Aswath

Damodaran 276

MEASURING INVESTMENT RETURNS

II. INVESTMENT INTERACTIONS,
OPTIONS AND REMORSE
Life is too short for regrets, right?
 Independent investments are the excepGon
277

In all of the examples we have used so far, the

investments that we have analyzed have stood alone.
Thus, our job was a simple one. Assess the expected
cash ows on the investment and discount them at the
right discount rate.
In the real world, most investments are not
independent. Taking an investment can oQen mean
rejecGng another investment at one extreme (mutually
exclusive) to being locked in to take an investment in the
future (pre-requisite).
More generally, accepGng an investment can create side
costs for a rms exisGng investments in some cases and
benets for others.
Aswath Damodaran
277

 I. Mutually Exclusive Investments
278

We have looked at how best to assess a stand-alone

investment and concluded that a good investment will have
posiGve NPV and generate accounGng returns (ROC and ROE)
and IRR that exceed your costs (capital and equity).
In some cases, though, rms may have to choose between
investments because
They are mutually exclusive: Taking one investment makes the other
one redundant because they both serve the same purpose
The rm has limited capital and cannot take every good investment
(i.e., investments with posiGve NPV or high IRR).
Using the two standard discounted cash ow measures, NPV
and IRR, can yield dierent choices when choosing between
investments.
Aswath Damodaran
278

 Comparing Projects with the same (or similar)
lives..
279

When comparing and choosing between investments

with the same lives, we can
Compute the accounGng returns (ROC, ROE) of the investments
and pick the one with the higher returns
Compute the NPV of the investments and pick the one with the
higher NPV
Compute the IRR of the investments and pick the one with the
higher IRR
While it is easy to see why accounGng return measures
can give dierent rankings (and choices) than the
discounted cash ow approaches, you would expect NPV
and IRR to yield consistent results since they are both
Gme-weighted, incremental cash ow return measures.

Aswath Damodaran
279

 Case 1: IRR versus NPV
280

Consider two projects with the following cash ows:

Year Project 1 CF Project 2 CF

0 -1000 -1000
1 800 200
2 1000 300
3 1300 400
4 -2200 500

Aswath Damodaran
280

 Projects NPV Prole
281

Aswath Damodaran
281

 What do we do now?
282

Project 1 has two internal rates of return. The rst is

6.60%, whereas the second is 36.55%. Project 2 has one
internal rate of return, about 12.8%.
Why are there two internal rates of return on project 1?

If your cost of capital is 12%, which investment would

you accept?
a. Project 1
b. Project 2
Explain.
Aswath Damodaran
282

 Case 2: NPV versus IRR
283

Project A

Cash Flow
$ 350,000
$ 450,000
$ 600,000
$ 750,000

Investment
$ 1,000,000

NPV = $467,937

IRR= 33.66%

Project B

Cash Flow
$ 3,000,000
$ 3,500,000
$ 4,500,000
$ 5,500,000

Investment
$ 10,000,000

NPV = $1,358,664

IRR=20.88%

Aswath Damodaran
283

 Which one would you pick?
284

Assume that you can pick only one of these two projects.
Your choice will clearly vary depending upon whether
you look at NPV or IRR. You have enough money
currently on hand to take either. Which one would you
pick?
a. Project A. It gives me the bigger bang for the buck and more
margin for error.
b. Project B. It creates more dollar value in my business.
If you pick A, what would your biggest concern be?

If you pick B, what would your biggest concern be?

Aswath Damodaran
284

 Capital RaGoning, Uncertainty and Choosing a
Rule
285

If a business has limited access to capital, has a stream

of surplus value projects and faces more uncertainty in
its project cash ows, it is much more likely to use IRR as
its decision rule.
Small, high-growth companies and private businesses are much
more likely to use IRR.
If a business has substanGal funds on hand, access to
capital, limited surplus value projects, and more
certainty on its project cash ows, it is much more likely
to use NPV as its decision rule.
As rms go public and grow, they are much more likely
to gain from using NPV.

