• No results found

INDR 202 - Chapter 6

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2020

Share "INDR 202 - Chapter 6"

Copied!
38
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

INDR  202

ENGINEERING  ECONOMICS

CHAPTER  6

ANNUAL-­EQUIVALENCE  ANALYSIS

SPRING  2015

INSTRUCTOR:  BORA  ÇEKYAY

(2)

ANNUAL-­EQUIVALENCE  ANALYSIS

2

Annual-­Equivalent  Worth

Annual-­Worth  Analysis

(3)

ANNUAL-­EQUIVALENT  WORTH

3

𝐴𝐸 𝑖 = 𝑃𝑊 𝑖 𝐴|𝑃, 𝑖, 𝑁

Single project:

Accept if

𝐴𝐸 𝑖 > 0

, reject if

𝐴𝐸 𝑖 < 0

,

remain indifferent otherwise.

Mutually exclusive revenue projects:

Select the project

with largest

𝐴𝐸 𝑖

.

(4)

EXAMPLE  1:  ANNUAL-­EQUIVALENT  WORTH

4

$189.43

0

$46.07

0 1      2      3       4       5       6

𝑖 = 12%

$100 $50

$80 $120 $70

0

2      3      4      5      6 1

$120 $120

$189.43

0

(5)

EXAMPLE  2:  ANNUAL-­EQUIVALENT  WORTH

5

$500

$700 $800

$400  $400

$800

$1,000 $1,000

$500

(6)

EXAMPLE  2:  ANNUAL-­EQUIVALENT  WORTH

6

REPEATING  CYCLE

$500 $700 $800 $400  $400 $1,000 $500 $700 $800 $400  $400 $1,000

ONE CYCLE

𝑃𝑊 10% = $1,155.68

𝐴𝐸 10% = $304.87

TWO CYCLES

𝑃𝑊 10% = $1,873.27

(7)

ANNUAL-­EQUIVALENT  COST

7

CAPITAL

COSTS

OPERATING

COSTS

+

Annua

l-­E

qu

iv

al

en

t  

Co

(8)

ANNUAL-­EQUIVALENT  COST

8

CAPITAL-­RECOVERY  COST

𝑪𝑹 𝒊

annual equivalent of capital (ownership) costs from

purchasing assets used in production & service –

typically nonrecurring (one-­time) costs

EQUIVALENT  ANNUAL  OPERATING  COSTS

(9)

CAPITAL-­RECOVERY  COST

9

Components  of  capital  cost:  

initial  cost  

𝐼

&

salvage  value

𝑆

0      1        2        3      N

𝐶𝑅 𝑖

0

N

𝐼

𝑆

𝐶𝑅 𝑖 = 𝐼 𝐴|𝑃, 𝑖, 𝑁 − 𝑆 𝐴|𝐹, 𝑖, 𝑁

(10)

EXAMPLE  3:  CAPITAL-­RECOVERY  COST

10

0      1        2        3        4       5

𝐶𝑅 20%

0

5

𝐼 = $200,000

𝑆 = $50,000

𝐶𝑅 20% = $150,000 𝐴|𝑃, 20%, 5 + $50,000 20%

𝐶𝑅 20% = $60,157

(11)

EXAMPLE  4:  COST  OF  OWNING  A  VEHICLE

11

%  VALUE  RETAINED  AFTER

Price 2  YRS 3  YRS 4  YRS 5  YRS

2010  BMW  M3 $58,400 70% 60% 51% 43%

2010  Hyundai-­

(12)

EXAMPLE  4:  COST  OF  OWNING  A  VEHICLE

12

𝐶𝑅 6% = $33,288 𝐴|𝑃, 6%, 5 + $25,112 6%

𝐶𝑅 6% = $9,409

$58,400

$25,112

(13)

