Chapter 12

Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting

 Instructor’s Resources

Overview
Chapters 10 and 11 developed the major decision­making aspects of capital budgeting. Cash flows and
budgeting models have been integrated and discussed in providing the principles of capital budgeting.
However, there are more complex issues beyond those presented. Chapter 12 expands capital budgeting
to consider risk with such methods as scenario analysis and simulation. Capital budgeting techniques
used to evaluate international projects, as well as the special risks multinational companies face, are also
presented. Additionally, two basic risk­adjustment techniques are examined: certainty equivalents and
risk­adjusted discount rates. The chapter presents students with several examples of the application of risk­
based refinements when capital budgeting in their professional and personal life.

 Suggested Answer to Opener in Review Question

The chapter opener and the Focus on Ethics box in this chapter described some of the consequences
of the accident at BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig. It is plausible that engineers and analysts at BP
could have imagined a worst­case scenario in which a major spill occurred at one of the firm’s
offshore rigs. How might a thorough scenario analysis have influenced BP’s offshore drilling
activities?

An increase in the cost of capital means that the market is discounting BP’s cash flows at a higher rate.
That includes cash flows from BP’s existing investments as well as investments that the market had
anticipated that BP would make in the future (and hence had already been incorporated, at least partially,
into BP’s stock price). We have seen that an increase in the discount rate leads to a decline in the present
value of a cash flow stream, so it is logical that a jump in BP’s costs of capital would be associated with a
major drop in the firm’s overall value.

If BP analysts had imagined the costs of a major oil spill as a worst­case scenario, it seems likely that BP
would have taken whatever steps were necessary to prevent such an accident. The cash inflows generated
by an offshore platform are swamped by the costs of a major spill. Not all accidents are preventable, of
course, but the fact that BP engineers could not quickly stop the flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico
suggests that an accident of the type that occurred on the oil rig had not been planned for in advance.

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Chapter 12 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting 250

 Answers to Review Questions

1. There is usually a significant degree of uncertainty associated with capital budgeting projects. There is the usual
business risk along with the fact that future cash flows are an estimate and do not represent exact values. The
uncertainly of each project cash flow stream will be different and thus each project has its own unique risk. This
uncertainty exists for both independent and mutually exclusive projects. The risk associated with any single
project has the capability to change the entire risk of the firm. The firm’s assets are like a portfolio of assets. If
an accepted capital budgeting project has a risk different from the average risk of the assets in the firm, it will
cause a shift in the overall risk of the firm.

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Chapter 12 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting 251
2. Risk, in terms of cash inflows from a project, is the variability of expected cash flows, hence the expected
returns, of the given project. The breakeven cash inflow the level of cash inflow necessary in order for the
project to be acceptable may be compared with the probability of that inflow occurring. When comparing two
projects with the same breakeven cash inflows, the project with the higher probability of occurrence is less
risky.

3. a. Scenario analysis uses a number of possible inputs (cash inflows) to assess their impact on
the firm’s net present value (NPV) return. Scenario analysis can be used to evaluate the impact on return of
simultaneous changes in a number of variables, such as cash inflows, cash outflows, and the cost of capital,
resulting from differing assumptions relative to economic and competitive conditions. In capital budgeting,
the NPVs are frequently estimated for the pessimistic, most likely, and optimistic cash flow estimates. By
subtracting the pessimistic outcome NPV from
the optimistic outcome NPV, a range of NPVs can be determined.

b. Simulation is a statistically based approach using random numbers to simulate various cash flows
associated with the project, calculating the NPV or internal rate of return (IRR) on the basis of
these cash flows, and then developing a probability distribution of each project’s rate of returns
based on NPV or IRR criterion.
4. a. Multinational companies (MNCs) must consider the effect of exchange rate risk, the risk that the exchange
rate between the dollar and the currency in which the project’s cash flows are denominated will reduce the
project’s future cash flows. If the value of the dollar depreciates relative to that currency, the dollar value of
the project’s cash flows will increase as a result. Firms can use hedging to protect themselves against this
risk in the short term; for the long term, financing the project using local currency can minimize this risk.

b. Political risk, the risk that a foreign government’s actions will adversely affect the project, makes
international projects particularly risky, because it cannot be predicted in advance. To take this
risk into account, managers should either adjust expected cash flows or use risk­adjusted discount
rates when performing the capital budgeting analysis. Adjustment of cash flows is the preferred
method.
c. Tax laws differ from country to country. Because only after­tax cash flows are relevant for capital
budgeting decisions, managers must account for all taxes paid to foreign governments and consider
the effect of any foreign tax payments on the firm’s U.S. tax liability.
d. Transfer pricing refers to the prices charged by a corporation’s subsidiaries for goods and services
traded between them; the prices are not set by the open market. In terms of capital budgeting
decisions, managers should be sure that transfer prices accurately reflect actual costs and
incremental cash flows.
e. MNCs cannot evaluate international capital projects from only a financial perspective. The
strategic viewpoint often is the determining factor in deciding whether or not to undertake a
project. In fact, a project that is less acceptable than another on a purely financial basis may
be chosen for strategic reasons. Some reasons for MNC foreign investment include continued
market access, the ability to compete with local companies, political and/or social reasons
(for example, gaining favorable tax treatment in exchange for creating new jobs in a country),
and achievement of a particular corporate objective such as obtaining a reliable source of raw
materials.
5. Risk-adjusted discount rates (RADRs) reflect the return that must be earned on a given project in order to
adequately compensate the firm’s owners. The relationship between RADRs and the capital asset pricing model

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

252 Gitman/Zutter • Principles of Managerial Finance, Thirteenth Edition
(CAPM) is a purely theoretical concept. The expression used to value the expected rate of return of a security ki
(ki  RF  [b  (km  RF)]) is rewritten substituting an asset for a security. Because real corporate assets are not
traded in efficient markets and estimation of a market return, km, for a portfolio of such assets would be
difficult, the CAPM is not used for real assets.