Aswath Damodaran
285

 The sources of capital raGoning
286

Cause Number of firms Percent of total

Debt limit imposed by outside agreement 10 10.7
Debt limit placed by management external 3 3.2
to firm
Limit placed on borrowing by internal 65 69.1
management
Restrictive policy imposed on retained 2 2.1
earnings
Maintenance of target EPS or PE ratio 14 14.9

Aswath Damodaran
286

 An AlternaGve to IRR with Capital RaGoning
287

The problem with the NPV rule, when there is capital

raGoning, is that it is a dollar value. It measures success
in absolute terms.
The NPV can be converted into a relaGve measure by
dividing by the iniGal investment. This is called the
protability index.
Protability Index (PI) = NPV/IniGal Investment
In the example described, the PI of the two projects
would have been:
PI of Project A = $467,937/1,000,000 = 46.79%
PI of Project B = $1,358,664/10,000,000 = 13.59%
Project A would have scored higher.

Aswath Damodaran
287

 Case 3: NPV versus IRR
288

Project A

Cash Flow
$ 5,000,000
$ 4,000,000
$ 3,200,000
$ 3,000,000

Investment
$ 10,000,000

NPV = $1,191,712

IRR=21.41%

Project B

Cash Flow
$ 3,000,000
$ 3,500,000
$ 4,500,000
$ 5,500,000

Investment
$ 10,000,000

NPV = $1,358,664

IRR=20.88%

Aswath Damodaran
288

 Why the dierence?
289

These projects are of the same scale. Both the NPV

and IRR use Gme-weighted cash ows. Yet, the
rankings are dierent. Why?

Which one would you pick?

a. Project A. It gives me the bigger bang for the buck and
more margin for error.
b. Project B. It creates more dollar value in my business.

Aswath Damodaran
289

 NPV, IRR and the Reinvestment Rate
AssumpGon
290

The NPV rule assumes that intermediate cash ows on

the project get reinvested at the hurdle rate (which is
based upon what projects of comparable risk should
earn).
The IRR rule assumes that intermediate cash ows on
the project get reinvested at the IRR. Implicit is the
assumpGon that the rm has an innite stream of
projects yielding similar IRRs.
Conclusion: When the IRR is high (the project is creaGng
signicant surplus value) and the project life is long, the
IRR will overstate the true return on the project.

Aswath Damodaran
290

 SoluGon to Reinvestment Rate Problem
291

Aswath Damodaran
291

 Why NPV and IRR may dier.. Even if projects
have the same lives
292

A project can have only one NPV, whereas it can have

more than one IRR.
The NPV is a dollar surplus value, whereas the IRR is a
percentage measure of return. The NPV is therefore
likely to be larger for large scale projects, while the
IRR is higher for small-scale projects.
The NPV assumes that intermediate cash ows get
reinvested at the hurdle rate, which is based upon
what you can make on investments of comparable risk,
while the IRR assumes that intermediate cash ows get
reinvested at the IRR.

Aswath Damodaran
292

 Comparing projects with dierent lives..
293

Project A

$400
$400
$400
$400
$400

-$1000

NPV of Project A = $ 442

IRR of Project A = 28.7%

Project B

$350
$350
$350
$350
$350
$350
$350
$350
$350
$350

-$1500
NPV of Project B = $ 478

IRR for Project B = 19.4%

Hurdle Rate for Both Projects = 12%

Aswath Damodaran
293

 Why NPVs cannot be compared.. When projects
have dierent lives.
294

The net present values of mutually exclusive projects

with dierent lives cannot be compared, since there
is a bias towards longer-life projects. To compare
the NPV, we have to
replicate the projects Gll they have the same life (or)

convert the net present values into annuiGes

The IRR is unaected by project life. We can choose

the project with the higher IRR.

