Capital Expenditure Decisions

(1)

Chapter Fifteen

Capital Expenditure Decisions

FOCUS COMPANY

This chapter’s focus is on the City of Mountainview, British Columbia. Mountainview’s mayor and city council face a variety of decisions that involve cash flows over several periods of time. The decision tool used in making such multiperiod decisions is called discounted-cash-flow analysis, because it takes account of the different timing of cash flows that occur in different time periods. Among the decisions that Mountainview’s leadership makes is whether to purchase a new computer system for the city government. Since the City of Mountainview is not a profit-seeking enterprise, income taxes play no role in the decisions faced by the city’s leadership.

IN CONTRAST

In contrast to the Mountainview city government setting, in which income taxes play no role in decisions, we turn our attention to

High Country Department Stores. This chain of retail department stores, located in Mountainview, also faces some significant decisions involving multi-period cash flows. Since High Country is a

profit-seeking enterprise, it does pay income taxes. Therefore, when the company’s management uses discounted-cash-flow analysis, it must take taxes into account. Among the decisions faced by High Country’s man-agement is whether to purchase a new computerized checkout system.

After completing this chapter, you should be able to:

1 Use the net-present-value method and the

internal- rate-of-return method to evaluate an investment proposal. 2 Compare the

net-present-value and internal-rate-of- return methods, and state the assumptions underlying each method.

3 Use both the total-cost approach and the incremental-cost approach to evaluate an investment proposal.

4 Use the payback method and

accounting-rate-of-return method to evaluate capital- investment projects.

5 Discuss the difficulty of rank-ing investment proposals, and use the profitability index. 6 Determine the after-tax cash

flows in an investment analysis.

7 Evaluate an investment proposal using a discounted-cash-flow analysis, giving full consideration to income- tax issues.

8 Describe the impact of activity-based costing and advanced manufacturing technology on capital- budgeting decisions.

hiL68241_ch15_001-049.indd Page 1 9/16/09 4:27:09 PM user-s180

(2)

2 Chapter 15 Capital Expenditure Decisions

M

anagers in all organizations periodically face major decisions that involve cash flows over several years. Decisions involving the acquisition of ma-chinery, vehicles, buildings, or land are examples of such decisions. Other examples include decisions involving significant changes in a production process or adding a major new line of products or services to the organization’s activities.

Decisions involving cash inflows and outflows beyond the current year are called capital-budgeting decisions . Managers encounter two types of capital-budgeting de-cisions.

Acceptance-or-Rejection Decisions In acceptance-or-rejection decisions , managers must decide whether they should undertake a particular capital investment project. In such a decision, the required funds are available or readily obtainable, and management must decide whether the project is worthwhile. For example, the Mountainview city manager is faced with a decision on whether to replace one of the city’s oldest street-cleaning machines. The funds are available in the city’s capital budget. The question is whether the cost savings with the new machine will justify the expenditure.

Capital-Rationing Decisions In capital-rationing decisions , managers must decide which of several worthwhile projects makes the best use of limited investment funds. To illustrate, suppose the Mountainview city council has recently passed a proposition mandating a cost-reduction program to trim administrative expenses. The council has obtained a loan from the province in the amount of $100,000 to finance the cost- reduction program. The mayor has in mind three cost-reduction programs, each of which would reduce administrative costs significantly over the next five years. How-ever, the city can afford only two of the programs with the $100,000 of investment capital available. The mayor’s decision problem is to decide which projects to pursue. Focus on Project Capital-budgeting problems tend to focus on specific projects or programs. Is it best for Mountainview to purchase the new street cleaner or not? Which cost-reduction programs will provide the city with the greatest benefits? Should a university buy a new electron microscope? Should a manufacturing firm acquire a computer-integrated manufacturing system?

Over time, as managers make decisions about a variety of specific programs and projects, the organization as a whole becomes the sum total of its individual invest-ments, activities, programs, and projects. The organization’s performance in any particular year is the combined result of all the projects under way during that year.

Learning Objective 1 Use the net-present-value method and the internal-rate-of-return method to evaluate an investment proposal.

Discounted-Cash-Flow Analysis

How do managers evaluate capital investment projects? Our discussion will be illustrated by several decisions made by the Mountainview city government. The Mountainview city manager routinely advises the mayor and city council on major capital investment decisions.

Currently under consideration is the purchase of a new street cleaner. The city man-ager has estimated that the old street-cleaning machine would last another five years. A new street cleaner, which also would last for five years, can be purchased for $50,470. It would cost the city $14,000 less each year to operate the new equipment than it costs to operate the old machine. The expected cost savings with the new machine are due to lower expected maintenance costs. Thus, the new street cleaner will cost $50,470 and save $70,000 over its five-year life ($70,000 5 5 3 $14,000 savings per year). Since the $70,000 in cost savings exceeds the $50,470 acquisition cost, one might be tempted to conclude that the new machine should be purchased. However, this analysis is flawed, since it does not account for the time value of money . The $50,470 acquisition cost will

(3)

Chapter 15 Capital Expenditure Decisions 3

occur now, but the cost savings are spread over a five-year period. It is a mistake to add cash flows occurring at different points in time. The proper approach is to use discounted-cash-flow analysis , which takes into account the timing of the cash flows. There are two widely used methods of discounted-cash-flow analysis: the net-present-value method and the internal-rate-of-return method. (Those who wish to review the basic concept of present value should read Appendix A at the end of this chapter.) Net-Present-Value Method

The following four steps constitute a net-present-value analysis of an investment pro-posal:

1. Prepare a table showing the cash flows during each year of the proposed investment.

2. Compute the present value of each cash flow, using a discount rate that reflects the cost of acquiring investment capital. This discount rate is often called the hurdle rate or minimum desired rate of return .

3. Compute the net present value , which is the sum of the present values of the cash flows.

4. If the net present value (NPV) is equal to or greater than zero, accept the in-vestment proposal. Otherwise, reject it.

Exhibit 15–1 displays these four steps for the Mountainview city manager’s street-cleaner decision. In step 2 the city manager used a discount rate of 10 percent. Notice that the cost savings are $14,000 in each of the years 1 through 5. Thus, the cash flows in those years make up a five-year, $14,000 annuity. The controller used the annuity discount factor to compute the present value of the five years of cost savings. (The discount factors are found in Appendix B at the end of this chapter.)

The net-present-value analysis indicates that the city should purchase the new street cleaner. The present value of the cost savings exceeds the new machine’s acqui-sition cost.

