Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
7-1
$12
5
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$125 = $10 (P/A, i%, 6) + $10 (P/G, i%, 6)
7-2
$80 $80 $80 $80 $80
$80
$200 $200
$200
The easiest solution is to solve one cycle of the repeating diagram:
$12
$20 0
0
$120 = $80 (F/P, i%, 1)
$120 = $80 (1 + i)
(1 + i) = $120/$80 = 1.50
i* = 0.50 = 50%
Alternative Solution:
EUAB = EUAC
$80 = [$200 (P/F, i%, 2) + $200 (P/F, i%, 4) + $200 (P/F, i%, 6)] (A/P, i%, 6)
Try i = 50%
$80 = [$200 (0.4444) + $200 (0.1975) + $200 (0.0878)] (0.5481) = $79.99
Therefore i* = 50%.
7-3
$20 $25
$15
$10
$5
$42.55
7-4
For infinite series: A = Pi
EUAC= EUAB
$3,810 (i) = $250 + $250 (F/P, i%, 1) (A/F, i%, 2)*
Try i = 10%
$250 + $250 (1.10) (0.4762) = $381
$3,810 (0.10) = $381
i = 10%
*Alternate Equations:
$3,810 (i) = $250 + $250 (P/F, i%, 1) (A/P, i%, 2)
$3,810 (j) = $500 - $250 (A/G, i%, 2)
7-5
P’
A = $1,000
………….
Yr 0
n = 10 n=∞
$41
2 $5,000
Try i = 15%
$412 + $5,000 (0.2472) = ($1,000/0.15) (0.2472)
$1,648 = $1,648
ROR = 15%
7-6
The algebraic sum of the cash flows equals zero. Therefore, the rate of return is 0%.
7-7
A = $300
$1,000
Try i = 5%
$1,000 =(?) $300 (3.546) (0.9524)
=(?) $1,013.16
Try i = 6%
$1,000 =(?) $300 (3.465) (0.9434)
=(?) $980.66
Try i = 7%
[$200 (3.387) - $50 (4.795)] (0.9346) = 409.03
Try i = 8%
[$200 (3.312) - $50 (4.650)] (0.9259) = $398.08
7-9
$100 = $27 (P/A, i%, 10)
(P/A, i%, 10) = 3.704
7-10
Year Cash Flow
0 -$500
1 -$100
2 +$300
3 +$300
4 +$400
5 +$500
$500 + $100 (P/F, i%, 1)= $300 (P/A, i%, 2) (P/F, i%, 1)
+ $400 (P/F, i%, 4) + $500 (P/F, i%, 5)
Try i = 30%
$500 + $100 (0.7692) = $576.92
$300 (1.361) (0.7692) + $400 (0.6501) + $500 (0.2693) = $588.75
∆ = 11.83
Try i = 35%
$500 + $100 (0.7407) = $574.07
$300 (1.289) (0.7407) + $400 (0.3011) + $500 (0.2230) = $518.37
∆ = 55.70
Rate of Return = 30% + (5%) [11.83/55.70)
= 31.06%
7-11
Year Cash Flow
0 -$223
1 -$223
2 -$223
3 -$223
4 -$223
5 -$223
6 +$1,000
7 +$1,000
8 +$1,000
9 +$1,000
10 +$1,000
The rate of return may be computed by any conventional means. On closer inspection one
observes that each $223 increases to $1,000 in five years.
7-12
Year Cash Flow
0 -$640
1 40
2 +$100
3 +$200
4 +$300
5 +$300
Try i = 9%
$100 (4.511) + $300 (0.6499) = $646.07 > $640
Try i = 10%
$100 (4.378) + $300 (0.6209) = $624.07 < $640
F = P (1 + i)n
$4,500 = $500 (1 + i)4
(1 + i)4 = $4,500/$500 =0
(1 + i) = 91/4 = 1.732
i* = 0.732 = 73.2%
7-14
$3,000 = $119.67 (P/A, i%, 30)
(P/A, i%, 30) = $3,000/$119.67 = 25.069
Performing Linear Interpolation:
i = 1% + (0.25%)((25.808-25.069)/(25.808-24.889))
= 1.201%
7-15
$3,000
A = $325
………….
n = 36
$12,375
F = P (1 + i)n
12 x 109 = 24 (1 + i)365
Try i = 6%
(F/P, 6%, 365) = (339.3)3 (44.14) = 17.24 X 108 (i too high)
Try i = 5%
(F/P, 5%, 365) = (131.5)3 (23.84) = 0.542 X 108 (i too low)
7-17
$1,000
A = $40
n = 10
$92
5
PW of Cost = PW of Benefits
Try i = 4.5%
$925 = $40 (7.913) + $1,000 (0.6439) = $960.42 (i too low)
i* ≈ 4.97%
7-18
$1,000
A = $40
…….
