A B C D E F G H I

1 12model 5/9/2019 6:55 5/8/2000

2
3 Chapter 12. Spreadsheet Models for Capital Budgeting
4
5 This worksheet contains the model used to analyze BQC's new project decision as described in the text.
6 In addition, models for analyzing replacement decisions and bond refunding decisions are
7 provided on separate sheets that can be accessed by pressing the TAB keys labeled "Replacement Analysis"
8 and "Bond Refunding" at the bottom of the screen.
9
10 Model for Evaluating A New Capital Budgeting Project:
11
12 The first section of this worksheet contains a model for evaluating new projects. In Part 1, we first list the key inputs
13 used in the calculations. Part 2 goes on to calculate depreciation schedules for the building and for the equipment.
14 Part 3 then determines the after-tax salvage values (i.e., net cash flows) that will come from disposing of the
15 building and the equipment at the end of the project's life. Part 4 calculates the estimated cash flows over each year of
16 the project's life. Part 5 then uses the estimated cash flows to estimate the key outputs, the project's NPV, IRR, MIRR,
17 and Payback. Finally, in Parts 6 and 7, we consider the riskiness of the project by showing how changes in the inputs
18 result in changes in the key outputs.
19
20 Note that all dollars are shown in thousands; this is done for convenience.
21
22 Identifying the relevant cash flows
23 For a new project, the incremental cash flows can be divided into the following categories: initial investment outlay,
24 operating cash flows over the project's life, and terminal year cash flows. The data used in the model were taken from
25 the example in Chapter 12 of Fundamentals. In addition to the input data, we have included an excerpt from the MACRS
26 Depreciation Schedule for 39-year (building) and 5-year (equipment) depreciation, and a table outlining the
27 determination of net salvage values to be incorporated into our cash flow estimation.
28

Harcourt, Inc. items and derived items copyright © 2001 by Harcourt, Inc.
Page 1
 A B C D E F G H I
29 Table 12-1. Analysis of a New (Expansion) Project
30
31 Part 1. Input Data (in thousands of dollars)
32 Key Output: NPV = $5,166
33 Building cost (= Depreciable basis) $12,000
34 Equipment cost (= Depreciable basis) $8,000 Market value of building in 2005 $7,500
35 Net Operating WC $6,000 Market value of equip. in 2005 $2,000
36 First year sales (in units) 20,000 Tax rate 40%
37 Growth rate in units sold 0.0% WACC 12%
38 Sales price per unit $3.00 Inflation: growth in sales price 0.0%
39 Variable cost per unit $2.10 Inflation: growth in VC per unit 0.0%
40 Fixed costs $8,000 Inflation: growth in fixed costs 0.0%
41
42 Part 2. Depreciation Schedule a Years Cumulative
43 1 2 3 4 Depr'n
44 Building Depr'n Rate 1.3% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6%
45 Building Depr'n $156 $312 $312 $312 $1,092
46 Ending Book Val: Cost - Cum. Depr'n 11,844 11,532 11,220 $10,908
47
48 Equipment Depr'n Rate 20.0% 32.0% 19.0% 12.0%
49 Equipment Depr'n $1,600 $2,560 $1,520 $960 $6,640
50 Ending Book Val: Cost - Cum. Depr'n 6,400 3,840 2,320 $1,360
51
52 a
The indicated percentages are multiplied by the depreciable basis ($12,000 for the building and $8,000 for the equipment)
53 to determine the depreciation expense for the year. See Appendix 12A for a review of MACRS depreciation rates.
54
55 Part 3 of Table 12-1. Net Salvage Values in 2005
56 Building Equipment Total
57 Estimated Market Value in 2005 $7,500 $2,000
58 Book Value in 2005b 10,908 1,360
59 Expected Gain or Lossc -3,408 640
60 Taxes paid or tax credit -1,363 256
61 Net cash flow from salvaged $8,863 $1,744 $10,607
62
b
63 Book value equals depreciable basis (initial cost in this case) minus accumulated MACRS depreciation. For the
64 building, accumulated depreciation equals $1,092, so book value equals $12,000 - $1,092 = $10,908. For the equipment,
65 accumulated depreciation equals $6,640, so book value equals $8,000 - $6,640 = $1,360.
66
67 c
Building: $7,500 market value - $10,908 book value = -$3,408, a loss. This represents a shortfall in depreciation
68 taken versus "true" depreciation, and it is treated as an operating expense for 2005. Equipment: $2,000 market value -
69 $1,360 book value = $640 profit. Here the depreciation charge exceeds the "true" depreciation, and the difference is called
70 "depreciation recapture". It is taxed as ordinary income in 2005.
71
d
72 Net cash flow from salvage equals salvage (market) value minus taxes. For the building, the loss results in a tax credit, so
73 net salvage value = $7,500 - (-$1,363) = $8,863.
74

