Himalayan Publishing Company Case on

Capital Budgeting
August 31, 2013

Himalayan Publishing Company: Capital Investment Decision

Synopsys:
Himalayan printing and publishing company is a family owned specialty printing enterprise founded by the Chhetri brothers. The firm follows a conservative capital financing approach avoiding the use of debt. Mr. Ranjan Karki, the firms current Vice-President of Finance is responsible for the both internal and external financial operation however, the scope by far is limited to internal because of the all equity capital structure the firm follows. The firm operates mainly as a full range printer of high quality, four colors offset advertising material, calendars, specialty tabloids, business printing and some books. The competition in most of their market segment is based on quality products and rapid delivery on short notice than on the price of various services. The volume in the business order has been increasing and the indications show that it will continue to increase in the future. Recently Himalayan has lost several sizable contracts because of limited capacity which lead to failure to produce the material in the short time the customer required. On the basis of the financial projections approximately Rs. 1.5 million will be available for the investment. The estimated cost of equity is calculated to be 15 percent, which has been drawn from the historical practice of internal funding. For any additional fund the Chhetri brothers will have to liquidate personal security holding to inject fund in to the firm. The firms marginal cost of generating extra capital above 1.5 million is calculated to 21 percent because of the opportunity cost on outside investment. However on the other hand the firm has a debt option financing 500,000 at 12 percent that will reduce the weighted average cost of capital but the Chhettri brothers in the past had resisted any attempts to convince them to use debt financing. The firm has identified four major projects for capital investment and Mr. Ranjan as the Vice-President of Finance is responsible for analyzing the projects and identifying the optimal project to investment in the coming year. The Projects the firm has identified are: Project A: Major Plant Expansion Project A has been designed to alleviate the capacity problem by constructing a new wing on the main plant. This additional space would allow Himalayan to hold a greater variety of paper stock in inventory and to reposition its various presses for a more efficient work flow. The expansion would also include a new bindery room and extra space for the Special Service Department that specializes in low volume custom book printing and binding. The expansion would make it possible to work on several jobs simultaneously

Project B: Alternative plan for Plant Expansion This project is an alternative of project A and the firm gains extra storage room and more efficiently arranged printing equipment by moving some non-load bearing walls and operations. Due to the nature of the project the firm will lose business during renovation and therefore the cost of the project equates with project A. However, it can be installed much more quickly and will allow Himalayan to take several major printing jobs in the next few years. Project C: Purchase of New Press Project C aims to acquire the latest equipment that would facilitate Himalayan to produce high quality prints and products and enter in to this market segment as the firm is unable to obtain such contracts currently as it does not own the type of equipment fit for the job. The equipment requires additional space and is feasible only after plant expansion therefore project C is dependent acceptance on Project A or B. The decision of implementing Project A or B is however independent of Project C. Project D: Upgrade of Himalayans Video Text Service Project D is targeted at upgrading the Video Text Service that will ensure reliability and efficiency of the service. It is also targeted at increasing customer retention and to attract new subscriber since it is losing customers due to frequent problem in the system. The project is independent of the other alternatives the Chhetri brothers have come up with.

Analysis 1:
Determine the payback, net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR) for each project, using both 15 and 21% discount rates. Rank the investment proposals considering the capital budget of $1.5 million. Which projects should the company choose and why? Which discount rate is more appropriate? (Note that project A and B are mutually exclusive). Project Evaluation Criteria PBP Discounted PBP @ 15% Discounted PBP @ 21% NPV @ 15% NPV @ 21 % IRR
Detailed Calculations presented in Annex I

Project A 3.2 Years 3.5 Years 3.8 Years Rs.164,319.52 Rs.70,729.75 26.62%

Project B 1.5 Years 1.9 Years 2.1 Years Rs.155,828.85 Rs.100,551.08 34.996%

Project C 3.1 Years 4.5 Years 5.5 Years Rs.621,062.27 Rs.309,467.18 29.95%

Project D 3 Years 4 Years 4.8 years Rs.8,6274.14 Rs.12,047.26 22.11%

Project Evaluation Criteria PBP Discounted PBP @ 15% Discounted PBP @ 21% NPV @ 15% NPV @ 21 % IRR

Project A IV II II II III III

Project B I I I III II I

Project C III IV IV I I II

Project D II III III IV IV IV

Ranking : I First Priority; II Second Priority; III Third Priority; IV Fourth Priority

