MBA FPX 5014 Assessment 2 Evaluation of Capital Projects
- High Quality FPX Sample Assessment
- Step-by-Step Guide to master FPX Assessment
- References (APA Format) for related Assessments
- Connect with Top professors for specific class
- Detailed (FAQs) related to Assessment.
- Express Delivery with in 24 hours.
Assessment Overview:
MBA FPX 5014 Assessment 2: evaluates three implicit capital systems for Drill Tech, Inc. to determine which design maximizes shareholder value. Using capital budgeting tools NPV, IRR, vengeance period, and profitability indicator — each design( outfit purchase, European expansion, and marketing/ advertising crusade) was anatomized. Grounded on NPV, the marketing/ advertising crusade is the most profitable and should be pursued.
How to Pass MBA FPX 5014 Assessment 2 Evaluation of Capital Projects
- Explain Project C’s Unique Structure: Project C is unique because it has no “upfront” (Time 0) investment but carries annual costs. In your paper, note that this makes it an “outflow-heavy” project rather than a “traditional” capital investment, which is why NPV is the only reliable metric here.
- MACRS Matters: For Project A, you mentioned the MACRS 7-year schedule. Ensure your paper reflects the tax shield benefit. Depreciation is a non-cash expense that reduces taxable income, which actually increases cash flow.
- The “NWC” Factor: In Project B, you mentioned Net Working Capital (NWC) of $1 million. Remind the reader that NWC is an initial outlay that is “recovered” at the end of the project. This recovery must be discounted back to its present value in your NPV calculation.
- Discount Rate Justification: You used 8%, 10%, and 12%. Briefly explain that these represent the WACC (Weighted Average Cost of Capital) adjusted for risk. Higher risk (Europe) = Higher Hurdle Rate.
- Salvage Value Treatment: For Project A, don’t forget the Salvage Value of $500,000. This is a cash inflow in the final year, but remember it may be subject to capital gains tax if the book value is zero.
- Address the “NPV vs. IRR” Conflict: If Project B had a higher IRR but Project C has a higher NPV, always choose the higher NPV. Explain that NPV assumes reinvestment at the cost of capital, which is more realistic.
- Correct Terminology (Translation Check): As with previous drafts, clean up the synonym errors:
- Change “major outfit purchase” to “major equipment purchase.”
- Change “marketing/advertising crusade” to “marketing/advertising campaign.”
- Change “vengeance period” to “payback period.” (This is a critical correction!).
- Shareholder Wealth Maximization: Explicitly state: “By selecting Project C, Drill Tech, Inc. is projected to increase the firm’s value by $32.4 million (the NPV), which directly translates to increased shareholder wealth.”
- The “Incremental” Rule: Emphasize that you are only looking at incremental cash flows—the money that changes only if the project is accepted. Ignore “sunk costs” if they appear.
- Sensitivity Analysis (Bonus): If you want a top grade, briefly mention what would happen if the tax rate changed or if Project C’s sales only grew by 10% instead of 15%. This shows “Executive Thinking.”
Sample Assessment:
Executive Report
This evaluation of capital systems provides an analysis of three implicit systems to determine which one Drill Tech, Inc. should pursue. Capital budgeting tools were applied to assess a major outfit purchase, an expansion into Europe, and a marketing/ advertising crusade. After reviewing the incremental cash inflow changes, the net present values( NPV) for the three systems were calculated: the NPV for the major outfit purchase was 28.77, the NPV for the European expansion was 17.1, and the NPV for the marketing/ advertising crusade was 32.4. Grounded on these findings, the marketing/ advertising crusade is the most profitable capital design over time.
Evaluation of Capital Projects: Drill Tech, Inc.
Drill Tech, Inc. is amid-sized manufacturing company grounded in Minnesota( Saunders, 2000). For the forthcoming financial time, the company has linked three capital systems for consideration. A capital design is a long- term bid concentrated on perfecting, erecting, maintaining, or developing a company’s capital means( Marshall, McManus, & Viele, 2017). Similar systems frequently bear significant investments, which are made continuously over the duration of the design( Brigham & Houston, 2012).