Harcourt, Inc. items and derived items copyright © 2001 by Harcourt, Inc.
Page 2
 A B C D E F G H I
75 Part 4 of Table 12-1. Projected Net Cash Years
76 Flows (Time line of annual cash flows) 0 1 2 3 4
77 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
78 Investment Outlays at Time Zero
79 Building ($12,000)
80 Equipment (8,000)
81 Increase in Net Operating WC (6,000)
82
83 Operating Cash Flows over the Project's Life
84 Units sold 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
85 Sales price $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00
86
87 Sales revenue $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000
88 Variable costs 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000
89 Fixed operating costs 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000
90 Depreciation (building) 156 312 312 312
91 Depreciation (equipment) 1,600 2,560 1,520 960
92 Oper. income before taxes (EBIT) 8,244 7,128 8,168 8,728
93 Taxes on operating income (40%) 3,298 2,851 3,267 3,491
94 Net Operating Profit After Taxes (NOPAT) 4,946 4,277 4,901 5,237
95 Add back depreciation 1,756 2,872 1,832 1,272
96 Operating cash flow $6,702 $7,149 $6,733 $6,509
97 Terminal Year Cash Flows
98 Return of net operating working capitale $6,000
99 Net salvage value 10,607
100 Total termination cash flows $16,607
101
102 Net Cash Flow (Time line of cash flows) ($26,000) $6,702 $7,149 $6,733 $23,116
103
104 e
Net operating working capital will be recovered at the end of the project's operating life, in 2005, as inventories are
105 sold off and receivables are collected.
106
107 Part 5 of Table 12-1. Key Output and Appraisal of the Proposed Project
108
109 Net Present Value (at 12%) $5,166
110 IRR 19.33%
111 MIRR 17.19% Years
112 0 1 2 3 4
113 Cumulative cash flow for payback (26,000) (19,298) (12,149) (5,416) 17,700
114 Cum. CF > 0, hence Payback Year: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.23
115 Payback found with Excel function = 0.00 See note below for an explanation of the Excel calculation.
116 Check: Payback = 3 + 5,416/23,116 = 3.23 Manual calculation for the base case.
117
118 The Excel payback calculation is based on the logical IF function. Returns FALSE if the cumulative CF is negative or
119 the actual payback if the cumulative CF is positive. Then, we use the MIN (minimum) function to find first year when
120 payback is positive. The min function procedure is necessary for projects with longer lives, because then values, not the
121 word FALSE, would appear in a number of cells. The min function picks the smallest number, which is the payback.
122

