Change in NWC Capital spending Total cash flow (1,000,000) (5,000,000) ($6,000,000) PVCCATS = $965,499.90 Net present value = $765,825.61 The decision to abandon is an important variable when evaluating the NPV of a project. This project should be abandoned after two years since the NPV is larger than at any other year-end. 45. Cash flows for year 0 = -$250,000 Cash flows for years 1-5 = (25,000 + 26,000)(1 – .38) + (250,000/5)(.38) = $50,620 PV of after-tax cash flows = $50,620*PVIFA(11%, 5) = $187,086 NPV = $187,086 – $250,000 = -$62,914 No, they should not renovate. 363 46. PV of CCATS = 175,500(.20)(.40) x (1 + .5(.15) .15 + .20 (1 + .15) = $37,498 a. 175,500 – 37,498.14 = PMT x PVIFA(15%, 5) PMT = $41,168.10 Cost savings = 41,168.10/.6 = $68,613.50 b. PV of CCATS = 175,500(.20)(.40) x (1 + .5(.15) - 28,500(.20)(.40) x 1 .15 + .20 (1 + .15) .15 + .20 (1.15)5 = $34,259.39 175,500 – 34,259.39 = PMT x PVIFA (15%, 5) + 28,500/(1.15) 5 PMT = $37,907.28 Cost savings = 37,907.28/.6 = $63,179 47. Cash flow year 0 = -85,000,000 – 4,600,000 – 16,500,000 – 3,300,000(1 – .38) = -$108,146,000 Cash flow years 1-7 = [(17,600)(23,500 – 19,300) – 28,000,000](1 – .38) = $28,470,400 Cash flow year 8 = 28,470,400 + 20,200,000 + 16,500,000 = $65,170,400 PVCCATS (Class 3) = 10,000,000(.05)(.38) x (1 + .5(.15)) - 7,000,000(.05)(.38) x 1 8 .15 + .05 (1 + .15) .15 + .05 (1.15) = $670,654 PVCCATS (Class 8) = 75,000,000(.20)(.38) x (1 + .5(.15)) - 8,600,000(.20)(.38) x 1 8 .15 + .20 (1 + .15) .15 + .20 (1.15) = $14,613,137 NPV = -108,146,000 + 28,470,400*PVIFA(15%, 7) + 65,170,400*PVIF(15%, 8) + 670,654 + 14,613,137 = $46,890,924 The net present value is positive, so they should produce the robots. 48. Year Units/year Price/unit Variable cost/unit Sales Variable costs Fixed costs Net revenue Taxes (40%) (S – C)(1 – T) Year 1 90,000 $360 $227 $32,400,000 (20,430,000) (175,000) 11,795,000 (4,718,000) $ 7,077,000 0 2 100,000 $360 $227 3 110,000 $360 $227 $36,000,000 $39,600,000 (22,700,000) (24,970,000) (175,000) (175,000) 13,125,000 14,455,000 (5,250,000) (5,782,000) $ 7,875,000 $ 8,673,000 1 2 3 364 4 117,000 $360 $227 $42,120,000 (26,559,000) (175,000) 15,386,000 (6,154,400) $ 9,231,600 4 5 65,000 $360 $227 $23,400,000 (14,755,000) (175,000) 8,470,000 (3,388,000) $ 5,082,000 5 After-tax revenue $0 $7,077,000 $7,875,000 $8,673,000 $9,231,600 $5,082,000 Change in NWC (550,000) (1,260,000) (1,260,000) (882,000) 0 3,952,000 Capital spending (14,200,000) 0 0 0 0 3,550,000 PVCCATS 2,065,198 Total cash flow ($12,684,802) $5,817,000 $6,615,000 $7,791,000 $9,231,600 $12,584,000 Net present value = $8,096,178; An approximate solution for the IRR can be found by assuming that the PVCCATS is discounted at the cost of capital of the firm. In this case: IRR = 49.64%. The alternative is to enter the data into a spreadsheet and search for the rate that produces a NPV = 0. In this case we find that IRR = 46.59019%. 