Analyzing the PBP: The Payback Period of a project depicts the number of years it takes the firm to recover its initial cash investment. It provides limited insights into risk and liquidity of the project. The shorter the Payback period, supposedly, the less risky the project and greater its liquidity1. Here, the PBP shows that project B has an early recovery on the project cost providing the firm full recovery on its initial outlay in 1.5 years in comparison to the other projects. The second best alternative is project D with 3 years. However, the PBP has its short comings and is less relied while making capital investment decision. Analyzing Discounted PBP: Discounted Payback Period is similar to PBP, except in a discounted PBP the future cash flows are discounted by the cost of capital. The only superiority of the method is that it takes the Time value of money into consideration which is very important when comparing tomorrows return with todays investment. The above tables shows us that the PBP of project B is the shortest discounted at both 15 and 21 percent cost of capital. Using the Discounted PBP we select Project B because of its short

James C. Varn Horne: Financial management & Policy - twelfth edition

payback period. The short comings of PBP (other than time value of money) still makes this method less attractive for making decision solely based on Discounted PBP. NPV Analysis: NPV calculates the difference amount between the sums of discounted future cash inflows and cash outflows. It compares the present value of money today to the present value of money in the future, taking inflation and returns into account. The net present value (NPV) tells us how much a project contributes to shareholder wealththe larger the NPV, the more value the project adds; and added value means a higher stock price2. NPV therefore is considered the best selection criterion when making capital investment decision. Amongst the different alternatives we can observe that at 15% discount rate Project C has the highest NPV followed by Project A, B and D respectively. At 21% again Project C has the highest NPV followed by B, A and D respectively. Project C has the highest NPV in both the occasions mainly because of its life and provides the firm with cash flow for more than twice the period of other projects. However, due to the space constraints, Project C is not feasible until unless the firm expands its plant and create space for the new equipment and wouldnt be correct to conclude and recommend investing in Project C before further analysis. IRR Analysis: A projects IRR is the discount rate that forces the PV of the inflows to equal the cost. This is equivalent to forcing the NPV to equal zero. The IRR is an estimate of the projects rate of return, and it is comparable to the YTM on a bond3. The rationale behind the IRR is that: a) the IRR on a project is its expected rate of return. b) If the internal rate of return exceeds the cost of capital, the firm will have surplus after paying the debtors which will accrue to the firms stake holders and hence increasing the share holders wealth. IRR is the most cited to investors by the managers while communicating investment decision. The higher the IRR the more profitable is the business. The IRR calculations of the four projects shows that the most Project B has the greatest IRR of 34.996% followed by C, A and D. Project B inters of IRR is the most Viable project among the four. Which project to invest in? Since, the NPV and IRR at different discount rates points out different project to be superior in comparison to the other a further analysis is required to determine the optimum project the firm can undertake. One method is to do a sensitivity analysis that identifies the optimum project at a given cost of capital. However, we are dealing with a dependent project (project C) and the budget of 1.5 million which is much greater than individual project cost we can do an analysis by bringing together two to make a
2 3

Eugin F. Bringham & Joel F. Houston: Fundamental of Financial Management twelfth edition Eugin F. Bringham & Joel F. Houston: Fundamental of Financial Management twelfth edition

investment decision. Sine, A and B are mutually Exclusive project and C dependent on Project A and B we can identify possible projects as a combination of AC, BC, AD and BD. To determine the project that needs to be under taken we will calculate the NPV for the different combinations as NPV is the major decision criteria irrespective of IRR. Project Combination Project AC Project BC Project AD Project BD Initial Outlay 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 NPV@15% 785,381.79 776,891.12 250,946.66 167,876.11 NPV@21% 380,196.93 410,018.26 82,777.01 112,598.34

The NPV for respective projective was found by adding up the NPV of individual projects e.g: NPV project AC = NPV A + NPV C