6. A firm whose stock is actively traded in security markets generally does not increase in value through
diversification. Investors themselves can more efficiently diversify their portfolio by holding a variety of stocks.
Since a firm is not rewarded for diversification, the risk of a capital budgeting project should be considered
independently rather than in terms of their impact on the total portfolio of assets. In practice, management
usually follows this approach and evaluates projects based on their total risk.

7. RADRs are most often used in practice for two reasons: (1) financial decision makers prefer using rate of
return-based criteria, and (2) they are easy to estimate and apply. In practice, risk is subjectively categorized
into classes, each having a RADR assigned to it. Each project is then subjectively placed in the appropriate risk
class.

8. A comparison of NPVs of unequal-lived mutually exclusive projects is inappropriate because it may lead to an
incorrect choice of projects. The annualized net present value (ANPV) converts the NPV
of unequal-lived projects into an annual amount that can be used to select the best project.

9. Real options are opportunities embedded in real assets that are part of the capital budgeting process. Managers
have the option of implementing some of these opportunities to alter the cash flow and risk of a given project.
Examples of real options include:

Abandonment—the option to abandon or terminate a project prior to the end of its planned life.

Flexibility—the ability to adopt a project that permits flexibility in the firm’s production process, such as being
able to reconfigure a machine to accept various types of inputs.

Growth—the option to develop follow-on projects, expand markets, expand or retool plants, and so on, that
would not be possible without implementation of the project that is being evaluated.

Timing—the ability to determine the exact timing of when various action of the project will be undertaken.

10. Strategic NPV incorporates the value of the real options associated with the project while traditional NPV
includes only the identifiable relevant cash flows. Using strategic NPV could alter the final accept/reject
decision. It is likely to lead to more accept decisions since the value of the options is added to the traditional
NPV, as shown in the following equation.

NPVstrategic  NPVtraditional  Value of real options

11. Capital rationing is a situation where a firm has only a limited amount of funds available for capital
investments. In most cases, implementation of the acceptable projects would require more capital than is
available. Capital rationing is common for a firm, since unfortunately most firms do not have sufficient capital
available to invest in all acceptable projects. In theory, capital rationing should not exist because firms should
accept all projects with positive NPVs or IRRs greater than the cost of capital. However, most firms operate
with finite capital expenditure budgets and must select the best from all acceptable projects, taking into account
the amount of new financing required to fund these projects.

12. The IRR approach and the NPV approach to capital rationing both involve ranking projects on the basis of
IRRs. Using the IRR approach, a cut-off rate and a budget constraint are imposed. The NPV first ranks projects
by IRR and then takes into account the present value of the benefits from each project in order to determine the
combination with the highest overall net present value. The benefit of the NPV approach is that it guarantees a

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Chapter 12 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting 253
maximum dollar return to the firm, whereas the IRR approach does not.

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

254 Gitman/Zutter • Principles of Managerial Finance, Thirteenth Edition

 Suggested Answer to Focus on Practice Box: The Monte Carlo

Method: The Forecast Is for Less Uncertainty
A Monte Carlo simulation program requires the user to first build an Excel spreadsheet model that
captures the input variables for the proposed project. What issues and what benefits can the user
derive from this process?

A good Monte Carlo simulation requires reasonably accurate estimates of data, including projected sales
figures, production costs, associated overhead, marketing costs, and other costs related to the project.
Gathering this type of data for numerous projects can be expensive in terms of employee­hours. However,
any sound evaluation of a project will eventually require such information gathering before a decision can
be made. The benefit of the Monte Carlo program is that it can quickly provide a range of probable outcomes
as the potential inputs are varied. For example, if the marketing variable is increased, the effect on possible
sales outcome can be quickly demonstrated.

But even beyond the quick analysis of the effect of changing a project variable is that the need for accurate
and reasonable estimates will force project developers to spend some time and effort to develop the proper
data for input into the Monte Carlo program. Working diligently to find reliable cost estimates and marketing
estimates can only enhance the viability of a proposed project if it meets the company’s selection criteria.

 Suggested Answer to Focus on Ethics Box:

Ethics and the Cost of Capital
Is the ultimate goal of the firm, to maximize the wealth of the owners for whom the firm is being
operated, ethical?

It is not the goal that makes maximization of shareholder wealth ethical or unethical, it is actions of the
financial manager in pursuit of this goal that dictates the level of ethics.

Why might ethical companies benefit from a lower cost of capital than less ethical companies?

If ethical behavior reduces the risk of investing in a company (e.g., reduces the volatility of the firm’s cash
flows), ethical companies should benefit more from a lower cost of capital than less ethical companies.