EXAMPLE  4:  COST  OF  OWNING  A  VEHICLE

13

𝐶𝑅 6%

Price 2  YRS 3  YRS 4  YRS 5  YRS

2010  BMW  M3 $58,400 $12,009 $10,842 $10,045 $9,409

2010  Hyundai-­

Accent  GLS $14,365 $5,046 $4,020 $3,357 $2,951

(14)

ANNUAL-­WORTH  ANALYSIS

14

ANALYSIS  OF  LIFE-­CYCLE COST

CALCULATION  OF  UNIT  COST  (PROFIT)

(15)

EXAMPLE  5:  JUSTIFYING  AN  INVESTMENT

15

𝐼 = $20,000

,  

𝐴 = $4,400

,  

𝑆 = $4,000

,  

𝑁 = 5

,  

𝑖 = 10%

$20,000 0

1       2      3      4      5 $4,400      $4,400    $4,400    $4,400

$8,400

𝑃𝑊 10% = −$836.88

(16)

EXAMPLE  5:  JUSTIFYING  AN  INVESTMENT

16

$20,000 0

1       2      3      4      5

$4,000

CAPITAL  COSTS

0 1       2      3      4      5

$4,400    $4,400  $4,400  $4,400  $4,400

ANNUAL  REVENUES

(17)

EXAMPLE  6:  WORTH  PER  UNIT  TIME

17 $75,000 $24,400 $27,340 $55,760 0

1 2 3

Yearly  Operating  Hours

Year  1 Year  2 Year  3 2,000 2,000 2,000

𝑃𝑊 15% = $3,553

𝐴𝐸 15% = $3,553 𝐴|𝑃, 15%, 3 = $1,556

Savings  per  machine  hour:

$C,DDE

F,GGG

= $0.78/ℎ𝑟

(18)

EXAMPLE  6:  WORTH  PER  UNIT  TIME

18

$75,000

$24,400 $27,340

$55,760

0

1 2 3

Yearly  Operating  Hours

Year  1 Year  2 Year  3 1,500 2,500 2,000

𝐴𝐸 15% = $1,556

𝐶

: annual-­equivalent  savings  per  machine  hour

$1,556

= [1,500𝐶 𝑃|𝐹, 15%, 1 + 2,500𝐶 𝑃|𝐹, 15%, 2 + 2,000𝐶 𝑃|𝐹, 15%, 3 ] 𝐴|𝑃, 15%, 3

(19)

EXAMPLE  7:  Break-­even Unit Revenue

19

YEAR  1 YEAR  2 YEAR  3 Depreciation $2,879 $1,776 $1,545 Scheduled  maintenance 100 153 220

Insurance 635 635 635 Registration  & taxes 78 57 50

Total  ownership  cost $3,693 $2,621 $2,450 Nonscheduled  repairs 35 85 200

Replacement  tires 35 30 27

Accessories 15 13 12

Gasoline  & taxes 688 650 522

Oil 80 100 100

Parking  & tolls 135 125 110

(20)

EXAMPLE  7:  Break-­even Unit Revenue

20

Total  costs $4,680 $3,624 $3,421 Expected  miles  driven 14,500 13,000 11,500

𝐴𝐸𝐶 6% = 𝑃𝑊 6% 𝐴|𝑃, 6%, 3 = $3,933/𝑦𝑟

𝑋

: revenue  per  mile

Present-­worth  of  total  revenue:

1,000𝑋 14.5 𝑃|𝐹, 6%, 1 + 13 𝑃|𝐹, 6%, 2

 

+ $11.5 𝑃|𝐹, 6%, 3

𝐴𝐸 6% = $13,058𝑋/𝑦𝑟

Break-­even:  

$3,933/𝑦𝑟 = $13,058𝑋/𝑦𝑟

(21)

EXAMPLE  7:  Break-­even Unit Revenue

21

Annual-­equivalent cost  of   owning  & operating

LOSS

Annual-­worth of  rerevenue Break-­even revenue  rate $0.3012

GAIN

4000 3000 2000 1000

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

Revenue  rate  per  mile  ($)  

(22)

MAKE-­OR-­BUY  DECISIONS

22

OUTSOURCING DECISIONS

TO  BUY

TO  PRODUCE

CAPITAL  

(23)

MAKE-­OR-­BUY  DECISIONS

23

Identify  planning  horizon  &  required  annual  quantity

.

