1. Why are the Merseyside and Rotterdam projects mutually exclusive? They are mutually exclusive because it would not make sense to invest in both projects. It has to be one or the other project‚ because an increase in out of 14% it not necessary in current market conditions. They are facing intense competition and in a recession. If the increase output to 14% they will not be able to sell it all without dropping prices and hurting already bad margins. Another reason is that an investment into
Premium Finance Investment Net present value
contains two case studies in the discourse of Corporate Finance‚ more specifically capital investment strategy. The cases are applied on the fictional company Victoria Chemicals and are divided into (A): “The Merseyside Project and Victoria Chemicals” and (B): “The Merseyside and Rotterdam project”. The cases are picked from the book “Case Studies in Finance – managing for Corporate Value Creation” written by Robert. F. Bruner. 1.1) Background Victoria Chemicals is a fiction company that processes
Premium Net present value
chemicals producer with two factories in Liverpool England and Rotterdam Holland. Both of their plants were built in 1967 with annual output of 250‚000 metric tons polypropylene. Compare with low-cost producer‚ the production cost per ton is 1.09 which is a little bit high than competitors (see Exhibition 1). With the decline EPS from £60 in 1999 to £30 in 2000 and worldwide economic slowdown‚ the controller of plant manager of Merseyside (Liverpool)‚ Frank Greystock‚ bring a improvement project in
Premium Net present value Discounted cash flow
VICTORIA CHEMICALS plc (A) The Merseyside Project Presented by Group 2 : Aldy Rifianto‚ Dedy Mardianto Floriana Nataly‚ Hiralalitya Lextro Kristiano Concorda Natallia Winata‚ Wita Puspadilla Yosua Bangun THE MERSEYSIDE PROJECT SUMMARY PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION RECOMENDATION SUMMARY • Victoria Chemicals‚ a major competitor in the Worldwide chemicals industry‚ was a leading producer of polypropylene‚ a polymer used in an extremely wide variety of products SUMMARY Victoria Chemicals
Premium Net present value Internal rate of return Chemical industry
Empirical Chemicals‚ LTD. (A): The Merseyside Project Is the proposed $7 million expenditure to renovate and rationalize the polypropylene production line at the Merseyside Plant to exploit opportunities and achieve increased production efficiency worth it? They are under pressure from investors to improve financial performance because Earnings per Share Have dropped from $12.75 in 1990 to $4.55 in 1991. Based on the four criterions that EC holds new projects to‚ I believe that this project
Premium Net present value Discounted cash flow Internal rate of return
其A3 Diamond Chemicals PLC (A) and (B) Teaching Note Synopsis and Objectives These two cases present the capital investment decisions under consideration by executives of a large chemicals firm in January 2001. The A case (case 20) presents a go/no-go project evaluation regarding improvements to a polypropylene production plant. The B case (case 21) reviews the same project but from one level higher‚ where the executive faces an either/or investment decision between two mutually exclusive
Premium Net present value Discounted cash flow Corporate finance
CASE STUDY VICTORIA CHEMICALS plc (A): The Merseyside Project Submitted to: Prof. Roy C. Ybanez MSFIN 222 Submitted by: BASCON‚ Roland Billy CAJEGAS‚ Lester ORTIZ‚ Karmi Ann SALVADORA‚ Jerick Cezar 14 October 2014 Problem Statement Victoria Chemicals (VC) experienced a significant downturn in its financial performance from 2006 to 2007. The company was under pressure to improve its financial performance as its earnings ad fallen 38% (from 250 pence to 180 pence per share). The
Premium Net present value Discounted cash flow Internal rate of return
Mutually exclusive projects‚ in its true meaning‚ are projects that cannot occur at the same time. In this particular meaning the Merseyside and Rotterdam projects are not mutually exclusive because (lacking information about financing capabilities of Diamond Chemicals) can actually be done simultaneously. But what really matters here is if both projects are mutually exclusive in economic terms‚ meaning if it is economically feasible to support both projects at the same time. In contrast to its
Free Economics
Victoria Chemicals: The Merseyside Project Executive Summary Victoria Chemicals is facing pressures from investors to improve its financial performances. The plant manager is currently considering whether to accept a GBP 12million initial outlay project to renovate its polypropylene production line at Merseyside plant. The benefit of the plant is the lower energy requirement of production and a greater manufacturing capacity. This report consist a recommendation for the plant manager which consists
Premium Net present value Discounted cash flow Cash flow
transportation division asked that the cost of tank cars required for additional throughput should be involved in the initial outlay of the Merseyside’s project was ignored by Frank Greystock. Therefore‚ he was not involved in the analysis of the Merseyside project. Regardless of how departmental budgets are established‚ best practices in capital budgeting clearly state that all side-effects of a project must be included in cash-flow projections (Schiff‚ 1988 *2). In fact‚ transportation costs have
Premium Net present value Internal rate of return Cash flow