 Answers to Warm-Up Exercises

E12-1. Sensitivity analysis
Answer: Using the 12% cost of capital to discount all of the cash flows for each scenario to yield the
following NPVs, resulting in a NPV range of $19,109.78:

Pessimistic Most Likely Optimistic

$3,283.48 $6,516.99 $15,826.30

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Chapter 12 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting 255
E12-2. Using IRR as selection criteria
Answer: The minimum amount of annual cash inflow needed to earn 8% is $11,270.54
N  5, I  8%, PV  $45,000
Solve for PMT  $11,270.54
The IRR of the project is 12.05%.
N  5, PV  $45,000, PMT  $12,500
Solve for I  $12.05%
The project is acceptable since its IRR exceeds the firm’s 8% cost of capital. Since the required
cash flow is much less than the anticipated cash flow, one would expect the IRR to exceed the
required rate of return.
E12-3. Risk-adjusted discount rates

Answer: Project Sourdough RADR  7.0%

N  7, I  7%, PMT  $5,500
Solve for PV  $29,641.09
NPV  PVn  Initial investment
NPV  $29,641.09  $12,500
NPV  $17,141.09

Project Greek Salad RADR  8.0%

N  7, I 8%, PMT  $4,000

Solve for PV  $20,825.48
NPV  PVn  Initial investment
NPV  $20,825.48  $7,500
NPV  $13,325.48

Yeastime should select Project Sourdough.

E12-4. ANPV
Answer: You may use a financial calculator to determine the IRR of each project. Choose the project
with the higher IRR.
Project M
Step 1: Find the NPV of the project
NPVM Key strokes
CF0  ­$35,000, CF1  $12,000, CF2  $25,000, CF3  $30,000
Set I  8%
Solve for NPV  $21,359.55
Step 2: Find the ANPV

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

256 Gitman/Zutter • Principles of Managerial Finance, Thirteenth Edition
N  3, I  8, PV  $21,359.55
Solve for PMT  $8,288.22

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Chapter 12 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting 257
Project N
Step 1: Find the NPV of the project
NPVM Key strokes
CF0  ­$55,000, CF1  $18,000, CF2  $15,000, CF3  $25,000
CF4  $10,000, CF5  $8,000, CF6  $5,000, CF7  $5,000
Set I  8%
Solve for NPV  $13,235.82
Step 2: Find the ANPV
N  7, I  8, PV  $13,235.82
Solve for PMT  $2,542.24
Based on ANPV, you should advise Outcast, Inc. to choose Project M.
E12-5. NPV profiles
Answer: The investment opportunity schedule (IOS) in this problem does not allow us to determine the
maximum NPV allowed by the budget constraint. In order to determine whether the IOS
maximizes the NPV for Longchamps Electric, we will need to know the NPV for each of the
six projects. However, it does appear likely that Longchamps Electric will maximize firm value
by selecting Project 4 (IRR 11%), Project 2 (IRR  10%), and Project 5 (IRR  9%). The total
investment in these three projects will be $135,000, leaving $15,000 excess cash for future
investment opportunities.

 Solutions to Problems
P12­1. Recognizing risk
LG 1; Basic
a. and b.

Project Risk Reason

A Low The cash flows from the project can be easily determined since
this expenditure consists strictly of outflows. The amount is also
relatively small.

B Medium The competitive nature of the industry makes it so that Caradine

will need to make this expenditure to remain competitive. The risk
is only moderate since the firm already has clients in place to use
the new technology.

C Medium Since the firm is only preparing a proposal, their commitment at

this time is low. However, the $450,000 is a large sum of money
for the company and it will immediately become a sunk cost.

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

258 Gitman/Zutter • Principles of Managerial Finance, Thirteenth Edition
D High Although this purchase is in the industry in which Caradine
normally operates, they are encountering a large amount of risk.
The large expenditure, the competitiveness of the industry, and the
political and exchange risk of operating in a foreign country add to
the uncertainty.

Note: Other answers are possible depending on the assumptions a student may make. There is too
little information given about the firm and industry to establish a definitive risk analysis.

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Chapter 12 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting 259
P12­2. Breakeven cash flows
LG 2; Intermediate
a. N  12, I 14%, PV  $35,000
Solve for PMT  $6,183.43
b. N  12, I  10%, PV  $35,000
Solve for PMT  $5,136.72
The required cash flow per year would decrease by $1,047.27.

P12­3. Breakeven cash inflows and risk

LG 2; Intermediate
a. Project X Project Y
N  5, I  15%, PMT  $10,000 N  5, I  15%, PMT  $15,000
Solve for PV  33,521.55 Solve for PV  $50,282.33
NPV  PV  initial investment NPV  PV  initial investment
NPV  $33,521.55  $30,000 NPV  $50,282.33  $40,000
NPV  $3,521.55 NPV  $10,282.33
b. Project X Project Y
N  5, I  15%, PV  $30,000 N  5, I  15%, PV  $40,000
Solve for PMT  $8,949.47 Solve for PMT  $11,932.62
c. Project X Project Y
Probability  60% Probability  25%
d. Project Y is more risky and has a higher potential NPV. Project X has less risk and less return
while Project Y has more risk and more return, thus the risk­return tradeoff.
e. Choose Project X to minimize losses; to achieve higher NPV, choose Project Y.

P12­4. Basic scenario analysis

LG 2; Intermediate
a. Range A  $1,800  $200  $1,600 Range B  $1,100  $900  $200
b.