Internal-Rate-of-Return Method

An alternative discounted-cash-flow method for analyzing investment proposals is the internal-rate-of-return method. An asset’s internal rate of return (or time-adjusted

“We’re key members of the decision making team when it comes to significant capital expenditure decisions.” (15a)

Ford Motor Company

Exhibit 15–1 Net-Present-Value Method CITY OF MOUNTAINVIEW

Purchase of Street Cleaner (r .10, n 5) Step 1

Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Acquisition cost $(50,470) 0 0 0 , 4 1 $ 0 0 0 , 4 1 $ 0 0 0 , 4 1 $ 0 0 0 , 4 1 $ 0 0 0 , 4 1 $ s g n i v a s t s o c l a u n n A

Step 2 Present value of annuity $14,000(3.791)

Annuity discount factor for r .10 and n 5 from Table IV in Appendix B ) 0 7 4 , 0 5 ( $ e u l a v t n e s e r P $53,074 Step 3 Netpresentvalue $2,604 Step 4 Accept proposal, since net present value is positive.

⎫ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎬ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎭ ⎫ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎬ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎭

(4)

rate of return ) is the true economic return earned by the asset over its life. Another way of stating the definition is that an asset’s internal rate of return (IRR) is the dis-count rate that would be required in a net-present-value analysis in order for the asset’s net present value to be exactly zero .

What is the internal rate of return on Mountainview’s proposed street-cleaner acquisition? Recall that the asset has a positive net present value, given that the city’s cost of acquiring investment capital is 10 percent. Would you expect the asset’s IRR to be higher or lower than 10 percent? Think about this question intuitively. The higher the discount rate used in a net-present-value analysis, the lower the present value of all future cash flows will be. This is true, because a higher discount rate means that it is even more important to have the money earlier instead of later. Thus, a discount rate higher than 10 percent would be required to drive the new street cleaner’s net present value down to zero.

Finding the Internal Rate of Return How can we find this rate? One way is trial and error. We might experiment with different discount rates until we find the one that yields a zero net present value. We already know that a 10 percent discount rate yields a positive NPV. Let’s try 14 percent. Discounting the five-year, $14,000 cost-savings annuity at 14 percent yields a negative NPV of $(2,408).

13.4332 1$14,0002 $50,470 $12,4082

Annuity discount factor for r .14 and

n 5 from Table IV in Appendix B.

What does this negative NPV at a 14 percent discount rate mean? We increased the discount rate too much. Therefore, the street cleaner’s internal rate of return must lie between 10 percent and 14 percent. Let’s try 12 percent:

13.6052 1$14,0002 $50,470 0

Annuity discount factor for r .12 and

n 5 from Table IV in Appendix B.

That’s it. The new street cleaner’s internal rate of return is 12 percent. With a 12 percent discount rate, the investment proposal’s net present value is zero, since the street cleaner’s acquisition cost is equal to the present value of the cost savings.

We could have found the internal rate of return more easily in this case, because the street cleaner’s cash flows exhibit a very special pattern. The cash inflows in years 1 through 5 are identical, as shown below.

5 4 3 2 1 0 Year Cash flow $(50,470) $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 s w o lf n i h s a c l a u q E w o lf t u o h s a c l a it i n I ) s g n i v a s t s o c -g n it a r e p o ( ) t s o c n o it i s i u q c a ( ⎫ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎬ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎭

When we have this special pattern of cash flows, the internal rate of return is determined in two steps, as follows:

1. Divide the initial cash outflow by the equivalent annual cash inflows:

$

. 210,000

$50,000 ⫽4 200⫽ Annuity discount factorr

(5)

2. In Table IV, find the discount rate associated with the annuity discount factor computed in step 1, given the appropriate number of years in the annuity.

r

10% 12% 14%

n = 5 3.791 3.605 3.433

Decision Rule Now that we have determined the investment proposal’s internal rate of return to be 12 percent, how do we use this fact in making a decision? The decision rule in the internal-rate-of-return method is to accept an investment proposal if its internal rate of return is greater than the organization’s cost of capital (or hurdle rate). Thus, Mountainview’s city manager should recommend that the new street cleaner be purchased. The internal rate of return on the proposal, 12 percent, exceeds the city’s hurdle rate, 10 percent.

To summarize, the internal-rate-of-return method includes the following three steps: 1. Prepare a table showing the cash flows during each year of the proposed

investment. This table will be identical to the cash-flow table prepared under the net-present-value method. (See Exhibit 15–1.)

2. Compute the internal rate of return (IRR) for the proposed investment. This is accomplished by finding a discount rate that yields a zero net present value for the proposed investment.

3. If the IRR is equal to or greater than the hurdle rate (cost of acquiring investment capital), accept the investment proposal. Otherwise, reject it. Recovery of Investment The reason for purchasing an asset is an expectation that it will provide benefits in the future. Thus, Mountainview may purchase the new street cleaner because of expected future operating-cost savings. For a capital-investment proposal to be accepted, the expected future benefits must be sufficient for the purchaser to recover the investment and earn a return on the investment equal to or greater than the cost of acquiring capital. We can illustrate this point with Mountainview’s street-cleaner acquisition.

Exhibit 15–2 examines the investment proposal’s cash flows from the perspective of recovering the investment and earning a return on the investment. Focus on the

From Table IV of Appendix B

“Our role is to be internal management consultants for the key decisions facing management.” (15b)

Hewlett-Packard

Exhibit 15–2 Recovery of Investment and Return on Investment CITY OF MOUNTAINVIEW

Purchase of Street Cleaner (r .12, n 5)

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

1. Unrecovered investment

at beginning of year . . . $50,470 $42,526 $33,629 $23,664 $12,504

2. Cost savings during year . . . 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 3. Return on unrecovered

investment [12% amount

in row (1)] . . . 6,056 5,103 4,035 2,840 1,500 4. Recovery of investment

during year [row (2) amount

minus row (3) amount] . . . 7,944 8,897 9,965 11,160 12,500 5. Unrecovered investment

at end of year [row (1) amount minus row (4)

amount] . . . 42,526 33,629 23,664 12,504 4* *We are left with an unrecovered investment of $4 because of accumulated rounding errors in the table. If we had carried out each number to cents, the table would have finished up with an unrecovered investment of zero.

(6)

year 1 column in the exhibit. The street cleaner costs $50,470, so this is the unrecov-ered investment at the beginning of year 1. The operating-cost savings in year 1 are $14,000. Since the asset’s internal rate of return is 12 percent, it must earn $6,056 during the first year (12% 3 $50,470). Therefore, $6,056 of the $14,000 cost savings represents a return on the unrecovered investment. This leaves $7,944 as a recovery of the investment during year 1 ($14,000 2 $6,056). Subtracting the year 1 recovery of investment from the unrecovered investment at the beginning of the year leaves an unrecovered investment of $42,526 at year-end ($50,470 2 $7,944).

Uneven Cash Flows A complication that often arises in finding a project’s internal rate of return is an uneven pattern of cash flows. In Mountainview’s proposed street-cleaner acquisition, the cost savings are $14,000 per year for all five years of the machine’s life. Suppose, instead, that the pattern of cost savings is as follows:

Cost savings $14,000 $14,000 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 Time 5 4 3 2 1 r a e Y

Such an uneven cost-savings pattern is quite plausible, since the maintenance costs could rise in the machine’s latter years. When the cash-flow pattern is uneven, itera-tion must be used to find the internal rate of return. You can try various discount rates iteratively until you find the one that yields a zero net present value for the investment proposal. This sort of computationally intensive work is the kind of task for which computers are designed. Numerous computer software packages are available to find a project’s IRR almost instantaneously.