n = 40 semiannual periods
$715
PW of Benefits – PW of Costs = 0
$20 (P/A, i%, 40) + $1,000 (P/F, i%, 40) - $715 = 0
Try i = 3%
$20 (23.115) + $1,000 (0.3066) - $715 = $53.90 i too low
Try i = 3.5%
$20 (21.355) + $1,000 (0.2526) - $715 = -$35.30 i too high
Nominal i* = 6.60%
7-19
$12,000
$6,000
$3,000
n = 10 n = 10 n = 20
$28,000
PW of Cost = PW of Benefits
$28,000 = $3,000 (P/A, i%, 10) + $6,000 (P/A, i%, 10) (P/F, i%, 10)
+ $12,000 (P/A, i%, 20) (P/F, i%, 20)
Try i = 12%
$3,000 (5.650) + $6,000 (5.650) (0.3220) + $12,000 (7.469) (0.1037)
= $37,160 > $28,000
Try i = 15%
$3,000 (5.019) + $6,000 (5.019) (0.2472) + $12,000 (6.259) (0.0611)
= $27,090 < $28,000
7-20
$15,000
A = $80
$9,000
PW of Benefits – PW of Cost = $0
$15,000 (P/F, i%, 4) - $9,000 - $80 (P/A, i%, 4) = $0
Try i = 12%
$15,000 (0.6355) - $9,000 - $80 (3.037) = +$289.54
Try i = 15%
$15,000 (0.5718) - $9,000 - $80 (2.855) = -$651.40
7-21
The problem requires an estimate for n- the expected life of the infant. Seventy or seventy-
five years might be the range of reasonable estimates. Here we will use 71 years.
The purchase of a $200 life subscription avoids the series of beginning-of-year payments of
$12.90. Based on 71 beginning-of-year payments,
A = $12.90
………….
n = 70
$200
7-22
$1,000
A = $30
……….
n = 2(2001 – 1998) + 1 = 27
$875
PW of Benefits – PW of Cost = $0
$30 (P/A, i%, 27) + $1,000 (P/F, i%, 27) - $875 = $0
Try i = 3 ½%
$30 (17.285) + $1,000 (0.3950) - $875 = $38.55 >$0
Try i = 4%
$30 (16.330) + $1,000 (0.3468) - $875 = -$38.30 < $0
i* = 3.75%
Nominal rate of return = 2 (3.75%) = 7.5%
7-23
A = $110
……….
n = 24
$3,500 - $1,200
= $2,300
7-24
A = $100
……….
n = 36
$3,168
PW of Cost = PW of Benefits
$100 (P/A, i%, 36)= $3,168
(P/A, i%, 36) = $3,168/$100 = 31.68
MS
Degree
A = $3,000
n = 10
$1,500 $1,500
7-26
$35
A = $12.64
……….
n = 12
$175
F = P (1 + i)n
$25,000 = $5,000 (1 + i)3
(1 + i) = ($25,000/$5,000)1/3 = 1.71
i* = 0.71
7-28
This is an unusual problem with an extremely high rate of return. Available interest tables
obviously are useless.
For high interest rates only the first few terms of the series are significant:
Try i = 650%
PW of Benefits = $3.5/(1 + 6.5) + $0.9/(1 + 6.5)2 + $3.9/(1 + 6.5)3
+ $8.6/(1 + 6.5)4 + ….
= 0.467 + 0.016 + 0.009 + 0.003
= 0.495
Try i = 640%
i* ≈ 642%
(Calculator Solution: i = 642.9%)
7-29
g = 10%
A1 = $1,100
n = 20
i=?
P = $20,000
7-30
(a) Using Equation (4-39):
F = Pern
$4,000 = $2,000er(9)
2 = er(9)
9r = ln 2 = 0.693
r = 7.70%
7-31
(a) When n = ∞, i = A/P = $3,180/$100,000 = 3.18%
(d) The saving in water truck expense is just a small part of the benefits of the pipeline.
Convenience, improved quality of life, increased value of the dwellings, etc., all are
benefits. Thus, the pipeline appears justified.