NPVs

Outcome Project A Project B

Pessimistic $ 6,297.29 $ 337.79

Most likely 513.56 513.56

Optimistic 7,324.41 1,364.92

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

260 Gitman/Zutter • Principles of Managerial Finance, Thirteenth Edition
Range $13,621.70 $1,702.71

c. Although the “most likely” outcome is identical for Project A and B, the NPV range varies
considerably.
d. Project selection would depend upon the risk disposition of the management. (A is more risky
than B but also has the possibility of a greater return.)

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Chapter 12 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting 261
P12­5. Scenario analysis
LG 2; Intermediate
a. Range P  $1,000  $500  $500
Range Q  $1,200  $400  $800
b.

NPVs

Outcome Project P Project Q

Pessimistic $72.28 $542.17

Most likely 1,608.43 1,608.43

Optimistic 3,144.57 4,373.48

c. Range P $3,144.57  $72.28  $3,072.29

Range Q $4,373.48  ($542.17)  $4,915.65
Each computer has the same most likely result. Computer Q has both a greater potential loss
and a greater potential return. Therefore, the decision will depend on the risk disposition of
management.

P12­6. Personal Finance: Impact of inflation on investments

LG 2; Easy
a.  c.

Investment Higher Lower

Cash Flows Current Inflation Inflation
Year NPV (a) NPV (b) NPV (c)

0 (7,500) (7,500) (7,500) (7,500)

1 2,000 1,878 1,860 1,896
2 2,000 1,763 1,731 1,797
3 2,000 1,656 1,610 1,703
4 1,500 1,166 1,123 1,211
5 1,500 1,095 1,045 1,148
Total NPV $ 58 $ (131) $ 254

d. As the inflation rate rises the NPV of a given set of cash flows declines.

P12­7. Simulation
LG 2; Intermediate
a. Ogden Corporation could use a computer simulation to generate the respective profitability
distributions through the generation of random numbers. By tying various cash flow assumptions

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

262 Gitman/Zutter • Principles of Managerial Finance, Thirteenth Edition
together into a mathematical model and repeating the process numerous times, a probability
distribution of project returns can be developed. The process of generating random numbers
and using the probability distributions for cash inflows and outflows allows values for each
of the variables to be determined. The use of the computer also allows for more sophisticated

simulation using components of cash inflows and outflows. Substitution of these values into
the mathematical model yields the NPV. The key lies in formulating a mathematical model
that truly reflects existing relationships.
b. The advantages to computer simulations include the decision maker’s ability to view
a continuum of risk­return tradeoffs instead of a single­point estimate. The computer
simulation, however, is not feasible for risk analysis.

P12­8. Risk­adjusted discount rates—Basic

LG 4; Intermediate
a. Project E
N  4, I  15%, PMT  $6,000
Solve for PV  $17,129.87
NPV  $17,129.87  $15,000
NPV  $2,129.87

Project F
CF0  ­$11,000, CF1  $6,000, CF2  $4,000, CF3  $5,000, CF4  $2,000
Set I  15%
Solve for NPV  $1,673.05

Project G
CF0  ­$19,000, CF1  $4,000, CF2  $6,000, CF3  $8,000, C44  $12,000
Set I  15%
Solve for NPV  $1,136.29
Project E, with the highest NPV, is preferred.

b. RADRE  0.10  (1.80  (0.15  0.10))  0.19

RADRF  0.10  (1.00  (0.15  0.10))  0.15
RADRG  0.10  (0.60  (0.15  0.10))  0.13

c. Project E
N  4, I  19%, PMT  $6,000
Solve for PV  $15,831.51
NPV  $15,831.51  $15,000
NPV  $831.51

Project F

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Chapter 12 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting 263
Same as in part a, $1,673.05
Project G
CF0  ­$19,000, CF1  $4,000, CF2  $6,000, CF3  $8,000, CF4  $12,000
Set I  13%
Solve for NPV  $2,142.93

Rank Project
1 G

2 F

3 E

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

264 Gitman/Zutter • Principles of Managerial Finance, Thirteenth Edition
d. After adjusting the discount rate, even though all projects are still acceptable, the ranking
changes. Project G has the highest NPV and should be chosen.

P12­9. Risk­adjusted discount rates—Tabular

LG 4; Intermediate
a. Project A
N  5, I  8%, PMT  $7,000
Solve for PV  $27,948.97
NPV  $27,948.97  $20,000
NPV  $7,948.97
Project B
N  5, I  14%, PMT  $10,000
Solve for PV  $34,330.81
NPV  $34,330.81  $30,000
NPV  $4,330.81
Project A, with the higher NPV, should be chosen.
b. Project A is preferable to Project B, since the NPV of A is greater than the NPV of B.

P12­10. Personal Finance: Mutually exclusive investment and risk

LG 4; Intermediate
a. N  6, I  8.5%, PMT  $3,000
Solve for PV  13,660.76
NPV  $13,660.76  $10,000
NPV  $3,660.76
b. N  6, I  10.5%, PMT  $3,800
Solve for PV  $16,310.28
NPV  $16,31.28  $12,000
NPV  $4,310.28
c. Using NPV as her guide, Lara should select the second investment. It has a higher NPV.
d. The second investment is riskier. The higher required return implies a higher risk factor.

