BUS601: Financial Management

As previously discussed, time value of money methods assume that the value of money today is worth more now than in the future. The payback period and accounting rate of return methods do not consider this concept when performing calculations and analyzing results. That is why they are typically only used as basic screening tools. To decide the best option between alternatives, a company performs preference measurement using tools, such as net present value and internal rate of return that do consider the time value of money concept. Net present value (NPV) discounts future cash flows to their present value at the expected rate of return and compares that to the initial investment. NPV does not determine the actual rate of return earned by a project. The internal rate of return (IRR) shows the profitability or growth potential of an investment at the point where NPV equals zero, so it determines the actual rate of return a project earns. As the name implies, net present value is stated in dollars, whereas the internal rate of return is stated as an interest rate. Both NPV and IRR require the company to determine a rate of return to be used as the target return rate, such as the minimum required rate of return or the weighted average cost of capital, which will be discussed in Balanced Scorecard and Other Performance Measures.

A positive NPV implies that the present value of the cash inflows from the project are greater than the present value of the cash outflows, which represent the expenses and costs associated with the project. In an NPV calculation, a positive NPV is typically considered a potentially good investment or project. However, other extenuating circumstances should be considered. For example, the company might not wish to borrow the necessary funding to make the investment because the company might be anticipating a downturn in the national economy.

An IRR analysis compares the calculated IRR with either a predetermined rate of return or the cost of borrowing the money to invest in the project in order to determine whether a potential investment or project is favorable. For example, assume that the investment or equipment purchase is expected to generate an IRR of 15% and the company's expected rate of return is 12%. In this case, similar to the NPV calculation, we assume that the proposed investment would be undertaken. However, remember that other factors must be considered, as they are with NPV.

When considering cash inflows - whether using NPV or IRR - the accountant should examine both profits generated or expenses reduced. Investments that are made may generate additional revenue or could reduce production costs. Both cases assume that the new product or other types of investment generates a positive cash inflow that will be compared to the cost outflows to determine whether there is an overall positive or negative net present value.

Additionally, a company would determine whether the projects being considered are mutually exclusive or not. If the projects or investment options are mutually exclusive, the company can evaluate and identify more than one alternative as a viable project or investment, but they can only invest in one option. For example, if a company needs one new delivery truck, it might solicit proposals from five different truck dealers and conduct NPV and IRR evaluations. Even if all proposals pass the financial requirements of the NPV and IRR methods, only one proposal will be accepted.

Another consideration occurs when a company has the ability to evaluate and accept multiple proposals. For example, an automobile manufacturer is considering expanding its number of dealerships in the United States over the next ten-year period and has allocated $30,000,000 to buy the land. They could purchase any number of properties. They conduct NPV and IRR analyses of fifteen properties and determine that four meet their required standards and market feasibility needs and then purchase those four properties. The opportunities were not mutually exclusive: the number of properties purchased was driven by research and expansion projections, not by their need for only one option.