Comparing the NPV and IRR Methods

The decision to accept or reject an investment proposal can be made using either the net-present-value method or the internal-rate-of-return method. The different approaches used in the methods are summarized as follows:

Learning Objective 2 Compare the net-present-value and internal-rate-of-return methods, and state the assumptions underlying each

method. Net-Present-Value Method

1. Compute the investment proposal’s net present value, using the

organization’s hurdle rate as the discount rate.

2. Accept the investment proposal if its net present value is equal to or greater than zero; otherwise reject it.

Internal-Rate-of-Return Method 1. Compute the investment proposal’s

internal rate of return, which is the discount rate that yields a zero net present value for the project. 2. Accept the investment proposal if

its internal rate of return is equal to or greater than the organization’s hurdle rate; otherwise reject it. Notice that the hurdle rate is used in each of the two methods.

Advantages of Net-Present-Value Method The net-present-value method exhibits two potential advantages over the internal-rate-of-return method. First, if the investment analysis is carried out by hand, it is easier to compute a project’s NPV than its IRR. For example, if the cash flows are uneven across time, trial and error must be used to find the IRR. This advantage of the NPV approach is not as important, however, when a computer is used.

A second potential advantage of the NPV method is that the analyst can adjust for risk considerations. For some investment proposals, the further into the future that a cash flow occurs, the less certain the analyst can be about the amount of the cash flow. Thus, the later a projected cash flow occurs, the riskier it may be. It is possible to adjust a net-present-value analysis for such risk factors by using a higher discount rate for later cash flows than earlier cash flows. It is not possible to include such a risk adjustment in the internal-rate-of-return method, because the analysis solves for only a single discount rate, the project’s IRR.

(7)

Assumptions Underlying Discounted-Cash-Flow Analysis

As is true of any decision model, discounted-cash-flow methods are based on assumptions. Four assumptions underlie the NPV and IRR methods of investment analysis.

1. In the present-value calculations used in the NPV and IRR methods, all cash flows are treated as though they occur at year-end. If the City of Mountainview were to acquire the new street cleaner, the $14,000 in an-nual operating-cost savings actually would occur uniformly throughout each year. The additional computational complexity that would be re-quired to reflect the exact timing of all cash flows would complicate an investment analysis considerably. The error introduced by the year-end cash-flow assumption generally is not large enough to cause any concern. 2. Discounted-cash-flow analyses treat the cash flows associated with an

investment project as though they were known with certainty. Although methods of capital budgeting under uncertainty have been developed, they are not used widely in practice. Most decision makers do not feel that the additional benefits in improved decisions are worth the additional com-plexity involved. As mentioned above, however, risk adjustments can be made in an NPV analysis to partially account for uncertainty about the cash flows.

3. Both the NPV and IRR methods assume that each cash inflow is immedi-ately reinvested in another project that earns a return for the organization. In the NPV method, each cash inflow is assumed to be reinvested at the same rate used to compute the project’s NPV, the organization’s hurdle rate. In the IRR method, each cash inflow is assumed to be reinvested at the same rate as the project’s internal rate of return.

What does this reinvestment assumption mean in practice? In the case of Mountainview’s proposed new street cleaner, the city must instantly reinvest the money saved each year either in some interest-bearing invest-ment or in some other capital project.

4. A discounted-cash-flow analysis assumes a perfect capital market. This implies that money can be borrowed or lent at an interest rate equal to the hurdle rate used in the analysis.

In practice, these four assumptions are rarely satisfied. Nevertheless, discounted-cash-flow models provide an effective and widely used method of investment analysis. The improved decision making that would result from using more complicated models is seldom worth the additional cost of information and analysis.

Choosing the Hurdle Rate

The choice of a hurdle rate is a complex problem in finance. The hurdle rate is determined by management based on the investment opportunity rate . This is the rate of return the organization can earn on its best alternative investments of equivalent risk. In general, the greater a project’s risk is, the higher the hurdle rate should be.

Investment versus Financing Decisions In capital-expenditure decisions, the invest-ment decision should be separated from the financing decision. The decision as to whether to invest in a project should be made first using a discounted-cash-flow approach with a hurdle rate based on the investment opportunity rate. If a project is accepted, then a separate analysis should be made as to the best way to finance the project.

(8)

Cost of Capital How do organizations generate investment capital? Nonprofit organi-zations, such as city and provincial governments, and charitable organiorgani-zations, often acquire capital through special bond issues or borrowing from financial institutions. In such cases, the cost of capital is based on the interest rate paid on the debt.

Another source of capital for both nonprofit and profit-oriented organizations is invested funds, such as a university’s endowment fund. In this case, the cost of using the capital for an investment project is the interest rate forgone on the original invest-ment. For example, suppose your university’s endowment earns interest at the rate of 10 percent. If the university uses a portion of these funds to buy new laboratory equip-ment, the cost of capital is the 10 percent interest rate that is no longer earned on the funds removed from the endowment.

Profit-oriented enterprises fund capital projects by borrowing, by issuing stock, or by using invested funds. In most cases, capital projects are funded by all of these sources. Then the cost of capital should be a combination of the costs of obtaining money from each of these sources.

Depreciable Assets

When a long-lived asset is purchased, its acquisition cost is allocated to the time periods in the asset’s life through depreciation charges. However, we did not include any depreciation charges in our discounted-cash-flow analysis. Both the NPV and IRR methods focus on cash flows, and periodic depreciation charges are not cash flows . Suppose that the Mountainview city manager depreciates assets using the straight-line method. If the city purchases the new street cleaner for $50,470, the depreciation charges will be recorded as follows:

Depreciation charges are not cash flows Acquisition cost is a cash outflow Acquisition cost $50,470

Annual straight-line depreciation (D)

Time D = $10,094 D = $10,094 D = $10,094 D = $10,094 D = $10,094

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

The only cash flow in the diagram above is the $50,470 cash outflow incurred to acquire the street cleaner. The $10,094 annual depreciation charges are not cash flows. Thus, the acquisition cost is recorded as a cash flow in our investment analysis (Exhibit 15–1), but the annual depreciation charges are not.

Nonprofit versus Profit-Oriented Organizations Suppose our illustration had focused on a profit-seeking enterprise instead of the City of Mountainview. For example, if the street-cleaner acquisition is contemplated by a theme-park company, would this change our treatment of the annual depreciation charges for the street cleaner? The depreciation charges still are not cash flows. However, in a profit-seeking enterprise, depreciation expense is deductible for income-tax purposes. Since tax payments are cash flows, the reduction in tax due to depreciation expense is a legitimate cash flow that should be included in an investment analysis. In a later section, we will study the tax implications of depreciable assets in detail. For now, let’s return to our focus on the City of Mountainview. As a nonprofit enterprise, the city pays no income tax. Therefore, depreciation is irrelevant in our discounted-cash-flow analysis.

