should we build this plant?
DESCRIPTION
CHAPTER 11 C apital Budgeting: Decision Criteria. Should we build this plant?. What is capital budgeting?. Analysis of potential additions to fixed assets. Long-term decisions; involve large expenditures. Very important to firm’s future. Steps. 1. Estimate CFs (inflows & outflows). - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
11 - 1
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Should we build thisplant?
CHAPTER 11Capital Budgeting: Decision Criteria
![Page 2: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
11 - 2
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
What is capital budgeting?
Analysis of potential additions to fixed assets.
Long-term decisions; involve large expenditures.
Very important to firm’s future.
![Page 3: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
11 - 3
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Steps
1. Estimate CFs (inflows & outflows).
2. Assess riskiness of CFs.
3. Determine k = WACC for project.
4. Find NPV and/or IRR.
5. Accept if NPV > 0 and/or IRR > WACC.
![Page 4: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
11 - 4
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive
projects?
Projects are:
independent, if the cash flows of one are unaffected by the acceptance of the other.
mutually exclusive, if the cash flows of one can be adversely impacted by the acceptance of the other.
![Page 5: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
11 - 5
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
An Example of Mutually Exclusive Projects
BRIDGE vs. BOAT to get products across a river.
![Page 6: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
11 - 6
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Normal Cash Flow Project:
Cost (negative CF) followed by aseries of positive cash inflows. One change of signs.
Nonnormal Cash Flow Project:
Two or more changes of signs.Most common: Cost (negativeCF), then string of positive CFs,then cost to close project.Nuclear power plant, strip mine.
![Page 7: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
11 - 7
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Inflow (+) or Outflow (-) in Year
0 1 2 3 4 5 N NN
- + + + + + N
- + + + + - NN
- - - + + + N
+ + + - - - N
- + + - + - NN
![Page 8: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
11 - 8
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
What is the payback period?
The number of years required to recover a project’s cost,
or how long does it take to get the business’s money back?
![Page 9: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
11 - 9
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Payback for Project L(Long: Most CFs in out years)
10 8060
0 1 2 3
-100
=
CFt
Cumulative -100 -90 -30 50
PaybackL 2 + 30/80 = 2.375 years
0100
2.4
![Page 10: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
11 - 10
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Project S (Short: CFs come quickly)
70 2050
0 1 2 3
-100CFt
Cumulative -100 -30 20 40
PaybackS 1 + 30/50 = 1.6 years
100
0
1.6
=
![Page 11: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11 - 11
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Strengths of Payback:
1. Provides an indication of a project’s risk and liquidity.
2. Easy to calculate and understand.
Weaknesses of Payback:
1. Ignores the TVM.
2. Ignores CFs occurring after the payback period.
![Page 12: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
11 - 12
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
10 8060
0 1 2 3
CFt
Cumulative -100 -90.91 -41.32 18.79
Discountedpayback 2 + 41.32/60.11 = 2.7 yrs
Discounted Payback: Uses discountedrather than raw CFs.
PVCFt -100
-100
10%
9.09 49.59 60.11
=
Recover invest. + cap. costs in 2.7 yrs.
![Page 13: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
11 - 13
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
NPV
CF
kt
nt
t 0 1
.
NPV: Sum of the PVs of inflows and outflows.
Cost often is CF0 and is negative.
.CF
k1
CFNPV 0t
tn
1t
![Page 14: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
11 - 14
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
What’s Project L’s NPV?
10 8060
0 1 2 310%
Project L:
-100.00
9.09
49.59
60.1118.79 = NPVL NPVS = $19.98.
![Page 15: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
11 - 15
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Calculator Solution
Enter in CFLO for L:
-100
10
60
80
10
CF0
CF1
NPV
CF2
CF3
I = 18.78 = NPVL
![Page 16: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
11 - 16
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Rationale for the NPV Method
NPV = PV inflows - Cost= Net gain in wealth.
