This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Finance (Rated Start-Class, Mid-importance) FinanceWikipedia:WikiProject FinanceTemplate:WikiProject FinanceFinance articles Business and economics portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Business (Rated Start-Class, Mid-priority) BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Business and economics portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

[edit] Discussion

I have a problem with Net Present Cost

The higher the discount rate the lower the cost

How can I reconcile this with the higher risk (Discount)leading to the lower NPC?

This rule forces the choice of the most risky project

Is this simply the maths being correct but the business decision being wrong?

Farquemoi (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Capital Budgeting

While describing IRR you say "Nevertheless, for mutually exclusive projects, the decision rule of taking the project with the highest IRR - which is often used - may select a project with a lower NPV". I dont understand how is this possible .Can you give some example?

'example with mutually exclusive projects, k=8%

time 0 1 2 3 4 5

CFA -2000 300 300 300 300 2300

CFB -1000 200 200 200 200 1200

NPV A = $558.98, IRR = 25%

NPV B = -1000 + 200{P/A 8%,5} + 1000{P/F 8%,5}

= $479.13 < $558.98. ==> accept project A but IRR B = 20% > 15% !

Why the difference in the 2 methods? Mainly the effect of the size of investment here. It can be better to invest 2000 at 15% than 1000 at 20%. What do you do with the extra 1000? That's the key hidden assumption of the 2 methods. If you invest it at 8% (implied by NPV's assumptions) then A is better. But if you invest it at 20% (implied by IRR's assumptions) then B is better. Most people think that an 8% re-investment rate is more realistic.

Smallbones 15:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this should cover the payback method as well. The payback method may seem trivial, but for small projects, particularly IT projects, where the system developed may become obsolete within four years, it may be the most appropriate method.