Harcourt, Inc. items and derived items copyright © 2001 by Harcourt, Inc.
Page 3
 A B C D E F G H I
123 Based on the firm's 12% weighted average cost of capital, this project has a NPV of $5,166. Since the NPV is positive,
124 we tentatively conclude that the project should be accepted. The IRR and MIRR confirm this decision because both
125 exceed the cost of capital. Note, though, that no risk analysis has been conducted. It is possible that the firm's
126 managers, after appraising the project's risk, might conclude that its projected return is insufficient to compensate
127 for its risk, and reject it.
128
129 Part 6. Evaluating Risk: Sensitivity Analysis
130
131 Risk in capital budgeting really means the probability that the actual outcome will be worse than the expected outcome.
132 For example, if there were a high probability that the $5,166 expected NPV as calculated above will actually turn
133 out to be negative, then the project would be classified as relatively risky. The reason for a worse-than-expected
134 outcome is, typically, because sales were lower than expected, costs were higher than expected, or the project turned
135 out to have a higher than expected initial cost. In other words, if the assumed inputs turn out to be worse than expected,
136 then the output will likewise be worse than expected. In Part 6 we use Excel to examine the project's sensitivity to
137 changes in the input variables.
138
139 I. Sensitivity of NPV and to Variations in Unit Sales.
140
141 Here we use an Excel "Data Table" to find NPV different unit sales, holding other thing constant.
142
143 % Deviation WACC % Deviation 1st YEAR UNIT SALES
144 from NPV from Units NPV Extra Question: At what
145 Base Case WACC 5,166 Base Case Sold $5,166 1st Year Sales would
146 -30% 8.4% $8,294 -30% 14,000 -$4,675 the project break even
147 -15% 10.2% $6,674 -15% 17,000 $246 in the sense that NPV
148 0% 12.0% $5,166 Base Case 0% 20,000 $5,166 = $0?
149 15% 13.8% $3,761 15% 23,000 $10,087
150 30% 15.6% $2,450 30% 26,000 $15,007 Answer: You could plot
151 NPV against Sales and
152 see about where NPV
153 % Deviation VARIABLE COSTS % Deviation GROWTH RATE, UNITS = 0. Alternatively, you
154 from Variable NPV from Growth NPV could use Tools > Goal
155 Base Case Cost $5,166 Base Case Rate % $5,166 Seek as described in
156 -30% $1.47 $28,129 -30% -30% -$5,847 the columns to the right.
157 -15% $1.79 $16,647 -15% -15% -$907 The answer is 16,850
158 0% $2.10 $5,166 Base Case 0% 0% $5,166 units.
159 15% $2.42 -$6,315 15% 15% $12,512
160 30% $2.73 -$17,796 30% 30% $21,269
161
162
163 % Deviation SALES PRICE % Deviation FIXED COSTS
164 from Sales NPV from Fixed NPV
165 Base Case Price $5,166 Base Case Costs $5,166
166 -30% $2.10 -$27,637 -30% $5,600 $9,540
167 -15% $2.55 -$11,236 -15% $6,800 $7,353
168 0% $3.00 $5,166 Base Case 0% $8,000 $5,166
169 15% $3.45 $21,568 15% $9,200 $2,979
170 30% $3.90 $37,970 30% $10,400 $792
171
172 We summarize the data tables, arranged by sensitivity, and graphed the most sensitive items in the following chart:
173

Harcourt, Inc. items and derived items copyright © 2001 by Harcourt, Inc.
Page 4
 A B C D E F G H I
174
175 Figure 12-1. Evaluating Risk: Sensitivity Analysis (Dollars in Thousands)
176
177
178 $40,000
179
180 $30,000
181
182 Sales price
$20,000
NPV

183 Variable
184 cost
185 $10,000 Growth
186 rate
187 $0 Units sold
188 Fixed cost
189 WACC
190 ($10,000)
191
192 ($20,000)
193
194
($30,000)
195
-30% -15% 0% 15% 30%
196
197
198 Deviation NPV at Different Deviations from Base
199 from Sales Variable Growth Year 1 Fixed
200 Base Case Price Cost/Unit Rate Units Sold Cost WACC
201 -30% ($27,637) $28,129 ($5,847) ($4,675) $9,540 $8,294
202 -15% ($11,236) $16,647 ($907) $246 $7,353 $6,674
203 0% $5,166 $5,166 $5,166 $5,166 $5,166 $5,166
204 15% $21,568 ($6,315) $12,512 $10,087 $2,979 $3,761
205 30% $37,970 ($17,796) $21,269 $15,007 $792 $2,450
206
207 Range 65,607 45,925 27,116 19,682 8,748 5,844
208
209 We see from the tables and graph that NPV is most sensitive to changes in the sales price and variable
210 costs, somewhat sensitive to changes in first-year sales and the sales growth rate, and not very sensitive to
211 changes in WACC and fixed costs. Thus, the real issue is our confidence in the forecasts of the sales
212 price and variable costs, as well as the first-year sales and the growth rate in units sold.
213
214 NPV can change dramatically if the key input variables change, but we do not know how much the
215 variables are likely to change. For example, if we were buying components under a fixed price contract,
216 then variable costs might be locked in and not likely to rise more than say 5%, and we might have a firm
217 contract to sell the projected number of units at the indicated price per unit. In that case, the "bad
218 conditions" would not materialize, and a positive NPV would be pretty well guaranteed. We go on to look at
219 the probabilities of different conditions in Part 7.
220