Accept project if NPV > 0.
Choose between mutually exclusive projects on basis ofhigher NPV. Adds most value.
![Page 17: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
11 - 17
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Using NPV method, which project(s) should be accepted?
If Projects S and L are mutually exclusive, accept S because NPVs > NPVL .
If S & L are independent, accept both; NPV > 0.
![Page 18: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
11 - 18
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Internal Rate of Return: IRR
0 1 2 3
CF0 CF1 CF2 CF3
Cost Inflows
IRR is the discount rate that forcesPV inflows = cost. This is the sameas forcing NPV = 0.
![Page 19: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
11 - 19
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
t
nt
t
CF
kNPV
0 1.
t
nt
t
CF
IRR
0 10.
NPV: Enter k, solve for NPV.
IRR: Enter NPV = 0, solve for IRR.
![Page 20: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
11 - 20
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
What’s Project L’s IRR?
10 8060
0 1 2 3IRR = ?
-100.00
PV3
PV2
PV1
0 = NPV
Enter CFs in CFLO, then press IRR:IRRL = 18.13%. IRRS = 23.56%.
![Page 21: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
11 - 21
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
40 40 40
0 1 2 3IRR = ?
Find IRR if CFs are constant:
-100
Or, with CFLO, enter CFs and press IRR = 9.70%.
3 -100 40 0
9.70%N I/YR PV PMT FV
INPUTS
OUTPUT
![Page 22: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
11 - 22
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
90 1,09090
0 1 2 10IRR = ?
Q. How is a project’s IRRrelated to a bond’s YTM?
A. They are the same thing.A bond’s YTM is the IRRif you invest in the bond.
-1,134.2
IRR = 7.08% (use TVM or CFLO).
...
![Page 23: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
11 - 23
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Rationale for the IRR Method
If IRR > WACC, then the project’s rate of return is greater than its cost-- some return is left over to boost stockholders’ returns.
Example: WACC = 10%, IRR = 15%.Profitable.
![Page 24: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
11 - 24
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
IRR Acceptance Criteria
If IRR > k, accept project.
If IRR < k, reject project.
![Page 25: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
11 - 25
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Decisions on Projects S and L per IRR
If S and L are independent, accept both. IRRs > k = 10%.
If S and L are mutually exclusive, accept S because IRRS > IRRL .
![Page 26: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
11 - 26
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Construct NPV Profiles
Enter CFs in CFLO and find NPVL andNPVS at different discount rates:
k
0
5
10
15
20
NPVL
50
33
19
7
NPVS
40
29
20
12
5 (4)
![Page 27: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
11 - 27
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 5 10 15 20 23.6
NPV ($)
Discount Rate (%)
IRRL = 18.1%
IRRS = 23.6%
Crossover Point = 8.7%
k
0
5
10
15
20
NPVL
50
33
19
7
(4)
NPVS
40
29
20
12
5
S
L
![Page 28: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
11 - 28
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
NPV and IRR always lead to the same accept/reject decision for independent projects:
k > IRRand NPV < 0.
Reject.
NPV ($)
k (%)IRR
IRR > kand NPV > 0
Accept.
![Page 29: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
11 - 29
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Mutually Exclusive Projects
k 8.7 k
NPV
%
IRRS
IRRL
L
S
k < 8.7: NPVL> NPVS , IRRS > IRRL
CONFLICT k > 8.7: NPVS> NPVL , IRRS > IRRL
NO CONFLICT
![Page 30: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
11 - 30
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
To Find the Crossover Rate
1. Find cash flow differences between the projects. See data at beginning of the case.
2. Enter these differences in CFLO register, then press IRR. Crossover rate = 8.68%, rounded to 8.7%.
3. Can subtract S from L or vice versa, but better to have first CF negative.
4. If profiles don’t cross, one project dominates the other.
![Page 31: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
11 - 31
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Two Reasons NPV Profiles Cross
1. Size (scale) differences. Smaller project frees up funds at t = 0 for investment. The higher the opportunity cost, the more valuable these funds, so high k favors small projects.
