This
chapter focused on estimating the cash flows that are used in a capital budgeting
analysis, appraising the riskiness of those flows, finding NPVs when risk is present,
and calculating the NPVs of mutually exclusive projects having
unequal lives. Here is a summary of our primary conclusions:
Some cash flows are relevant (hence, should be included in a
capital budgeting analysis), while others should not be included.
The key question is this: Is the cash flow incremental in the sense that it
will occur if and only if the project is accepted?
Sunk costs are not incremental costs—they are not affected by
accepting or rejecting the project. Cannibalization and other externalities,
on the other hand, are incremental—they will occur if and only if the project is
accepted.
The cash flows used to analyze a project are different from a
project’s net income. One important factor is that depreciation is deducted
when accountants calculate net income; but because it is a noncash
charge, it must be added back to find cash flows.
Many projects require additional net working capital. Net
working capital is a negative flow when the project is started but a positive flow at
the end of the project’s life, when the capital is recovered.
We considered two types of projects—expansion and replacement.
For a replacement project, we find the difference in the cash flows
when the firm continues to use the old asset versus the new asset. If the NPV
of the differential flows is positive, the replacement should
be made.
The forecasted cash flows (and hence NPV and other outputs) are
only estimates—they may turn out to be incorrect, and this means risk.
There are three types of risk: stand-alone, within-firm, and
market (or beta) risk. In theory, market risk is most relevant; but since it cannot be
measured for most projects, stand-alone risk is the one on which we generally
focus. However, firms subjectively consider within-firm and market
risk, which they definitely should not ignore. Note, though, that since the three
types of risk are generally positively correlated, stand-alone risk is often a
good proxy for the other risks.
Stand-alone risk can be analyzed using sensitivity analysis,
scenario analysis, and/or Monte Carlo simulation.
Once a decision has been made about a project’s relative risk,
we determine a risk-adjusted WACC for evaluating it.
If mutually exclusive projects have unequal lives and are repeatable,
a traditional NPV analysis may lead to incorrect results.
In this case, we should use replacement chain or equivalent annual
annuity (EAA) analysis.
Comments
Post a Comment