P12­11. Risk­adjusted rates of return using CAPM

LG 4; Challenge
a. rX  7%  1.2(12%  7%)  7%  6%  13%
rY  7%  1.4(12%  7%)  7%  7%  14%
NPV calculation for X:
N  4, I  13%, PMT  $30,000
Solve for PV  89,234.14

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Chapter 12 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting 265
NPV  $89,234.14  $70,000
NPV  $19,234.14
NPV calculation for Y:
CF0  ­$78,000, CF1  $22,000, CF2  $32,000, CF3  $38,000, CF4  $46,000
Set I  14%
Solve for NPV  $18,805.82

b. The RADR approach prefers Project Y over Project X. The RADR approach combines the
risk adjustment and the time adjustment in a single value. The RADR approach is most often
used in business.

P12­12. Risk classes and RADR

LG 4; Basic
a. Project X

CF0  ­$180,000, CF1  $80,000, CF2  $70,000, CF3  $60,000,

CF4  $60,000, CF5  $60,000
Set I  22%
Solve for NPV  $14.930.45

Project Y

CF0  ­$235,000, CF1  $50,000, CF2  $60,000,

CF3  $70,000, CF4  $80,000, CF5  $90,000
Set I  13%
Solve for NPV  $2,663.99

Project Z
CF0  ­$310,000, CF1  $90,000, CF2  $90,000, CF3  $90,000,
CF4  $90,000, CF5  $90,000
[or, CF0  ­$310,000, CF1  $90,000, F1  5]
Set I  15%
Solve for NPV  ­$8,306.04

b. Projects X and Y are acceptable with positive NPVs, while Project Z with a negative NPV is
not. Project X, with the highest NPV, should be undertaken.

P12­13. Unequal lives—ANPV approach

LG 5; Intermediate
a. Machine A
CF0  ­$92,000, CF1  $12,000, CF2  $12,000, CF3  $12,000,

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

266 Gitman/Zutter • Principles of Managerial Finance, Thirteenth Edition
CF4  $12,000, CF5  $12,000, CF6  $12,000
[or, CF0  ­$92,000, CF1  $12,000, F1  6]
Set I  12%
Solve for NPV  ­$42,663.11

Machine B
CF0  ­$65,000, CF1  $10,000, CF2  $20,000, CF3  $30,000, CF4  $40,000
Set I  12%
Solve for NPV  $6,646.58

Machine C
CF0  ­$100,500, CF1  $30,000, CF2  $30,000,
CF3  $30,000, CF4  $30,000, CF5  $30,000
[or, CF0  ­$105,000, CF1  $30,000, F1  5]
Set I  12%
Solve for NPV  $7,643.29

Rank Machine
1 C

2 B

3 A

(Note that Machine A is not acceptable and could be rejected without any additional analysis.)
b. Machine A
N  6, I  12%, PV  $42,663.11
Solve for ANPV (PMT)  –$10,376.77

Machine B
N  4, I  12%, PV  $6,646.58
Solve for ANPV (PMT)  $2,188.28

Machine C
N  5, I  12%, PV  $7,643.29
Solve for ANPV (PMT)  $2,120.32

Rank Machine
1 B

2 C

3 A

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Chapter 12 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting 267
c. Machine B should be acquired since it offers the highest ANPV. Not considering the
difference in project lives resulted in a different ranking based in part on Machine C’s
NPV calculations.

P12­14. Unequal lives—ANPV approach

LG 5; Intermediate
a. Project X
CF0  ­$78,000, CF1  $17,000, CF2  $25,000, CF3  $33,000, CF4  $41,000
Set I  14%
Solve for NPV  $2,698.32

Project Y
CF0  ­$52,000, CF1  $28,000, CF2  $38,000
Set I  14%
Solve for NPV  $1,801.17

Project Z
CF0  ­$66,000, CF1  $15,000, CF2  $15,000, CF3  $15,000, CF4  $15,000,
CF5  $15,000, CF6  $15,000, CF7  $15,000, CF8  $15,000
[or, CF0  ­$66,000, CF1  $15,000, F1  8]
Set I  14%
Solve for NPV  $3,582.96

Rank Project
1 Z

2 X

3 Y

b. Project X
N  4, I  14%, PV  $
Solve for ANPV (PMT)  –$9,260.76
Project Y
N  2, I  14%, PV  $1801.17
Solve for ANPV (PMT)  $1,093.83
Project Z
N  5, I  14%, PV  $3582.96
Solve for ANPV (PMT)  $1,043.65

Rank Project
1 X

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

268 Gitman/Zutter • Principles of Managerial Finance, Thirteenth Edition

2 Y

3 Z

c. Project Y should be acquired since it offers the highest ANPV. Not considering the difference
in project lives resulted in a different ranking based primarily on the unequal lives of the
projects.

P12­15. Unequal lives—ANPV approach

LG 5; Intermediate
a. Sell

CF0  ­$200,000, CF1  $200,000, CF2  $250,000

Set I  12%
Solve for NPV  $177,869.90

License
CF0  ­$200,000, CF1  $250,000, CF2  $100,000
CF3  $80,000, CF4  $60,000, CF5  $40,000
Set I  12%
Solve for NPV  $220,704.25

Manufacture
CF0  ­$450,000, CF1  $200,000, CF2  $250,000, CF3  $200,000,
CF4  $200,000, CF5  $200,000, CF6  $200,000
[or, CF0  ­$450,000, CF1  $200,000, F1  1,
CF2  $250,000, F2  1, CF3  $200,000, F3  4]
Set I  12%
Solve for NPV  $412,141.16

Rank Alternativ
e
1 Manufactur
e

2 License

3 Sell

b. Sell
N  2, I  12%, PV  $

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Chapter 12 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting 269
Solve for ANPV (PMT)  $105,245.28
License
N  5, I  12%, PV  $220,704.25
Solve for ANPV (PMT)  $61,225.51
Manufacture
N  6, I  12%, PV  $412,141.16
Solve for ANPV (PMT)  $100,243.33

Rank Alternati
ve
1 Sell

2 Manufact
ure

3 License

c. Comparing the NPVs of projects with unequal lives gives an advantage to those projects that
generate cash flows over the longer period. ANPV adjusts for the differences in the length of
the projects and allows selection of the optimal project. This technique implicitly assumes
that all projects can be selected again at their conclusion an infinite number of times.

