Lecture 4
Comparing Alternatives
Associate Professor. Mohamed El Ashhab
ﺩﻣﺣﻣﺩ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺩ ﺍﻷﺷﻬﺏ
Introduction
Projects classification:
Independent Projects
Dependent Projects
Mutually exclusive
Comparing Alternative Methods
PW, AW, FW
1
Projects Classification
Independent
The choice of project is independent of the choice of any other
project in the group.
Dependent
The choice of a project is conditional on the choice of one or more
other projects.
Mutually exclusive
At most one project out of the group can be chosen.
Mutually Exclusive Alternatives
Independent projects can be transformed to
mutually exclusive projects (Alternatives).
A, B, C three independent projects
A, B, C, AB, AC, BC, ABC seven mutually
exclusive alternatives of these three
independent projects.
2
Types of Alternatives
Revenue Alternatives: Each alternative
generate cost (or disbursement) and revenue
(or receipt) cash flow estimates, and possibly
savings.
Service Alternatives: Each alternative has
only cost cash flow estimate.
5
5
Investment Projects
MARR = 10% Alternative
A B
Capital Investment –$60,000 –$73,000
Annual revenues less expenses 22,000 26,225
Useful life 4 4
PW (10%)A = –$60,000 + $22,000 (P/A,10%, 4) = $9,738
PW (10%)B = –$73,000 + $26,225 (P/A, 10%, 4) = $10,131
3
Cost Projects
MARR = 10% Alternative
End of Year C D
0 -$380,000 -$415,000
1 -38,100 -27,400
2 -39,100 -27,400
3 -40,100 -27,400
3a 0 26,000
PW (10%)C = – $380,000 – $38,100 (P/A, 10%, 3) - 1,000 (P/G, 10%,3)
PW (10%)C = – $477,077
PW (10%)D = – $415,000 – $27,400 (P/A, 10%, 3) + $26,000 (P/F, 10%, 3)
PW (10%)D = – $463,607
PWD > PWC Alternative D is justified
7
Rules
RULE 1 –
When revenues and other economic benefits are presented
and vary among alternatives, choose the alternative that
maximizes overall profitability. That is, select the alternative
that has the greatest positive equivalent worth at i = MARR
and satisfies all project requirements.
RULE 2 –
When revenues and other economic benefits are not
presented or are constant among alternatives, consider only
the costs and select the alternative that minimizes total cost.
That is, select the alternative that has the least negative
equivalent worth at i = MARR and satisfies all project
requirements.
4
The Study (Analysis) Period
Case 1:
Useful lives are the same for all alternatives.
Case 2:
Useful lives are different among alternatives.
Case 1: Useful Lives Are Equal
There is no need to make adjustments to
cash flows.
Equivalent Worth Methods (PW, FW, AW).
10
10
5
Equivalent Worth Methods
The most straightforward technique for comparing
mutually exclusive alternatives when all useful lives are
equal, is to determine the equivalent worth of each
alternative based on the investment at i = MARR.
Then for investment alternative the one with the greatest
positive equivalent worth is selected.
And, in the case of cost alternatives, the one with the
least negative equivalent worth is selected.
Equivalent worth = PW or FW or AW
11
11
Example - 1
Three mutually exclusive investment alternatives for
implementing an office automation plan in an
engineering design firm are being considered.
Each alternative meets the same service (support)
requirements, but differences in capital investment
amounts and benefits (cost savings) exist among them.
The useful lives of all three alternatives are 10 years.
Market values of all alternatives are assumed to be zero
at the end of their useful lives.
If the firm’s MARR is 10% per year, which alternative
should be selected in view of the following estimates?
12
12
6
Example - 1
Alternative
A B C
Capital investment $390,000 $920,000 $660,000
Annual cost savings 69,000 167,000 133,500
13
13
Solution - 1
Alternative
A B C
Capital investment $390,000 $920,000 $660,000
Annual cost savings 69,000 167,000 133,500
PW method:
PW(10%)A = -$390,000 + $69,000 (P/A, 10%, 10) = $33,977
PW(10%)B = -$920,000 + $167,000 (P/A, 10%, 10) = $106,148
PW(10%)C = -$660,000 + $133,500 (P/A, 10%, 10) = $160,304
C>B>A Alternative C is selected
14
14
7
Solution - 1
Alternative
A B C
Capital investment $390,000 $920,000 $660,000
Annual cost savings 69,000 167,000 133,500
FW method:
FW(10%)A = -$390,000 (F/P, 10%, 10) + $69,000 (F/A, 10%, 10) = $88,138
FW(10%)B = -$920,000 (F/P, 10%, 10) + $167,000 (F/A, 10%, 10) = $275,342
FW(10%)C = -$660,000 (F/P, 10%, 10) + $133,500 (F/A, 10%, 10) = $415,801
C>B>A Alternative C is selected
15
15
Solution - 1
Alternative
A B C
Capital investment $390,000 $920,000 $660,000
Annual cost savings 69,000 167,000 133,500
AW method:
AW(10%)A = -$390,000 (A/P, 10%, 10) + $69,000 = $5,547
AW(10%)B = -$920,000 (A/P, 10%, 10) + $167,000 = $17,316
AW(10%)C = -$660,000 (A/P, 10%, 10) + $133,500 = $26,118
C>B>A Alternative C is selected
16
16
8
Example - 2
A company is planning to install a new
automated plastic-molding press.