(9)

We have developed all of the tools and concepts required to use discounted-cash-flow analysis in an investment decision. Now we can expand on our discussion using an illustration that combines the net-present-value method of investment analysis with the concepts of relevant costs and benefits studied in Chapter 13 . The first step in any investment analysis is to determine the cash flows that are relevant to the analysis.

The computer system used by the City of Mountainview is outdated. The city council has voted to purchase a new computer system to be funded through a loan. The mayor has asked the city’s manager to make a recommendation as to which of two computer systems should be purchased. The two systems are equivalent in their ability to meet the city’s needs and in their ease of use. The mainframe system con-sists of one large mainframe computer with remote terminals and printers located throughout the city offices. The personal computer system consists of a much smaller mainframe computer, a few remote terminals, and a dozen personal computers, which will be networked to the small mainframe. Each system would last five years. The city manager has decided to use a 12 percent hurdle rate for the analysis.

Exhibit 15–3 presents data pertinent to the decision. Examine these data carefully. Most of the items are self-explanatory. Item 9 is the annual cost of a data-link service. This service enables Mountainview to participate in a nationwide computer network, which allows cities to exchange information on such issues as crime rates, demographic data, and economic data. Item 10 is the revenue the city will receive from two time-sharing customers. The Mountainview School District and the regional district each has agreed to pay the city in return for a limited amount of time on the city’s computer.

Before we begin the steps of the net-present-value method, let’s examine the cash-flow data in Exhibit 15–3 to determine if any of the data can be ignored as irrelevant. Notice that items 1 and 9 do not differ between the two alternatives. Regardless of which new computer system is purchased, certain components of the old system can be sold now for $25,000. Moreover, the data-link service will cost $20,000 annually, regardless of which system is acquired. If the only purpose of the NPV analysis is to

Learning Objective 3 Use both the total-cost approach and the incremental-cost approach to evaluate an investment proposal.

Comparing Two Investment Projects

Exhibit 15–3 Data for Extended Illustration of Net-Present-Value Analysis hiL68241_ch15_001-049.indd Page 9 9/25/09 7:19:06 PM user-s-179

(10)

determine which computer system is the least-cost alternative, items 1 and 9 can be ignored as irrelevant, since they will affect both alternatives’ NPVs equally.

Total-Cost Approach Exhibit 15– 4 displays a net-present-value analysis of the two alternative computer systems. The Exhibit uses the total-cost approach , in which all of the relevant costs of each computer system are included in the analysis. Then the net present value of the cost of the mainframe system is compared with that of the personal computer system. Since the NPV of the costs is lower with the personal computer system, that will be the city manager’s recommendation to the Mountainview City Council.

A decision such as Mountainview’s computer-system choice, in which the objec-tive is to select the alternaobjec-tive with the lowest cost, is called a least-cost decision . Rather than maximizing the NPV of cash inflows minus cash outflows, the objective is to minimize the NPV of the costs to be incurred .

Incremental-Cost Approach Exhibit 15–5 displays a different net-present-value analy-sis of the city’s two alternative computer systems. This Exhibit uses the incremental-cost approach , in which the difference in the incremental-cost of each relevant item under the two alternative systems is included in the analysis. For example, the incremental computer acquisition cost is shown in Exhibit 15–5 as $(100,000). This is the amount by which Exhibit 15–4

Net-Present-Value Analysis: Total-Cost Approach

CITY OF MOUNTAINVIEW Purchase of Computing System

(r 5 .12, n 5 5)

Item Number (from Exhibit 15–3) Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Mainframe System

(2) Acquisition cost: Computer ... $(400,000) (3) Acquisition cost: Software ... (40,000)

(4) System update ... $ (40,000)

(5) Salvage value ... $ 50,000 (6), (7), (8) Operating costs ... $(335,000) $(335,000) (335,000) $(335,000) (335,000) (10) Time-sharing revenue ... 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Total cash flow ... $(440,000) $(315,000) $(315,000) $(355,000) $(315,000) $(265,000) 3 Discount factor ... 3 1.000 3 .893 3 .797 3 .712 3 .636 3 .567 Present value ... $(440,000) $(281,295) $(251,055) $(252,760) $(200,340) $(150,255) Net present value of costs _Sum_{$( ,}_{1575 705}_, ₎

144444444444444444444244444444444444444443 Personal Computer System

(2) Acquisition cost: Computer ... $(300,000) (3) Acquisition cost: Software ... (75,000)

(4) System update ... $ (60,000)

(5) Salvage value ... $ 30,000 (6), (7), (8) Operating costs ... $(235,000) $(235,000) (235,000) $(235,000) (235,000) (10) Time-sharing revenue ... –0– –0– –0– –0– –0– Total cash flow ... $(375,000) $(235,000) $(235,000) $(295,000) $(235,000) $(205,000) 3 Discount factor ... 3 1.000 3 .893 3 .797 3 .712 3 .636 3 .567 Present value ... $(375,000) $(209,855) $(187,295) $(210,040) $(149,460) $(116,235) Net present value of costs ... _Sum_{$( ,}_{1247 885}_, ₎

144444444444444444444244444444444444444443 Difference in NPV of costs

(favours personal computer system) ... $ (327,820) hiL68241_ch15_001-049.indd Page 10 8/20/09 8:55:02 PM user-s176

(11)

the acquisition cost of the mainframe system exceeds that of the personal computer system. The result of this analysis is that the NPV of the costs of the mainframe system exceeds that of the personal computer system by $327,820. Notice that this is the same as the difference in NPVs shown at the bottom of Exhibit 15–4.

The total-cost and incremental-cost approaches always will yield equivalent con-clusions. Choosing between them is a matter of personal preference.

Exhibit 15–5 Net-Present-Value Analysis: Incremental-Cost Approach CITY OF MOUNTAINVIEW

Purchase of Computing System (r 5 .12, n 5 5)

Item Number (from Exhibit 15–3) Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Incremental Cost of Mainframe System over Personal Computer System

(2) Acquisition cost: Computer ... $(100,000) (3) Acquisition cost: Software ... 35,000

(4) System update ... $ 20,000

(5) Salvage value ... $ 20,000 (6), (7), (8) Operating costs ... $(100,000) $(100,000) (100,000) $(100,000) (100,000) (10) Time-sharing revenue ... 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Incremental cash flow ... $ (65,000) $ (80,000) $ (80,000) $ (60,000) $ (80,000) $ (60,000) 3 Discount factor ... 3 1.000 3 .893 3 .797 3 .712 3 .636 3 .567 Present value ... $ (65,000) $ (71,440) $ (63,760) $ (42,720) $ (50,880) $ (34,020) Net present value of incremental costs

(favours personal computer system) ... Sum$(327 820, )

1444444444444444444424444444444444444443

Managerial Accountant’s Role To use discounted-cash-flow analysis in deciding about investment projects,

manag-ers need accurate cash-flow projections. This is where the managerial accountant plays a role. The accountant often is asked to predict cash flows related to operating-cost savings, additional working-capital requirements, or incremental operating-costs and revenues. Such predictions are difficult in a world of uncertainty. The managerial accountant often draws upon historical accounting data to help in making cost predic-tions. Knowledge of market conditions, economic trends, and the likely reactions of competitors also can be important in projecting cash flows.

