147k views
5 votes
Larry the Cucumber has been offered $14 million to star in the lead role of the next three Larry Boy adventure movies. If Larry takes this offer, he will have to forgo acting in other Veggie movies that would pay him $5 million at the end of each of the next three years. Assume Larry's personal cost of capital is 10% per year.

Explain why the NPV decision rule might provide Larry with a different decision outcome than the IRR rule when evaluating Larry's three movie deal offer.

1 Answer

7 votes

Okay, here are the steps to evaluate this decision using NPV vs IRR for Larry the Cucumber:

NPV (Net Present Value) approach:

* Larry's $14 million offer for the next 3 Larry Boy movies has a present value of $14 / (1.1)^3 = $10.9 million (using 10% discount rate)

* The $5 million per year for 3 years from other movie roles has a present value of $5 * (1 + 0.1)^3 = $15 million

So the NPV of taking the $14 million 3-movie deal is $10.9 million, while passing it up for the $5 million per year roles has an NPV of $15 million. Hence, NPV favors passing up the $14 million offer.

IRR (Internal Rate of Return) approach:

* The $14 million 3-movie deal generates $14 million in total cash flows over 3 years.

* The $5 million per year for 3 years generates $15 million in total cash flows.

To calculate IRR, we set the present value of cash flows equal to the initial investment amount:

$14 million / (1 + IRR)^3 = $10.9 million

IRR = 34.8%

$15 million / (1 + IRR)^3 = $0

IRR = 20%

So the IRR of the $14 million 3-movie deal is 34.8% which is higher than the 20% IRR of the $5 million per year roles.

Hence, IRR favors taking the $14 million 3-movie deal offer.

In summary, NPV recommends passing up the offer while IRR recommends taking the offer, giving different decisions due to judging the offer based on either present value or internal return. Let me know if you need more details!

User Diego Magdaleno
by
7.4k points