Four different presses are available.
The initial capital investments and annual
expenses for these four mutually exclusive
alternatives are as follows:
17
17
Example - 2
Press
P1 P2 P3 P4
Capital investment $24,000 $30,400 $49,600 $52,000
Useful life (years) 5 5 5 5
Annual Expenses $31,200 $29,128 $25,192 $22,880
18
18
9
Solution - 2
Calculations for P1:
PW(10%)P1 = -$24,000 - $31,200 (P/A, 10%, 5) = -$142,273
AW(10%)P1 = -$24,000 (A/P, 10%, 5) - $31,200 = -$37,531
FW(10%)P1 = -$24,000 (F/P, 10%, 5) - $31,200 (F/A, 10%, 5) = - $229,131
Press (equivalent worth values)
Method P1 P2 P3 P4
Present Worth PW -$142,273 -$140,818 -$145,098 -$138,734
Annual Worth AW -37,531 -37,148 -38,276 -36,598
Future Worth FW -229,131 -226,788 -233,689 -223,431
P4 > P2 > P1 > P3
19
19
Case 2: Useful Lives Are Different Among
the Alternatives
Repeatability assumption
20
20
10
Repeatability assumption
1. The study period over which the alternatives
are being compared is equal to a common
multiple of the lives of the alternatives.
2. The economic consequences that are
estimated to happen in an alternative’s initial
useful life span will also happen in all
succeeding life spans (replacements).
21
21
Repeatability assumption
Common multiple
B A
N=4 N=3
A
3 6 9 N = 12
B
4 8 N = 12
22
22
11
Example - 3
The following data have been estimated for two
mutually exclusive investment alternatives, A and
B.
If the MARR = 10% per year, show which
alternative is more desirable by using equivalent
worth methods.
Use repeatability assumption.
23
23
Example - 3
A B
Capital investment –$3,500 –$5,000
Annual revenue 1,900 2,500
Annual expenses –645 –1,020
Useful life (years) 4 6
Market value at end of useful life 0 0
24
24
12
Solution - 3
A B
$1,255 $1,480
N=4 N=6
$3,500 $5,000
Using PW method:
Using repeatability assumption,
Least common multiple = 12 years
25
25
Solution - 3
A
$1,255
4 8
N = 12
$3,500 $3,500 $3,500
PW(10%)A = –$3,500 – $3,500 (P/F, 10%, 4) – $3,500 (P/F, 10%, 8)
+ $1,255 (P/A, 10%, 12)
PW(10%)A = $1,028
26
26
13
Solution - 3
B
$1,480
6 N = 12
$5,000 $5,000
PW(10%)B = – $5,000 – $5,000 (P/F, 10%, 6) + $1,480 (P/A, 10%, 12)
PW(10%)B = $2,262
27
27
Solution - 3
A B
$1,255 $1,480
N=4 N=6
$3,500 $5,000
PW(10%)A = $1,028 PW(10%)A < PW(10%)B
PW(10%)B = $2,262 Alternative B is desirable
28
28
14
Solution - 3
A B
$1,255 $1,480
N=4 N=6
$3,500 $5,000
Using AW method:
Using repeatability assumption (useful life)
AW(10%)A = $1,028 (A/P, 10%, 12) = $151
AW(10%)B = $2,262 (A/P, 10%, 12) = $332
AW(10%)A < AW(10%)B Alternative B is desirable
29
29
Solution - 3
A B
$1,255 $1,480
N=4 N=6
$3,500 $5,000
Using AW method:
without repeatability assumption,
AW(10%)A = – $3,500 (A/P, 10%, 4) + $1,255 = $151
AW(10%)B = – $5,000 (A/P, 10%, 6) + $1,480 = $332
AW(10%)A < AW(10%)B Alternative B is desirable
30
30
15
