Soren Chemicals was founded by Timothy Soren in 1942 to sell industrial strength cleaning solutions. The initial focus of the company was on business to business sales with very little empha…Descripción completa
Chemicals & Their FunctionsFull description
Chemicals with SAP S4HANA
EPPM3644 CORPORATE FINANCE AND RESTRUCTURING
SEMESTER 1 ACADEMIC SESSION 2013/2014
CASE STUDY REPORT: Victoria Chemicals Plc (B): The Merseyside and Rotterdam Projects
WOO SI KUAN
BOO KIANG MING
CHAN KOR YAN
ONG YI LING
SOO CHEE CHUAN
1. Case Overview
Victoria Chemicals is a leading producer of polypropylene, a polymer used in a wide variety of products. Its executive vice president James Fawn was presented with two projects to improve polypropylene output for Victoria Chemicals: one for its Merseyside plant, the other for the plant in Rotterdam. Each project had the potential for increasing production by 7%. 7%. Since a combined increase of 14% was unwarranted, James could only support one of the proposed projects. Victoria Chemicals used four criteria in the evaluation of project proposals: net present value, internal rate of return, payback period, and growth in earnings per share. Regarding the approach of the two managers in proposing their projects, Eustace (Rotterdam)’s (Rotterdam)’s approach was fairly aggressive compared to Morris’ (Merseyside). (Merseyside). First, Eustace’s project proposal proposal focuses on estimating the future value of land rights, far outside the scope of the firm’s core business. Second, she argues argues as if there were no other option but to move ahead with the new technology, and goes as far as to insult the Merseyside proposal. Morris, however, is more restrained in her proposition, not disregarding the new technology out of hand. Rather, she insists insi sts that the company “wait and see” if the technology would prove itself over the coming years. It appears that Morris’ more reserved attitude likely garnered more support support for her proposal. Eustace provides a much more thorough report, however, leading some group members to argue that her project would be more attractive, as there is more supporting data and scenario analysis, resulting in fewer ambiguities. However, other members counter that Morris says in three pages what Eustace does in ninety, arguing that simply having an overwhelming amount of data does not make the Rotterdam project more attractive.
2. Symptoms and Problems Symptom 1 They have two mutually exclusive capital-expenditure projects to be reviewed by the firm. The first project is to enhancing the existing facilities and the production process of Merseyside plant. The second project is purchase pipeline and extended it to Rotterdam plant. Although this two projects can increase the output of polypropylene but they can choose only one project to be implement. Problem Which project should Victoria Chemicals choose?
Symptom 2 Victoria Chemical used four criteria to evaluate the two projects. The four criteria is net present value (NPV) computed at the appropriate cost of capital, internal rate of return (IRR), payback period and growth in earning per share. After they did the analysis, all four of the criteria that used to evaluate both project showed different preferences on each projects. Problem Which of the criteria should be viewed as the most important and useful in choosing the project?
1. To enhancing the existing facilities and the production process of Merseyside plant or purchase pipeline and extended it to Rotterdam plant.
Which project should Victoria Chemicals choose?
2. All four of the criteria that used to evaluate both project showed different preferences on each projects: - net present value (NPV) computed at the appropriate cost of capital - internal rate of return (IRR) - payback period - growth in earning per share
Which of the criteria should be viewed as the most important and useful in choosing the project?
3. Data Analysis
The Merseyside project showed an NPV of £10.45m compared to Rotterdam’s £15.48m. The IRRs were 24% 24% and 18% for for Merseyside and Rotterdam, respectively. Merseyside would take 3.78 years to pay back the initial investment, and Rotterdam would take 7.95 years. years. Growth in earnings per share was £0.022 £0.022 for Merseyside and £0.048 for Rotterdam. Rotterdam. The differences differences in rankings were due to a substantial difference in the respective projects’ projects’ initial outlays outlays and expected cash flows. The Merseyside project had a higher IRR and a much lower payback payback period. Rotterdam had a higher NPV by almost half a million pounds, and a larger growth in EPS. 4. Solutions
There is a conflict existing between these two mutually exclusive projects. Therefore, we will choose the best project based on the best criterion, which is NPV because NPV assumes reinvestment at the cost of capital and that is generally the best assumption. Hence, the Rotterdam project should be chosen.
5. Alternative Solutions
We believe the discount rate should be adjusted. We used the 7% discount rate which was deemed more accurate. We also accounted for a 3% inflation premium.
6. Implementation of Alternatives Alternatives
The expected Net Present value of the Rotterdam project using the revised discount rate and premium is GBP 27.79million. NPV gives explicit consideration to the time value of money and is a good method to evaluate the project because it assesses all the cost involved. When the NPV of the project is greater than zero, then the firm can believe that this is an acceptable project. This new NPV shows that the project is a great investment. If they t hey were w ere to account for full erosion of Rotterdam’s business volume, there would still be a positive NPV for Merseyside and above the hurdle rate. The new IRR is 10.5% and this holds the project at an 3.5% higher rate than minimally expected for a project. This IRR represents the project i n a positive light.
James Fawn did have an extremely difficult decision to make. Although the Merseyside project passed all four criteria for further consideration, it was NPV
which ultimately prevailed as the superior criterion. Therefore, Fawn should select the Eustace proposal.