NURS FPX 5014 Assessment 2 Evaluation of Capital ProjectsName
Capella University
Nurs FPX 5014
Professor’s Name
March 2024
Evaluation of Capital Projects
Financial managers are essential in the assessment of capital projects, as they analyze the possible returns and risks linked to investment opportunities. Using capital budgeting tools like Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Payback Period, and Profitability Index (PI), a thorough analysis is required for this. The Profitability Index compares cash inflows to the initial investment, helping prioritize projects based on potential returns and value. This analytical process requires a thorough understanding of the projected cash flows, upfront costs, tax implications, and required rates of return to make decisions aligned with the financial objectives (Dobrowolski & Drozdowski, 2022). Evaluating the quality of capital projects involves using different methods, with project managers often employing Six Sigma as a quality management strategy. Six Sigma, derived from mathematical concepts like variance and standard deviation, is utilized to meet quality standards and identify areas of waste or inefficiency within organizations. In the context of reviewing capital projects, Six Sigma helps evaluate team and supplier performance, contributing valuable insights for future project planning.
Application of Capital Budgeting Tools
Capital budgeting tools provides financial managers with multiple perspectives to evaluate investment projects comprehensively. The Profitability Index aids in comparing the value of various projects by considering their profitability relative to the initial investment, aiding in decision-making and resource allocation. By utilizing a variety of capital budgeting tools, financial managers can evaluate the value proposition of investment projects, facilitating informed decision-making and strategic planning.
Variety of Capital Budgeting Tools
Capital budgeting is an essential part of the management of finances, involving the assessment and evaluation of investment opportunities to decide which projects are worthwhile. Using capital budgeting techniques helps analyze projected cash flows compared to initial project costs. Net Present Value (NPV) is a frequently used statistic that evaluates if investment cash flows exceed the initial investment (Dinh et al., 2021). A positive net present value (NPV) means that the project is feasible since it is expected to yield returns larger than the cost of capital.
An investment’s performance is assessed using the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) metric. The moment at which the net present value (NPV) of cash inflows and outflows equals zero is known as the internal rate of return or IRR. The internal rate of return, or IRR, is a helpful metric to be aware of when comparing various investment options (Babaei S. A. & Jassbi, 2021). Higher internal rate of return (IRR) investment opportunities are thought to be more desirable than lower IRR ones.
NURS FPX 5014 Assessment 2 Evaluation of Capital Projects
The payback period shows how long it takes for an investment to recover its initial cost.
This is computed by determining the time, usually in years, for the investment’s expected cash inflows to match its original cost (Imteaz et al., 2021). A shorter payback period is typically seen as a better investment option than a longer one because it shows a quicker return on the initial investment.
One statistic used to evaluate the predicted return on investment in relation to the initial investment is the Profitability Index (PI). This can be calculated by dividing the initial investment by the present value of the anticipated future cash flows (Mehta & Tiefenbeck, 2022). When the PI value is greater than 1.0, a strong return on investment is expected, suggesting that the project is worthwhile to pursue.
Considering these concepts in the analysis offers a broader perspective on investment opportunities and aids in making well-informed decisions regarding which projects to pursue.
Evaluation of Capital Projects
Determining the suitability and potential success of various investment opportunities is a crucial process for companies. In this assessment, three potential capital projects underwent analysis using capital budgeting methods like net present value (NPV) to assess their effect on the profitability and cash flow of the business. The findings indicated that the marketing/advertising campaign emerged as the most appealing option with an NPV of 32.4, highlighting its attractiveness for the company’s investment (Harrison et al., 2020). This evaluation offers valuable insights into each project’s financial feasibility, aiding the company in making informed decisions to enhance shareholder value.
Project A
The initial potential project entails purchasing significant equipment, like heavy machinery, to enhance manufacturing processes. The investment cost is estimated at $10 million, with an anticipated annual reduction in sales costs by 5% over an 8-year period. By the conclusion of this timeframe, the equipment is expected to have a salvage value of $500,000. Due to its reduced risk level, the project necessitates an 8% rate of return, with the equipment’s depreciation following a 7-year MACRS schedule. MACRS is a method for recovering fixed asset costs over time based on asset categorization.
According to sales predictions, the first year’s revenue should be $20 million, and it should stay that way for the next eight years. Sales costs were 60% annually prior to the project, but they should only be 55% annually when it is implemented. The project’s marginal corporate tax rate is assumed at 25%, representing the tax percentage applied to the business’s income within its tax brackets. Factoring in this marginal tax rate is crucial for financial planning to ascertain post-tax income accurately.