P12­16. NPV and ANPV decisions

LG 5; Challenge

a. – b. Unequal-Life Decisions
Annualized Net Present Value (ANPV)

Samsung Sony
Cost $(2,350) $(2,700)
Annual Benefits $900 $1,000
Life 3 years 4 years
Terminal value $400 $350
Required rate of return 9.0% 9.0%

a. CF0  ­$2,350, CF1  $900, CF2  $900, CF3  $900 + $400  $1,300
Set I  9%
Solve for NPV  $237.04

b. N  3, I  9%, PV  $237.04
Solve for ANPV (PMT)  $93.64

c. CF0  ­$2,700, CF1  $1,000, CF2  $1,000, CF3  $1,000, CF4  $1,000 + $350  $1,350
Set I  9%

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

270 Gitman/Zutter • Principles of Managerial Finance, Thirteenth Edition
Solve for NPV  $787.67

d. N  4, I  9%, PV  $787.67
Solve for ANPV (PMT)  $243.13

e. Richard and Linda should select the Sony set because its ANPV of $243.13 is greater than the
$93.64 ANPV of Samsung.

P12­17. Real options and the strategic NPV

LG 6; Intermediate
a. Value of real options  value of abandonment  value of expansion  value of delay
Value of real options  (0.25  $1,200)  (0.30  $3,000)  (0.10  $10,000)
Value of real options  $300  $900  $1,000  $2,200
NPVstrategic  NPVtraditional  Value of real options  1,700  2,200  $500
b. Due to the added value from the options Rene should recommend acceptance of the capital
expenditures for the equipment.
c. In general this problem illustrates that by recognizing the value of real options a project that
would otherwise be unacceptable (NPVtraditional  0) could be acceptable (NPVstrategic  0). It is
thus important that management identify and incorporate real options into the NPV process.

P12­18. Capital rationing—IRR and NPV approaches

LG 6; Intermediate
a. Rank by IRR

Project IRR Initial Investment Total Investment

F 23% $2,500,000 $2,500,000

E 22 800,000 3,300,000

G 20 1,200,000 4,500,000

C 19

B 18

A 17

D 16

Projects F, E, and G require a total investment of $4,500,000 and provide a total present value
of $5,200,000, and therefore an NPV of $700,000.

b. Rank by NPV (NPV  PV – Initial investment)

Project NPV Initial Investment

F $500,000 $2,500,000
A 400,000 5,000,000

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Chapter 12 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting 271
C 300,000 2,000,000
B 300,000 800,000
D 100,000 1,500,000
G 100,000 1,200,000
E 100,000 800,000

Project A can be eliminated because while it has an acceptable NPV, its initial investment
exceeds the capital budget. Projects F and C require a total initial investment of $4,500,000
and provide a total present value of $5,300,000 and a net present value of $800,000. However,
the best option is to choose Projects B, F, and G, which also use the entire capital budget and
provide an NPV of $900,000.
c. The internal rate of return approach uses the entire $4,500,000 capital budget but provides
$200,000 less present value ($5,400,000 – $5,200,000) than the NPV approach. Since the
NPV approach maximizes shareholder wealth, it is the superior method.
d. The firm should implement Projects B, F, and G, as explained in part c.

P12­19. Capital Rationing—NPV Approach

LG 6; Intermediate

Project PV Initial Investment Total Investment

A $384,000
B 210,000
C 125,000 $100,000 $100,000
D 990,000
E 570,000
F 150,000 $100,000 $200,000
G 960,000 $800,000 $1,000,000

b. The optimal group of projects is Projects C, F, and G, resulting in a total net present value of
$235,000. Project G would be accepted first because it has the highest NPV. Its selection
leaves enough of the capital budget to also accept Project C and Project F.

P12­20. Ethics problem

LG 4; Challenge
Student answers will vary. Some students might argue that companies should be held accountable
for any and all pollution that they cause. Other students may take the larger view that the appropriate
goal should be the reduction of overall pollution levels, and that carbon credits are a way to
achieve that goal. From an investor standpoint, carbon credits allow the polluting firm to meet
legal obligations in the most cost­effective manner, thus improving the bottom line for the
company and investor.

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

272 Gitman/Zutter • Principles of Managerial Finance, Thirteenth Edition

 Case
Case studies are available on www.myfinancelab.com.

