• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition

Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition

Free Notes, Lectures, Tests and Forums for ACCA and CIMA exams

  • ACCA
  • CIMA
  • FIA
  • OBU
  • Books
  • Forums
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login
  • ACCA Forums
  • Ask ACCA Tutor
  • CIMA Forums
  • Ask CIMA Tutor
  • FIA
  • OBU
  • Buy/Sell Books
  • All Forums
  • Latest Topics

Congratulations to Jamil from Pakistan and Jeeva from Malaysia - Global Prize winners!
see all ACCA December 2022 Genius Hunt Competition winners >>

Specially for OpenTuition students: 20% off BPP Books for ACCA & CIMA exams – Get your BPP Discount Code >>

BSOP Wit and Pratney/MMC

Forums › Ask ACCA Tutor Forums › Ask the Tutor ACCA AFM Exams › BSOP Wit and Pratney/MMC

  • This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by John Moffat.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • October 23, 2015 at 2:04 am #278487
    mishk
    Member
    • Topics: 8
    • Replies: 6
    • ☆

    Hello John,

    I find confusing the different approaches used in the exercises Wit and Pratney and MMC (Revision Kit) to determine whether a company should proceed with the project using BSOP model. Both exercises require to estimate value of call option.

    In Wit and Pratney the PV of development cost $664.4m is deducted from the value of development call option $1,145.6 to estimate the value of development opportunity. This makes sense to me.

    But in MMC the NPV ($2.98m) of the project (icl.development and production stage) is deducted from the value of option to delay to determine the acceptance of the project… I am confused… This doesn’t make sense to me so far…

    I guess, the value of option to delay $9.529m should be compared to the project’s NPV ($2.98m), rather than reduced by this amount.
    In addition to that, it looks that the development costs ($7m+$6.31m=$13.31m) are ignored estimating the entire opportunity to delay the project. In other words, the value of option to delay needs to be reduced by the development cost and compared to the NPV of project without option to delay:
    NPV of project with option to delay: $9.529m – $13.31m=($3.781m)
    NPV of project without option: ($2.98m)
    both results are negative, so the project should not be accepted.

    … not sure I’m correct…
    Could you please comment on this.

    One more thing I need your help with –
    Wit and Pratney:
    12 year annuity is used to discount the production cash flow.
    Why not 15 years? The project is for 15 years including development phase, the production commences in 3 years for 12 years, so annuity years 15-4 can be relevant to discount the production cash flow.

    Thank you!

    October 23, 2015 at 7:46 am #278506
    John Moffat
    Keymaster
    • Topics: 57
    • Replies: 51551
    • ☆☆☆☆☆

    In MMC, the option is only to delay the decision about production and marketing. So whatever happens they will still be paying the development costs. It is simply that at the end of the two years they will then be able to choose whether or not to continue and pay the other costs.

    We don’t compare the two NPV’s. If they do not have the option, then the NPV is $(2.98M).
    The option itself is worth something ($9.529M) and therefore with the option, the value of the project is higher at 9.529 – 2.98

    October 23, 2015 at 7:52 am #278507
    John Moffat
    Keymaster
    • Topics: 57
    • Replies: 51551
    • ☆☆☆☆☆

    With regard to your annuity question.

    I do not have the Wit and Partner question (it is not in the current edition of the BPP Revision Kit).

    However if the first flow is in 4 years time, and there are 12 flows, then it is 4 to 15.
    There are two ways of arriving at the same answer.

    You can either use the 12 year annuity factor (because there are 12 years of flows) and then multiply by the ordinary 3 year factor (because the annuity starts 3 years late (at time 4 instead of time1).

    Or alternatively, you can take the 15 year annuity factor and subtract the 3 year annuity factor – this will leave a total factor for 4 to 15.

    Both ways give the same result (actually they are slightly different because the tables are rounded to 3 decimal places, but that is irrelevant – especially since usually we take the flows to the nearest thousand $’s anyway 🙂 )

    October 27, 2015 at 12:28 am #279142
    mishk
    Member
    • Topics: 8
    • Replies: 6
    • ☆

    Thank you!

    October 27, 2015 at 9:02 am #279207
    John Moffat
    Keymaster
    • Topics: 57
    • Replies: 51551
    • ☆☆☆☆☆

    You are welcome 🙂

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Log In

Primary Sidebar

ACCA News:

 

ACCA My Exam Performance for non-variant Applied Skills exams is available NOW

NEW! Download the ACCA Pass Guide

FREE Verifiable CPD for ACCA Members

ACCA mock exams and debrief videos

ACCA Options:  “Read the Mind of the Marker” articles

Subscribe to ACCA’s Student Accountant Direct

Donate

If you have benefited from OpenTuition please donate.

ACCA CBE 2023 Exams

Instant Poll * How was your exam, and what was the result?

BT CBE exam was.. | MA CBE exam was..
FA CBE exam was.. | LW CBE exam was..

Specially for OpenTuition students

20% off BPP Books

Get BPP Discount Code

Latest comments

  • cBarsoum on The Stages of an Audit – Appointment – ACCA Audit and Assurance (AA)
  • John Moffat on Revaluation Reserve – ACCA Financial Accounting (FA) lectures
  • John Moffat on Revaluation Reserve – ACCA Financial Accounting (FA) lectures
  • CHICCO.J on ACCA AB Chapter 1 – The nature and structure of organisations – Questions
  • Joanne94 on Irrecoverable Debts and Allowances Example 3 – ACCA Financial Accounting (FA) lectures

Copyright © 2023 · Support · Contact · Advertising · OpenLicense · About · Sitemap · Comments · Log in


We use cookies to show you relevant advertising, find out more: Privacy Policy · Cookie Policy