Postaudit

The discounted-flow approach to evaluating investment proposals requires cash-flow projections. The desirability of a proposal depends heavily on those projections. If they are highly inaccurate, they may lead the organization to accept undesirable projects or to reject projects that should be pursued. Because of the importance of the capital-budgeting process, most organizations systematically follow up on projects to see how they turn out. This procedure is called a postaudit (or reappraisal ).

In a postaudit, the managerial accountant gathers information about the actual cash flows generated by a project. Then the project’s actual net present value or internal rate of return is computed. Finally, the projections made for the project are compared with the actual results. If the project has not lived up to expectations, an investigation may be warranted to determine what went awry. Sometimes a postaudit will reveal shortcom-ings in the cash-flow projection process. In such cases, action may be taken to improve future cash-flow predictions. Two types of errors can occur in discounted-cash-flow analyses: undesirable projects may be accepted and desirable projects may be rejected.

“The use of discounted cash flows improves decision making by requiring a more structured approach that addresses all factors that can affect the outcome of a project.” (15c)

British Columbia’s Comptroller General hiL68241_ch15_001-049.indd Page 11 8/20/09 8:55:07 PM user-s176

(12)

The postaudit is a tool for following up on accepted projects. Thus, a postaudit helps to detect only the first kind of error, not the second.

As in any performance-evaluation process, a postaudit should not be used punitively. The focus of a postaudit should provide information to the capital-budgeting staff, the project manager, and the management team.

Real Option Analysis

One way managerial accountants can assist the management team is by assess-ing the consequences of changes in an investment decision that may develop after the project has been approved. In long-term projects, there is often con-siderable uncertainty about the future cash flows, due to uncertainty about future economic, political, or natural events. As a project unfolds, manage-ment may decide to alter the course of the project or even postpone it. Suppose, for example, that the City of Mountainview decides to build a new municipal water system that will take five years to build and is expected to last 75 years. The project involves collaboration with several private enterprises, other municipalities, and the provincial government. As the project develops and various uncertainties are resolved, it may be desirable to make changes in the water system or postpone certain parts of it. A capital-budgeting tool called real option analysis can be used to quantify and analyze the merits of such changes. Real option analysis is covered in more advanced cost management and finance courses.

Capital-investment decisions go through an elaborate capital-budgeting process. This automated milling equipment cost tens of millions of dollars, and the capital expenditure decision was carefully analyzed. For what types of decisions would capital budgeting be used by the administra-tion of the school you attend?

Alternative Methods for Making Investment Decisions

The best way to decide whether to accept an investment project is to use discounted-cash-flow analysis, as described in the preceding section. Both the NPV and the IRR methods will yield the correct accept-or-reject decision. The strength of these methods lies in the fact that they properly account for the time value of money. In spite of the conceptual superiority of discounted-cash-flow decision models, man-agers sometimes use other methods for making investment decisions. In some cases, these alternative methods are used in conjunction with a discounted-cash-flow analysis. Two of these alternative decision methods are described next.

Our discussion is based on decisions faced by the management of High Country Department Stores. The firm operates two department stores in Mountainview. Payback Method

The payback period of an investment proposal is the amount of time it will take for the cash inflows from the project to accumulate to an amount that covers the original investment. The following formula defines an investment project’s payback period:

Payback period Initial investment

Annual cash inflow

Learning Objective 4 Use the payback method and accounting-rate-of-return method to evaluate capital-investment projects.

HIGH COUNTRY

DEPARTMENT STORES

(13)

There is no adjustment in the payback method for the time value of money. A cash inflow in year 5 is treated the same as a cash inflow in year 1.

To illustrate the payback method, suppose High Country Department Stores’ management is considering the purchase of a new conveyor system for its ware-house. The two alternative machines under consideration have the following pro-jected cash flows:

Conveyor System Initial Investment Cash Flows: Years 1 through 7 Cash Flow When System Is Sold

I ... $(20,000) ... $4,000 ... –0– II ... (27,000) ... 4,500 ... $14,000 The payback period for each conveyor system is computed below.

Initial Investment Annual Cash Inflow Conveyor System Payback Period I ... $ , $ , 20 000 4 000 ... 5 years II ... $ , $ , 27 000 4 500 ... 6 years

According to the payback method, system I is more desirable than system II. System I will “pay back” its initial investment in five years, while system II requires six years. This conclusion is too simplistic, however, because it ignores the large sal-vage value associated with system II. Indeed, the NPV of system I is negative, while the NPV of system II is positive, as shown in the following analysis:

Present Value of Cash Flows (10% discount factor)

Cash Flows System I System II

Initial investment $(20,000) 3 1.000 5 $(20,000) $(27,000) 3 1.000 5 $(27,000) Years 1–7 4,000 3 4.868 5 19,472 4,500 3 4.868 5 21,906 Cash inflow from sale –0– 14,000 3 .513 5 7,182 Net present value $ (528) $ 2,088

The net-present-value analysis demonstrates that only system II can generate cash flows sufficient to cover the company’s cost of capital. The payback method makes it appear as though system I “pays back” its initial investment more quickly, but the method fails to consider the time value of money.

Another shortcoming of the payback method is that it fails to consider an investment project’s profitability beyond the payback period. Suppose High Country Department Stores’ management has a third alternative for its warehouse conveyor system. System III requires an initial investment of only $12,000 and will generate cash inflows of $6,000 in years 1 and 2. Thus, system III’s payback period is two years, as computed below.

System III payback period $ , 2 y

$ , 12 000

6 000 eears

Strict adherence to the payback method would rank system III above systems I and II, due to its shorter payback period. However, suppose we add another piece of information. System III’s useful life is only two years, and it has no salvage value after two years. It is true that system III will “pay back” its initial investment in only two years if we ignore the time value of money. But then what? It provides no further benefits beyond year 2. In spite of system III’s short payback period, it is hiL68241_ch15_001-049.indd Page 13 8/20/09 8:55:17 PM user-s176

(14)

not a desirable investment proposal. The NPV of system III, $(1,584), is negative [$(1,584) 5 (1.736 3 $6,000) 2 $12,000].

Payback Period with Uneven Cash Flows The simple payback formula given on page 12 will not work if a project exhibits an uneven pattern of cash flows. Instead, the cash flows must be accumulated on a year-to-year basis until the accumulation equals the initial investment. Suppose High Country Department Stores’ management is considering the expansion of the downtown store’s parking facilities. Management expects that the additional parking will result in much greater sales initially. However, this benefit will gradually taper off, due to the reactions of competitors. The projected cash flows are shown in Exhibit 15–6, which also presents the payback calculation for the parking lot proposal. The project’s payback period is five years.