Aswath Damodaran
294

 SoluGon 1: Project ReplicaGon
295

Project A: Replicated

$400
$400
$400
$400
$400
$400
$400
$400
$400
$400

-$1000
-$1000 (Replication)

NPV of Project A replicated = $ 693

Project B

$350
$350
$350
$350
$350
$350
$350
$350
$350
$350

-$1500

NPV of Project B= $ 478

Aswath Damodaran
295

 SoluGon 2: Equivalent AnnuiGes
296

Equivalent Annuity for 5-year project

= $442 * PV(A,12%,5 years)

= $ 122.62

Equivalent Annuity for 10-year project

= $478 * PV(A,12%,10 years)

= $ 84.60

Aswath Damodaran
296

 What would you choose as your investment
tool?
297

Given the advantages/disadvantages outlined for

each of the dierent decision rules, which one
would you choose to adopt?
a. Return on Investment (ROE, ROC)
b. Payback or Discounted Payback
c. Net Present Value
d. Internal Rate of Return
e. Protability Index
Do you think your choice has been aected by the
events of the last quarter of 2008? If so, why? If not,
why not?
Aswath Damodaran
297

 What rms actually use ..
298

Decision Rule % of Firms using as primary decision rule in

1976 1986 1998
IRR 53.6% 49.0% 42.0%
AccounGng Return 25.0% 8.0% 7.0%
NPV 9.8% 21.0% 34.0%
Payback Period 8.9% 19.0% 14.0%
Protability Index 2.7% 3.0% 3.0%

Aswath Damodaran
298

 II. Side Costs and Benets
299

Most projects considered by any business create side

costs and benets for that business.
The side costs include the costs created by the use of resources
that the business already owns (opportunity costs) and lost
revenues for other projects that the rm may have.
The benets that may not be captured in the tradiGonal capital
budgeGng analysis include project synergies (where cash ow
benets may accrue to other projects) and opGons embedded in
projects (including the opGons to delay, expand or abandon a
project).
The returns on a project should incorporate these costs
and benets.

Aswath Damodaran
299

 A. Opportunity Cost
300

An opportunity cost arises when a project uses a

resource that may already have been paid for by the
rm.
When a resource that is already owned by a rm is being
considered for use in a project, this resource has to be
priced on its next best alternaGve use, which may be
a sale of the asset, in which case the opportunity cost is the
expected proceeds from the sale, net of any capital gains taxes
renGng or leasing the asset out, in which case the opportunity
cost is the expected present value of the aQer-tax rental or
lease revenues.
use elsewhere in the business, in which case the opportunity
cost is the cost of replacing it.

Aswath Damodaran
300

 Case 1: Foregone Sale?
301

Assume that Disney owns land in Rio already. This land is

undeveloped and was acquired several years ago for $ 5
million for a hotel that was never built. It is anGcipated,
if this theme park is built, that this land will be used to
build the oces for Disney Rio. The land currently can be
sold for $ 40 million, though that would create a capital
gain (which will be taxed at 20%). In assessing the theme
park, which of the following would you do:
Ignore the cost of the land, since Disney owns its already
Use the book value of the land, which is $ 5 million
Use the market value of the land, which is $ 40 million
Other:

Aswath Damodaran
301

 Case 2: Incremental Cost?
An Online Retailing Venture for Bookscape
302

The iniGal investment needed to start the service, including the installaGon of
addiGonal phone lines and computer equipment, will be $1 million. These
investments are expected to have a life of four years, at which point they will have
no salvage value. The investments will be depreciated straight line over the four-
year life.
The revenues in the rst year are expected to be $1.5 million, growing 20% in year
two, and 10% in the two years following.
The salaries and other benets for the employees are esGmated to be $150,000 in
year one, and grow 10% a year for the following three years.
The cost of the books will be 60% of the revenues in each of the four years.
The working capital, which includes the inventory of books needed for the service
and the accounts receivable will be10% of the revenues; the investments in
working capital have to be made at the beginning of each year. At the end of year
4, the enGre working capital is assumed to be salvaged.
The tax rate on income is expected to be 40%.

