330 likes | 535 Views
Machine Replacement or Retention Pertemuan 21 s.d 22. Matakuliah : D 0094 Ekonomi Teknik Tahun : 2007. Replacement Decisions. Replacement Analysis Fundamentals Economic Service Life Replacement Analysis When Required Service is Long Replacement Analysis with Tax Consideration.
E N D
Machine Replacement or RetentionPertemuan 21 s.d 22 Matakuliah : D 0094 Ekonomi Teknik Tahun : 2007
Replacement Decisions • Replacement Analysis Fundamentals • Economic Service Life • Replacement Analysis When Required Service is Long • Replacement Analysis with Tax Consideration
Sunk cost: any past cost unaffected by any future decisions Trade-in allowance: value offered by the vendor to reduce the price of a new equipment Defender: an old machine Challenger: new machine Current market value: selling price of the defender in the market place Replacement Terminology
Sunk Cost associated with an Asset’s Disposal Original investment $20,000 Lost investment (economic depreciation) Market value Repair cost $10,000 $5000 $10,000 Sunk costs= $15,000 $0 $5000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000
Cash Flow Approach Treat the proceeds from sale of the old machine as down payment toward purchasing the new machine. Opportunity Cost Approach Treat the proceeds from sale of the old machine as the investment required to keep the old machine. Replacement Decisions
Sales proceeds from defender $10,000 $5500 $2500 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 $6000 $8000 (a) Defender (b) Challenger $15,000 Replacement Analysis – Cash Flow Approach
Defender: PW(12%)D = $2,500 (P/F, 12%, 3) - $8,000 (P/A, 12%, 3) = - $17,434.90 AE(12%)D = PW(12%)D(A/P, 12%, 3) = -$7,259.10 Challenger: PW(12%)C = $5,500 (P/F, 12%, 3) - $5,000 - $6,000 (P/A, 12%, 3) = -$15,495.90 AE(12%)C = PW(12%)C(A/P, 12%, 3) = -$6,451.79 Replace the defender now! Annual Equivalent Cost - Cash Flow Approach
Opportunity Cost Approach Challenger Defender $5500 $2500 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 $6000 $8000 $10,000 Proceeds from sale viewed as an opportunity cost of keeping the asset $15,000
Opportunity Cost Approach Defender: PW(12%)D = -$10,000 - $8,000(P/A, 12%, 3) + $2,500(P/F, 12%, 3) = -$27,434.90 AE(12%)D = PW(12%)D(A/P, 12%, 3) = -$11,422.64 Challenger: PW(12%)C = -$15,000 - $6,000(P/A, 12%, 3) + $5,500(P/F, 12%, 3) = -$25,495.90 AE(12%)C = PW(12%)C(A/P, 12%, 3) = -$10,615.33 Replace the defender now!
Economic Service Life Minimize • Def:Economic service life is the useful life of a defender, or a challenger, that results in the minimum equivalent annual cost • Why do we need it?: We should use the respective economic service lives of the defender and the challenger when conducting a replacement analysis. Ownership (Capital) cost + Operating cost
AEC OC(i) CR(i) n* Mathematical Relationship • Capital Cost: • Operating Cost: • Total Cost: • Objective: Find n* that minimizes AEC
Economic Service Life Calculation (Example 15.4) • N = 1 AEC1 = $18,000(A/P, 15%, 1) + $1,000 - $10,000 = $11,700
N = 2 AEC2 = [$18,000 + $1,000(P/A, 15%, 2)](A/P, 15%, 2) - $7,500 (A/F, 15%, 2) = $8,653
N = 3, AEC3 = $7,406 N = 4, AEC4 = $6,678 N = 5, AEC5 = $6,642 N = 6, AEC6 = $6,258 N = 7, AEC7 = $6,394 Minimum cost Economic Service Life
Required Assumptions and Decision Frameworks • Planning horizon (study period) • Technology • Relevant cash flow information • Decision Frameworks
Replacement Strategies under the Infinite Planning Horizon Replace the defender now: The cash flows of the challenger will be used from today and will be repeated because an identical challenger will be used if replacement becomes necessary again in the future. This stream of cash flows is equivalent to a cash flow of AEC* each year for an infinite number of years. Replace the defender, say, x years later: The cash flows of the defender will be used in the first x years. Starting in year x+1,the cash flows of the challenger will be used indefinitely.
Example 15.5 • Defender: Find the remaining useful (economic) service life.
Challenger: find the economic service life. N = 1 year: AE(15%) = $7,500 N = 2 years: AE(15%) = $6,151 N = 3 years: AE(15%) = $5,847 N = 4 years: AE(15%) = $5,826 N = 5 years: AE(15%) = $5,897 NC*=4 years AEC*=$5,826
Replacement Decisions NC*=4 years AEC*=$5,826 • Should replace the defender now?No, because AED < AEC • If not, when is the best time to replace the defender? Need to conduct marginal analysis.
