This paper analyzes capital budgeting decisions for Caledonia's investment project, demonstrating how net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and payback period methods guide project selection. The paper first evaluates Caledonia's primary project, which yields an NPV of $27.6 million, justifying its acceptance. It then examines the lease versus buy decision, identifying the relevant differential cash flows for each option. Finally, it resolves a ranking conflict between two mutually exclusive projects — Project A and Project B — explaining why NPV should take precedence over IRR when the two criteria disagree, and concluding that Project B is the superior choice despite its lower IRR.
The paper demonstrates comparative capital budgeting analysis — evaluating multiple decision criteria (NPV, IRR, simple payback, and discounted payback) side by side and then explaining methodically why one criterion should dominate when they conflict. This technique is especially clear in the treatment of Project A versus Project B, where the author traces the ranking conflict back to the timing of cash flows and the reinvestment-rate assumption embedded in IRR.
The paper opens with Caledonia's primary project evaluation and NPV rationale, moves to the lease-versus-buy framework, and then shifts to a comparative analysis of two alternative projects. Each section builds on the NPV concept introduced at the outset. Appendices A and B are referenced throughout and presented at the end, providing the full numerical scaffolding for every conclusion drawn in the body.
Caledonia's project has a net present value of $27.6 million (Appendix A), so the company should accept the project. Net present value (NPV) is the most useful means by which a capital budgeting project should be evaluated. The cash flows associated with the project are weighed against the company's cost of capital. If the discounted cash flows are positive, this implies that the project will deliver a positive return to investors, even after the cost of capital is taken into consideration. Thus, any project with a positive net present value can be accepted on that basis, assuming that other strategic considerations are also met.
In considering the lease vs. buy decision, Caledonia needs to calculate the net present value of each option. There are different cash flows associated with each, so attention must be paid to including all relevant cash flows. For example, any salvage value would be calculated for the buy decision but not for the lease decision. The cost of the lease would be included as an operating cost, whereas a purchase would be treated as a capital cost. Consequently, the capital cost will generate some depreciation tax benefits that must be included in the analysis.
Beyond the financial considerations, the company needs to take strategic factors into account, including the differential risk between the two options. There may also be differences in the usage of other resources depending on whether the equipment is leased or bought. All differential cash flows between the two options should be included in the NPV calculations.
The simple payback period for Project A falls in the fifth year, and the same is true for Project B. The discounted payback for each project also falls in the fifth year, though Project A reaches its discounted payback point later in that year than its simple payback point does.
The net present value of Project A is $18,269. The net present value of Project B is $18,690. The internal rate of return (IRR) for Project A is 18%, and the IRR for Project B is 15% (see Appendix B).
You’re 46% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.