Aswath Damodaran
302

 Cost of capital for investment
303

We will re-esGmate the beta for this online project by

looking at publicly traded Internet retailers.
The unlevered total beta of internet retailers is 4.25, and we
assume that this project will be funded with the same mix of
debt and equity (D/E = 53.47%, Debt/Capital = 34.84%) that
Bookscape uses in the rest of the business.
We will assume that Bookscapes tax rate (40%) and pretax cost
of debt (6%) apply to this project.
Cost of capital computaGon
Levered Beta Online Service = 4.25 [1 + (1 0.4) (0.5357)] = 5.61
Cost of Equity Online Service = 3.5% + 5.61 (6%) = 37.18%
Cost of Capital Online Service= 37.18% (0.6516) + 6% (1 0.4)
(0.3484) = 25.48%

Aswath Damodaran
303

 Incremental Cash ows on Investment
304

NPV of investment = -$98,775

Aswath Damodaran
304

 The side costs
305

It is esGmated that the addiGonal business associated with

online ordering and the administraGon of the service itself
will add to the workload for the current general manager of
the bookstore. As a consequence, the salary of the general
manager will be increased from $100,000 to $120,000 next
year; it is expected to grow 5 percent a year aQer that for the
remaining three years of the online venture. AQer the online
venture is ended in the fourth year, the managers salary will
revert back to its old levels.
It is also esGmated that Bookscape Online will uGlize an oce
that is currently used to store nancial records. The records
will be moved to a bank vault, which will cost $1000 a year to
rent.
Aswath Damodaran
305

 NPV with side costs
306

AddiGonal salary costs

Oce Costs

NPV adjusted for side costs= -98,775- $29,865 - $1405 = $130,045

Opportunity costs aggregated into cash ows

Aswath Damodaran
306

 Case 3: Excess Capacity
307

In the Aracruz example, assume that the rm will

use its exisGng distribuGon system to service the
producGon out of the new paper plant. The new
plant manager argues that there is no cost
associated with using this system, since it has been
paid for already and cannot be sold or leased to a
compeGtor (and thus has no compeGng current use).
Do you agree?
a. Yes
b. No

Aswath Damodaran
307

 Case 4: Excess Capacity: A More Complicated
Example
308

Assume that a cereal company has a factory with a capacity to

produce 100,000 boxes of cereal and that it expects to uses only
50% of capacity to produce its exisGng product (Bran Banana) next
year. This products sales are expected to grow 10% a year in the
long term and the company has an aQer-tax contribuGon margin
(Sales price - Variable cost) of $4 a unit.
It is considering introducing a new cereal (Bran Raisin) and plans to
use the excess capacity to produce the product. The sales in year 1
are expected to be 30,000 units and grow 5% a year in the long
term; the aQer-tax contribuGon margin on this product is $5 a unit.
The book value of the factory is $ 1 million. The cost of building a
new factory with the same capacity is $1.5 million. The companys
cost of capital is 12%.

Aswath Damodaran
308

 A Framework for Assessing The Cost of Using
Excess Capacity
309

If I do not add the new product, when will I run out

of capacity?
If I add the new product, when will I run out of
capacity?
When I run out of capacity, what will I do?

Cut back on producGon: cost is PV of aQer-tax cash ows

from lost sales
Buy new capacity: cost is dierence in PV between earlier
& later investment

Aswath Damodaran
309

 Opportunity Cost of Excess Capacity
310

Year Old New Old + New Lost ATCF PV(ATCF)