2. Timing differences. Project with faster payback provides more CF in early years for reinvestment. If k is high, early CF especially good, NPVS > NPVL.
![Page 32: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
11 - 32
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Reinvestment Rate Assumptions
NPV assumes reinvest at k (opportunity cost of capital).
IRR assumes reinvest at IRR.
Reinvest at opportunity cost, k, is more realistic, so NPV method is best. NPV should be used to choose between mutually exclusive projects.
![Page 33: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
11 - 33
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Managers like rates--prefer IRR to NPV comparisons. Can we give them a
better IRR?
Yes, MIRR is the discount rate whichcauses the PV of a project’s terminalvalue (TV) to equal the PV of costs.TV is found by compounding inflowsat WACC.
Thus, MIRR assumes cash inflows are reinvested at WACC.
![Page 34: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
11 - 34
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
MIRR = 16.5%
10.0 80.060.0
0 1 2 310%
66.0 12.1
158.1
MIRR for Project L (k = 10%)
-100.010%
10%
TV inflows-100.0
PV outflowsMIRRL = 16.5%
$100 = $158.1
(1+MIRRL)3
![Page 35: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
11 - 35
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
To find TV with 10B, enter in CFLO:
I = 10
NPV = 118.78 = PV of inflows.
Enter PV = -118.78, N = 3, I = 10, PMT = 0.Press FV = 158.10 = FV of inflows.
Enter FV = 158.10, PV = -100, PMT = 0, N = 3.Press I = 16.50% = MIRR.
CF0 = 0, CF1 = 10, CF2 = 60, CF3 = 80
![Page 36: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
11 - 36
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Why use MIRR versus IRR?
MIRR correctly assumes reinvestment at opportunity cost = WACC. MIRR also avoids the problem of multiple IRRs.
Managers like rate of return comparisons, and MIRR is better for this than IRR.
![Page 37: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
11 - 37
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Pavilion Project: NPV and IRR?
5,000 -5,000
0 1 2k = 10%
-800
Enter CFs in CFLO, enter I = 10.
NPV = -386.78
IRR = ERROR. Why?
![Page 38: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
11 - 38
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
We got IRR = ERROR because there are 2 IRRs. Nonnormal CFs--two signchanges. Here’s a picture:
NPV Profile
450
-800
0400100
IRR2 = 400%
IRR1 = 25%
k
NPV
![Page 39: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
11 - 39
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Logic of Multiple IRRs
1. At very low discount rates, the PV of CF2 is large & negative, so NPV < 0.
2. At very high discount rates, the PV of both CF1 and CF2 are low, so CF0 dominates and again NPV < 0.
3. In between, the discount rate hits CF2 harder than CF1, so NPV > 0.
4. Result: 2 IRRs.
![Page 40: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
11 - 40
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Could find IRR with calculator:
1. Enter CFs as before.
2. Enter a “guess” as to IRR by storing the guess. Try 10%:
10 STO
IRR = 25% = lower IRR
Now guess large IRR, say, 200:
200 STO
IRR = 400% = upper IRR
![Page 41: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
11 - 41
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
When there are nonnormal CFs and more than one IRR, use MIRR:
0 1 2
-800,000 5,000,000 -5,000,000
PV outflows @ 10% = -4,932,231.40.
TV inflows @ 10% = 5,500,000.00.
MIRR = 5.6%
![Page 42: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
11 - 42
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Accept Project P?
NO. Reject because MIRR = 5.6% < k = 10%.
Also, if MIRR < k, NPV will be negative: NPV = -$386,777.
