1 / 26

# comparing alternatives with rate of return - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Comparing Alternatives with Rate of Return. Use Incremental Analysis. Topics. In this section, we recall the definition of ROR, discuss decision situations for multiple alternatives, and discuss the appropriate decision methodology for each situation. Rate of Return.

Related searches for comparing alternatives with rate of return

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

## PowerPoint Slideshow about 'comparing alternatives with rate of return' - liam

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

### Comparing Alternatives with Rate of Return

Use Incremental Analysis

In this section, we

• recall the definition of ROR,

• discuss decision situations for multiple alternatives, and

• discuss the appropriate decision methodology for each situation

• Recall that the ROR of an investment is the interest rate that makes

• NPW = 0

• NAW = 0

• PW Benefits = PW Costs

• AW Benefits = AW Costs

• For a single project, accept if ROR ≥ MARR.

Given a set of possible projects,

• any subset of the projects may be selected.

• only one may be selected, but one must be chosen.

• only one may be selected, but it is OK to choose none.

• Suppose we can select any subset of the projects.

• Solution Methodology:

• Compute the ROR of each alternative

• Select each alternative for which ROR ≥ MARR

• MARR = 13%

• ROR of A = 13.7%

• ROR of B = 12.7%

• ROR of C = 15.3%

• Both A and C have ROR larger than our MARR. Therefore, select both A and C.

• Suppose we must select one, only one, but at least one, alternative.

• Solution Methodology:

• Each increment of investment must yield the MARR.

• Perform Incremental Analysis:

1. Rank the alternatives in increasing order of investment.

2. Select as the defenderthe alternative with the smallest investment.

3. Let the challenger be the alternative with the next higher investment.

4. Accept or reject the challenger on the basis of the return on the extra investment. The winner becomes the defender.

5. If the highest level of investment has been reached, stop. Otherwise return to step 3.

• MARR = 15%

• Alternatives: All have five-year life and no salvage

• Ranked Alternatives : Rank by order of increasing investment: D, B, C, A.

• Defender: Project D.

• Next greater investment (Challenger): Project B.

• Is the extra investment in B over D justified?

• Incremental Investment: -\$500

• Incremental Benefit: \$125

• NAW= -500 (A/P, i, 5) + 125 => ROR = 8% < MARR

• Decision: Reject Challenger, Project B.

• Defender: Project D.

• Next greater investment (Challenger): Project C.

• Is the extra investment in C over D justified?

• Incremental Investment: -\$1500

• Incremental Benefit: \$500

• NAW= -1500 (A/P, i, 5) + 500 => ROR = 20% > MARR

• Decision: Accept Challenger, Project C.

• Defender: Project C.

• Next greater investment (Challenger): Project A.

• Is the extra investment in A over C justified?

• Incremental Investment: -\$1000

• Incremental Benefit: \$260

• NAW= -1000 (A/P, i, 5) + 260 => ROR = 9% < MARR

• Decision: Reject Challenger,

• Keep Defender, Project C

• Choose one of the three

• MARR = 13% (select one and only one)

• Ranked Projects: C, B, A

• Defender: Project C

• Challenger: Project B

• Is the extra investment in B over C justified?

• Incremental Investment: -\$25,000

• Incremental Benefit: \$6000

• NAW= -25 (A/P, i, 5) + 6 => ROR = 6.4% < MARR

• Decision: Reject Challenger, Keep Project C

• Defender: Project C

• Challenger: Project A

• Is the extra investment in A over C justified?

• Incremental Investment: -\$40,000

• Incremental Benefit: \$2000

• Useful Life: Project lives are different!!

• Select a common study period, say 45 years.

20,000

A

10

20

30

40

100,000

18,000

C

60,000

• Compute the incremental cash flows.

• The cash flows of A-C represent a non-simple investment.

60,000

2,000

A-C

10

20

30

40

40,000

60,000

• We must verify graphically (or with another method) that the interest found correspond to a rate of return. Luckily, it does. The rate of return of the incremental cash flows is 11.6%.

• Therefore reject the challenger, project A and accept C.

• Find ROR of A - C

• NAW(A - C) = NAW(A) - NAW(C) = 0

• -100(A/P, i, 9) + 20 - [-60(A/P, i, 5) + 18]

• -100(A/P, i, 9) + 60(A/P, i, 5) + 2 = 0

• i NAW(A - C)

• 0% 2889

• 5% 1789

• 10% 463

• 15% -1058

• 12% -123

• ROR of A - C is 11.6%. Reject A - C and choose C

• Suppose we can select one alternative or no alternative

• Solution Methodology:

• Compute ROR of each alternative

• Reject any alternatives that do not yield the MARR

• If only one remains, choose that alternative

• If more than one remains, do incremental analysis to select the best

Example 4 Alternative

• MARR = 13% (select one or none)

Example 4 (cont’d) Alternative

• Since B does not return 13% it can be discarded.

• We most compare A and C, by computing the rate of return of the extra investment of A over C.

• The rate of return of A over C is 11.6%. Since the return on the extra investment is less than 13% (the MARR) reject the extra investment.

• We should choose option C.

Conclusion: Alternative

• Measure of merit is the ROR (a percentage)

• For a single alternative, accept if ROR ≥ MARR

• For multiple alternatives: Accept an increment if the ROR for the increment≥ MARR