Marginal Analysis • Question: What is the additional (incremental) cost for keeping the defender one more year from the end of its economic service life, from Year 2 to Year 3? • Financial Data: • Opportunity cost at the end of year 2: Equal to the market • value of $3,000 • Operating cost for the 3rd year: $5,000 • Salvage value of the defender at the end of year 3: $2,000
$2000 2 3 • Step 1: Calculate the equivalent cost of retaining the defender one more from the end of its economic service life, say 2 to 3. $3,000(F/P,15%,1) + $5,000 - $2,000 = $6,450 • Step 2: Compare this cost with AEC = $5,826 of the challenger. • Conclusion: Since keeping the defender for the 3rd year is more expensive than replacing it with the challenger, DO NOT keep the defender beyond its economic service life. $3000 $5000 2 3 $6,450
Replacement Analysis under the Finite Planning Horizon Some likely replacement patterns under a finite planning horizon of 8 years
Example 15.6 Replacement Analysis under the Finite Planning Horizon (PW Approach) • Option 1: (j0, 0), (j, 4), (j, 4) PW(15%)1=$5,826(P/A, 15%, 8) =$26,143 • Option 2: (j0, 1), (j, 4), (j, 3) PW(15%)2=$5,130(P/F, 15%, 1) +$5,826(P/A, 15%, 4)(P/F, 15%, 1) +$5,857(P/A, 15%, 3)(P/F, 15%, 5) =$25,573
Example 15.6 continued • Option 3 (j0, 2), (j, 4), (j, 2) PW(15%)3=$5,116(P/A, 15%, 4)(P/F, 15%, 2) +$5,826(P/A, 15%, 4)(P/F, 15%, 2) +$6,151(P/A, 15%, 2)(P/F, 15%, 6) = $25,217 minimum cost • Option 4 (j0, 3), (j, 5) PW(15%)4= $5,500(P/A, 15%, 3) +$5,897(P/A, 15%, 5)(P/F, 15%, 3) =$25,555
Example 15.6 continued • Option 5: (j0, 3), (j, 4), (j, 1) PW(15%)5= $5,500(P/A, 15%, 3) + $5,826(P/A, 15%, 4)(P/F, 15%, 3) + $7,500(P/F, 15%, 8) = $25,946 • Option 6: (j0, 4), (j, 4) PW(15%)6= $5,826(P/A, 15%, 4)(P/F, 15%, 4) + $5,826(P/A, 15%, 4)(P/F, 15%, 4) = $26,529
Planning horizon = 8 years (j0, 0), (j, 4), (j, 4), (j0, 1), (j, 4), (j, 3), (j0, 2), (j, 4), (j, 2), (j0, 3), (j, 5), (j0, 3), (j, 4), (j, 1), (j0, 4), (j, 4), Option 1 Option2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Years in service
Replacement Analysis with Tax Consideration • Whenever possible, replacement decisions should be based on the cash flows after taxes. (Example 15.8) • When computing the net proceeds from sale of the old asset, any gains or losses must be identified to determine the correct amount of the opportunity cost. (Example 15.7) • All basic replacement decision rules including the way of computing economic service life remain unchanged. (Example 15.10)
Depreciation basis $20,000 $20,000 Total depreciation Book value $14,693 $5307 Book loss Market value $10,000 $4693 Loss tax credit Market value $10,000 Net proceeds from disposal ($11,877) $0 $4000 $8000 $12,000 $16,000 $20,000
Summary • In replacement analysis, the defenderis an existing asset; the challenger is the best available replacement candidate. • The current market value is the value to use in preparing a defender’s economic analysis. Sunk costs—past costs that cannot be changed by any future investment decision—should not be considered in a defender’s economic analysis.
Two basic approaches to analyzing replacement problems are the cash flow approach and the opportunity cost approach. • The cash flow approach explicitly considers the actual cash flow consequences for each replacement alternative as they occur. • The opportunity cost approach views the net proceeds from sale of the defender as an opportunity cost of keeping the defender.
Economic service life is the remaining useful life of a defender, or a challenger, that results in the minimum equivalent annual cost or maximum annual equivalent revenue. We should use the respective economic service lives of the defender and the challenger when conducting a replacement analysis. • Ultimately, in replacement analysis, the question is not whether to replace the defender, but when to do so. • The AE method provides a marginal basis on which to make a year-by-year decision about the best time to replace the defender. • As a general decision criterion, the PW method provides a more direct solution to a variety of replacement problems, with either an infinite or a finite planning horizon, or a technological change in a future challenger.
The role of technological change in asset improvement should be weighed in making long-term replacement plans • Whenever possible, all replacement decisions should be based on the cash flows after taxes.