According to the summary above, at 15 % Project AC has the highest NPV and at 21% Project BC has the highest NPV (still the results are conflicting). Therefore, we conclude that the combination of project selected will depend on the cost of capital or discount rate we assume. Discount Rate: Himalayan printing and publishing company is a family owned specialty printing enterprise and follows all equity capital structure. The discount rate of 15 percent is estimated from the historical practice of internal funding whereas, the discount rate of 21 percent is estimated considering the firms marginal cost of generating extra capital above 1.5 million because of the opportunity cost on outside investment. Taking the above arguments into consideration we believe that the more appropriate discount rate for the project to be 15 percent. To Support our argument we have considered the following: The projects or combination of projects that the firm is planning to undertake accounts up to 1.5 million in investment which means the firm will not have to raise extra funds from other sources limiting the opportunity cost on outside investment. Though the cost of capital (all equity) is calculated based on the historical data and does not considers market or current rate, we ignore this notion since we assume that Himalayan printing company being a private firm will not trade its shares in the financial market therefore limiting the cost of capital to its historical one.

Conclusion Since, we take 15% to be the appropriate discount rate, we conclude that the firm should invest in combination of Project A and C to maximize its return and share holders wealth, since at 15% discount rate the NPV of the give project is the highest.

Analysis 2
Do you find anything wrong in choosing the project based on payback, NPV and IRR as stated above? What suggestions can be made to the company? How should the project with unequal lives be dealt with? Determine equivalent annual annuity (EAA) for each project, and based on the calculations, which project should Himalayan Printing and Publishing Company accept for the coming year and why? The different evaluation criteria NPV, IRR and PBP provide different types of information in making investment decision and should be incorporated in analyzing the different projects. For any specific decision managers must assign weight in analyzing the project but it would be foolish to ignore any information provided by any methods since each method provides analysis in terms of different factors. The PBP for instance analyzes the period within which the project will recover the initial cost, it access the project in terms of risk and liquidity. NPV on the other hand looks at the profitability of the project and identifies by how much the stockholders wealth will be maximized, since the NPV measure aligns with the financial goals NPV is considered the best decision criteria. Still, IRR evaluates the projects in terms of safety margin inherent in the project that NPV does not take into consideration it informs the mangers as to how much the cost of capital can increase until the project will face loss. This information is vital to managers because given the life of a project the change in capital structure and cost can play a vital role in turning a profitable venture to a tragedy.

However, it is not advisable for the managers to fully depend on the above methods to make capital budgeting decision because: The future cost of capital is not predictable The inputs that determine the PBP, NPV and IRR are estimates based on projections and experience, and if the estimate turns to be wrong so will be NPV and IRR.

The mangers in evaluating the project should also consider qualitative factors such as economic and political conditions alongside the quantitative methods in evaluating the project. The project with unequal lives can be dealt by using one of the following two modified approaches a) Replacement Chain: The key to the Replacement chain approach is to analyze both projects using a common life. Here we assume (i) that cash flow of short live project will not change, and (ii) the cost of capital will remain unchanged b) Equivalent Annual Annuity: EAA approach convert the annual cash flows under the alternative investment into a constant cash flow stream whose NPV is equal to, or equivalent to, the NPV of the initial stream.

EAA for project A

= NPV of Project A/ PVIFA(15%,4) =164,319/2.855 =Rs. 57,555

EAA for project B

= NPV of Project B/ PVIFA(15%,4) =155,828/2.855 = Rs. 54,581

EAA for Project C

= NPV of Project C/ PVIFA(15%,10) = 621062/5.0188 =Rs. 123,747

EAA for Project D

= NPV of Project D/ PVIFA(15%,5) = 86627/3.3522 =Rs. 25,841

Himalayan Printing should select Project A and Project C. Because both the project has higher EAA value and also the available Capital Budget is 1.5 million.

Analysis 3:
Draw a graph of NPV versus discount rate for projects A and B (a present value profile) using, in part, your answers for the IRR and NPV in question 1. Determine the crossover rate and discuss which project appears to be superior? Why? Rate 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 NPV A NPV B 526,800.00 344,000.00 379,450.02 271,486.16 260,860.60 209,425.59 164,319.52 155,828.85 84,899.69 109,162.81 18,932.48 68,230.40 (36,349.57) 32,085.71 IRR A = 26.62 IRR B = 34.996 Crossover Rate = 16.18

600,000.00 500,000.00 400,000.00 300,000.00 200,000.00 100,000.00 0 (100,000.00) 5 10 15 20 25 30 NPV A NPV B

Condition r>16.18

Remark Project B is superior because Conflict arises. But NPV of A is greater So, we choose Project A NPV B > NPV of A & IRR of B > IRR of A NPV of B< NPV of A & IRR of B > IRR of A

r<16.18

Conclusion: We can thus conclude that when the discount rate is greater than the crossover rate of 16.18% project B is considered to be superior to A in terms of NPV and IRR making the project B an ideal project to invest. On the other hand, when the discount rate is less than the crossover rate of 16.18% project A is considered to be superior to B in terms of NPV though its IRR is still less than that of B. Here, Project A is considered an ideal project than B to invest in.

