1. Problem Definition or Opportunity Statement:
" Evaluation of repayment options for a new concrete mixer"
GEMP Engineering Ltd is desirous to purchase a new self loading concrete mixer online from IronPlanet.com The initial cost and the estimated cash inflow from the concrete mixer is as shown below. The concrete mixers have a useful life of 5 years each with no salvage value.
Management has requested that economic analysis of the various options be performed for immediate investment or purchase of anew concrete mixer.
The informations available are: 1.0 Fixed cost = $25,850 2.0 MAAR 2.1 Cost of borrowing money, loan A = 9% 2.2 Investment opportunity , Alternative B = 10% 2.3 Cost of capital = 11% The Minimum Attractive Rate of Return - MARR is equal to or greater than the highest value of 1, 2 and 3. Therefore, MARR = 11%
GEMP Engineering Ltd is desirous to purchase a new self loading concrete mixer online from IronPlanet.com The initial cost and the estimated cash inflow from the concrete mixer is as shown below. The concrete mixers have a useful life of 5 years each with no salvage value.
Management has requested that economic analysis of the various options be performed for immediate investment or purchase of anew concrete mixer.
The informations available are: 1.0 Fixed cost = $25,850 2.0 MAAR 2.1 Cost of borrowing money, loan A = 9% 2.2 Investment opportunity , Alternative B = 10% 2.3 Cost of capital = 11% The Minimum Attractive Rate of Return - MARR is equal to or greater than the highest value of 1, 2 and 3. Therefore, MARR = 11%
2. Development of Feasible Alternatives:
The alternatives to be considered are to purchase either of the concrete mixers Type "A" or Type "B":
1. Concrete mixer Type "A"
2. Concrete mixer Type "B"
Figure 1 Concrete mixer Type A & B
3. Development of Outcome of Each Alternative:
The outcome for each alternative or concrete mixer is to select the 'best'alternative with higher NPV, higher IRR and higher ARR.
4. Selection of Acceptable Criteria:
The NPV, IRR , ARR and MARR are the criteria used to select the 'beat' alternative.
5. Analysis And Comparison of Outcome From Each Alternative:
Table 1 Calculations of cash inflow
Table 2 Calculation of NPV for Alternative A & B
Table 3 Benefit - Cost Ratio Analysis
Figure 2 Calculation of IRR for Alternative A & B
Figure 3 Calculations of ARR for Alternative A & B
6. Selection of the Preferred Alternative:
Alternative 'B' is the preferred option since its has a higher NPV and lower IRR and higher ARR
7. Performance Reporting And Evaluation of Results:
The concrete mixer will be monitored using the IRR & NPV after its has been bought to measure its return on investments.
References:
1. Sullivan William, Wicks M. Elin & Keolling C. Pactricks (2009) Engineering Economy Fourteenth Edition Pearson International Edition
2. Tom Arnold & Richard L. Shockley (2002) Real Option Analysis and the Assumptions of NPV Rule1 11 Retrieved from
3. Sascha Rudolf The Net Present Value in Comparison to the Payback and Internal Rate of return Methods (2008) 2 Retrieved from
AWESOME posting Reginald!!! Nice work!!
ReplyDeleteYou picked a very appropriate case study and applied the various tools and techniques you are learning about.
Can't ask for anything more than this.
IF you want, for your W4 blog posting, you can explain to us how you arrived at the MARR of 11%. Now that you have your Engineering Economy book, look up MARR, WACC and CAPM and explain how you developed the 11%.
Another possible blog posting using exactly the same case study would be to turn to Chapter 14 in Engineering Economy and apply the non-compensatory and compensatory methods to analyze the same decision.
Keep up the great work and please take the time to mentor others on your team who are struggling to understand what I am expecting to see from you.
BR,
Dr. PDG, Singapore