Determine  unit  cost  of  outsourcing.

Compute  unit  cost  of  producing.

a. Identify  production  costs  (capital  & resources). b.Estimate  net  cash  flows  over  planning  horizon. c. Compute  annual  equivalent  cost  of  producing.

d.Divide  annual  equivalent  cost  by  required  annual  quantity.

(24)

EXAMPLE  8:  MAKE-­OR-­BUY  DECISIONS

24

A  manufacturer  needs  120K  units  of  a  part  every  year  for  5  years.

Producing  the  part  requires  specialized  tools  that  cost  $2.2M  &  have   salvage  value  $120K  at  the  end  of  5  years.  The  unit  production  cost  

after  buying  the  equipment  is  $26.30.

A  supplier  offers  to  provide  the  part  for  $35/unit  for  annual  orders  over   100K  units.  

(25)

EXAMPLE  8:  MAKE-­OR-­BUY  DECISIONS

25

Annual-­equivalent cost of buying:

𝐴𝐸𝐶 12% = $35 120,000 = $4.2𝑀/𝑦𝑟

Annual-­equivalent cost of producing:

𝐶𝑅 12% = $2.2𝑀 − $120𝐾 𝐴|𝑃, 12%, 5 + $120𝐾 12%

𝐶𝑅 12% = $591,412

𝑂𝐶 12% = $26.30 120,000 = $3,156,000

𝐴𝐸𝐶 12% = $3,747,412

(26)

EXAMPLE  8:  MAKE-­OR-­BUY  DECISIONS

26

Unit cost of buying:

$35/𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡

Unit cost of producing:

𝐴𝐸𝐶 12% = $3,747,412

$3,747,412

120,000

= $31.23/𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡

Producing  the  part  saves  the  company  $3.77  per  unit.

(27)

EXAMPLE  9:  PROJECTS  WITH  EQUAL  LIVES

27

Standard  Motor

Premium  Motor

Size

25  HP

25  HP

Cost

$13,000

$15,600

Life

20  years

20  years

Salvage

$0

$0

Output

18.65  kW

18.65  kW

Efficiency

89.5%

93%

Energy  cost

$0.07/kWh

$0.07/kWh

(28)

EXAMPLE  9:  PROJECTS  WITH  EQUAL  LIVES

28

Standard  Motor

Premium  Motor

Cost

$13,000

$15,600

𝐶𝑅 13%

$1,851

$2,221

Output

18.65  kW

18.65  kW

Efficiency

89.5%

93%

Input

20.838  kW

20.054  kW

Operating  hours

3,120

3,120

Total input

65,018/yr

62,568/yr

Energy  cost

$0.07/kWh

$0.07/kWh

(29)

EXAMPLE  9:  PROJECTS  WITH  EQUAL  LIVES

29

Standard  Motor

Premium  Motor

𝐶𝑅 13%

$1,851

$2,221

Annual  operating  cost

$4,551

$4,380

𝐴𝐸𝐶 13%

$6,402

$6,601

Cost  per  kWh

$0.1100

$0.1134

(30)

EXAMPLE  9:  PROJECTS  WITH  EQUAL  LIVES

30

LIFE-­CYCLE-­COST  ANALYSIS

Switching from standard to premium motor:

Incremental capital cost:

$2,221 − $1,851 = $370

Incremental energy savings:

$4,551 − $4,380 = $171

A sum of 3,120 annual operating hours implies a

LOSS

(31)

EXAMPLE  9:  PROJECTS  WITH  EQUAL  LIVES

31

𝑋

: annual  operating  hours

Incremental  capital  cost:

$2,221 − $1,851 = $370

Incremental  energy  savings:

reduction  in

Output

Efficiency

 

Operating

Hours

Energy

Cost

20.838

 

𝑋 0.07 − 20.054

 

𝑋 0.07 = $0.05488𝑋

Break-­even:

$0.05488𝑋 = $370

(32)

EXAMPLE  9:  PROJECTS  WITH  EQUAL  LIVES

32

Standard

(33)

PROJECTS  WITH  UNEQUAL  LIVES

33

Annual-­worth analysis offers computational advantages

over present-­worth analysis when:

Ø

required service period is indefinite and

Ø

each alternative is replaced by identical asset with

same costs & performance.

(34)

EXAMPLE  10:  PROJECTS  WITH  UNEQUAL  LIVES

34

Project  A

0   1 2 3

$12,500

$5,000 $5,000 $3,000

Project  B

0   1 2 3      4

$15,000

$4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $2,500

(35)

EXAMPLE  10:  PROJECTS  WITH  UNEQUAL  LIVES

35

Project  A

0   1 2 3

$12,500

$5,000 $5,000 $3,000

FIRST  CYCLE:

𝑃𝑊 15% = −$22,601

𝐴𝐸 15% = −$22,601 𝐴|𝑃, 15%, 3 =

−$9,899

4  REPLACEMENT  CYCLES:

𝑃𝑊 15% = −$53,657

(36)

EXAMPLE  10:  PROJECTS  WITH  UNEQUAL  LIVES

36

FIRST  CYCLE:

𝑃𝑊 15% = −$25,562

𝐴𝐸 15% = −$25,562 𝐴|𝑃, 15%, 4 =

−$8,954

3 REPLACEMENT  CYCLES:

𝑃𝑊 15% = −$48,534

𝐴𝐸 15% = −$48,534 𝐴|𝑃, 15%, 12 =

−$8,954

Project  B

0   1 2 3      4

$15,000

(37)

EXAMPLE  10:  PROJECTS  WITH  UNEQUAL  LIVES

(38)

SUMMARY

38

Annual-­worth analysis

is based on annual-­equivalent worth

(cost).

𝐴𝐸 𝑖 = 𝑃𝑊 𝑖 𝐴|𝑃, 𝑖, 𝑁

Capital-­recovery cost

is the annual-­equivalent cost of capital.

𝐶𝑅 𝑖 = 𝐼 − 𝑆 𝐴|𝑃, 𝑖, 𝑁 + 𝑖𝑆

Advantages of annual-­worth analysis:

Ø Annual-­equivalent worth is more common in financial reports. Ø Pricing items requires calculating unit costs.

References

Related documents

Cultural factors associated with breast and cervical cancer screening in KA women that were identi fi ed in descriptive quantitative and qualitative studies included

Last update : 2016-01-07 Format : PDF LG SPLIT SYSTEM AIR CONDITIONER MANUAL Last update : 2016-01-05 Format : PDF SERVICE MANUAL SPLIT AIR CONDITIONER Last update : 2016-01-11 Format

demand for imported CFT (the rightward shift in the U.S. CFT import demand to the darker import demand curve in the bottom middle graph of Figure 13), the reduction in foreign

Through their negative experiences of presenteeism, the in- terviewees realized that the relationships with their boss and col- leagues in the nursing staff were characterized by

In contrast, research on everyday terrorism makes a much stronger case for the presence and political roles of fear and trauma; they are fundamental to the social structures of

Given these results, constant standard deviations are a simplification, leading to conservative en- velopes for early and to non-conservative bounds for later vortex ages. Note, that

These conditions included sample size, well-defined versus poorly defined measurement models, equal versus unequal transition probability matrices, equal versus unequal class

Under the DINA model, when both the slipping and the guessing parameters are zero, Chiu, Douglas and Li (2009) proposes the completeness assumption of the Q-matrix, which turns out