Keisha M. Smith Bus 436 Due Date: 04/30/15 Super Project Analysis After carefully reviewing Super Project’s data‚ I’ve come to the conclusion that test market expenses and the allocation of charges for the use of the excess agglomerator capacity are not incremental because they are sunken costs that have already been accounted for. Whether Super is accepted or rejected‚ they will not affect the cash flows beyond current calculations. Overhead expenses is incremental because the expansion needed
Premium Risk Accept
The Super Project The Super Project case mainly deals with the efficiency of project tool analysis in capital budgeting process. The three techniques that General Foods management used to determine whether Super Project was a worthwhile project were: • Incremental basis • Facilities-used basis • Fully allocated facilities and costs basis The three techniques mentioned above will be discussed in more details in question 4 below. Questions: 1. What are the relevant cash flows for General Foods
Premium Net present value Internal rate of return Cash flow
Super Project Case What are the relevant cash flows that General Foods should use in evaluating the Super Project? In particular‚ how should management deal with such issues as Test-market expenses? Overhead Expenses? Erosion of Jell-O contribution margin? Allocation of charges for the use of the excess agglomerator? The relevant cash flows that General Foods should use in evaluating the Super Project are considered Incremental cash flows and are “the changes in the firm’s cash flows
Premium Economics Cash flow Income statement
The Super Project Introduction General Foods (GF) expects Super‚ a new powdered dessert‚ to capture 10% share of the total dessert market (2% coming from the erosion of Jell-O sales). The company’s Financial Analyst has issued a memo comparing three alternative techniques for project evaluations‚ illustrating the problems and limitations inherent in using ROFE (return on funds employed) and payback as evaluation methods. The disparate ROFE results obtained with these methods are due to differences
Premium Net present value Cash flow Internal rate of return
The Super Project Flows: 1) Test Market Expenses: Do not Include it is a sunk cost and cannot be recovered if the project were not to become operational. 2) Overhead cost: The Super project will initially not require incremental overhead costs. However‚ if and when the project grows‚ incremental overhead expenses will be incurred specific to the project. This has to be captured in capital budgeting to accurately assess the project. Here we assume that the project will not require considerable
Premium Net present value Internal rate of return Investment
The Super Project – Summary Introduction In 1967‚ General Foods was considering to expand their portfolio with a new product called Super. Super was a dessert supposed to penetrate a dessert market in growth. The investment required $200K‚ $80K for building modifications and $120K for machinery and equipment. General Foods already had an agglomerator that could be used to manufacture Super. The $120K was meant to pay for packaging machinery. In order to decide whether to accept or decline this
Premium Evaluation Investment
The Super Project Case Study FIN 3717 Braden Eddy‚ Lauren Gear and Dakota Conravey The Super Project Case Study FIN 3717 Braden Eddy‚ Lauren Gear and Dakota Conravey Statement of Facts General Foods is a large corporation organized by product lines. They are evaluating Super Project‚ the manufacture of a new powdered dessert. Crosby Sanberg‚ a financial analysis manager‚ must determine the value in accepting the proposal‚ along with J.C. Kresslin‚ the Corporate Controller. The Super
Premium Net present value
Introduction We focus on SMRT Corporation Ltd (SMRT) and SBS Transit Ltd (SBS). The market for their common equity (E)‚ debt (D) and preferred stock (PS) are summarized here: | |E (SGD$) |D (SGD$) |PS (SGD$) |D/(D+E+PS) |E/(D+E+PS) |PS/(D+E+PS) | |SMRT |309.8M[1] |472.3M |0 |60.39% |39.61% |0 | |SBS |649
Premium
9 Calculating WACC Mullineaux Corporation has a target capital structure of 60 percent common stock‚ 5 percent preferred stock‚ and a 35 percent debt. Its cost of equity is 12.5 percent‚ the cost of preferred stock is 5.5 percent‚ and the cost of debt is 7.2 percent. The relevant tax rate is 35 percent. a. What is Mullineaux’s WACC? b. The company president has approached you about Mullineax’s capital structure. He wants to know why the company doesn’t use more preferred stock financing
Premium Weighted average cost of capital Preferred stock Corporate finance
at 4.5% * JP Morgan has issued an estimate for Expected Market Return at 8.5% * Euribor is 2% * Before tax cost of debt = 5% * Tax rate = 30% Please calculate the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) for this firm. 2. You are now asked to calculate the WACC for a toothpaste manufacturer with the following data: * Average share price for last 6 months = €34/ share * Current year’s dividend = €3/ share * Applicable growth rate = 3% * Tax rate =
Premium Weighted average cost of capital Finance Interest