Analysis 4
The Case stated that project C would be feasible unless either Project A or B was also accepted. What is the implication of this statement on the current Capital budgeting analysis? Do you think that the way Project C is handled earlier in the case is valid? Why or why not? Via Project C the firm aims to acquire the latest equipment that it currently does not own. It is stated that the equipment requires additional space which the firm currently doesnt have and is only feasible after that additional space is managed by expanding the plant, which is planned through Project A or Project B, therefore making Project A or B a prerequisite for the firm in order to invest in Project C. Should both the projects A and B be rejected the company will not be able to install the equipment in its plant making the investment in Project C a failure. We believe that the way Project C was handled in the case is valid. Firstly, project C though being completely dependent project it doesnt affects its prerequisite projects i.e. even if project C was not feasible, the prerequisite project A or B could be implemented without any obstruction and still yield the expected return. Secondly, the project has its own life, cost and expected cashflows irrespective of its precedents. Third, given the cash outlay of individual project and the available budget, the firm had to evaluate what combination of projects were beneficial to it, had project C been incorporated with either project A or B, finding the optimum mix of project would have been difficult and the firm dependent on ridged investment option.

Analysis 5
Do you think that the quantitative measures alone are important in capital budgeting evaluation? What qualitative factors could also be important in Capital budgeting evaluation? A Companys Capital investment are expenditure made with the expectation that they will result in long term benefits, improved productivity, cost savings and increased revenues. The finance department calculates the Payback period, NPV, IRR for each project. This calculation shows the project benefits in terms of number, the cost of project etc. The pure financial impact is not the only determinant of whether expenditure will be made. Qualitative factors are also taken into the considerations Strategic Factors: A capital expenditure may be made that doesnt fit the companys goal at all. A retailer might purchase a tract of land years in advance of any plans to build a location on the property. They take this step prevent a competitor from acquiring the property, knowing that the traffic in the

area is growing and someday it will be the ideal location for a new store. The immediate payback for the expenditure is not allowing the competitor to secure an advantageous location that could boost its revenues and market share. Employee Morale: Companies sometimes spend money on capital improvement because they want to create a better work environment for their employees. Ordering new office furniture, for example, may not have an immediate, quantifiable payback for the corporation, but it can boost employee morale and result in greater productivity. The quality of the office environment is also important to presenting a positive image to customers and vendors who visit the office. The finance department may not be able to quantify the benefits of these expenditures. Environmental Impact: Companies that are perceived as good stewards of the environment are viewed in a more positive light by both consumers and stockholders. This can have a long-term positive financial impact on the company, though the impact is difficult to quantify. Companies that win awards or receive recognition for environmental stewardship receive valuable positive publicity and increased consumer awareness. These benefits can translate into acquiring new customer and greater loyalty from existing customers. Legal Factors: Possible legal difficulties with respect to the use of patents, copyrights and trade or brand names.

Annex I
Project A: Major Plant Expansion Year CF 0 -500,000 1 136,000 2 136,000 3 136,000 4 618,800 Years Prior to Recovery Unrecovered Cash Flow CF during Full Recovery PBP PVCF@15% CUM PVCF @ 15 21% PVCF@21% -500,000 -500,000 -500,000 0.869565 118,260.87 -381,739.13 0.826446 112,396.69 0.756144 102,835.54 -278,903.59 0.683013 92,889.83 0.657516 89,422.21 -189,481.38 0.564474 76,768.45 0.571753 353,800.91 164,319.52 0.466507 288,674.77 Years Prior to Recovery Years Prior to Recovery 3 3 92,000 Unrecovered Cash Flow 189,480.91 Unrecovered Cash Flow 618,800 CF during Full Recovery 618,800 CF during Full Recovery 3.1 Years Discounted PBP@ 15% 3.5 Years Discounted PBP@ 21 % NPV@ 15% 164,319.52 NPV @ 21% CUM CF -500,000 -364,000 -228,000 -92,000 526,800 15.00% CUM PVCF @ 21 -500,000 -387,603.31 -294,713.48 -217,945.02 70,729.75 3 217945.02 618,800 3.8 Years 70,729.75

