A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S
e. Draw NPV profiles for Franchises L and S. At what discount rate do the profiles cross?
f. What is the underlying cause of ranking conflicts between NPV and IRR?
The IRR method of capital budgeting maintains that projects should be accepted if their IRR is greater than the cost of capital.
Strict adherence to the IRR method would further dictate that mutually exclusive projects should be chosen on the basis of the
greatest IRR. In this scenario, both franchises have IRRs that exceed the cost of capital (10%) and both should be accepted, if
they are independent. If, however, the franchises are mutually exclusive, we would choose Franchise S. Recall, that this was our
determination using the NPV method as well. The question that naturally arises is whether or not the NPV and IRR methods will
always arrive at the same conclusion.
Previously, we had discussed that in some instances the NPV and IRR methods can give conflicting results. First, we should
attempt to define what we see in this graph. Notice, that the two franchises’ profiles (S and L) intersect the X-axis at costs of
capital of 18.13% and 23.56%, respectively. Not coincidently, those are the IRRs of the franchises. If we think about the
definition of IRR, we remember that the internal rate of return is the cost of capital at which a project will have an NPV of zero.
Looking at our graph, it is a logical conclusion that the project IRR is defined as the point at which its profile intersects the
X-axis.
(4.) Would the franchises’ IRRs change if the cost of capital changed?
(2.) Look at your NPV profile graph without referring to the actual NPVs and IRRs. Which franchise or franchises should be
accepted if they are independent? Mutually exclusive? Explain. Are your answers correct at any cost of capital less than
23.6%?
(3.) What is the logic behind the IRR method? According to IRR, which franchises should be accepted if they are
independent?
40
50
60
NPV ($)
NPV Profile of Franchises S and L