Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Galaxy Systems, Inc. Case 17
Divisional Cost of Capital
Purpose: The case combines risk analysis with discount rate considerations. To emphasize how many
multidivisional corporations operate, the case actually gets into the topic of divisional hurdle rates. The
student is able to see how different divisions in a corporation might have different required rates of return
based on their risk exposure. In this particular case, a key risk measure for the consideration is beta. The
student does not have to actually compute betas, only observe how they might be used. A simple
definition of beta is also included in the case. Calculations related to net present value and internal rate of
return are purposely simple to emphasize more conceptual items. Actually the IRRs can be found as exact
values from Appendix D after only one calculation.
There also is additional emphasis on how financial decisions are made in a corporate culture.
Relation to Text: The case should follow Chapter 13. It also draws on material from many of the capital
budgeting chapters.
Complexity: The overall case is moderately complex and should require 1 hour.
Solutions
1. Proposal A
a)
Investment (PV )
IRR Annuity ( )
$2,355,600 5.889 n 10
$400,000
IRR 11%
A
A
=
= = =
=
Appendix D
b) NPV (10% discount rate for the auto airbags production division)
Cost $2,355,600
Copyright © 2017 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior
Proposal B
a)
$2,441,700
IRR 5.426 10
$450,000
IRR 13%
n= = =
=
Appendix D
b) NPV (15% discount rate for the aerospace division)
Cost $2,441,700
Proposal C
a)
$145,680
IRR 9.712 15
$ 15,000
IRR 6%
n= = =
=
Appendix D
b) NPV (10% discount rate for the auto airbags production division)
Cost $145,680
A = $15,000, n = 15, i = 10%
Present value of inflows = $15,000 x 7.606 = $114,090
Present value of inflows........................................................................................................$ 114,090
Cost........................................................................................................................................–145,680
Net present value...................................................................................................................($ 31,590)
Proposal D
a)
$1,262,100
IRR 4.207 8
$300,000
IRR 17%
n= = =
=
Appendix D
b) NPV (15% discount rate for the aerospace division)
Copyright © 2017 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior
written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
2. Proposal A should be accepted
Proposal C should be rejected
Proposal D should be accepted
3. While the decisions related to Proposals A and B appear to be straightforward, Proposals C and D
require further discussion.
Proposal C has a negative net present value and the internal rate of return of 6% is well below the
required rate of return of 10%. Nevertheless, it calls for the development of special equipment to be
used in the disposal of environmentally harmful waste material created in the manufacturing process.
Proposal D has a positive net present value and the internal rate of return of 17 percent is well above
the required rate of return of 15 percent for the division. However, the proposal appears to have even
greater risk than projects normally undertaken in the aerospace division. While the high required rate
of return for this division is supposed to cover the risk exposure of dealing in federal government
4. The $300,000 that has already been spent on the initial research for Proposal B (radar surveillance
equipment) is a sunk cost. The money has already been spent and should have no influence on
subsequent decisions. Sometimes in the real world, egos get in the way of corporate decisions, and
Copyright © 2017 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior
written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
Of course, even if we considered the $300,000 that had already been spent, it would raise the total
cost of the project and make it even less economical.
Further Overall Comments
Companies that use divisional required rates of return often do have difficulties in finding betas for firms
that produce products comparable to a division. That is, finding a “pure play” comparison is difficult.
Therefore, using the average beta for an entire industry may be the next best alternative. For example, if a
division produces machine tools, its beta may be inferred from the entire machine tool industry rather
than from a given firm in the industry.
This case also demonstrates the “politics” involved in the capital budgeting process by managers in their
respective divisions desiring to attract capital to their budgets and maximize their individual performance.
Copyright © 2017 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior
written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