Project B: Alternative plan for Plant Expansion Year CF 0 -500,000 1 370,000 2 270,000 3 155,000 4 49,000 Years Prior to Recovery Unrecovered Cash Flow CF during Full Recovery PBP CUM CF -500,000 -130,000 140,000 295,000 344,000 1 130,000 270,000 1.5 Years PV@15% CUM PVCF @ 15 21% PV@21% -500,000 -500,000 -500,000 0.869565 321,739.13 -178,260.87 0.826446 305,785.12 0.756144 204,158.79 25,897.92 0.683013 184,413.63 0.657516 101,915.02 127,812.94 0.564474 87,493.46 0.571753 28,015.91 155,828.85 0.466507 22,858.86 Years Prior to Recovery 1 Years Prior to Recovery Unrecovered Cash Flow 178260.87 Unrecovered Cash Flow CF during Full Recovery 204,158.79 CF during Full Recovery Discounted PBP@ 15% 1.87 Years Discounted PBP@ 21 % NPV@ 15% 155,828.85 NPV @ 21% 15.00% CUM PVCF @ 21 -500,000 -194,215.88 -9,801.24 77,692.22 100,551.08 2 9801.24 87,493 2.1 Years 100,551.08

Project C: Purchase of New Press

Year CF 0 -1,000,000 1 323,000 2 323,000 3 323,000 4 323,000 5 323,000 6 323,000 7 323,000 8 323,000 9 323,000 10 323,000 Original investment Annual Cash Flow PBP

CUM CF 15% PVCF@15% -1,000,000 -1,000,000 -677,000 0.869565 280,869.57 -354,000 0.756144 244,234.40 -31,000 0.657516 212,377.74 292,000 0.571753 184,676.30 615,000 0.497177 160,588.09 938,000 0.432328 139,642.81 1,261,000 0.375937 121,428.66 1,584,000 0.326902 105,589.27 1,907,000 0.284262 91,817.76 2,230,000 0.247185 79,841.66 1,000,000 Years Prior to Recovery 323,000 Unrecovered Cash Flow CF during Full Recovery

3.15 Years Discounted PBP@ 15% NPV@ 15% Project D: Upgrade of Himalayans Video Text Service Year CF 0 -500,000 1 175,000 2 175,000 3 175,000 4 175,000 5 175,000 Original investment Annual Cash Flow PBP CUM CF 15% PVCF@15% -500,000 -500,000 -325,000 0.869565 152,173.91 -150,000 0.756144 132,325.14 25,000 0.657516 115,065.34 200,000 0.571753 100,056.82 375,000 0.497177 87,005.93 500,000 Years Prior to Recovery 175,000 Unrecovered Cash Flow CF during Full Recovery 3Years Discounted PBP@ 15% NPV@ 15%

CUM PVCF @ 15 -1,000,000 -719,130.43 -474,896.03 -262,518.29 -77,841.99 82,746.10 222,387.91 343,815.57 449,404.85 541,221.61 621,062.27 4 77,842 160,588 4.5 Years 621,062.27

PVCF@21% CUM PVCF @ 21 -1,000,000 -1,000,000 0.826446 266,942.15 -733,057.85 0.683013 220,613.35 -512,444.51 0.564474 182,325.08 -330,119.43 0.466507 150,681.88 -179,437.54 0.385543 124,530.48 -54,907.06 0.318631 102,917.75 48,010.69 0.263331 85,056.00 133,066.69 0.217629 70,294.21 203,360.90 0.179859 58,094.39 261,455.29 0.148644 48,011.89 309,467.18 Years Prior to Recovery 5 Unrecovered Cash Flow 54,907.06 CF during Full Recovery 102,917 Discounted PBP@ 21 % 5.5 Years NPV @ 21% 309,467.18

21%

CUM PV @ 15 CF -500,000 -347,826.09 -215,500.95 -100,435.60 -378.79 86,627.14 4 378.79 87,005.93 4 Years 86,627.14

