CHAPTER 9

ou
y
y
h
W ace?
l
p
e
r
ou
y
en ?
h
W ace
l
p
re

REPLACEMENT
ANALYSIS
SEMESTER JANUARY 2010

Replacement Concept
Replacement refers to
Selection of new assets to replace existing assets.
The evaluation of entirely different ways to perform an
assets function.
Example:
Old trucks can be replaced with new models that operate
similarly but have additional features that improve
performance or efficiency.
Trucks could be replaced with conveyor system,
overhead crane, subcontract for hauling, or manual
labour; that serves the needed function.
SEMESTER JANUAR

Introduction

The pressure of competition in business such as

requiring higher quality goods and services, shorter
response times, competitive price often lead to a
situation whereby organisations have to decide
whether the existing asset should be
Retired from use,
Retain the asset for backup,
Continued in service, or
Replaced with a new assets.

SEMESTER JANUAR

INTRODUCTION
In REPLACEMENT ANALYSIS, the reference for
comparison is the existing resource --- anything that is used
in business such as machine, tools, or equipment.
The question is:
When should we replace the resource?
Or more focused question:
Should we replace the equipment now or sometime
later?
Precise question:
Should we budget now to replace the resource during
the next financial year?
SEMESTER JANUAR

REPLACEMENT ANALYSIS

The evaluation of changes in economics of assets

associated with their use in an operating environment.
Considers asset:
replacement
retirement
Augmentation (increase the capability)

SEMESTER JANUAR

The Importance of Replacement Decision

Timely replacement decisions are critically important to a

company:
A decision to replace a machine because it is temporarily
out of order, or untimely replacement for latest
technology, can be a serious drain on operating capital of
a company.
A decision to postpone replacement until there is no
other way to continue production, can place a company
in a dangerous position of becoming uncompetitive.
Therefore, we need to recognise when an asset is no longer
employed efficiently, what replacement should be considered, and
when replacement is economically feasible.
The GOAL is to be COST EFFICIENT.

SEMESTER JANUAR

DEFENDER CHALLENGER CONCEPT

Replacement analysis can be conceptualised better by
considering the existing resource as a defender as it were
trying to defend its continued use.
The one being considered to replace the defender is called
challenger.

1.
2.
3.

A complete replacement analysis involves three tasks:

Selection of the defender and its analysis
Selection of the challenger and its analysis
Defender challenger comparison

SEMESTER JANUAR

REASONS FOR REPLACEMENT

ANALYSIS
Physical Impairment (Deterioration)
Altered Requirements
Technology
Financing [rental (lease) is more attractive than ownership]

SEMESTER JANUAR

PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT
(DETERIORATION)

Efficiency loss resulting from continued use - - - aging

Increased routine and corrective maintenance costs
Greater energy requirements
Increased need for operator intervention
Unanticipated problems leading to equipment
deterioration

SEMESTER JANUAR

ALTERED REQUIREMENTS
Significant change in demand for related
products or services
Significant change in the composition or design
of associated products or services
May be considered a form of obsolescence

SEMESTER JANUAR

10

TECHNOLOGY
Impact of technological change varies with
associated industry
Technological changes typically reduce cost
per unit and improve quality of output
Results in earlier replacement of existing
assets with improved assets
May be considered a form of obsolescence

SEMESTER JANUAR

11

FINANCING
Considers economic opportunity changes
external to the physical operation or use of the
asset(s)
May involve income tax considerations
(depreciation and after-tax analysis)
EG: rental of assets may become more
attractive than ownership
May be considered a form of obsolescence

SEMESTER JANUAR

12

REPLACEMENT ANALYSIS
Two types of approach available [when to apply]:
1.
EUAC-BASED analysis [zone A and early part of zone B]
2.
MARGINAL-COST-BASED analysis [later part of zone B]
A

Cost
Total cost

Operating cost
EUAC min

Capital Recovery cost

Economic life

Age

SEMESTER JANUAR

13

MARGINAL-COST
Marginal cost is the cost to keep an asset in service one
more year. This concept is applicable to mature, older
existing equipment (defender) with increasing operating
costs.
Require knowledge of the future MV of the asset.
The marginal cost is calculated for each year of the assets
life.
The marginal cost is used to compare against EUAC of the
proposed replacement.

SEMESTER JANUAR

14

ECONOMIC LIFE

ECONOMIC LIFE is the period of time (years) that

results in the minimum Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost
(EUAC) of owning and operating an asset
Assuming good asset management, economic life
should coincide with time from date of acquisition to
date of abandonment, demotion in use, or replacement
from primary intended service
Replacement studies are usually made as EUAC (annual
equivalent) calculations to take advantage of data
commonly collected as annual charges {maintenance
costs, operating expenses, salaries, inflation,
depreciation, taxes, etc}.
SEMESTER JANUAR

15

ECONOMIC LIFE

Economic life is sometimes called minimum-cost

life or optimum replacement interval (for cyclic
replacement of assets)
For a new asset, economic life can be computed if
capital investment, annual expenses, and yearby-year market values are known or can be
estimated