Evaluating Cherone Equipment’s Risky Plans for Increasing Its Production

Capacity
a. 1. Plan X

CF0  ­$2,700,000, CF1  $470,000, CF2  $610,000

CF3  $950,000, CF4  $970,000, CF5  $1,500,000
Set I  12%
Solve for NPV  $349,715.18
Plan Y
CF0  ­$2,100,000, CF1  $380,000, CF2  $700,000
CF3  $800,000, CF4  $600,000, CF5  $1,200,000
Set I  12%
Solve for NPV  $428,968.70

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Chapter 12 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting 273

2. Using a financial calculator, the IRRs are:

IRRX  16.22%
IRRY  18.82%
Both NPV and IRR favor selection of Project Y. The NPV is larger by $79,254
($428,969  $349,715) and the IRR is 2.6% higher.
b. Plan X

CF0  ­$2,700,000, CF1  $470,000, CF2  $610,000

CF3  $950,000, CF4  $970,000, CF5  $1,500,000
Set I  13%
Solve for NPV  $261,105.40
Plan Y

CF0  ­$2,100,000, CF1  $380,000, CF2  $700,000

CF3  $800,000, CF4  $600,000, CF5  $1,200,000
Set I  15%
Solve for NPV  $225,412.37
The RADR NPV favors selection of Project X.

Ranking
Plan NPV IRR RADRs
X 2 2 1

Y 1 1 2
c. Both NPV and IRR achieved the same relative rankings. However, making risk adjustments through the
RADRs caused the ranking to reverse from the nonrisk-adjusted results. The final choice would be to select
Plan X since it ranks first using the risk-adjusted method.

d. Plan X

Value of real options  0.25  $100,000  $25,000

NPVstrategic  NPVtraditional  Value of real options
NPVstrategic  $261,105.40  $25,000  $286,105.40

Plan Y
Value of real options  0.20  $500,000  $100,000
NPVstrategic  NPVtraditional  Value of real options
NPVstrategic  $225,412.37  $100,000  $325,412.37
e. With the addition of the value added by the existence of real options, the ordering of the projects is reversed.
Project Y is now favored over Project X using the RADR NPV for the traditional NPV.

f. Capital rationing could change the selection of the plan. Since Plan Y requires only $2,100,000 and Plan X
requires $2,700,000, if the firm’s capital budget was less than the amount needed to invest in Project X, the firm

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

274 Gitman/Zutter • Principles of Managerial Finance, Thirteenth Edition
would be forced to take Y to maximize shareholders’ wealth subject to the budget constraint.

 Spreadsheet Exercise
The answer to Chapter 12’s Isis Corporation spreadsheet problem is located on the Instructor’s Resource
Center on the textbook’s companion website at www.pearsonhighered.com/irc under the Instructor’s Manual.

 Group Exercise
Group exercises are available on www.myfinancelab.com.

Risk within long­term investment decisions is the topic of this chapter. The investment projects of the
previous two chapters will now have risk variables introduced. The cash flows estimated previously will
now be characterized by a lack of certainty. Each estimated dollar flow is now assigned three possible
levels for three possible states of the worlds: pessimistic, most likely and optimistic. Original estimates
serve as the most likely value and the others are placed around this value.

Analysis of these estimates begins with a calculation of the ranges for each outcome. A simplified RADR
is then calculated using the previously determined discount rate. The risk­adjusted NPV is then calculated.
The final task is to complete this three­chapter odyssey.

Using information from Chapters 10, 11, and 12, the groups are asked to defend their choice of investment
projects. As pointed out in the assignment, groups should use this assignment to defend their choices in the
form of documents as presented to their board of directors. This conclusion should summarize all the work
done across the chapters and students should take pride in the quantity of their effort. It works well to have
each student group present their project and decision to the remainder of the class, who can be viewed as a
“board of directors.”

 Integrative Case 5: Lasting Impressions Company

Integrative Case 5 involves a complete long­term investment decision. The Lasting Impressions Company
is a commercial printer faced with a replacement decision in which two mutually exclusive projects have
been proposed. The data for each press have been designed to result in conflicting rankings when considering
the NPV and IRR decision techniques. The case tests the students’ understanding of the techniques as well
as the qualitative aspects of risk and return decision making.

a. 1. Calculation of initial investment for Lasting Impressions Company:

Press A Press B
Installed cost of new press 

Cost of new press $830,000 $640,000

 Installation costs 40,000 20,000

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Chapter 12 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting 275
Total cost—new press $870,000 $660,000

 After­tax proceeds—sale of old asset 

Proceeds from sale of old press 420,000 420,000

 Tax on sale of old press* 121,600 121,600

Total proceeds—sale of old press (298,400) (298,400)

 Change in net working capital** 90,400 0

Initial investment $662,000 $361,600

*
Sale price $420,000

 Book value 116,000

Gain $304,000

 Tax rate (40%) 121,600

Book value  $400,000  [(0.20  0.32  0.19)  $400,000]  $116,000

**
Cash $ 25,400

Accounts receivable 120,000

Inventory (20,000)

Increase in current assets $125,400

Increase in current liabilities (35,000)

Increase in net working capital $ 90,400

2. Depreciation

Year Cost Rate Depreciation

Press A
1 $870,000 0.20 $174,000

2 870,000 0.32 278,400

3 870,000 0.19 165,300

4 870,000 0.12 104,400

5 870,000 0.12 104,400

6 870,000 0.05 43,500

$870,000

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

276 Gitman/Zutter • Principles of Managerial Finance, Thirteenth Edition
Press B

1 $660,000 0.20 $132,000

2 660,000 0.32 211,200

3 660,000 0.19 125,400

4 660,000 0.12 79,200

5 660,000 0.12 79,200

6 660,000 0.05 33,000

$660,000

Existing Press
1 $400,000 0.12 (Yr. 4) $48,000

2 400,000 0.12 (Yr. 5) 48,000

3 400,000 0.05 (Yr. 6) 20,000

4 0 0 0

5 0 0 0

6 0 0 0

$116,000

Operating cash inflows

Earnings Incre­
before Earnings Earnings Old mental
Depreciation Depre­ before after Cash Cash Cash
Year and Taxes ciation Taxes Taxes Flow Flow Flow
Existing
Press
1 $120,000 $48,000 $72,000 $43,200 $91,200

