Victoria Chemicals plc-Merseyside and Rotterdam Projects Case Study

Victoria Chemicals plc-Merseyside and Rotterdam Projects - Case Study Example James Fawn the vice president of the Intermediate Chemicals Group (ICG) and John Camperdown, the financial analyst met to review the two projects. The proposals submitted by plant managers from both Liverpool and Rotterdam required an expansion of the polypropylene output of the respective plants by 7%. The strategic analysts in Victoria Chemicals held the view that an increase in polypropylene by 14% would not make sense though a 7% would do. This would compel them to approve one of the projects. The rational analytical process to use in extricating the ambiguities of the present measures of investment attractiveness of the two projects will be done through a thorough analysis and evaluation in terms of their net present value, payback, growth in earnings per share and internal rate of return to determine which of them is attractive for investment. After the evaluation, the best project based on its attractiveness will be chosen. 1. The proposal from Merseyside, Liverpool This proje ct would retain its flexibility in order to add technology in the future. The investment criterion for this project is as follows: Average annual addition to EPS GBP 0.22 Payback period 3.8 years Net Present Value GBP 10.5 million Internal rate of return 24% The contribution to net income for the project is a positive one. This is based on the calculation carried out by the average annual earnings per share contribution of the project over the economic life of the project using the number of outstanding shares at the recent financial year. The payback period which is the number of years which are necessary for free cash flow of the project to amortize the initial project outlay completely for the project is within the maximum payback period which is six years. The Net Present Value of the company is positive an indication of a better performing project. The internal rate of return of the project which is 24% is more than 10% and this is an indication of how attractive the project is . A summary of the performance of the Merseyside project is as follows 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Output 267,500 267,500 267,500 267,500 267,500 New Gross Profit 21.72 24.83 24.83 24.83 24.93 Old output 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Free cash flow 1.27 3.92 3.86 3.77 3.08 Incremental gross profit 2.32 5.42 5.42 5.42 5.42 Based on the above analysis, it is quite evident that Merseyside project is quite attractive in terms of its performance and this makes it a good project for investment. The Merseyside project will be of great help to Victoria Chemicals as it would lead to an increase in free cash flow, increase in gross profit and increase in output for the company. The increase in output would see the company operate in full efficiency and to remain competitive in the market. Even though the Merseyside project seems promising in terms of output and return, the plant operations will be disrupted in the course of upgrading the technology in the company which will then affect the total output of the company. The period at which the plant will not be operating will mean that the company will temporarily lose its business from the close of the customers. The temporal close of business and clients may be a cost to pay by the company as it may end up losing the customers due to the inconveniences caused. The table below shows the assumptions made towards the DCF Analysis of the Merseyside Project: Annual output in metric tons 250,000 Output gain 7% Gross margin rate 12.5% The gross margin rate and the output gain are standard and this means that the company (Victoria Chemicals) will not take a long time before it enjoys the full benefits of the investment. This