Thus, it’s pivotal for Drill Tech, Inc. to elect the design that will give the loftiest shareholder value upon completion. Shareholder value refers to the natural worth that a shareholder earnings from holding shares in a company. In intimately traded companies, shareholder value is part of the equity, alongside long- term debt, contributing to the company’s overall capitalization( Saunders, 2000). As a company’s earnings increase, its shareholder value grows, making the company more precious( Gibson & Dunn, 1989). Choosing the design that will best enhance shareholder value is crucial to determining which design Drill Tech, Inc. should pursue.
Capital Projects Backgrounds
Project A: Major Equipment Purchase
The first potential project involves a major outfit, which includes heavy ministry to ameliorate manufacturing processes. The original investment is$ 10 million, and the design is projected to reduce the cost of deals by 5 annually over eight times. At the end of this period, the outfit is anticipated to have a salvage value of$ 500,000. The design is considered low- threat, with a needed rate of return of 8, and the outfit will be downgraded using a MACRS 7- time schedule( Brigham & Houston, 2012). The borderline commercial duty rate for this design is 25.
Project B: Expansion into Europe
The alternate option is to expand into Western Europe, with a read increase in deals of 10 annually over a five- time period, accompanied by a 10 increase in the cost of deals. The original investment is$ 7 million, with an outspoken net working capital( NWC) of$ 1 million, which is anticipated to be recouped at the end of five times. The design has an advanced threat, with a needed rate of return of 12, and a 30 borderline commercial duty rate due to advanced European duty rates.
Project C: Marketing/Advertising Campaign
The final proposed design involves a marketing/ advertising crusade, with no original launch-up investment but taking$ 2 million annually for six times, totaling$ 12 million. The crusade is anticipated to increase both deals and the cost of deals by 15 annually over the design’s six- time duration. The design is considered relatively perilous, with a needed rate of return of 10 and a 25 borderline commercial duty rate.
Capital Budgeting Methods
Capital budgeting styles are used to assess long- term, high- budget investments, which frequently gauge multiple times or decades and involve significant fiscal pitfalls( Saunders, 2000). These styles aid in assessing systems by reducing pitfalls, abetting decision- timber, and avoiding under or overinvestment( Saunders, 2000). Three common capital budgeting styles include the vengeance period, internal rate of return( IRR), and profitability indicator( PI).
Payback Period
The vengeance period calculates the time needed to recover the original investment( Phillips et al., 2012). Project A has a vengeance period of two times, Project B has a vengeance period of three times, and Project C does n’t have an original investment, so no vengeance period can be reckoned.
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
IRR identifies the rate at which the net present value of an investment becomes zero( Phillips et al., 2012). The IRR for Project A is 0.70, for Project B is 0.81, and Project C’s IRR is n’t applicable due to the lack of an original investment.
Profitability Index (PI)
PI is a capital budgeting tool that evaluates the value generated per unit of investment( Brigham & Houston, 2012). While Project A and B’s PI can be reckoned, Project C lacks an original investment, making it challenging to assess comparably.
Net Present Value (NPV)
NPV is frequently used to estimate capital systems by comparing the present value of anticipated cash overflows to the original investment( Brigham & Houston, 2012). In this evaluation, Project A has an NPV of 28.77, Project B’s NPV is 17.1, and Project C’s NPV is 32.4, making the marketing/ advertising crusade the most profitable.
Conclusion
By assaying the implicit systems through capital budgeting styles, it’s clear that Project C, the marketing/ advertising crusade, offers the loftiest eventuality to increase shareholder value, as indicated by its superior NPV. Thus, Drill Tech, Inc. should pursue Project C.
MBA FPX 5014 Assessment 2 Evaluation of Capital Projects
Marshall, D., McManus, W., & Viele, D.( 2017). Accounting What the figures mean( 11th ed.). New York, NY McGraw- Hill Education.
