Magni, Carlo Alberto and Marchioni, Andrea (2018): Project appraisal and the Intrinsic Rate of Return. Published in: 4th International Conference on Production Economics and Project Evaluation, Guimaraes, Portugal
PDF
MPRA_paper_95262.pdf Download (1MB) |
Abstract
Building upon Magni (2011)’s approach, we propose a new rate of return measuring a project’s economic profitability. It is called the intrinsic rate of return (IROR). It is defined as the ratio of project return to project’s intrinsic value. The IROR approach decomposes the NPV into project scale and economic efficiency. In particular, NPV is found as the product of the project’s total invested capital and the excess rate of return, obtained as the difference between the IROR and the minimum attractive rate of return (MARR). This approach provides correct project ranking and is capable of managing time-varying costs of capital. In case of levered projects, shareholder value creation is captured by the equity IROR, which we call Intrinsic Return On Equity (IROE) (net income divided by total equity capital invested). If the project is unlevered, the IROE and the IROR lead to the same decision; if the project is levered, and the nominal value of debt is not equal to the market value of debt, the IROE should be preferred to project IROR.
Item Type: | MPRA Paper |
---|---|
Original Title: | Project appraisal and the Intrinsic Rate of Return |
Language: | English |
Keywords: | Investment evaluation, value creation, NPV-consistent decision-making, rate of return, intrinsic. |
Subjects: | C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C0 - General > C02 - Mathematical Methods C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C6 - Mathematical Methods ; Programming Models ; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling > C60 - General G - Financial Economics > G3 - Corporate Finance and Governance > G31 - Capital Budgeting ; Fixed Investment and Inventory Studies ; Capacity |
Item ID: | 95262 |
Depositing User: | Andrea Marchioni |
Date Deposited: | 25 Jul 2019 07:10 |
Last Modified: | 28 Sep 2019 05:01 |
References: | Ben-Horin M, Kroll Y 2017. A simple intuitive NPV-IRR consistent ranking. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 66 (November) 108-114. Graham JR, Harvey CR 2001. The theory and practice of corporate finance: Evidence from the field. Journal of Financial Economics 60 (2-3) (May), 187–243. Hartman JC, Schafrick IC 2004. The relevant internal rate of return. The Engineering Economist, 49, 139–158. Hazen GB 2003. A new perspective on multiple internal rates of return. The Engineering Economist, 48(1), 31– 51. Lima e Silva, JL, Sobreiro VA & Kimura H 2017. Prepurchase Financing Pool: Revealing the IRR Problem. The Engineering Economist, https://doi.org/10.1080/0013791X.2017.1333662, 1-14. Magni CA 2010. Average Internal Rate of Return and investment decisions: A new perspective. The Engineering Economist, 55(2), 150‒181. Magni CA 2011. Aggregate Return On Investment and investment decisions: a cash-flow perspective. The Engineering Economist, 56(2), 181–182. Magni CA 2013. The Internal-Rate-of-Return approach and the AIRR paradigm: A refutation and a corroboration. The Engineering Economist, 58(2), 73‒111. Magni CA 2016. Capital depreciation and the underdetermination of rate of return: A unifying perspective. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 67 (December), 54-79. Marchioni A, Magni CA 2018. Investment decisions and sensitivity analysis: NPV-consistency of rates of return, European Journal of Operational Research. 268, 361-372. Magni CA, Veronese P, Graziani R 2018. Chisini means and rational decision-making: Equivalence of investment criteria. Mathematics and Financial Economics, 12 193-217. Remer, DS, Nieto AP 1995a. A compendium and comparison of 25 project evaluation techniques. Part1: Net present value and rate of return methods, International Journal of Production Economics, 42, 79–96. Remer DS, Nieto AP 1995b. A compendium and comparison of 25 project evaluation techniques. Part2: Ratio, payback, and accounting methods, International Journal of Production Economics 42, 101–129. Sandahl G, Sjögren S. 2003. Capital budgeting methods among Sweden’s largest groups of companies. The state of the art and a comparison with earlier studies. International Journal of Production Economics. 84, 51– 69. |
URI: | https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/95262 |