Payback: Pro and Con In summary, the payback method of evaluating investment pro-posals has two serious drawbacks. First, the method fails to consider the time value of money. Second, it does not consider a project’s cash flows beyond the pay-back period. Despite these shortcomings, the payback method is used widely in practice, because it provides a tool for roughly screening investment proposals. If a project does not meet some minimal criterion for the payback period, management may wish to reject the proposal regardless of potential large cash flows predicted well into the future. For example, a young firm may experience a shortage of cash. For such a company, it may be crucial to select investment projects that recoup their initial investment quickly. A cash-poor firm may not be able to wait for the big payoff of a project with a long payback period. Even in these cases though, it is wise not to rely on the payback method alone. If the payback method is used, it should be in conjunction with a discounted-cash-flow analysis.

Accounting-Rate-of-Return Method

Discounted-cash-flow methods of investment analysis focus on cash flows and incor-porate the time value of money. In contrast, the accounting-rate-of-return method focuses on the incremental accounting income that results from a project. Accounting income is based on accrual accounting procedures. Revenue is recognized during the Exhibit 15–6

Payback Period with Uneven Cash Flows

HIGH COUNTRY DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. Parking Lot Expansion After-Tax Cash Flows

Year Type of Cash Flow Outflows Inflows

Accumulated Cash Flows (excluding initial investment)

0 Initial investment $(200,000) — 1 Incremental sales* $60,000 $ 60,000 2 Incremental sales* 50,000 110,000 3 Incremental sales* 45,000 155,000 4 Incremental sales* 35,000 190,000

4 Repave parking lot (20,000) 170,000 Payback

5 Incremental sales* 30,000 200,000 period:

6 Incremental sales* 30,000 230,000 5 years

7 Incremental sales* 30,000 260,000 8 Incremental sales* 30,000 290,000 *Incremental sales, net of cost of goods sold.

HIGH COUNTRY

DEPARTMENT STORES

(15)

period of sale, not necessarily when the cash is received; expenses are recognized during the period they are incurred, not necessarily when they are paid in cash. The following formula is used to compute the accounting rate of return on an investment project.

Accounting rate of return

Average incrementa ⫽ ll revenue ⎛ ⎝ ⎜ ⎜ ⎞ ⎠ ⎟

⎟⫺ Average incremental expensses(including depreciation)

Initial investment ⎛ ⎝ ⎜ ⎜ ⎞ ⎠ ⎟ ⎟

To illustrate the accounting-rate-of-return method, suppose High Country Department Stores’ management is considering the installation of a small lunch counter in its downtown store. The required equipment and furnishings cost $210,000. The Excel spreadsheet shown in Exhibit 15–7 displays management’s revenue and expense projections for the lunch counter. The total income projected over the project’s 10-year useful life is $290,000. Thus, the average annual income is $29,000. The accounting rate of return on the lunch-counter proposal is computed as follows:

Accounting rate of return⫽ $ , ⫽

$ ,

29 000

210 000 13.8% (rounded)

To compute the lunch-counter project’s internal rate of return, let’s assume that each year’s sales revenue ($200,000), cost of goods sold ($100,000), and operating expenses ($50,000) are cash flows in the same year that they are recorded under accrual accounting. Recall that the depreciation expense is not a cash flow. Dividing the initial cash outflow by the equivalent annual cash inflows, we obtain the following:

$210,000

$50,000 ⫽4.200⫽ Annuity discount factorr

The internal rate of return on the lunch-counter proposal is nearly 20 percent. Notice that the project’s accounting rate of return, at 13.8 percent, is much lower than its IRR of 20 percent.

Exhibit 15–7

Accounting-Rate-of-Return Method

HIGH COUNTRY

DEPARTMENT STORES

hiL68241_ch15_001-049.indd Page 15 9/25/09 7:19:16 PM user-s-179

(16)

Use of the Average Investment Some managers prefer to compute the accounting rate of return using the average amount invested in a project for the denominator, rather than the project’s full cost. The formula is modified as follows:

Accounting rate of return using average inv

( eesment Average incremental revenue ) ⎛ ⎝ ⎜ ⎜ ⎞ ⎠ ⎟ ⎟ A

Average incremental expenses including depr

( eeciation

and income taxes Average i ) ⎛ ⎝ ⎜ ⎜ ⎞ ⎠ ⎟ ⎟ n nvestment

A project’s average investment is the average accounting book value over the proj-ect’s life.

Refer again to High Country Department Stores’ lunch-counter data given in Exhibit 15–7. The project’s book value at the beginning of each year is tabulated as follows: Year Book Value at Beginning of Year Average Depreciation Book Value at End of Year (a) (b) 2 ⴙ Book Value during Year 1 ... $210,000 ... $15,000 ... $195,000 ... $202,500 2 ... 195,000 ... 30,000 ... 165,000 ... 180,000 3 ... 165,000 ... 30,000 ... 135,000 ... 150,000 4 ... 135,000 ... 30,000 ... 105,000 ... 120,000 5 ... 105,000 ... 30,000 ... 75,000 ... 90,000 6 ... 75,000 ... 30,000 ... 45,000 ... 60,000 7 ... 45,000 ... 30,000 ... 15,000 ... 30,000 8 ... 15,000 ... 15,000 ... –0– ... 7,500 9 ... –0– ... –0– ... –0– ... –0– 10 ... –0– ... –0– ... –0– ... –0–

The average investment over the project’s useful life is the average of the amounts in the right-hand column, which is $84,000. Thus, the modified version of the project’s accounting rate of return is 34.5 percent. (The average annual in-come of $29,000 divided by the average investment of $84,000 equals 34.5 percent, rounded.)

Notice that this modified version of the accounting rate of return yields a significantly higher return than the project’s internal rate of return, which we com-puted as 20 percent. As a general rule of thumb, the following relationships will be observed:

Accounting rate of return using initial inv

( eestment Internal rate of return Accounting ) rate of return using average investment

( )

Accounting Rate of Return: Pro and Con Like the payback method, the accounting-rate-of-return method is a simple way of screening investment proposals. Some managers use this method because they believe it parallels financial accounting statements, which also are based on accrual accounting. However, like the payback method, the accounting-rate-of-return method does not consider the time value of money.

Inconsistent Terminology Many different terms for the accounting rate of return are used in practice. Among these terms are simple rate of return , rate of return on assets , and unadjusted rate of return .

(17)

Suppose a company has several potential investment projects, all of which have positive net present values. If a project has a positive net present value, this means that the return projected for the project exceeds the company’s cost of capital. In this case, every project with a positive NPV should be accepted. In spite of the theoretical validity of this argument, practice often does not reflect this viewpoint. In practice, managers often attempt to rank investment projects with positive net present values. Then only a limited number of the higher-ranking proposals are accepted.