Phillips, F., Libby, R., Libby, P. A., & Mackintosh, B.( 2011). Fundamentals of Financial Accounting. New York, NY McGraw- Hill Irwin.
| Class | Typical Assets | Depr. Method |
| 3-year | Small tools, tractors, horses, specialized devices | 200% Decl. Bal. |
| 5-year | Computers, autos, small aircraft, construction equipment | 200% Decl. Bal. |
| 7-year | Office furniture, fixtures, equipment, most machinery | 200% Decl. Bal. |
| 10-year | Specialized heavy machinery, mobile homes | 200% Decl. Bal. |
| 15-year | Billboards, service station buildings | 150% Decl. Bal. |
| 20-year | Sewer pipes, most utility property | 150% Decl. Bal. |
References (APA 7 Format)
- Anthony Saunders. (2000). Financial institutions management: a modern perspective. McGraw-Hill College. Brigham, E. F., & Houston, J. F. (2012). https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/ratioanalysis.asp.
- Fundamentals of financial management. Cengage Learning. Gibson, C. H., & Dunn, J. (1989). https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/eps.asp.
- Financial Statement Analysis, International Edition. Assessment, 45, 49. IRS (2019).
- MACRS tables. Internal Revenue Service. Retrieved from https://www.irs.gov/publications/p946
Rubric Breakdown
| Criterion | Emerging | Proficient | Distinguished |
| Capital Budgeting Calculations | NPV and IRR are mentioned but calculations are missing or unclear. | Accurately calculates NPV for all three projects based on given cash flows. | Provides a detailed breakdown of incremental cash flows, including tax and depreciation (MACRS) impacts. |
| Risk-Adjusted Return | Uses the same discount rate for all projects. | Assigns different required rates of return based on the risk profile of each project. | Critically justifies why a “Marketing Campaign” or “European Expansion” carries a higher risk premium than “Equipment.” |
| Methodology Comparison | Lists methods (NPV, IRR, Payback) without comparing them. | Explains why NPV is the primary decision tool over Payback or IRR. | Analyzes the limitations of IRR/Payback in projects with non-conventional cash flows (like Project C). |
| Strategic Recommendation | Recommends a project based on a single metric. | Recommends the project with the highest NPV and aligns it with shareholder value. | Synthesizes financial data with strategic outlook (e.g., market share vs. operational efficiency). |
| Professionalism | Significant terminology errors or poor formatting. | Professional tone with proper APA citations and clear headings. | Executive-quality report; polished language and clear, logical flow of complex financial concepts. |
Step-by-Step Guide
- Identify Projects – List the three potential capital projects: equipment purchase, European expansion, and marketing/advertising campaign.
- Estimate Cash Flows – Calculate expected incremental cash flows, costs, and revenues for each project.
- Determine Required Return – Assign appropriate discount rates based on project risk levels.
- Apply Capital Budgeting Tools – Compute NPV, IRR, payback period, and profitability index for each project.
- Compare Projects – Analyze results to determine which project offers the highest profitability and shareholder value.
- Make Recommendation – Select the project with the best financial metrics (Project C: marketing/advertising campaign).
Frequently Asked Questions
Q What’s the main thing of this assessment?
To estimate capital systems and choose the bone that maximizes shareholder value.
Q Which design was the most profitable?
Project C – Marketing/ advertising crusade, with an NPV of 32.4.
Q Why is NPV important?
NPV measures the present value of cash overflows against the original investment to determine profitability.
Q Can IRR and PI be used for all systems?
Not always. systems without original investment( like Project C) may not have IRR or similar PI values.
Q How does this evaluation impact company opinions?
It guides operations to invest in systems that increase long- term profitability and shareholder value.
Q What factors were considered in design evaluation?
An original investment, anticipated cash overflows, design threat, needed return, deprecation, and levies.
Integrity Note
Note: Only use this assessment example for learning and structure purpose. Do not submit as your own work.
We are an independent resource and are not affiliated with Capella University.