7-32
F = $2,242
A = $50
n=4
P = $1,845
Try i = 7%
450 (3.387) + $2,242 (0.7629) = $1,879 > $1,845
Try i = 8%
450 (3.312) + $2,242 (0.7350) = $1,813 < $1,845
7-33
(a)
F = $5 P = $1 n=5
F = P (1 + i)n
$5 = $1 (1 + i)5
(1 + i) = 50.20 = 1.38
i* = 38%
$800
$6,000
$400
$9,000
PW of Cost = PW of Benefits
$9,000 = $400 (P/A, i%, 8) + $400 (P/A, i%, 4) + $6,000 (P/F, i%, 9)
Try i = 3%
$400 (7.020) + $400 (3.717) + $6,000 (0.7664) = $8,893 < $9,000
Try i = 2 ½%
$400 (7.170) + $400 (3.762) + $6,000 (0.8007) = $9,177 > $9,000
7-35
Year Cash Flow
0 -$1,000
3 +$1,094.60
6 +$1,094.60
Try i = 20%
$1,094 [(0.5787) + (0.3349)] = $1,000
$65,000
$5,000
$240,000
Try i = 15%
$65,000 (5.583) -$5,000 (23.135) = $247,220 > $240,000
Try i = 18%
$65,000 (4.910) -$5,000 (18.877) = $224,465 < $240,000
7-37
3,000 = 30 (P/A, i*, 120)
(P/A, i*, 120) = 3,000/30 = 100
(b) At 13.7% the apartment building is more attractive than the other options.
7-39
NPW = -$300,000 + $20,000 (P/F, i*, 10)
+ ($67,000 - $3,000) (P/A, i*, 10) - $600 (P/G, i*, 10)
Try i = 10%
NPW= -$300,000 + $20,000 (0.3855) + ($64,000) (6.145)
- $600 (22.891)
= $87,255 > $0 The interest rate is too low.
Try i = 18%
NPW = -$300,000 + $20,000 (0.1911) + ($64,000) (4.494)
- $600 (14.352)
= -$17,173 < $0 The interest rate is too high.
Try i = 15%
NPW = -$300,000 + $20,000 (0.2472) + ($64,000) (5.019)
- $600 (16.979)
= $9,130 > $0
Thus, the rate of return (IRR) is between 15% and 18%. By linear interpolation:
7-40
(a) First payment = $2, Final payment = 132 x $2 = $264
Average Payment = ($264 + $2)/2 = $133
Total Amount = 132 payments x $133 average pmt = $17,556
(b) The bank will lend the present worth of the gradient series
Loan (P) = $2 (P/G, 1%, 133)
Note: n- 1 = 132, so n = 133
By interpolation,
(P/G, 1%, 133) = 3,334.11 + (13/120) (6,878.6 – 3,334.1) = 3,718.1
Loan (P) = $2 (3,718.1) = $7,436.20
7-41
Year Case 1 (incl. Deposit)
0 -$39,264.00
1 +$599.00
2 +$599.00
3 +$599.00
4 +$599.00
5 +$599.00
6 +$599.00
7 +$599.00
8 +$599.00
9 +$599.00
10 +$599.00
11 +$599.00
12 +$599.00
… +$599.00
33 +$599.00
34 +$599.00
35 +$599.00
36 +$27,854.00 -$625.00
= +$27,229.00
IRR = 0.86%
Nominal IRR = 10.32%
Effective IRR = 10.83%
7-42
MARR = 5% P = $30,000 n = 35
years
F = P (1 + i)n
= $30,000 (1.05)35
= $30,000 (5.516015)
= $165,480.46
Therefore:
$15,000 = $165,480.46 (1 + i)-35
$15,000 (1 + i)35 = $165,480.46
(1 + i) = [(165,480.46/$15,000)]1/35
i = 1.071 – 1 = 7.1002% > 5%
Unless $15,000 can be invested with a return higher than 7.1%, it is better to wait for 35
years for the retirement fund. $15,000 now is only equivalent to $165,480.46 35 years from
now if the interest rate now is 7.1% instead of the quoted 5%.
7-43
$2,000 = $91.05 (P/A, i*, 30)
(P/A, i*, 30) = $2,000/$91.05 = 21.966
7-44
$3,000 = $118.90 (P/A, i*, 36)
(P/A, i*, 36) = $3,000/$118.90 = 26.771
7-45
(a)
$150
A = $100
……….
n = 20
$2,000
(b) Take Alt 1- the $2,000- and invest the money at a higher interest rate.
7-46
Year (A) Gas Station (B) Ice Cream Stand (B- A)
0 -$80,000 -$120,000 -$40,000
1- 20 +$8,000 +$11,000 +$3,000
Computed ROR 7.75% 6.63% 4.22%
The rate of return in the incremental investment (B- A) is less than the desired 6%. In this
situation the lower cost alternative (A) Gas Station should be selected.
7-47
Year A B (B- A)
0 -$2,000 -$2,800 -$800
1- 3 +$800 +$1,100 +$300
Computed ROR 9.7% 8.7% 6.1%
The rate of return on the increment (B- A) exceeds the Minimum Attractive Rate of Return
(MARR), therefore the higher cost alternative B should be selected.