2 120,000 48,000 72,000 43,200 91,200

3 120,000 20,000 100,000 60,000 80,000

4 120,000 0 120,000 72,000 72,000

5 120,000 0 120,000 72,000 72,000

6 0 0 0 0 0

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Chapter 12 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting 277

Press A
1 $250,000 $174,000 $76,000 $45,600 $219,600 $91,200 $128,400

2 270,000 278,400 8,400 5,040 273,360 91,200 182,160

3 300,000 165,300 134,700 80,820 246,120 80,000 166,120

4 330,000 104,400 225,600 135,360 239,760 72,000 167,760

5 370,000 104,400 265,600 159,360 263,760 72,000 191,760

6 0 43,500 43,500 26,100 17,400 0 17,400

Earnings Incre­
before Earnings Earnings Old mental
Depreciation Depre­ before after Cash Cash Cash
Year and Taxes ciation Taxes Taxes Flow Flow Flow
Press B
1 $210,000 $132,000 $78,000 $46,800 $178,800 $91,200 $87,600

2 210,000 211,200 1,200 720 210,480 91,200 119,280

3 210,000 125,400 84,600 50,760 176,160 80,000 96,160

4 210,000 79,200 130,800 78,480 157,680 72,000 85,680

5 210,000 79,200 130,800 78,480 157,680 72,000 85,680

6 0 33,000 33,000 19,800 13,200 0 13,200

3. Terminal cash flow

Press A Press B

After­tax proceeds—sale of new press 

Proceeds on sale of new press $400,000 $330,000

Tax on sale of new press* (142,600) (118,800)

Total proceeds—new press $257,400 $211,200

After­tax proceeds—sale of old press 

Proceeds on sale of old press (150,000) (150,000)

 Tax on sale of old press** 60,000 60,000

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

278 Gitman/Zutter • Principles of Managerial Finance, Thirteenth Edition
Total proceeds—old press (90,000) (90,000)

Change in net working capital 90,400 0

Terminal cash flow $257,800 $121,200

*
Press A Press B
Sale price $400,000 Sale price $330,000
Less: Book value (Yr. 6) 43,500 Less: Book value (Yr. 6) 33,000
Gain $356,500 Gain $297,000
Tax rate  0.40 Tax rate  0.40
Tax $142,600 Tax $118,800

**
Sale price $150,000
Less: Book value (Yr. 6) 0
Gain $150,000
Tax rate  0.40
Tax $ 60,000

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Chapter 12 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting 279

Cash Flows
Year Press A Press B
Initial investment ($662,000) ($361,600)
1 $128,400 $ 87,600

2 182,160 119,280

3 166,120 96,160

4 167,760 85,680

5* 449,560 206,880

*
Year 5 Press A Press B
Operating cash flow $191,760 $ 85,680

Terminal cash inflow 257,800 121,200

Total $449,560 $206,880

b.

Press A

c. Relevant cash flow

Cumulative Cash Flows

Year Press A Press B

1 $128,400 $87,600

2 310,560 206,880

3 476,680 303,040

4 644,440 388,720

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

280 Gitman/Zutter • Principles of Managerial Finance, Thirteenth Edition
5 1,094,000 595,600

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Chapter 12 Risk and Refinements in Capital Budgeting 281
1. Press A: 4 years  [(662,000  644,440)  191,760]
Payback  4  (17,560  191,760)
Payback  4.09 years
Press B: 3 years  [(361,600  303,040)  85,680]
Payback  3  (58,560  85,680)
Payback  3.68 years
2. Press A
CF0  ­$662,000, CF1  $128,400, CF2  $182,160, CF3  $166,120,
CF4  $167,760, CF5  $449,560
Set I  14%
Solve for NPV  $35,738.82
Press B
CF0  ­$361,600, CF1  $87,600, CF2  $119,280, CF3  $96,160,
CF4  $85,680, CF5  $206,880
Set I  14%
Solve for NPV  $30,105.88
3. IRR:
Press A: 15.8%
Press B: 17.1%
d.

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

282 Gitman/Zutter • Principles of Managerial Finance, Thirteenth Edition

Data for NPV Profile

NPV
Discount Rate Press A Press B

0% $432,000 $234,000

14% 35,455 29,953

15.8% 0 —

17.1% — 0

When the cost of capital is below approximately 15%. Press A is preferred over Press B,
while at costs greater than 15%, Press B is preferred. Since the firm’s cost of capital is 14%,
conflicting rankings exist. Press A has a higher value and is therefore preferred over Press B
using NPV, whereas Press B’s IRR of 17.1% causes it to be preferred over Press A, whose
IRR is 15.8% using this measure.
e. a. If the firm has unlimited funds, Press A is preferred.

b. If the firm is subject to capital rationing, Press B may be preferred.

f. The risk would need to be measured by a quantitative technique such as certainty equivalents or risk-adjusted
discount rates. The resultant NPV of Press A could then be compared to the risk-adjusted NPV of Press B and a
decision made.

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall