Benefits Of A New Plant

After evaluating the Super Project for General Foods, the two main things that management needed to address were the relevant incremental and non-incremental cash flows discussed below and incorporate the NPV and the net cash flows (yearly) to make a decision on whether to accept or reject the project. The start-up costs were determined by splitting up the costs of $160,000 in 1967 and $40,000 in 1968. To calculate the yearly cash flows, I used year 1 through 10, and the gross profit was calculated by subtracting out relative cash flows and the before tax depreciation. The NPV of $169,530 is positive for the 10% discount rate, which is less than the IRR of 11.4%.

Team then commenced to apply some of the budgeting concepts discussed in class. First, NPV was calculated using the NPV function in Excel - approximately $419,000. In this calculation we found NPV to be a positive number thus indicating that the Super Project investment should be pursued by General Foods.

required return of 24% for a project of it's risk. The dilemma for General Foods was to

As Motorking Corporation considers introducing its now “gas extender” product into the market, the management must consider various factors to determine if this is a good financial move. The production manager needs to determine if the product will generate a profit for the corporation, how much product is expected to sell to determine how much to produce and how much to outsource.

Question Number One (1) Value the processing plant proposal. Ignore the Industrial Revenue Bond financing. Assume: Market Risk Premium 8.8%, Riskless Rate 11.41%, and Harris Long Term Debt Rate 13.5%.

In the survey, 45% percent reported they did not feel safe while installing systems at utility plants. While Kelecton does not own these utility plants, they must review and, if needed, improve the employee’s safety equipment. Workplace injuries can cause a massive financial burden on Kelecton. While the visible cost of medical treatment can be high, the unseen cost can be even higher. According to Safety Management Group’s website, “A $2,500 clinic visit could easily end up costing your business $10,000 in indirect costs such as lost productivity, administrative time, insurance increases, OSHA involvement, morale, reputation risk, and media attention” (Safety Management Group, 2017, para. 1).

The investment requested is £12 million. Strategic and operating benefits were summarized in our previous memo to you. We have made, however, some changes to our investment analyses, which appear below.

payback for the lite athletic drink project. Also, this model contains a graph which can

Following this review, it is my recommendation that we enter into a contract for the purchase of the equipment in question before the end of the year for the following reasons. Currently, our tax rate is not particularly favorable. We have experienced some small reductions in the late 1970’s, however the introduction of Supply-Side economics

The upgrade of the Rotterdam plant involves implementing the Japanese technology and requires a capital expenditure of £8.0 million with £3.5 million spent today, £2.0 million on year one, £1.0 million on year two and £1.0 million on year three. This will also increase polypropylene output by 7% from current levels at a rate of 2.0% per year. In addition, gross margin will improve by 0.8% per year from 11.5% to 16.0%. After auditing the financial models, it is concluded that the static net present value of the upgrade is -£6.35 million using a discount rate of 10% and an expected inflation rate of 3% annually. The Rotterdam upgrade contains an option to switch to the speculated German technology being available in five years. The current value of the option is zero as it is deeply out-of-the-money. The total net present value of the upgrade is -£6.35 million. The incremental earnings per share of the upgrade is £ 0.0013, the payback period is 14.13 years, and the internal rate of return is 18.7%.

The net present value (NPV) of each option has been calculated and included in Table 1, based on figures from the study group report. Unfortunately, these figures are flawed in the same manner as Wriston’s current performance and accounting mechanisms in that they don’t properly allocate revenue, nor do they recognize inherent manufacturing complexities. The plant closure option’s expected operational gain seems particularly suspect. A better valuation of the new plant options is perhaps

Linda Metzler the production planning manager is the main responder in this case, she has to come up with another optimal alternative that will have to be submitted to the plant’s General Manager. The plan has to be approved by the general manager for roll out starting next year.

|250000 indirect employees & 9000 vehicle for distribution). |position in profitability due to drop in prices by nearly 30% since 1950’s. |

Hardee Transportation is a small truckload business, and it is currently faced with a problem that practically every company has; how to better serve its customers, and maintain a profitable return. It is essential that companies such as these evaluate their operations to ensure that it possesses the most efficient way to manage their assets. There is a great concern for these companies considering that the competition is out there, providing the same services at a lower cost, or accommodating their customer needs more fittingly. Hardee Transportation must take a look at their operations and come up with some plausible solutions to increase their revenue operations,

The present value of the net incremental cash flows, totaling $5,740K, is added to the present value of the Capital Cost Allowance (CCA) tax shield, provided by the Plant and Equipment of $599K, to arrive at the project’s NPV of $6,339K. (Please refer to Exhibit 4 and 5 for assumptions and detailed NPV calculations.) This high positive NPV means that the project will add a significant amount of value to FMI. In addition, using the incremental cash flows (excluding CCA) generated by the NPV calculation, we calculated the project’s IRR to be 28%. This means that the project will generate a higher rate of return than the company’s cost of capital of 10.05%. This is also a positive indication that the company should undertake the project.