![Page 43: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
11 - 43
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
S and L are mutually exclusive and will be repeated. k = 10%. Which is
better? (000s)
0 1 2 3 4
Project S:(100)
Project L:(100)
60
33.5
60
33.5 33.5 33.5
![Page 44: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
11 - 44
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
S LCF0 -100,000 -100,000CF1 60,000 33,500Nj 2 4I 10 10
NPV 4,132 6,190
NPVL > NPVS. But is L better?Can’t say yet. Need to perform common life analysis.
![Page 45: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
11 - 45
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Note that Project S could be repeated after 2 years to generate additional profits.
Can use either replacement chain or equivalent annual annuity analysis to make decision.
![Page 46: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
11 - 46
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Project S with Replication:
NPV = $7,547.
Replacement Chain Approach (000s)
0 1 2 3 4
Project S:(100) (100)
60 60
60(100) (40)
6060
6060
![Page 47: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
11 - 47
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Compare to Project L NPV = $6,190.Compare to Project L NPV = $6,190.
Or, use NPVs:
0 1 2 3 4
4,1323,4157,547
4,13210%
![Page 48: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
11 - 48
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
If the cost to repeat S in two years rises to $105,000, which is best? (000s)
NPVS = $3,415 < NPVL = $6,190.Now choose L.NPVS = $3,415 < NPVL = $6,190.Now choose L.
0 1 2 3 4
Project S:(100)
60 60(105) (45)
60 60
![Page 49: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
11 - 49
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Year0123
CF ($5,000) 2,100 2,000 1,750
Salvage Value $5,000 3,100 2,000 0
Consider another project with a 3-year life. If terminated prior to Year 3, the machinery will have positive salvage
value.
![Page 50: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
11 - 50
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
1.751. No termination
2. Terminate 2 years
3. Terminate 1 year
(5)
(5)
(5)
2.1
2.1
5.2
2
4
0 1 2 3
CFs Under Each Alternative (000s)
![Page 51: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
11 - 51
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
NPV(no) = -$123.
NPV(2) = $215.
NPV(1) = -$273.
Assuming a 10% cost of capital, what is the project’s optimal, or economic life?
![Page 52: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
11 - 52
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
The project is acceptable only if operated for 2 years.
A project’s engineering life does not always equal its economic life.
Conclusions
![Page 53: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
11 - 53
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Choosing the Optimal Capital Budget
Finance theory says to accept all positive NPV projects.
Two problems can occur when there is not enough internally generated cash to fund all positive NPV projects:
An increasing marginal cost of capital.
Capital rationing
![Page 54: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
11 - 54
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Increasing Marginal Cost of Capital
Externally raised capital can have large flotation costs, which increase the cost of capital.
Investors often perceive large capital budgets as being risky, which drives up the cost of capital.
(More...)
![Page 55: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
11 - 55
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
If external funds will be raised, then the NPV of all projects should be estimated using this higher marginal cost of capital.
![Page 56: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
11 - 56
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Capital Rationing
Capital rationing occurs when a company chooses not to fund all positive NPV projects.
The company typically sets an upper limit on the total amount of capital expenditures that it will make in the upcoming year.
(More...)
![Page 57: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
11 - 57
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Reason: Companies want to avoid the direct costs (i.e., flotation costs) and the indirect costs of issuing new capital.
Solution: Increase the cost of capital by enough to reflect all of these costs, and then accept all projects that still have a positive NPV with the higher cost of capital.
(More...)
![Page 58: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
11 - 58
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Reason: Companies don’t have enough managerial, marketing, or engineering staff to implement all positive NPV projects.
Solution: Use linear programming to maximize NPV subject to not exceeding the constraints on staffing.
(More...)
![Page 59: Should we build this plant?](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032607/56813066550346895d9640eb/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
11 - 59
Copyright © 2002 South-Western
Reason: Companies believe that the project’s managers forecast unreasonably high cash flow estimates, so companies “filter” out the worst projects by limiting the total amount of projects that can be accepted.
Solution: Implement a post-audit process and tie the managers’ compensation to the subsequent performance of the project.