SEMESTER JANUAR

16

OWNERSHIP LIFE

Period between date of acquisition and date of disposal

by a specific owner
A given asset may have different categories of use
during this period

SEMESTER JANUAR

17

PHYSICAL LIFE

Period of time between original acquisition and final

disposal of an asset over its succession of owners

SEMESTER JANUAR

18

USEFUL LIFE

The time period in years that an asset is kept in

productive service either in primary or backup
mode
An estimate of how long an asset is expected to
be used in a trade or business to produce
income

SEMESTER JANUAR

19

ECONOMIC LIFE FOR CYCLIC REPLACEMENT

Many mechanical items used are replaced by essentially
the same machine when the original one wears out.
Informal rules may be used to establish cyclic replacement
times. A company replaces a car whenever it exceeds 5
years of service. A rental car company replaces their cars
whenever they exceed 100,000km.
Such replacement rules recognise that the automobiles or
similar machines become less efficient and accumulate
higher and higher repair bills as they age.
The total lifetime cost continues to increase with age, but
average annual cost passes through a minimum.
Refer to Figure 9.1

SEMESTER JANUAR

20

Figure 9.1
$

Cumulative total cost, CTC

60,000
Cumulative operating cost, COC

40,000
Cumulative capital cost =
(initial cost resale cost)

20,000

Average annual cost=

CTC / age of replacement
Min average annual cost

Age at replacement, years

SEMESTER JANUAR

21

Example 1: Cyclic Replacement Analysis:

A delivery service company owns a fleet of small delivery trucks
for store-to-home deliveries. The purchase price per truck is
$20,000, and the anticipated schedule of future operating costs
and salvage value is shown below.
Table 1

1
2
Operating cost
2,000 3,000
Market value (MV) 15,000 11,250

3
4,620
8,500

4
5
8,000 12,000
6,500 4,700

We are required to calculate the least-cost replacement interval.

SEMESTER JANUAR

22

Table 2

From Table 1

Given

Least cost

The above tabular solution method reveals that trading-in the trucks
after 3 years for new unit is the minimum-cost replacement cycle.
This is the economic life of the challenger, where EUAC is at the
lowest.

SEMESTER JANUAR

23

Sample calculation of EUAC for N at year 2.

Table 3

Least cost

SEMESTER JANUAR

24

REPLACEMENT STUDY CONSIDERATIONS

1. Recognition and acceptance of past errors
2. Sunk costs
3. Existing asset value and the outsider viewpoint
4. Income tax considerations
5. Economic life of the proposed replacement
(Challenger)
6. Remaining (economic) life of the old asset (defender)

SEMESTER JANUAR

25

PAST ESTIMATION ERRORS

1.

2.
3.

Past estimation errors are irrelevant unless there are

income tax implications
Example:
when BV > current MV, frequently attributed to
estimation error,
inadequate capacity,
maintenance costs higher than anticipated.
The above are mainly due to the inability to foresee
future conditions better at the time of original estimates.
Must focus on valid estimation of future replacement,
without consideration of loss which may have occurred
in the past.
SEMESTER JANUAR

26

THE SUNK COST TRAP

Only present and future cash flows should be

considered in replacement studies
Unamortized values of existing asset considered
for replacement are the result of past decisions -(Sunk costs = BV - MV)
Sunk costs are irrelevant to replacement decisions,
except to extent they affect income taxes
When tax considerations are involved, sunk costs
must be included in study

SEMESTER JANUAR

27

EXISTING ASSET INVESTMENT VALUE --- AN

OUSIDER VIEWPOINT

Perspective of impartial third party in establishing

fair market value (MV) of your used asset
Present realizable MV defines correct investment
amount for asset in replacement studies
Consider the opportunity cost of retaining the asset
-- the defender

SEMESTER JANUAR

28

THE OUTSIDER VIEWPOINT

The total investment in the defender is the
opportunity cost of not selling the existing
asset for its current MV, plus the cost of
upgrading to be competitive with best
available challenger

SEMESTER JANUAR

29

Example 9.1

1.

2.

The purchase price of a new automobile (challenger) is

RM 21,000. The present automobile (defender) can be
sold for RM 10,000. The defender was purchased three
years ago and its current BV is RM 12,000. To make
defender comparable in continued service to the
challenger, your firm would need to make some repairs at
an estimated cost of RM 1,500.
Total capital investment in the defender (if kept):
RM 10,000 + RM 1,500 = RM 11,500
Unamortised value of the defender is:
RM 12,000 RM 10,000 = RM 2,000 (loss)
This is the difference between the current market value
and the current book value of the defender.
This represents sunk cost and has no relevance to the
replacement decision.

SEMESTER JANUAR

30

Example 9.2
A old pressure vessel has annual O&M expenses of
$60,000 per year and it can be kept for 5 years more at
which time it will have $0 MV. The present MV is $30,000 if
it were sold now.
A new pressure vessel cost $120,000. It will have a MV of
$50,000 in 5 years and will have O&M expenses of $30,000
per year.
Using before tax MARR of 20% per year, determine
whether or not the old pressure vessel should be replaced.
Solution:
The 1 st step is to determine the investment value of
the defender (old vessel). Using outsider viewpoint, the
investment value of the defender is $30,000, its present
MV.