1 50.00% 30.00% 80.00% $0
2 55.00% 31.50% 86.50% $0
3 60.50% 33.08% 93.58% $0
4 66.55% 34.73% 101.28% $5,115 $ 3,251
5 73.21% 36.47% 109.67% $38,681 $ 21,949
6 80.53% 38.29% 118.81% $75,256 $ 38,127
7 88.58% 40.20% 128.78% $115,124 $ 52,076
8 97.44% 42.21% 139.65% $158,595 $ 64,054
9 100% 44.32% 144.32% $177,280 $ 63,929
10 100% 46.54% 146.54% $186,160 $ 59,939
PV(Lost Sales)= $ 303,324
PV (Building Capacity In Year 3 Instead Of Year 8) = 1,500,000/1.123
-1,500,000/1.128 = $ 461,846
Opportunity Cost of Excess Capacity = $ 303,324

Aswath Damodaran
310

 Product and Project CannibalizaGon: A Real
Cost?
311

Assume that in the Disney theme park example, 20% of the

revenues at the Rio Disney park are expected to come from
people who would have gone to Disney theme parks in the
US. In doing the analysis of the park, you would
a. Look at only incremental revenues (i.e. 80% of the total revenue)
b. Look at total revenues at the park
c. Choose an intermediate number
Would your answer be dierent if you were analyzing
whether to introduce a new show on the Disney cable
channel on Saturday mornings that is expected to asract 20%
of its viewers from ABC (which is also owned by Disney)?
a. Yes
b. No

Aswath Damodaran
311

 B. Project Synergies
312

A project may provide benets for other projects within the rm.
Consider, for instance, a typical Disney animated movie. Assume
that it costs $ 50 million to produce and promote. This movie, in
addiGon to theatrical revenues, also produces revenues from
the sale of merchandise (stued toys, plasGc gures, clothes ..)
increased asendance at the theme parks
stage shows (see Beauty and the Beast and the Lion King)
television series based upon the movie
In investment analysis, however, these synergies are either leQ
unquanGed and used to jusGfy overriding the results of
investment analysis, i.e,, used as jusGcaGon for invesGng in
negaGve NPV projects.
If synergies exist and they oQen do, these benets have to be
valued and shown in the iniGal project analysis.

Aswath Damodaran
312

 Example 1: Adding a Caf to a bookstore:
Bookscape
313

Assume that you are considering adding a caf to the bookstore. Assume
also that based upon the expected revenues and expenses, the caf
standing alone is expected to have a net present value of -$91,097.
The cafe will increase revenues at the book store by $500,000 in year 1,
growing at 10% a year for the following 4 years. In addiGon, assume that
the pre-tax operaGng margin on these sales is 10%.

The net present value of the added benets is $115,882. Added to the
NPV of the standalone Caf of -$91,097 yields a net present value of
$24,785.

Aswath Damodaran
313

 Case 2: Synergy in a merger..
314

Earlier, we valued Sensient Technologies for an acquisiGon by Tata

Chemicals and esGmated a value of $ 1,559 million for the
operaGng assets and $ 1,107 million for the equity in the rm. In
esGmaGng this value, though, we treated Sensient Technologies as
a stand-alone rm.
Assume that Tata Chemicals foresees potenGal synergies in the
combinaGon of the two rms, primarily from using its distribuGon
and markeGng faciliGes in India to market Sensients food addiGve
products to Indias rapidly growing processed food industry.
It will take Tata Chemicals approximately 3 years to adapt Sensients
products to match the needs of the Indian processed food sector more
spice, less color.
Tata Chemicals will be able to generate Rs 1,500 million in aQer-tax
operaGng income in year 4 from Sensients Indian sales, growing at a rate
of 4% a year aQer that in perpetuity from Sensients products in India.

