280 likes | 382 Views
CTC 475 Review. Bonds Not straightforward because bonds can be bought and/or sold between the date of issuance and the date of maturity P=Vr(P/A i,n )+F(P/F i,n ) Find P Find F Find I Cash flow frequency, i and n must match. CTC 475. Comparing Alternatives. Objectives.
E N D
CTC 475 Review • Bonds • Not straightforward because bonds can be bought and/or sold between the date of issuance and the date of maturity • P=Vr(P/Ai,n)+F(P/Fi,n) • Find P • Find F • Find I • Cash flow frequency, i and n must match
CTC 475 Comparing Alternatives
Objectives • Know the steps for comparing alternatives • Know how to determine the possible set of alternatives • Know how to develop cash flows using the same planning horizon
Steps for Comparing Alternatives • Determine the feasible alternatives • Define the planning horizon • Develop the cash flow profiles • Specify the MARR • Compare the alternatives • Perform supplementary analyses • Select the preferred alternative
Determine Feasible Alternatives • Alternatives can consist of various investment proposals • Proposals can be: • Mutually exclusive • Independent • Contingent upon another proposal
Mutual Exclusive • At most one project out of the group can be chosen: If I have proposals A, B, and C------- only A or B or C can be chosen (not a combination)
Independent • All, none or any combination may be selected • Total number of alternatives = 2m where m is the number of proposals • If there are 4 proposals, the total number of options is 24 = 16 alternatives
Contingent • The choice of a project is conditional on the choice of another project If A is contingent on B then A can’t be implemented unless B is also implemented
Example of Defining Alternatives and Developing Cash Flow Profiles Steps 1 and 3 (planning horizon is the same)
Number of Alternatives 23 = 8 alternatives
Restrictions • Budget for initial investment is $50K • Proposal B is contingent on proposal A (can’t do B unless A is implemented) • Proposals A and C are mutually exclusive (A & C can’t be implemented together)
Remaining Alternatives • Null or “Do Nothing” • C only • A only • A and B
Planning Horizon (PH) • Period of time over which service is required • Period of time over which receipts continue to occur • Period of time over which reasonably accurate cash flow estimates can be provided
Planning horizon, working life of equipment and depreciable life are not necessarily the same
When comparing Alternatives----- The Planning Horizon must be the same
Methods: • Least common multiple (LCM) • Shortest life • Longest life • Some determined life
Example • Alternatives A, B & C have 3, 6, and 5-year lives • Least common multiple = 30 years • Shortest life = 3 years • Longest life = 6 years • Standard planning horizon could be 5 years (or 4 years or some other number)
Problems in standardizing the PH • LCM-usually assume cash flow patterns repeat • Shortest Life-Must estimate the unused portions of the alternatives (salvage value) • Longest Life-Must estimate cash flow patterns between the shortest and longest life
Example of Standardizing the PH and Developing Cash Flow ProfilesSteps 2/3 • Alternative 1 (use existing equipment) PH=3 years • Alternative 2 (buy new $50K) PH=6 years • Alternative 3 (buy new $75K) PH=5 years
Next lecture • Methods for Comparing Alternatives: • Ranking (PW, AW, FW) • Incremental (all) • Supplementary Analyses • Selling the Alternative