You are on page 1of 59

CHAPTER 13

The Basics of Capital Budgeting: Evaluating Cash Flows

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 firms future.

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.

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.

Normal Cash Flow Project:

Cost (negative CF) followed by a series of positive cash inflows. One change of signs. Nonnormal Cash Flow Project: Two or more changes of signs. Most common: Cost (negative CF), then string of positive CFs, then cost to close project. Nuclear power plant, strip mine.

Inflow (+) or Outflow (-) in Year

0 + 1 + + + + 2 + + + + 3 + + + 4 + + + + 5 + + N N NN N N NN NN

What is the payback period?

The number of years required to recover a projects cost, or how long does it take to get the businesss money back?

Payback for Project L (Long: Most CFs in out years)

0 CFt -100 Cumulative -100 PaybackL = 2 + 1 10 -90 30/80 2

2.4

3 80 50

60 100 -30 0

= 2.375 years

Project S (Short: CFs come quickly)

0 CFt -100 1

1.6 2

3 20 40

70 100 50 -30 0 20

= 1 + 30/50 = 1.6 years

Strengths of Payback: 1. Provides an indication of a projects risk and liquidity. 2. Easy to calculate and understand. Weaknesses of Payback: 1. Ignores the TVM. 2. Ignores CFs occurring after the payback period.

Discounted Payback: Uses discounted rather than raw CFs.

0 CFt PVCFt -100 -100 10% 1 10 9.09 -90.91 2 60 49.59 -41.32 3 80 60.11 18.79

n

n

NPV !
t !1

CFt

1  k

 CF0 .

Whats Project Ls NPV?

Project L: 0 -100.00 10% 1 10 2 60 3 80

9.09 49.59 60.11 18.79 = NPVL

NPVS = \$19.98.

Calculator Solution
Enter in CFLO for L: -100 10 60 80 10 CF0 CF1 CF2 CF3 I NPV = 18.78 = NPVL

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 of higher NPV. Adds most value.

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.

Internal Rate of Return: IRR

0 CF0 Cost 1 CF1 2 CF2 Inflows 3 CF3

IRR is the discount rate that forces PV inflows = cost. This is the same as forcing NPV = 0.

NPV: Enter k, solve for NPV.

CFt ! NPV. t t ! 0 1  k
n

IRR: Enter NPV = 0, solve for IRR.

CFt t ! 0. t ! 0 1  IRR
n

0
IRR = ?

1 10

2 60

3 80

-100.00 PV1 PV2 PV3 0 = NPV

Enter CFs in CFLO, then press IRR: IRRL = 18.13%. IRRS = 23.56%.

0 -100
INPUTS OUTPUT 3
N I/YR IRR = ?

1 40

2 40
-100
PV

3 40
40
PMT

0
FV

9.70%

Or, with CFLO, enter CFs and press IRR = 9.70%.

Q. A.

How is a projects IRR related to a bonds YTM? They are the same thing. A bonds YTM is the IRR if you invest in the bond.
1
IRR = ?

0 -1,134.2

10

...
90 90 1,090

Rationale for the IRR Method

If IRR > WACC, then the projects rate of return is greater than its cost-- some return is left over to boost stockholders returns. Example: WACC = 10%, IRR = 15%. Profitable.

IRR Acceptance Criteria

 If IRR > k, accept project.  If IRR < k, reject project.

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 .

Construct NPV Profiles

Enter CFs in CFLO and find NPVL and NPVS at different discount rates:
k 0 5 10 15 20 NPVL 50 33 19 7 (4) NPVS 40 29 20 12 5

NPV (\$)
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 -10 5 10 15 20 23.6

k 0 5 Crossover Point = 8.7% 10 15 20 S L

NPVL 50 33 19 7 (4)

NPVS 40 29 20 12 5

IRRS = 23.6%

Discount Rate (%)

IRRL = 18.1%

NPV and IRR always lead to the same accept/reject decision for independent projects:
NPV (\$) IRR > k and NPV > 0 Accept. k > IRR and NPV < 0. Reject.

k (%) IRR

Mutually Exclusive Projects

NPV
L

k < 8.7: NPVL> NPVS , IRRS > IRRL CONFLICT k > 8.7: NPVS> NPVL , IRRS > IRRL NO CONFLICT

IRRS

8.7

%
IRRL

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 dont cross, one project dominates the other.

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.

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.

Managers like rates--prefer IRR to NPV comparisons. Can we give them a better IRR?
Yes, MIRR is the discount rate which causes the PV of a projects terminal value (TV) to equal the PV of costs. TV is found by compounding inflows at WACC. Thus, MIRR assumes cash inflows are reinvested at WACC.

0 -100.0
10%

1 10.0
10% MIRR = 16.5%

2 60.0
10%

3 80.0 66.0 12.1 158.1 TV inflows

-100.0 PV outflows

\$158.1 \$100 = (1+MIRRL)3 MIRRL = 16.5%

To find TV with 10B, enter in CFLO: CF0 = 0, CF1 = 10, CF2 = 60, CF3 = 80 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.

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.

Pavilion Project: NPV and IRR?

0 -800 1 5,000 2 -5,000

k = 10%

Enter CFs in CFLO, enter I = 10. NPV = -386.78 IRR = ERROR. Why?

We got IRR = ERROR because there are 2 IRRs. Nonnormal CFs--two sign changes. Heres a picture:
NPV

NPV Profile
IRR2 = 400%

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.

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

When there are nonnormal CFs and more than one IRR, use MIRR:
0 -800,000 1 5,000,000 2 -5,000,000

PV outflows @ 10% = -4,932,231.40. TV inflows @ 10% = 5,500,000.00. MIRR = 5.6%

Accept Project P?

NO. Reject because MIRR = 5.6% < k = 10%. Also, if MIRR < k, NPV will be negative: NPV = -\$386,777.

S and L are mutually exclusive and will be repeated. k = 10%. Which is better? (000s) 0 1 2 60 33.5 33.5 33.5 3 4

L -100,000 33,500 4 10 6,190

NPVL > NPVS. But is L better? Cant say yet. Need to perform common life analysis.

 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.

Project S withChain Approach Replacement Replication:

0 1 2 60 (100) (40) 3

(000s)

60 60

60 60

NPV = \$7,547.

Compare to Project L NPV = \$6,190.

If the cost to repeat S in two years rises to \$105,000, which is best? (000s) 0 1 2 3 4

Project S: (100) 60

60 (105) (45)

60

60

NPVS = \$3,415 < NPVL = \$6,190. Now choose L.

Consider another project with a 3-year life. If terminated prior to Year 3, the machinery will have positive salvage value. Year 0 1 2 3 CF (\$5,000) 2,100 2,000 1,750 Salvage Value \$5,000 3,100 2,000 0

CFs Under Each Alternative (000s)

1. No termination

0 (5)

2 2 4

3 1.75

2. Terminate 2 years (5) 3. Terminate 1 year (5)

Assuming a 10% cost of capital, what is the projects optimal, or economic life?

NPV(no) = -\$123. NPV(2) = \$215. NPV(1) = -\$273.

Conclusions  The project is acceptable only if operated for 2 years.  A projects engineering life does not always equal its economic life.

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:

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...)

 If external funds will be raised, then the NPV of all projects should be estimated using this higher marginal cost of capital.

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...)

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...)

Reason: Companies dont 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...)

Reason: Companies believe that the projects 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.