SEMESTER JANUAR

31

Example 9.2 contd

The problem can be solved using PW, FW or AW method.

Defender:
AW(20%) = -$30,000(A/P,20%,5) - $60,000
= -$70,032
Challenger:
AW(20%) = -120,000(A/P,20%,5) - $30,000
+ $50,000(A/F,20%,5)
= -$63,408
EUAC challenger < EUAC defender.
Thus, the old pressure vessel should be replaced.

SEMESTER JANUAR

32

THREE CASES OF USEFUL LIFE USED IN

REPLACEMENT ANALYSIS

Useful lives of the defender and challenger are

known and the same and also equal study period.

Useful lives of the defender and challenger may or

may not be known but economic life can be
determined.

Useful lives of the defender and challenger are

known but not the same.
SEMESTER JANUAR

33

ECONOMIC LIFE OF THE CHALLENGER

Economic life of an asset minimizes equivalent uniform

annual cost of owning and operating an asset
Economic life is often shorter than useful or physical life
Economic data regarding challengers are periodically
(often annually) updated
Replacement studies then repeated to ensure an on-going
evaluation of improvement opportunities.

SEMESTER JANUAR

34

ECONOMIC LIFE OF DEFENDER

Often one year

Because different lives of the challenger and defender are
involved, care should be taken when comparing defender
with challenger
Defender should be kept longer than apparent economic
life as long as its marginal cost < minimum equivalent
uniform annual cost of challenger over its economic life

SEMESTER JANUAR

35

Example 2:
It is desired to determine how much longer a fork lift should remain
in service before it is replaced by new unit (challenger) discussed
in Example 1.
The defender in this case is 2 years old, originally cost $13,000,
and has a present MV of $5,000. If kept, its market values and
annual expenses are as tabulated below:
EOY
k
0
1
2
3
4

MV @
EOY k
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000

Loss in Cost of capital operating Total marginal

MV during 10% of begin'g expenses cost for year
year k
of year MV
(Ek)
(TCk)
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000

500
400
300
200

5,500
6,600
7,800
8,800

7,000
8,000
9,100
10,000

Since the defenders marginal cost increases during the four-year

analysis period, we compare its marginal cost, year by year, with the
corresponding EUAC of the challenger to decide when to replace it.

SEMESTER JANUAR

36

Since the defenders marginal cost at year 3 ($9,100)

exceeds the EUAC of the challenger ($8,598), the defender
is replaced at year 3.

SEMESTER JANUAR

37

RETENTION OF THE
DEFENDER
The defender should be kept longer than the
apparent economic life of the defender as
long as its marginal cost (total cost for an
additional year of service) is less than the
minimum EUAC for the best alternative
challenger

SEMESTER JANUAR

38

PROJECT RETIREMENT WITHOUT

REPLACEMENT -- ABANDONMENT
Two assumptions apply:
Once capital investment made, firm desires to postpone project
abandonment as long as its present equivalent value (PW) is not
decreasing
The project will be terminated at the best abandonment time and
will not be replaced by the firm
Note:
In abandonment problems, annual benefits are present.
In economic life analysis, costs are dominant.
For both cases the objective is to increase the wealth of the firm
by: a) finding the life that maximises profits,
b) finding the life that minimises the costs.
See Example 9-7

SEMESTER JANUAR

39

Example 9.7

A $50,000 baling machine for recycled paper is being considered

by the XYZ company. Annual revenues less expenses and endof-year abandonment values (MV) for the machine have been
estimated for the project. The MARR is 12% per year. What is the
best time to abandon the project if the firm decided to acquire the
baling machine and use it for no longer than 7 years?
[finding the life that maximises profits]

End of Year, $
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Annual Rev - Exp 10,000 15,000 18,000 12,000 7,000 4,000 3,500
MV of machine 40,000 32,000 25,000 19,000 15,000 12,000 10,000

SEMESTER JANUAR

40

Sample calculation:
Keep for one year
$40,000
$10,000

$50,000

PW (12%)

=
=

-$50,000 + ($10,000 + $40,000) ( P/F, 12%, 1)

($5,355)

Keep for two years

$32,000
$10,000

$15,000

$50,000

PW (12%)

=
=

-$50,000 + $10,000 (P/F, 12%, 1) + ($15,000 + $32,000) (P/F, 12%, 2)

($3,603)

SEMESTER JANUAR

41

In the same manner, the PW (12%) for years three through seven
can be computed. The results are as follows:
Keep for three years

PW (12%) = $1,494

Keep for four years

PW (12%) = $3,400

Keep for five years

PW (12%) = $3,802

Keep for six years

Keep for seven years

PW (12%) = $3,403
PW (12%) = $3,430

Conclusion:
It is obvious that PW is maximised ($3,802) by retaining the
machine for a total of 5 years.

SEMESTER JANUAR

42