Harcourt, Inc. items and derived items copyright © 2001 by Harcourt, Inc.
Page 5
 A B C D E F G H I
221 Part 7. Evaluating Risk: Scenario Analysis
222
223 Scenario analysis extends risk analysis in two ways: (1) It allows us to change more than one variable at a time, hence
224 to see the combined effects of changes in several variables on NPV, and (2) It allows us to bring in the probabilities of
225 changes in the key variables. Part 7 provides a scenario analysis of the computer project.
226
227 We saw from the sensitivity analysis that the key variables are sales price, variable costs, unit sales, and the unit
228 growth rate. Therefore, in our sensitivity analysis we hold the other variables at their base case levels and then
229 examine the situation when the key variables change. We assume that the company regards the worst case as one
230 where each of the three variables is 30% worse than the base level, and the best case has each variable 30% better
231 than base. We also assume that there is a 25% chance of the best and worst cases, and a 50% chance of base case
232 levels.
233
234 Table 12-2. Scenario Analysis (Dollars in Thousands) Squared
235 Deviation
236 Sales Unit Variable Growth Times
237 Scenario Probability Price Sales Costs Rate NPV Probability
238
239 Best Case 25% $3.90 26,000 $1.47 30% $144,024 3307034782
240 Base Case 50% $3.00 20,000 $2.10 0% $5,166 284276572
241 Worst Case 25% $2.10 14,000 $2.73 -30% ($38,315) 1133161977
242 4724473330
243 Expected NPV = sum, prob times NPV $29,010
244 Standard Deviation = Sq Root of column I sum $68,735
245 Coefficient of Variation = Std Dev / Expected NPV 2.37
246 a. Probability Graph
247 Probability
248
249 50%
250
251
252 25%
253
254
255 (38,315) 0 29,010 144,024
256 5,166 NPV ($)
257 Most Likely Mean of distribution
258
259 b. Continuous Approximation
260
261 Probability Density
262
263
264
265
266 (38,315) 0 29,010 144,024
267 NPV ($)
268 5,166
269
270

Harcourt, Inc. items and derived items copyright © 2001 by Harcourt, Inc.
Page 6
 A B C D E F G H I
271 The scenario analysis suggests that the project could be highly profitable, but also that it is quite risky. There is a
272 25% probability that the project would result in a loss of $38.3 million. There is also a 25% probability that it could
273 produce an NPV of $144 million. The standard deviation is high, at $68.7 million, and the coefficient of variation is a
274 high 2.37.
275
276 Note that the expected NPV in the scenario analysis is much higher than the base case value. This occurs because
277 under good conditions we have high numbers multiplied by other high numbers, giving a very high result.
278
279 This analysis suggest that the project is relatively risky, hence that the base case NPV should be recalculated using a
280 higher WACC. At a WACC of 15% (versus 12% for an average risk project), the base case NPV is: $2,877
281 That number is not very high in relation to the project's cost.
282
283 Changing the WACC would also change the scenario analysis. Here are new figures:
284
285 Probability NPV Dev. Sqd^2
286 Worst Case 25% ($38,102) 992811800
287 Base Case 50% $2,877 242855067
288 Best Case 25% $132,011 2867361381
289
290 Expected NPV: $24,916
291 Standard Deviation: $64,055
292 Coefficient of Variation: 2.57
293
294 At this point, the project looks risky but acceptable. There is a good chance that it will produce an NPV of $2,877, but
295 there is also a chance that the NPV could be dramatically higher or lower.
296
297 If the bad conditions occur, this will hurt but not bankrupt the firm--this is just one project for a large company.
298
299 We indicate at the start that this project's returns would be highly correlated with the firm's other projects'
300 returns and also with the general stock market. Thus, its stand-alone risk (which is what we have been analyzing)
301 also reflects its within-firm and market risk. If this were not true, then we would need to make further risk
302 adjustments.
303
304 Finally, recall that we stated at the start that if the firm undertakes the project, it will be committed to operate it for the
305 full 4-year life. That is important, because if it were not so committed, then if the bad conditions occurred during the
306 first year of operations, the firm could simply close down operations. This would cut its losses, and the worse case
307 scenario would not be nearly as bad as we indicated. Then, the expected NPV would be higher, and the standard
308 deviation and coefficient of variation would be lower. We extend the model to deal with abandonment in the next section,
309 which is designed to be examined after reading Chapter 13.
310
311
312 EXTENDING THE MODEL TO ALLOW FOR ABANDONMENT
313
314 This section is an "extension" that deals with a "real option," the option to abandon the project. This topic is covered in
315 Chapter 13, so it will be more clear after you have read that chapter.
316
317 MODIFICATION: Now assume that BQC's computer project can be abandoned at the company's option. If it is
318 abandoned, then the company can sell the related assets at the end of the year after abandonment and realize a net cash
319 flow equal to the asset's book value at the end of the abandonment year. Use a decision tree format to set up the scenarios
320 with and without the abandonment option. Thus, if it has bad results in Year 1, it can abandon the project and receive the
321 end-of-Year 1 book value as a cash flow at the end of Year 2.
322

