Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
PROJECT EVALUATION
MEMORANDUM
After careful deliberation and having gone through corporate finance course, I am
contemplated on IRRs ability to be the best measure of merit in evaluating my project. Thus,
I recommend using Net Present Value (NPV) method instead. The NPV rule states that
projects are only to be accepted with the positive and highest NPV (Berk & DeMarzo, 2011).
It is understandable that the IRR rule is crucial in indicating how sensitive the investment
decision is to uncertainty in the cast of capital estimate. Managers prefer using IRR because it Commented [G3]: Deleted:d
is easier when comparing it to the estimated cost of capital. On top of that, the rule gives the
actual returns of money investors invest today. Other than that, the IRR takes into the
evaluation of the project's worth and risk involved (Kaushal, n.d.). Commented [G2]: Inserted: the
First, IRR rule suffers a pitfall when there is delayed investment. A delayed investment Commented [G4]: Inserted: i
Commented [G6]: Deleted:'
occurs when theres a positive cash flow upfront followed by negative cash flows. Yet, the
IRR rule states we are to accept a project if the IRR is greater than the cost of capital that is if
all the negative cash flows occur before the positive cash flows. Therefore, the IRR rule can
incorrectly suggest that the project is accepted when the NPV decision rule states otherwise. Commented [G5]: Inserted: is
Commented [G7]: Deleted:be
Besides that, it can provide conflicting answers for two or more mutually exclusive projects
when there are multiple IRRs. Just as such case happens, the IRR rule is no longer applicable
leaving the NPV rule as the only choice left. Furthermore, when theres non-existent IRR.
This happens when a project receives initial payment upfront and additional payment at the
end of the projects lifespan; making the IRR rule to be incompetent to provide any guidance
while NPV rule can present its findings (Berk & DeMarzo, 2011).
The NPV method gives great importance in the profitability and risk factors of the project.
Other than that, it considers of before and after stream of cash flow over the projects tenure.
Moreover, it assumes cash flows are discounted at a more conservative discount rate; making
the estimated value to be as close to the actual value. Commented [G8]: Inserted: a
However, the NPV has its shortcomings as well. It can only advice to accept the project that
provides positive NPV but not at what period the company will receive positive NPV. Also,
the NPV rule ignores any value that the project may have. For example, if the project is
currently having a negative cash flow but it may have the possibility to expand in the
upcoming years. Obviously, this should be incorporated into the NPV rule but it is not
(Kaushal, n.d.).
Conclusion
NPV rule is more reliable when evaluating two or more mutually exclusive projects, delayed
investment and non-existent IRR compared to IRR method. Where the IRR rule fails to
perform, the NPV rule raises to the occasion. Even if IRR is preferable in our industry as
managers are working with a more intuitively appealing rate of return, I still believe using the
NPV rule display the best figure of merit. This is because, it provides realistic assumptions Commented [G9]: Inserted: a
I will be glad to discuss this recommendation with you later and follow through on any
Best,
References
Berk, J., & DeMarzo, P. (2011). Corporate Finance. Boston: Pearson Education.
Kaushal, N. (n.d.). NPV VS IRR. Retrieved from WallStreetMojo:
http://www.wallstreetmojo.com/npv-vs-irr/