1. Valuation of the Super Project
Group Members:
XXX XXXXX
XXX XXXXX
Gordon Schwabe
XXX XXXXX 27.01.2013
2. AGENDA
1. Case summary
2. Problem statement
3. Clarifying problems & solutions
4. Comments on the 3 evaluation approaches
5. Recommendations on evaluation
6. Cash flow statement
7. Conclusion
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 2
3. Case Summary
• General Foods is a large corporation organized by productl
• Super is a proposed new instant desert, based on a “flavored, water-
soluble, agglomerated powder.”
• General Foods has numerous projects with a strict criteria to judge their value
for the company
• There are basically three types of capital investment proposals at General
Foods:
• Safety
• Quality
• Increased profit
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 3
4. Problem Statement
• 3 methods, each passes with advantages and disadvantages
• Incremental / Facilities used / Fully allocated
• Memos indicate that General Foods’ finance personnel are questioning the same
criteria’s ability to accurately reflect the value of the Super project
• No precise estimation of company value, because of the high variance in the
evaluation methods
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 4
5. Problem Statement – What is ROFE?
GF uses Return On Funds Employed (ROFE) to evaluate the viability of capital
projects, and to weigh one project against another to determine prioritization.
ROFE = EBIT / Capital Invested (book value)
Ratio of EARNINGS created from the book value of capital invested
• Using EBIT, does not capture net operating cash flow
• Uses book value (depreciated value) of capital investments
• If capital assets are depreciated, they appear to create a cash flow
• Depreciation is an accounting expense not a cash flow
• Artificially biases long-term asset-intensive projects, as they have bigger
apparent depreciation cash flows
• Does not capture the time value of money; interest and inflation
ROFE is not a tool to evaluate capital projects. Even used as a
metric to compare capital earnings performance, it has flaws.
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 5
6. Problem Statement - How we should deal with…
• Test-market expenses
• Erosion of Jell-O contribution margin
• Allocation of charges for the use of excess agglomerator capacity
• Overhead expenses
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 6
7. Test-market expenses
• Should only be taken into account if they can be attributed to the particular
project
• In the Super case these expenses had been made before the Super project had
started
Will not be taken into account in the FCF
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 7
8. Erosion of Jell-O contribution margin
• Super will displace part of Jell-O´s market share
Erosion of Jell-O contribution margin should be taken into account
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 8
9. Allocation of charges for the use of excess agglomerator capacity
• Not counted in the FCF of the Super Project
• Charges represent opportunity costs for the Jell-O devision or future projects
Take costs into account on a corporate level
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 9
10. Erosion of Jell-O contribution margin
• Should be taken into account if they can be attributed to the particular project
General Foods Corp. already counted theses costs in the CF of Jell-O
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 10
11. Overhead Expenses
• Should be taken into account if these expenses can be attributed to Super
• Overhead expenses for the Super Project are not clearly defined
Overhead expenses will be taken into account in the FCF
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 11
12. Incremental Basis
• This evaluation approach uses only directly identified cash flows
Only incremental approaches has been taken into account
Jell-O facilities and production capacity are not relevant for Super because they
have already been counted in the CF.
This execution of Incremental Basis is flawed because it:
• Includes sunk costs (the marketing study)
• Fails to account for relevant increasing overhead costs.
• Fails to take into account income-tax-reducing depreciation.
• Utilizes ROFE. Again, ROFE is no good for capital budgeting
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 12
13. Facilities-Used Basis
• Super will use 1/2 of Jell-O’s agglomerator
• Super will use 2/3 of Jell-O’s building
• Super “pro-rata” share is $453 K
• Charges Super with the facility overhead ($28k p/y).
This approach
• In the capital budgeting process only incremental cash flows are taken into
account.
• Only shifts costs ($453K in facilities) to Super, which is an accounting
maneuver and does not effect the cashflow
• It’s a “net zero” method, it just moves costs
Useful for accounting, not for capital budgeting
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 13
14. Fully Allocated Basis
Facilities-Used Basis + overhead expenses
• Overhead expenses:
• Selling, general and administrative costs
This approach
• Gives the most inclusive analysis of existing cash flow
• Adds overhead costs correctly
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 14
15. Evaluation of the Super Project
GF can do this by:
1. Taking into account incremental cash flows
2. Modifying their income statement to deduct depreciation before calculating tax
3. Ignore sunk costs (marketing test, Jell-O facilities, etc.)
4. Remove depreciation from capital assets for purposes of evaluation
5. Accept overhead from growth/doubling powdered dessert line
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 15
16. Recommendations evaluation of the Super Project
• $200k for high speed filling/packaging equipment, finish packing room
• $360k market test – irrelevant
• Opportunity cost for Jell-O’s facilities and equipment
• Not relevant – same opportunity for any project using this building
• From corporate POV, hard to sell to move in some business to utilize
temporarily excess Jell-O facilities, low feasibility
• Capital depreciation – non-cash expense – irrelevant
• Capital depreciation expense tax deduction – relevant to operating cash flow
• Shift $453k pro-rata share of Jell-O facilities and agglomerator – Incremental
test – irrelevant
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 16
17. Recommendations Evaluation of the Super Project
• $28k avg. yearly depreciation of Jell-O facilities – Incremental test – irrelevant
• $19k business expansion capital for distribution system – Incremental test –
relevant
• Expansion capital depreciation expense tax deduction – relevant to operating
cash flow
• $90k additional yearly overhead expense for business expansion – Incremental
test – relevant
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 17
19. Free Cash Flow
Net Sales Net Earnings
Discount rate 4,66% 7,69%
NPV 447,59 248,64
IRR 13% 13%
Net Sales Net Earnings
Discount rate 4,66% 7,69%
NPV 280,38 67,31
IRR 9% 9%
Net Sales Net Earnings
Discount rate 4,66% 7,69%
NPV -102,79 -286,13
IRR 3% 3%
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 19
20. Conclusion
- An expansion or broadening of market capture by appealing to somewhat
parallel consumer needs
- Take advantage of short term availability of Jell-O facilities - in the long term it
is not a better project just because it fits a facility that is temporarily unused
Main Points:
- NPV is in 2 approaches positive
- IRR is in 2 approaches higher than discount rate (decision premise)
- Payback after the 6th year (shorter than normal payback period)
Do the investment
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 20
22. Appendix – Incremental CF
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 22
23. Appendix – Facility Used CF
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 23
24. Appendix – Fully Allocated CF
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 24
25. Appendix – Excel File
Excel File
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 25
26. Appendix - Depreciation
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 26
27. Appendix – Opportunity costs
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 27
28. Appendix – Erosion of Jell-O
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 28
29. Appendix – Tax rate
Valuation of the Super Project 27.01.2013
Fachhochschule Brandenburg · University of Applied Sciences · Fachbereich Wirtschaft Page 29