Aswath Damodaran
314

 EsGmaGng the cost of capital to use in valuing
synergy..
315

To esGmate the cost of equity:

All of the perceived synergies ow from Sensients products. We will
use the levered beta of 0.8138 of Sensient in esGmaGng cost of equity.
The synergies are expected to come from India; consequently, we will
add the country risk premium of 4.51% for India.
We will assume that Sensient will maintain its exisGng debt
to capital raGo of 28.57%, its current dollar cost of debt of
5.5% and its marginal tax rate of 37%.
Cost of debt in US $ = 5.5% (1-.37) = 3.47%
Cost of capital in US $ = 12.05% (1-.2857) + 3.47% (.2857) = 9.60%
Cost of capital in Rs = (1 + Cost of Capital US $ )
(1 + Inflation RateRs )
- 1
(1 + Inflation RateUS $ )

(1.03) =- 1 =
(1.096) 10.67%
(1.02)

Aswath Damodaran
315


 EsGmaGng the value of synergy and what Tata
can pay for Sensient
316

We can now discount the expected cash ows back at the

cost of capital to derive the value of synergy:
Value of synergy Year 3 = Expected Cash FlowYear 4 1500
= = Rs 22,476 million
(Cost of Capital - g) (.1067 -.04)
Value of synergy today = Value of Synergy year 3 22,476
= = Rs 16,580 million
(1 + Cost of Capital)3 (1.1067)3

Earlier, we esGmated the value of equity in Sensient
Technologies, with no synergy, to be $1,107 million.
ConverGng the synergy
value into dollar terms at the current
exchange rate of Rs 47.50/$, the total value that Tata
Chemicals can pay for Sensients equity:
Value of synergy in US $ = Rs 16,580/47.50 = $ 349 million
Value of Sensient Technologies = $1,107 million + $349 million =
$1,456 million

Aswath Damodaran
316

 III. Project OpGons
317

One of the limitaGons of tradiGonal investment analysis

is that it is staGc and does not do a good job of capturing
the opGons embedded in investment.
The rst of these opGons is the opGon to delay taking a project,
when a rm has exclusive rights to it, unGl a later date.
The second of these opGons is taking one project may allow us
to take advantage of other opportuniGes (projects) in the future
The last opGon that is embedded in projects is the opGon to
abandon a project, if the cash ows do not measure up.
These opGons all add value to projects and may make a
bad project (from tradiGonal analysis) into a good one.
Aswath Damodaran
317

 The OpGon to Delay
318

When a rm has exclusive rights to a project or product for a specic

period, it can delay taking this project or product unGl a later date. A
tradiGonal investment analysis just answers the quesGon of whether the
project is a good one if taken today. The rights to a bad project can
sGll have value.
PV of Cash Flows

Initial Investment in

Project
NPV is positive in this section

Present Value of Expected

Cash Flows on Product

Aswath Damodaran
318

 Insights for Investment Analyses
319

Having the exclusive rights to a product or project is

valuable, even if the product or project is not viable
today.
The value of these rights increases with the volaGlity

of the underlying business.

The cost of acquiring these rights (by buying them or
spending money on development - R&D, for
instance) has to be weighed o against these
benets.

Aswath Damodaran
319

 The OpGon to Expand/Take Other Projects
320

Taking a project today may allow a rm to consider and take other

valuable projects in the future. Thus, even though a project may have a
negaGve NPV, it may be a project worth taking if the opGon it provides
the rm (to take other projects in the future) has a more-than-
compensaGng value.
PV of Cash Flows

from Expansion

Additional Investment

to Expand

Cash Flows on Expansion

Expansion becomes

Firm will not expand in
attractive in this section

this

section

Aswath Damodaran
320

 The OpGon to Abandon
321

A rm may someGmes have the opGon to abandon a project, if the cash

ows do not measure up to expectaGons.
If abandoning the project allows the rm to save itself from further
losses, this opGon can make a project more valuable.

PV of Cash Flows

from Project

Cost of Abandonment

Present Value of Expected

Cash Flows on Project

Aswath Damodaran
321

 IV. Assessing ExisGng or Past investments
322

While much of our discussion has been focused on

analyzing new investments, the techniques and
principles enunciated apply just as strongly to
exisGng investments.
With exisGng investments, we can try to address one
of two quesGons:
Post mortem: We can look back at exisGng investments
and see if they have created value for the rm.
What next? We can also use the tools of investment
analysis to see whether we should keep, expand or
abandon exisGng investments.

