- November 12, 2015 at 5:53 pm #282026
I have doubt in June 2014 question 1 (b)
My PI’s does not match with the examiner’s answers.
why did he divide PV of future cash flows/Investment…Shouldn’t it be NPV/Investment?November 13, 2015 at 8:19 am #282097
Both ways are valid for the marks, and both ways end up giving the same ranking.November 17, 2015 at 6:16 am #283204
Project A: 1,000,000/2,500,000=0.40 rank 3
B: 1,550,000/2,200,000=0.70 (rank D has higher PI so this is ignored as its mutually exclusive)
C: 1,350,000/2,600,000=0.52 rank 2
D: 1,500,000/1,900,000=0.79 rank 1
E: 0/5,000,000= 0 rank 4
Funds 10,000,000. NPV
D (1,900,000) 1,500,000
A (2,500,000). 1,000,000
E 60% of 3,000,000. 0
Max NPV 3,850,000
Can you tell me where have I gone wrongNovember 17, 2015 at 8:15 am #283238
The question says that E is strategically important and must be undertaken.
Therefore you should take all of E and then consider how the remaining capital should be invested.
(Incidentally you can find lectures working through the whole of this exam if you go to the “Revision Kit Live” link from the main F9 page on this website.)November 17, 2015 at 3:23 pm #283405
Hello Sir I can’t find this question on the revision kit live.November 18, 2015 at 7:26 am #283454
Oops – you are correct. I was mistaken.
However, I have answered your original query.February 2, 2017 at 5:28 pm #370809jaymzfaganMember
- Topics: 1
- Replies: 6
Regarding June 2014 Q1 (b). Sorry if I’m doing this wrong by replying to an older post, but I am confused as to why the examiner has aggregated the costs of the initial investments and their NPVs and described the resulting amount as “PV of future cash flows” before calculating the profitability index. It seems to me that the initial investment is not a future cash flow, and certainly not an inward cash flow. I appreciate your point above that the same rankings will result from just dividing the NPVs by the initial investments, but conceptually this has me flummoxed.
I would be grateful if you could throw a bit of light on the examiner’s reasoning here.
Thanks and my compliments to you and your website, both outstanding 🙂
JamesFebruary 3, 2017 at 8:17 am #370871
Here is a simple example:
If the NPV is 100, then this is the PV of the future flows less the initial investment.
If the initial investment is 200, then it means that the PV of the future flows is 300. (300 – 200 = 100)
For the profitability index the examiner is not consistent – you either take the NPV per $ invested or the PV per $ invested. The ranking will be the same and this is all the matters for the exam.February 5, 2017 at 11:21 am #371153jaymzfaganMember
- Topics: 1
- Replies: 6
Thank you, John. I suppose I should have guessed at that myself, since it is so obvious once explained!! Sometimes you just have to take a breath and think about it logically, although that’s not always so easy when time pressure is on before an exam 🙂February 5, 2017 at 4:43 pm #371201
You are welcome 🙂
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.