49. PVCCATS(class 8) = 540,000 x 0.20 x 0.37 x (1+0.5(0.11)) 0.20+0.11 1.11 -95,000 x 0.20 x 0.37 x 1/(1.11)5 0.20 + 0.11 = $109,058 NPV = 0 = -$540,000 – $20,000+ (S-C)(0.63)*PVIFA(11%, 5) + $109,058 + ($95,000 + $20,000)/1.115 (S-C)(0.63)*PVIFA(11%, 5) = $382,695 (S-C) = $164,359 50. a. For the new computer: For the old computer: PVCCATS = $143,597.80 $60, 000(.36) $60, 000(.36) $36,505.10 PVCCATS = 1.12 (1.12)2 Difference in PVCCATS = $107,092.70 If old computer is replaced now: Year 0 After-tax cost savings (S – C)(1 – T) Capital spending Total cash flow (392,907)* ($392,907) 1 70,400 2 70,400 3 70,400 4 70,400 5 70,400 0 $70,400 (75,000) ($4,600) 0 $70,400 0 $70,400 100,000 $170,400 *Initial Capital spending = Payment for new computer + resale of old computer + gain in PVCCATS = ($650,000) + $150,000 + $107,092.70 = ($392,907.30) NPV = -$142,177.61. Do not replace the old computer now. b. New Computer: Year Cost savings PVCCATS Capital spending Total cash flow 0 143,598 (650,000) ($506,402) 1 70,400 2 70,400 3 70,400 4 70,400 5 70,400 0 $70,400 0 $70,400 0 $70,400 0 $70,400 100,000 $170,400 Net present value = –$195,883.07; EAC = $54,339.87 365 Old Computer: Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 Depreciation tax shield Change in NWC 0 Capital spending (150,000) Total cash flow ($150,000) 21,600 0 0 $21,600 21,600 0 75,000 $96,600 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 $0 Net present value = –$53,705.36; EAC = $31,777.36 Once we consider that there is going to be a planned replacement of the old machine after the second year, we must compare the EACs. The decision is to still stick with the old computer. 51. a. Assume price per unit = $10 and units/year = 175,000 After-tax net revenue/yr. = [(P-V)Q FC](1 Tc) = [($10 – 6.50)(175,000) – 180,000](0.65) = $281,125 PVCCATS = $100,086; Salvage value = $80,000; Initial working capital increase = $77,000 NPV = -$555,000 – 77,000 + 100,086 + 281,125*PVIFA(20%, 5) + (77,000 + 80,000)*PVIF(20%, 5) = $371,917 To break even the number of cartons sold must be less than 175,000. b. NPV = $0 = -$555,000 – 77,000 + 100,086 + [($10 – 6.50)(Q) – 180,000](0.65)*PVIFA(20%, 5) + (77,000 + 80,000)*PVIF(20%, 5) Solve for Q to find: Q 120,336 cartons. At Q = 120,336: NPV = $2.30 $0 c. NPV = $0 = -$555,000 – 77,000 + 100,086 + [($10 – 6.50)(175,000) – FC](0.65)*PVIFA(20%, 5) + (77,000 + 80,000)*PVIF(20%, 5) Solve for FC to find: FC $371,325. At FC = $371,325: NPV = $0.35 $0 Appendix 10A A1. Nominal discount rate = 12%; Inflation rate = 3% Real rate = (1.12/1.03) – 1 = 0.0873786 = 8.73786% Year 0 1 2 3 4 Real Cash Flows Method 1 Method 2 $5,700.00 $8,400.00 349.51 524.27 339.33 509.00 329.45 494.18 479.78 Discounting the real cash flows at the real rate we get: Method 1: PV(Costs) = $6,565 Method 2: PV(Costs) = $10,040 As long as the cash flows and the discount rate in the annuity factors that we use to compute the EACs are also adjusted for inflation, we should obtain the identical value for each EAC as we obtained in the earlier problem. Method 1: EAC = $2,733 Method 2: EAC = $3,306 366