Aswath Damodaran
322

 Analyzing an ExisGng Investment
323

In a post-mortem, you look at the actual cash You can also reassess your expected cash
flows, relative to forecasts.
flows, based upon what you have learned,
and decide whether you should expand,
continue or divest (abandon) an investment

Aswath Damodaran
323

 a. Post Mortem Analysis
324

The actual cash ows from an investment can be greater than or less than
originally forecast for a number of reasons but all these reasons can be
categorized into two groups:
Chance: The nature of risk is that actual outcomes can be dierent from
expectaGons. Even when forecasts are based upon the best of informaGon, they
will invariably be wrong in hindsight because of unexpected shiQs in both macro
(inaGon, interest rates, economic growth) and micro (compeGtors, company)
variables.
Bias: If the original forecasts were biased, the actual numbers will be dierent from
expectaGons. The evidence on capital budgeGng is that managers tend to be over-
opGmisGc about cash ows and the bias is worse with over-condent managers.
While it is impossible to tell on an individual project whether chance or
bias is to blame, there is a way to tell across projects and across Gme. If
chance is the culprit, there should be symmetry in the errors actuals
should be about as likely to beat forecasts as they are to come under
forecasts. If bias is the reason, the errors will tend to be in one direcGon.

Aswath Damodaran
324

 b. What should we do next?
325

t =n

(1 + r) NFn n < 0 ........ Liquidate the project

t =0

t =n
NFn
n < Salvage

Value ........ Terminate the project
t =0 (1 + r)



t =n

(1 + r) NFn < Divestiture

Value ........ Divest the project
n
t =0

t =n
NFn
n > 0 > Divestiture
Value ........ ConGnue the project
(1 + r)

t =0

Aswath Damodaran
325

 Example: Disney California Adventure

326

Disney opened the Disney California Adventure (DCA) Park in 2001, at a

cost of $1.5 billion, with a mix of roller coaster ridesand movie nostalgia.
Disney expected about 60% of its visitors to Disneyland to come across to
DCA and generate about $ 100 million in annual aQer-cash ows for the
rm.
By 2008, DCA had not performed up to expectaGons. Of the 15 million
people who came to Disneyland in 2007, only 6 million visited California
Adventure, and the cash ow averaged out to only $ 50 million between
2001 and 2007.
In early 2008, Disney faced three choices:
Shut down California Adventure and try to recover whatever it can of its iniGal
investment. It is esGmated that the rm recover about $ 500 million of its investment.
ConGnue with the status quo, recognizing that future cash ows will be closer to the
actual values ($ 50 million) than the original projecGons.
Invest about $ 600 million to expand and modify the par, with the intent of increasing
the number of asracGons for families with children, is expected to increase the
percentage of Disneyland visitors who come to DCA from 40% to 60% and increase the
annual aQer tax cash ow by 60% (from $ 50 million to $ 80 million) at the park.

Aswath Damodaran
326

 DCA: EvaluaGng the alternaGves
327

ConGnuing OperaGon: Assuming the current aQer-tax cash ow of

$ 50 million will conGnue in perpetuity, growing at the inaGon
rate of 2% and discounGng back at the theme park cost of capital
of 6.62% yields a value for conGnuing with the status quo
Value of DCA = (Cost of capital - g) = (.0662 .02) = $1.103 billion
Expected Cash Flow next year 50(1.02)

Abandonment: Abandoning this investment currently would allow

Disney to recover
only $ 500 million of its original investment.
Abandonment value of DCA = $ 500 million
Expansion: The up-front cost of $ 600 million will lead to more
visitors in the park and an increase in the exisGng cash ows from $
50 to $ 80 million.
Value of CF from expansion = Increase in CF next year = 30(1.02) = $662 million
(Cost of capital - g) (.0662 .02)

Aswath Damodaran
327

 First Principles
328

Aswath Damodaran
328