The reasons for this common practice are not clear. If a discount rate is used that accurately reflects the firm’s cost of capital, then any project with a positive NPV will earn a return greater than the cost of obtaining capital to fund it. One possible

Learning Objective 5 Discuss the difficulty of ranking investment proposals, and use the profitability index.

Ranking Investment Projects CAPITAL BUDGETING AT PHARMACEUTICAL FIRMS

Among the many large companies making extensive use of capital budgeting are the big pharmaceutical companies. It can take 10 years or more to develop a new drug. It takes huge outlays of cash to develop a drug, test it, and then shepherd it through the govern-mental approval process. Yet much of what the drug companies claim as the cost of a new drug is actually the opportunity cost of tying up these big dollar outlays for many years before any revenue stream begins.

“Overall, the average tab for developing a new drug is $500 million to $880 million, the industry says. But the amount actually spent on any one marketable product is roughly one-quarter of that. To understand why, just look at the drug-development process. In the past, scientists made many variations of existing chemicals and tested them to see which ones had the ability to fight a particular disease.” Now, with the advent of genetic engineering and greatly expanded knowledge of biology, “the process has gotten more complicated—and oddly enough, more difficult. Researchers try to identify the best target in a particular disease—for instance, a damaged gene that causes cancer—then they make a drug to hit the target and cure the disease. Since that process can take 10 years or more, that means that about half of the calculated $500 million to $880 million total isn’t actually spent at all. Instead, it’s the opportunity cost— the measure of what the money tied up in the drug for so many years could have earned with alternative investments.” This is where capital budgeting comes into play, since the NPV of a drug development project takes into account the opportunity cost associated with the time value of money.

Pharmaceutical companies “have upped research spending in recent years—Pfizer

spends $4.9 billion annually; Merck, about $2.6 billion—but with no big payoff in pro-ductivity. Hefty up-front investments in genomics, in particular, have so far failed to yield a big crop of new compounds.” The uncertainties big pharmaceutical companies confront are a large part of the problem. First, only a small percentage of drugs under development ever make it as far as human trials. And only 1 in 10 of those makes it through to wide-scale testing. Then there’s the pricing uncertainty as well. How much will people pay for a new drug treatment? To take account of these uncertainties, many drug companies use simulation in conjunction with capital budgeting to decide whether to proceed with a drug’s development. A discounted-cash-flow analysis is run many times with differing assumptions about the drug’s success, its development costs, and its eventual pricing. Then a probability distribution is generated for the drug’s NPV. Management can then make a decision about proceeding with development given the likelihood of a profitable drug.1

Pfizer and Merck M A P anagement ccounting ractice hiL68241_ch15_001-049.indd Page 17 8/20/09 8:55:37 PM user-s176

(18)

explanation for the practice of ranking investment projects is a limited supply of scarce resources, such as managerial talent. Thus, a form of capital rationing takes place, not because of a limited supply of investment capital, but because of limita-tions on other resources. A manager may feel that he or she simply cannot devote sufficient attention to all of the desirable projects. The solution, then, is to select only some of the positive-NPV proposals, which implies a ranking.

Unfortunately, no valid method exists for ranking independent investment proj-ects with positive net present values. To illustrate, suppose the management of High Country Department Stores has the following two investment opportunities:

1. Proposal A. Open a gift shop at the Mountainview Convention Centre. High Country’s management believes the benefits of this proposal would last only six years. High Country’s management expects that after six years, the firm’s competitors will move into the Centre and eliminate High Country’s current advantageous position.

2. Proposal B . Open a small gift shop at the Mountainview Airport. The air-port gift concession would belong to High Country Department Stores for 10 years under a contract with the city.

The predicted cash flows for these investment proposals are as follows: Cash Outflow Cash Inflows

Present Value of Inflows (10% discount rate) Net Present Value Internal Rate of Return Investment

Proposal Time 0 Years 1–6 Years 7–10

A (Convention Centre) $ (54,450) $14,000 — $ 60,970 $6,520 14% B (Airport) (101,700) 18,000 $18,000 110,610 8,910 12%

Both investment proposals have positive net present values. Suppose, however, that due to limited managerial time, High Country’s management has decided to pursue only one of the projects. Which proposal should be ranked higher? This is a difficult question to answer. Proposal B has a higher net present value, but it also requires a much larger initial investment. Proposal A exhibits a higher internal rate of return. However, proposal A’s return of 14 percent applies only to its six-year time horizon. If management accepts proposal A, what will happen in years 7 through 10? Will the facilities and equipment remain idle? Or could they be used profitably for some other purpose? These questions are left unanswered by the analysis above.

The main reason that the NPV and IRR methods of analysis yield different rankings for these two proposals is that the projects have different lives. Without making an assumption about what will happen in years 7 through 10 if proposal A is accepted, the NPV and IRR methods simply are not capable of ranking the proposals in any sound manner. The only theoretically correct answer to the problem posed in this illustration is that both projects are desirable, and both should be accepted. Each proposal exhibits a positive NPV and an IRR greater than the hurdle rate of 10 percent.

Profitability Index One criterion that managers sometimes apply in ranking invest-ment proposals is called the profitability index (or excess present value index ), which is defined as follows:

Profitability index

Present value of cash f

llows exclusive of initial investment

Initia

, ll investment

The profitability indices for High Country’s two investment proposals are computed as follows:

(19)

Chapter 15 Capital Expenditure Decisions 19 Investment Proposal Calculation Profitability Index Net Present Value Internal Rate of Return

A Present value of inflows Initial investment $ $ , $ , 60 970 54 450 1.12 $6,529 14%

<

B Present value of inflows Initial investment $ $ , $ , 110 610 101 700 1.09 $8,910 12%

Although proposal A has a lower NPV than proposal B, proposal A exhibits a higher profitability index. Proposal A’s higher profitability index is due to its consid-erably lower initial investment than that required for proposal B. Is the profitability index a foolproof method for ranking investment proposals? Unfortunately, it too suf-fers from the same drawbacks as those associated with the NPV or IRR method. Both proposals exhibit a profitability index greater than 1.00, which merely reflects their positive NPVs. Thus, both projects are desirable. The unequal lives of the two pro-posals prevent the profitability index from indicating a theoretically correct ranking of the proposals. The relative desirability of proposals A and B simply depends on what will happen in years 7 through 10 if proposal A is selected.

In summary, the problem of ranking investment projects with positive NPVs has not been solved in a satisfactory manner. This lack of resolution is due to an inconsis-tency inherent to the problem. The inconsisinconsis-tency is that if several projects have posi-tive NPVs, they all are desirable. They all will earn a return greater than the cost of capital. If a manager chooses not to accept all projects with positive NPVs, then the required ranking ultimately must be made on the basis of subjective criteria.

