Group Paper Analysis‚ Team 4 4/22/2010 Victoria Chemicals (B) Group Case Study Introduction Victoria Chemicals’ Intermediate Chemicals Group (ICG) is evaluating two mutually exclusive proposals on their capital expenditures. The Liverpool and Rotterdam plants have compiled separate proposals. Each proposal had the potential to increase the polypropylene output by 7 percent for their plant respectively. Victoria Chemicals could not view a 14 percent increase companywide being feasible‚
Premium Net present value
Case #22 Victoria Chemicals Synopsis and Objectives go/no-go decision 1. The identification of relevant cash flows; in particular‚ the treatment of: a. sunk costs b. cash flows obtained by cannibalizing another activity within the firm c. exploitation of excess transportation capacity d. corporate overhead allocations e. cash flows of unrelated projects f. inflation. 2. The critical assessment of a capital-investment evaluation system
Premium Net present value Discounted cash flow
CASE 1 - A CASE STUDY OF VICTORIA CHEMICALS Corporate Finance (FEG304) Table of Contents 1.0) Introduction This report 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
Premium Net present value
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
Study Week 3 - Victoria Chemicals PLC 1. What changes‚ if any‚ should the plant manager (Morris) ask the financial controller (Greystock) to make to his analysis? Morris should ask the Financial Controller to the make the following changes to his analysis: • Include the cost of the rolling stock. These would become an essential asset of the Merseyside Works. The investment to occur in 2010 and then depreciated over the following 10 years. These would become an asset of the Merseyside works. •
Premium Net present value Internal rate of return Rate of return
1. Victoria Chemicals evaluate its capital-expenditure proposals in four ways. They are average annual addition to earnings per share‚ payback period‚ net present value‚ and internal rate of return. An earnings per share method is to indicate a company’s profitability. For Victoria Chemical‚ this was calculated with the average annual earnings per share contribution of the engineering-efficiency project over its entire economic life. However‚ for the basis of the calculation‚ the project’s initiator
Premium Net present value Cash flow 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
recommendation about the Merseyside Project with you. Your DCF analysis is excellent and helpful. However‚ I have to make some changes to it. The memo will be divided into 6 parts. Suggestions for Merseyside project: P1 What should change in the DCF analysis and why: P1-P3 Other important issues: P3-P4 Evaluation of each investment Criteria: P4-P5 Ultimate recommendation and forward looking: P5-P6 Revised DCF analysis: Appendix Changes to capital project? Since reviewing and discussing
Premium Net present value Inflation Monetary policy
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Diamond Chemicals PLC (B) Merseyside and Rotterdam Projects Table of content Key Issues 3 Analysis 3 Recommendations 8 Appendix 9 Appendix 1: Company Description 7 Appendix 2: Calculation on Merseyside Project Revision 7 Appendix 3: Calculation on Rotterdam Project without Right-of-way 7 KEY ISSUES The Diamond Chemical PLC as the producer of polypropylene has two production plants which are in Merseyside and Rotterdam. Both factories have similar
Premium Net present value
Case #22 Victoria Chemicals Synopsis and Objectives go/no-go decision 1. The identification of relevant cash flows; in particular‚ the treatment of: a. sunk costs b. cash flows obtained by cannibalizing another activity within the firm c. exploitation of excess transportation capacity d. corporate overhead allocations e. cash flows of unrelated projects f. inflation. 2. The critical assessment of a capital-investment evaluation system. 3. The treatment of conflicts of interest
Premium Net present value Discounted cash flow Internal rate of return