Background Victoria Chemicals‚ a major player in the global chemical industry that supplies polypropylene‚ polymer that used to manufacture carpet fibers‚ packaging‚ automobile parts to the customers in Europe and the Middle East. Apart from numerous small producers‚ the company also receives the threats from the other seven major competitors. The company owns two plants in Europe‚ one being Merseyside Works‚ England and Rotterdam Facility‚ Holland. Both plants were built in 1967 and are identical
Premium Cost Chemical industry Proposals
VICTORIA CHEMICALS PLC THE MERSEYSIDE AND ROTTERDAM PPROJECTS I would choose Merseyside project rather than Rotterdam’s not only for its superior prospect based on the quantitative criteria‚ but also for a more rational strategy consideration. For the four investment criteria‚ here’s the elaboration. NPV. Since the two plants are of identical scale‚ age‚ design and similar project size‚ it makes sense to use NPV to compare the two projects. Not taken into account the erosion at Merseyside‚
Premium Net present value Finance Project
Group Paper Analysis‚ Team 4 4/22/2010 Victoria Chemicals (B) Group Case Study Introduction Victoria Chemicals’ Intermediate Chemicals Group (ICG) is evaluating two mutually exclusive proposals on their capital expenditures. The Liverpool and Rotterdam plants have compiled separate proposals. Each proposal had the potential to increase the polypropylene output by 7 percent for their plant respectively. Victoria Chemicals could not view a 14 percent increase companywide being feasible‚
Premium Net present value
Victoria Chemicals: The Merseyside Project Executive Summary Victoria Chemicals is facing pressures from investors to improve its financial performances. The plant manager is currently considering whether to accept a GBP 12million initial outlay project to renovate its polypropylene production line at Merseyside plant. The benefit of the plant is the lower energy requirement of production and a greater manufacturing capacity. This report consist a recommendation for the plant manager which consists
Premium Net present value Discounted cash flow Cash flow
Case #22 Victoria Chemicals Synopsis and Objectives go/no-go decision 1. The identification of relevant cash flows; in particular‚ the treatment of: a. sunk costs b. cash flows obtained by cannibalizing another activity within the firm c. exploitation of excess transportation capacity d. corporate overhead allocations e. cash flows of unrelated projects f. inflation. 2. The critical assessment of a capital-investment evaluation system
Premium Net present value Discounted cash flow
CASE 1 - A CASE STUDY OF VICTORIA CHEMICALS Corporate Finance (FEG304) Table of Contents 1.0) Introduction This report contains two case studies in the discourse of Corporate Finance‚ more specifically capital investment strategy. The cases are applied on the fictional company Victoria Chemicals and are divided into (A): “The Merseyside Project and Victoria Chemicals” and (B): “The Merseyside and Rotterdam project”. The cases are picked from the book “Case Studies
Premium Net present value
Study Week 3 - Victoria Chemicals PLC 1. What changes‚ if any‚ should the plant manager (Morris) ask the financial controller (Greystock) to make to his analysis? Morris should ask the Financial Controller to the make the following changes to his analysis: • Include the cost of the rolling stock. These would become an essential asset of the Merseyside Works. The investment to occur in 2010 and then depreciated over the following 10 years. These would become an asset of the Merseyside works. •
Premium Net present value Internal rate of return Rate of return
hese two cases to consider the investment decisions of managers of large chemical companies are made in January 2001. The A ‘case‚ a go / no-go project evaluation regarding improvements to a polypropylene production plant. The B ‘case‚ checked the same project‚ but from a higher level‚ where the executive is an either / or investment decision between two mutually exclusive projects. The goal of the two cases is to expose students to a broad range of capital budgeting … Read more » These two cases
Premium Net present value Internal rate of return
I am pleased to share my concerns‚ analysis and recommendation about the Merseyside Project with you. Your DCF analysis is excellent and helpful. However‚ I have to make some changes to it. The memo will be divided into 6 parts. Suggestions for Merseyside project: P1 What should change in the DCF analysis and why: P1-P3 Other important issues: P3-P4 Evaluation of each investment Criteria: P4-P5 Ultimate recommendation and forward looking: P5-P6 Revised DCF analysis: Appendix
Premium Net present value Inflation Monetary policy
Case 22: Victoria Chemicals The Merseyside Project Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Problem Statement 3 Key Decision Criteria 4-5 Data Analysis 5-6 Alternatives Analysis 6-7 Recommendations 8 Action and Implementation Plan 8-9 Exhibits 10 References 11 Executive Summary Victoria Chemicals is a major competitor in the worldwide chemicals industry. They are a leading producer of polypropylene‚ which is a polymer used in products such as: medical products and carpet fibers.
Premium Cost Net present value Costs