Project B
The second potential project involves expanding the company’s operations into Western Europe, aiming to achieve a 10% annual sales increase over a 5-year period. Simultaneously, the cost of sales is expected to rise by 10% during this duration. The plan requires an upfront net working capital of $1 million in addition to an initial $7 million investment, based on $20 million in revenue from the previous year. Working capital net denotes the liquid assets available to the company after subtracting current liabilities, ensuring a balance between assets and liabilities in the first year of expansion and keeping a $1 million working capital on a regular basis. By the end of the fifth year, the working capital should have been recovered. The project’s marginal corporate tax rate is set at 30% due to the high tax rates in Europe; this represents a 5% increase over the big equipment acquisition project. Owing to the elevated degree of risk associated with this project, a 12% necessary rate of return has been set.
Project C
The third proposed capital project involves allocating funds towards a marketing and advertising campaign. Unlike the other projects, this one does not require an initial investment but will incur costs of $2 million annually, totaling $12 million over 6 years. Forecasts indicate that the marketing campaign is expected to result in a 15% annual growth in sales throughout the 6-year duration, accompanied by an equivalent rise in the cost of sales of 15%. The project’s marginal corporation tax rate in the nation is 25%, and the company reported $20 million in sales the year before. This project is seen as somewhat hazardous and seeks to reach the required rate of return of 10%.
Best Capital Project
Following an extensive examination of a variety of capital budgeting metrics, including Payback Period, Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), and Profitability Index (PI), Project A has been identified as ABC Healthcare Corporation’s top capital project. Project A involves a substantial equipment investment estimated at $10 million, which is anticipated to produce considerable cost-saving potential over an 8-year period by reducing the cost of sales by 5% annually. The equipment’s entire value proposition is further strengthened by the fact that, by the end of year 8, its residual value will have increased to $500,000. Project A offers a low-risk investment opportunity with favorable financial returns, considering its 8% required rate of return and depreciation using a MACRS 7-year schedule. The decision to recommend Project A is grounded in rational financial analysis, considering the forecasted cash flows, upfront costs, required rates of return, and risk factors associated with each project (Greenhalgh et al., 2020). This strategic approach ensures that ABC Healthcare Corporation allocates its capital to areas that offer the most value and contribute significantly to long-term financial success and shareholder value.
NURS FPX 5014 Assessment 2 : Evaluation of Capital Projects Conclusion
In conclusion, the assessment of capital projects through the use of capital budgeting techniques yields important information about the possible financial sustainability and impact on shareholder value of investment opportunities. By selecting Project A as the best capital project, ABC Healthcare Corporation can strategically allocate capital to areas that offer the most value and contribute to long-term financial success. To ensure the best possible resource allocation and maximize stakeholder value, the decision-making process is led by rational financial analysis, taking into account important indicators like NPV, IRR, Payback Period, and Profitability Index.
NURS FPX 5014 Assessment 2 : Evaluation of Capital Projects References
Babaei S. A, & Jassbi, A. J. (2021). Technical note: Modified simple average internal rate of return. The Engineering Economist, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013791x.2021.1944413
Dinh, V. N., Leahy, P., McKeogh, E., Murphy, J., & Cummins, V. (2021). Development of a viability assessment model for hydrogen production from dedicated offshore wind farms. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 46(48), 24620–24631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.04.232
Dobrowolski, Z., & Drozdowski, G. (2022). Does the net present value as a financial metric fit investment in green energy security? Energies, 15(1), 353. MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15010353
Imteaz, M. A., Bayatvarkeshi, M., & Karim, Md. R. (2021). Developing generalised equation for the calculation of PayBack Period for rainwater harvesting systems. Sustainability, 13(8), 4266. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084266
Greenhalgh, T., Maylor, H., Shaw, S., Wherton, J., Papoutsi, C., Betton, V., Nelissen, N., Gremyr, A., Rushforth, A., Koshkouei, M., & Taylor, J. (2020). The NASSS-CAT tools for understanding, guiding, monitoring, and researching technology implementation projects in health and social care: Protocol for an evaluation study in real-world settings. JMIR Research Protocols, 9(5), e16861. https://doi.org/10.2196/16861
Harrison, H., Griffin, S. J., Kuhn, I., & Usher-Smith, J. A. (2020). Software tools to support title and abstract screening for systematic reviews in healthcare. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-0897-3
Mehta, P., & Tiefenbeck, V. (2022). Solar PV sharing in urban energy communities: Impact of community configurations on profitability, autonomy and the electric grid. Sustainable Cities and Society, 104178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104178