Harcourt, Inc. items and derived items copyright © 2001 by Harcourt, Inc.
Page 7
 A B C D E F G H I
323 Situation 1. Decision Tree Where Firm Cannot Abandon
324 End of Period: NPV this Prob.
325 0 1 2 3 4 Probability Scenario x NPV
326
327 25% $33,810 $45,629 $59,997 $95,600 25% $144,024 $36,006
328
329 50% -$26,000 $6,702 $7,149 $6,733 $23,116 50% $5,166 $2,583
330
331 25% -$9,390 -$7,356 -$6,660 $10,501 25% -$38,315 -$9,579
332
333 Expected NPV = sum, prob times NPV $29,010
334 Standard Deviation = Sq Root of column K sum $68,735
335 Coefficient of Variation = Std Dev / Expected NPV 2.37
336
337 Situation 2. Decision Tree Where Firm Has the Option to Abandon
338 End of Period: NPV this Prob.
339 0 1 2 3 4 Probability Scenario x NPV
340
341 25% $33,810 $45,629 $59,997 $95,600 25% $144,024 $36,006
342
343 50% -$26,000 $6,702 $7,149 $6,733 $23,116 50% $5,166 $2,583
344
345 25% 0% -$7,356 -$6,660 $10,501 0% -$38,315 $0
346 -$9,390
347 25% $18,244 $0 $0 25% -$19,840 (4,960)
348
349 Expected NPV = sum, prob times NPV $33,629
350 Standard Deviation = Sq Root of column K sum $64,549
351 Coefficient of Variation (CV) = Std Dev / Expected NPV 1.92
352
353 Where the abandonment option exists, the firm would definitely abandon the project at the end of Year 1 if the worse case
354 scenario developed. Therefore, we show a zero probability of continuing to operate in that case, and a 25% probability
355 that case will develop and the project will be abandoned.
356
357 Under abandonment, the worse case scenario still results in a negative NPV, but it is less negative than if abandonment
358 were not possible. This raises the expected NPV and lowers the standard deviation, and both of these changes work to
359 lower the CV. Thus, the project is seen to be more profitable and to have a lower risk if it can be abandoned.
360
361 Note that we discounted cash flows at 12% in the decision tree analysis. However, if 12% were appropriate given the
362 risk as measured by the CV in the no-abandonment case, then a lower WACC would be appropriate if the abandonment
363 option exists. Thus, it would make sense to go through another iteration and find the project's with-abandonment NPV
364 using a somewhat lower WACC. No precise procedure is available for determining the risk-adjusted discount rate, so
365 the adjustment would have to be made on a judgmental basis.
366
367 Note also that this type of analysis can be use to estimate the value of the option to abandon--its value is the difference
368 between the NPVs with and without abandonment. In this case, with our figures, it is
369
370 Expected NPV with Abandonment $33,629
371 Expected NPV without Abandonment $29,010
372
373 Approximate Value of Option $4,619
374
375
376 Thus, if abandonment were not possible due to an agreement with a labor union, BQC could afford to offer up to $4.619
377 million to get out of that constraint.
378
379 Finally, note that other types of real options, including timing options, expansion options, production flexibility options,
380 and the like can be analyzed using the decision tree format. Decision trees provide a powerful tool for investment
381 decision analysis.

Harcourt, Inc. items and derived items copyright © 2001 by Harcourt, Inc.
Page 8
REPLACEMENT ANALYSIS

In this model, we analyze the issue of whether a piece of equipment should be replaced. While the mechanics
of the analysis are somewhat different from the analysis for a new project, the process is similar in that we are
concerned with incremental cash flows. In this instance, we will be looking at a case that consists of net salvage value
being an intial benefit of the project. This replacement project is deemed by the firm to be of relatively low
risk, and is evaluated with a cost of capital of 11.5%

Input Data

Cost of the new machine $12,000

Reduction in operating costs $5,000
New machine's salvage value at end of Year 5 $2,000
Old machine's current market value $1,000
Old machine's current book value $2,500
Increase in Net Operating WC $1,000
Tax rate 40%
WACC 11.5%