7-48
Year X Y X- Y
0 -$100 -$50 -$50
1 +$35 +$16.5 +$18.5
2 +$35 +$16.5 +$18.5
3 +$35 +$16.5 +$18.5
4 +$35 +$16.5 +$18.5
Computed ROR 15.0% 12.1% 17.8%
The ∆ROR on X- Y is greater than 10%. Therefore, the increment is desirable. Select X.
7-49
The fixed output of +$17 may be obtained at a cost of either $50 or $53. The additional $3
for Alternative B does not increase the benefits. Therefore it is not a desirable increment of
investment.
Choose A.
7-50
Year A B (B- A)
0 -$100.00 -$50.00 -$50.00
1- 10 +$19.93 +$11.93 +$8.00
Computed ROR 15% 20% 9.61%
Select A.
7-51
Year X Y X- Y
0 -$5,000 -$5,000 $0
1 -$3,000 +$2,000 -$5,000
2 +$4,000 +$2,000 +$2,000
3 +$4,000 +$2,000 +$2,000
4 +$4,000 +$2,000 +$2,000
Computed ROR 16.9% 21.9% 9.7%
7-52
(a) Present Worth Analysis- Maximize NPW
NPWA = $746 (P/A, 8%, 5) - $2,500
= $746 (3.993) – $2,500 = +$479
NPWB = $1,664 (P/A, 8%, 5) - $6,000 = +$644
Select B.
Year A B B- A
0 -$2,500 -$6,000 -$3,500
1- 5 +$746 +$1,664 +$918
7-53
Using incremental analysis, computed the internal rate of return for the difference between
the two alternatives.
Year B- A
0 +$12,000
1 -$3,000
2 -$3,000
3 -$3,000
4 -$3,000
5 -$3,000
6 -$3,000
7 -$3,000
8 -$4,200
Note: Internal Rate of Return (IRR) equals the interest rate that makes the PW of costs
minus the PW of Benefits equal to zero.
Try i = 18%
$12,000 - $3,000 (3.812) - $4,200 (0.2660) = -$553 < $0
Try i = 17%
$12,000 - $3,000 (3.922) - $4,200 (0.2848) = $962 > $0
The contractor should choose Alternative B and lease because 17.62% > 15% MARR.
7-54
B A A- B
First Cost $300,000 $615,000 $315,000
Maintenace & Operating Costs $25,000 $10,000 -$15,000
Annual Benefit $92,000 $158,000 $66,000
Salvage Value -$5,000 $65,000 $70,000
NPW = -$315,000 + [$66,000 – (-$15,000)] (P/A, i*, 10) + $70,000 (P/F, i*, 10)
= $0
Try i = 15%
-$315,000 + [$66,000 – (-$15,000)] (5.019) + $70,000 (0.2472) = $108,840
7-55
Year A B A- B NPW at 7% NPW at 9%
0 -$9,200 -$5,000 -$4,200 -$4,200 -$4,200
1 +$1,850 +$1,750 +$100 +$93 +$92
2 +$1,850 +$1,750 +$100 +$87 +$84
3 +$1,850 +$1,750 +$100 +$82 +$77
4 +$1,850 +$1,750 +$5,100 +$3,891 +$3,613
-$5,000
5 +$1,850 +$1,750 +$100 +$71 +$65
6 +$1,850 +$1,750 +$100 +$67 +$60
7 +$1,850 +$1,750 +$100 +$62 +$55
8 +$1,850 +$1,750 +$100 +$58 +$50
Sum +$211 -$104
∆ ROR ≈ 8.3%
Choose Alternative A.
7-56
Year Zappo Kicko Kicko – Zappo
0 -$56 -$90 -$34
1 -$56 $0 +$56
2 $0 $0 $0
From interest tables, incremental rate of return > 60% (∆ROR = 64.7%), hence the
increment of investment is desirable.
Buy Kicko.
7-57
Year A B A- B
0 -$9,200 -$5,000 -$4,200
1 +$1,850 +$1,750 +$100
2 +$1,850 +$1,750 +$100
3 +$1,850 +$1,750 +$100
4 +$1,850 +$1,750 -$5,000 +$100 +$5,000
5 +$1,850 +$1,750 +$100
6 +$1,850 +$1,750 +$100
7 +$1,850 +$1,750 +$100
8 +$1,850 +$1,750 +$100
Sum
Rates of Return
A: $9,200 = $1,850 (P/A, i%, 5)
Rate of Return = 11.7%
B: $5,000 = $1,750 (P/A, i%, 4)
Rate of Return = 15%
A- B: $4,200 = $100 (P/A, i%, 8) + $5,000 (P/F, i%, 4)
∆RORA-B = 8.3%
Select A.
7-58
Year A B A- B
0 -$150 -$100 -$50
1- 10 +$25 +$22.25 +$2.75
11- 15 +$25 $0 +$25
15 +$20 $0 +$20
Computed ROR 14.8% 18% 11.6%
Select A.