Income Taxes and Capital Budgeting When a business makes a profit, it usually has to pay income taxes, just as individuals

do. Since many of the cash flows associated with an investment proposal affect the company’s profit, they also affect the firm’s income-tax liability. The following equa-tion shows the four types of items that appear on an income statement:

Income 5 Revenue 2 Expenses 1 Gains 2 Losses

Any aspect of an investment project that affects any of the items in this equation generally will affect the company’s income-tax payments. These income-tax pay-ments are cash flows, and they must be considered in any discounted-cash-flow anal-ysis. In some cases, tax considerations are so crucial in a capital-investment decision that they dominate all other aspects of the analysis.

After-Tax Cash Flows

The first step in a discounted-cash-flow analysis for a profit-seeking enterprise is to determine the after-tax cash flows associated with the investment projects under con-sideration. An after-tax cash flow is the cash flow expected after all tax implications have been taken into account. Each financial aspect of a project must be examined carefully to determine its potential tax impact.

To illustrate the tax implications of various types of financial items, we will focus again on High Country Department Stores, Inc. For the purposes of our discussion, we will assume that the company’s income tax rate is 30 percent. Thus, if the company’s net income is $1,000,000, its income-tax payment will be $300,000 ($1,000,000 3 30%). Revenue Suppose High Country’s management is considering the purchase of an additional delivery truck. The sales manager estimates that a new truck will allow the company to increase annual sales revenue by $110,000. Further suppose that this

Learning Objective 6 Determine the after-tax cash flows in an investment analysis.

HIGH COUNTRY

DEPARTMENT STORES

(20)

incremental sales revenue will be received in cash during the year of sale. Any credit sales will be converted to cash within a short time period. High Country’s additional annual sales revenue will result in an increase of $60,000 per year in cost of goods sold. Moreover, the additional merchandise sold will be paid for in cash during the same year as the related sales. Thus, the net incremental cash inflow resulting from the sales increase is $50,000 per year ($110,000 2 $60,000).

What is High Country’s after-tax cash flow from the incremental sales revenue, net of cost of goods sold? As the following calculation shows, the firm’s incremental cash inflow from the additional sales is only $30,000:

Incremental sales revenue, net of cost of goods sold (cash inflow) ... $50,000 Incremental income tax (cash outflow), $50,000 3 30% ... (15,000) After-tax cash flow (net inflow after taxes) ... $35,000

Although the incremental sales amounted to an additional net cash inflow of $50,000, the cash outflow for income taxes also increased by $15,000. Thus, the after-tax cash inflow from the incremental sales, net of cost of goods sold, is $35,000.

A quick method for computing the after-tax cash inflow from incremental sales is the following:

Incremental sales revenue net of cost of go

, o

ods sold Tax rate

After-tax cash inflow

(1 )

$

$50 000, (1.30) $35 000,

Expenses What are the tax implications of cash expenses? Suppose the addition of the delivery truck under consideration by High Country’s management will involve hiring an additional employee, whose annual compensation and fringe benefits will amount to $30,000. As the following computation shows, the company’s incremental cash outflow is only $21,000.

Incremental expense (cash outflow) ... $(30,000) Reduction in income tax (reduced cash outflow), $30,000 3 30% ... 9,000 After-tax cash flow (net outflow after taxes) ... $(21,000)

Although the incremental employee compensation is $30,000, this expense is tax-deductible. Thus, the firm’s income-tax payment will be reduced by $9,000. As a result, the after-tax cash outflow from the additional compensation is $21,000.

A quick method for computing the after-tax cash outflow from an incremental cash expense is shown below.

Incremental

cash expense Tax rate

After- (1 ) ttax

cash outflow

$(30 000, ) (1.30) $(21 000, )

Depreciation Expense Not all expenses represent cash outflows. The most common example of a noncash expense is depreciation expense. Suppose High Country Department Stores’ management is considering the purchase of a delivery truck that costs $40,000 and has no salvage value. We will discuss the specific methods of depreciation allowed under tax law later in the chapter, but for now assume the truck will be depreciated as follows:

Acquisition cost: $40,000

Depreciation: Depreciation: Depreciation: Depreciation: Depreciation: $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $5,000

Time

0 1 2 3 4 5

(21)

The only cash flow shown in the diagram above is the truck’s acquisition cost of $40,000 at year zero. The depreciation expense in each of the next five years is not a cash flow . However, depreciation is an expense on the income statement, and it re-duces the firm’s income. For example, the $5,000 depreciation expense in year 1 will reduce High Country’s income by $5,000. As a result, the company’s year 1 income-tax expense will decline by $1,500 (30% 3 $5,000).

In Canada, depreciation expense is not allowed as a tax deduction. Instead, de-preciation expense is added back to income and a capital cost allowance (CCA) is deducted to determine taxable income. The annual CCA deduction associated with the truck provides a reduction in income-tax payment. This reduction in income taxes is called a CCA tax shield .

Cash Flows Not on the Income Statement Some cash flows do not appear on the income statement. They are not revenues, expenses, gains, or losses. A common example of such a cash flow is the purchase of an asset. If High Country Department Stores pur-chases the delivery truck, the $40,000 acquisition cost is a cash outflow but not an expense. A purchase is merely the exchange of one asset (cash) for another (a deliv-ery truck). The expense associated with the truck’s purchase is recognized through depreciation expense recorded throughout the asset’s depreciable life. Thus, the cash flow resulting from the purchase of an asset does not affect income and has no direct tax consequences.

Net-Present-Value Analysis Now let’s complete our example by preparing a net-present-value analysis of the proposed delivery-truck acquisition, ignoring for the time being the impact of the CCA. The company’s after-tax hurdle rate is 10 per-cent. Exhibit 15–8 displays the net-present-value analysis. Since the NPV is posi-tive, the delivery truck should be purchased.

Timing of Tax Deductions We have assumed in our analysis of High Country Depart-ment Stores’ delivery-truck purchase that the cash flows resulting from income taxes occur during the same year as the related before-tax cash flows. This assumption is realistic, as most businesses must make estimated tax payments throughout the tax year. They generally cannot wait until the following year and pay their prior year’s taxes in one lump sum.

HIGH COUNTRY DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. Purchase of Delivery Truck

(r 5 10, n 5 5)

Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Acquisition cost ... $(40,000) After-tax cash flow from

incremental sales revenue, net of cost of goods sold

$50,000 3 (1 2 .30) ... $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 After-tax cash flow from

incremental compensation expense,

$30,000 3 (1 2 .30) ... (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) Total cash flow ... $(40,000) $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 3 Discount factor ... 3 1.000 3 .909 3 .826 3 .751 3 .683 3 .621 Present value ... $(40,000) $12,726 $11,564 $10,514 $9,562 $ 8,694

Net present value ... Sum$ ,13 060

1444444444444444444424444444444444444443

Exhibit 15–8 Net-Present-Value Analysis with After-Tax Cash Flows

HIGH COUNTRY

DEPARTMENT STORES