MACRS 3-year Depreciation Schedule

Year 1 2 3 4
Depr. Rate 33% 45% 15% 7%
Depr. Exp. $3,960 $5,400 $1,800 $840

Replacement Project Net Cash Flow Schedule

Year: 0 1 2 3 4 5
Section I. Investment Outlay
Cost of new equipment ($12,000)
Market value of old equipment 1,000
Tax savings on old equipment sale 600
Increase in net operating WC (1,000)

Section II. Operating Inflows over the Project's Life

After-tax decrease in costs $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000
Depreciation on new machine 3,960 5,400 1,800 840 0
Depreciation on old machine 500 500 500 500 500
Change in depreciation 3,460 4,900 1,300 340 (500)
Tax savings from depreciation 1,384 1,960 520 136 (200)
Net operating cash flows $4,384 $4,960 $3,520 $3,136 $2,800

Section III. Terminal Year Cash Flows

Estimated salvage value of new machine $2,000
Tax on salvage value (40%) (800)
Return of net operating WC 1,000
Total termination cash flows $2,200

Section IV. Net Cash Flow ($11,400) $4,384 $4,960 $3,520 $3,136 $5,000
Cumulative cash flows (for payback) ($11,400) ($7,016) ($2,056) $1,464 $4,600 $9,600
Section V. Capital Budgeting Analysis - - 2.58 3.47 4.92
Net Present Value (11.5%) $3,991.08
IRR 25.03%
MIRR 18.40%
Payback (in years) 2.58 0.00

This project carries much less risk than the firm's average project, hence it was only evaluated at 11.5%.
The project's NPV is positive; therefore, it should be accepted. A review of the IRR and MIRR also indicate
that this project should be accepted because their values are greater than the 11.5% cost of capital. In
addition, the payback period for this project is not very long, so if the required payback for this project were
3 years then according to the payback criterion this project would also be accepted.
f net salvage value
 A B C D E F G H
13 Input Data (in thousands of dollars)
14
15 Existing bond issue $60,000 New bond issue $60,000
16 Original flotation cost $3,000 New flotation cost $2,650
17 Maturity of original debt 25 New bond maturity 20
18 Years since old debt issue 5 New cost of debt 9%
19 Call premium (%) 10%
20 Original coupon rate 12% Tax rate 40%
21 After-tax cost of new debt 5.4% Short-term interest rate 6%
22
23 Schedule of cash flows
24 Before-tax After-tax
25 Investment Outlay
26 Call premium on the old bond ($6,000) ($3,600)
27 Flotation costs on new issue (2,650) (2,650)
28 Immediate tax savings on old flotation cost expense 2,400 960
29 Extra interest paid on old issue (600) (360)
30 Interest earned on short-term investment 300 180
31 Total after-tax investment ($5,470)
32
33 Annual Flotation Cost Tax Effects: t=1 to 20
34 Annual tax savings from new issue flotation costs $133 $53
35 Annual lost tax savings from old issue flotation costs (120) (48)
36 Net flotation cost tax savings $13 $5
37
38 Annual Interest Savings Due to Refunding: t=1 to 20
39 Interest on old bond $7,200 $4,320
40 Interest on new bond (5,400) (3,240)
41 Net interest savings $1,800 $1,080
42
43 Since the annual flotation cost tax effects and interest savings occur for the next 20 years, they represent
44 annuities. To evaluate this project, we must find the present values of these savings. Using the function
45 wizard and solving for present value, we find that the present values of these annuities are:
46
47 Calculating the annual flotation cost tax effects and the annual interest savings
48
49 Annual flotation Cost Tax Effects Annual Interest Savings
50 Maturity of the new bond (Nper) 20 Maturity of the new bond (Nper)
51 After-tax cost of new debt (Rate) 5.4% After-tax cost of new debt (Rate)
52 Annual flotation cost tax savings (Pmt) $5 Annual interest savings (Pmt)
53
54 NPV of annual flotation cost savings $60 NPV of annual interest savings
55
56 Hence, the net present value of this bond refunding project will be the sum of the initial outlay and the present
57 values of the annual flotation cost tax effects and interest savings.
58
59 Bond Refunding NPV = Initial Outlay + PV of flotation costs + PV of interest savings
60 Bond Refunding NPV = ($5,470) + $60 + $13,014
61
 A B C D E F G H
62 Bond Refund NPV = $7,604
 I
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
20 years, they represent
43
ngs. Using the function
44
45
46
47
48
49
50 20
51 5.4%
52 $1,080
53
54 $13,014
55
e initial outlay and
56 the present
57
58
59
60
61