PVCF@21% CUM PVCF @ 21 -500,000 -500,000 0.826446 144,628.10 -355,371.90 0.683013 119,527.35 -235,844.55 0.564474 98,782.94 -137,061.61 0.466507 81,638.79 -55,422.82 0.385543 67,470.08 12,047.26 Years Prior to Recovery 4 Unrecovered Cash Flow 55,422.82 CF during Full Recovery 67,470.08 Discounted PBP@ 21 % 5.8 Years NPV @ 21% 12,047.26

21%

Project A: Major Plant Expansion Year 0 1 2 3 4 CF -500,000 136,000 136,000 136,000 618,800 26% 0.793651 0.629882 0.499906 0.396751 Low Rate NPV IRR = 26.62% PV @ 26% -500,000 107,937 85,664 67,987 245,509 CUM PV @ 26 -500,000 -392,063 -306,400 -238,412 7,097 26% 7,097 27% 0.787402 0.620001 0.488190 0.384402 High Rate NPV PV@27% CUM PV @ 27 -500,000 -500,000 107,086.61 -392,913.39 84,320.17 -308,593.22 66,393.83 -242,199.38 237,867.67 -4,331.71 27% -4,331.71

Project B: Alternative plan for Plant Expansion Year 0 1 2 3 4 Project B -500,000.00 370,000.00 270,000.00 155,000.00 49,000.00 34% PV@34% -500,000.00 276,119.40 150,367.57 64,419.49 15,197.67 CUM PV @ 34 35% PV@35% CUM PV @ 35 -500,000.00 -500,000.00 -500,000.00 -223,880.60 0.7407 274,074.07 -225,925.93 -73,513.03 0.5487 148,148.15 -77,777.78 -9,093.54 0.4064 62,998.53 -14,779.25 6,104.13 0.3011 14,752.34 -26.91 34% High Rate 35% 6,104.13 NPV -26.91

0.7463 0.5569 0.4156 0.3102 Low Rate NPV IRR = 34.9956%

Some Formulas: Constant CF PBP = Original Investment/Annual Cash Flow Irregular CF PBP = Years Prior to Recovery + (Unrecovered Cash Flow/ CF during Full Recovery) NPV = PVCF Initial Outlay IRR = LR
NPVatLR ( HR LR) NPVatLR NPVatHR

Project C: Purchase of New Press Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Project C -1,000,000 323,000 323,000 323,000 323,000 323,000 323,000 323,000 323,000 323,000 323,000 29.00% PV@29% -1,000,000 250,387.60 194,098.91 150,464.27 116,638.97 90,417.81 70,091.32 54,334.36 42,119.66 32,650.90 25,310.77 CUM PV @ 29 30% PV@30% CUM PV @ 30 -1,000,000.00 -1,000,000 -1,000,000 -749,612.40 0.769231 248,461.54 -751,538.46 -555,513.49 0.591716 191,124.26 -560,414.20 -405,049.22 0.455166 147,018.66 -413,395.54 -288,410.25 0.350128 113,091.28 -300,304.26 -197,992.44 0.269329 86,993.29 -213,310.97 -127,901.12 0.207176 66,917.92 -146,393.05 -73,566.76 0.159366 51,475.32 -94,917.73 -31,447.10 0.122589 39,596.40 -55,321.33 1,203.80 0.094300 30,458.77 -24,862.56 26,514.57 0.072538 23,429.82 -1,432.74 29% High Rate 30% 26,514.57 NPV -1,432.74

0.775194 0.600925 0.465834 0.361111 0.279931 0.217001 0.168218 0.130401 0.101086 0.078362 Low Rate NPV IRR = 29.95% Project D: Upgrade of Himalayans Video Text Service Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 Project D -500,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 22% PV@22% -500,000 143,442.62 117,575.92 96,373.71 78,994.84 64,749.87

0.819672 0.671862 0.550707 0.451399 0.369999 Low Rate NPV IRR = 29.95%

CUM PV @ 22 23% PV@23% CUM PV @ 23 -500,000 -500,000 -500,000 -356,557.38 0.813008 142,276.42 -357,723.58 -238,981.46 0.660982 115,671.89 -242,051.69 -142,607.75 0.537384 94,042.19 -148,009.50 -63,612.91 0.436897 76,457.06 -71,552.44 1,136.96 0.355201 62,160.21 -9,392.23 22% High Rate 23% 1136.96 NPV -9392.23