Conflict Between NPV and IRR

Without careful analysis, an investor might select a high NPV project ignoring the fact that many smaller NPV projects could be completed with the same investment resulting in higher aggregate NPV. As the NPV is not skewed by the overstated reinvestment rate assumption, hence it is the preferred method. Project A needs $10 million investment and generates $10 million each in year 1 and year 2. It has NPV of $7.4 million at a discount rate of 10% and IRR of 61.8%.

The projects which have positive net present value, obviously, also have an internal rate of return higher than the required rate of return. Thus, the NPV method is more reliable as compared to the IRR method in ranking the mutually exclusive projects. In fact, NPV is the best operational criterion for ranking mutually exclusive investment proposals. In the case of mutually exclusive projects that are competing such that acceptance of either blocks acceptance of the remaining one, NPV and IRR often give contradicting results. NPV may lead the project manager or the engineer to accept one project proposal, while the internal rate of return may show the other as the most favorable. However, IRR’s assumption of reinvestment at IRR is unrealistic and could result in inaccurate ranking of projects.

NPV vs IRR Method

The net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR) methods are based on the same discounted cash flows technique, hence they take into account the time value of money concept. Furthermore, both of them are frequently used in capital budgeting decisions. In most cases, they provide the same appraisal, but conflict can sometimes occur. Whenever an NPV and IRR conflict arises, always accept the project with higher NPV. It is because IRR inherently assumes that any cash flows can be reinvested at the internal rate of return.

Net Present value (NPV) is Present value of cash inflows minus present value of cash outflows, in short it tells us about the returns which we will… Based on NPV one would conclude that Project A is better, but IRR offers a contradictory view. When analyzing a typical project, it is important to distinguish between the figures returned conflict between npv and irr by NPV vs IRR, as conflicting results arise when comparing two different projects using the two indicators. As you can see, Project A has higher IRR, while Project B has higher NPV. What is the underlying cause of ranking conflicts between NPV and IRR? (iii) Difference in service life or unequal expected lives of the projects.

What is NPV vs IRR?

We recommend reliance on the net present value as a screening criterion in case of such conflict between mutually exclusive projects. The background of such a recommendation is that the reinvestment rate plays the key role. The reinvestment rate equal to the cost of capital is a more realistic assumption, especially in the long run.

• Furthermore, both of them are frequently used in capital budgeting decisions.
• Under NPV method, a proposal is accepted if its net present value is positive, whereas, under IRR method it is accepted if the internal rate of return is higher than the cut off rate.
• The present value is calculated to an amount equal to the investment made.
• Thus, the NPV method is more reliable as compared to the IRR method in ranking the mutually exclusive projects.

Actually, NPV is considered the best criterion when ranking investments. NPV takes cognizance of the value of capital cost or the market rate of interest. It obtains the amount that should be invested in a project in order to recover projected earnings at current market rates from the amount invested. It will rank a project requiring initial investment of $1 million and generating $1 million each in Year 1 and Year 2 equal to a project generating $1 in Year 1 and Year 2 each with initial investment of $1.

What are two possible causes of conflict between the IRR and NPV for mutually exclusive projects?

It considers the cost of capital and provides a dollar value estimate of value added, which is easier to understand. Independent projects are projects in which decision about acceptance of one project does not affect decision regarding others. Since we can accept all independent projects if they add value, NPV and IRR conflict does not arise. So, NPV is much more reliable when compared to IRR and is the best approach when ranking projects that are mutually exclusive.

• IRR, on the other hand, is a relative measure i.e. it is the rate of return that a project offers over its lifespan.
• It is used to estimate the profitability of a probable business venture.
• To solve that problem, let’s calculate the NPV at a number of different discount rates to create the graph below.
• Independent projects are projects in which decision about acceptance of one project does not affect decision regarding others.

The metric works as a discounting rate that equates NPV of cash flows to zero. Typically, one project may provide a larger IRR, while a rival project may show a higher NPV. The resulting difference may be due to a difference in cash flow between the two projects.

Working Capital Management

In case of non-normal cash flows, i.e. where a project has positive cash flows followed by negative cash flows, IRR has multiple values. NPV stands for Net Present Value, and it represents the positive and negative future cash flows throughout a project’s life cycle discounted today. A company is considering two mutually exclusive projects that are equally risky. Detailed information about cash flows is presented in the table below.

When you are analyzing a single conventional project, both NPV and IRR will provide you the same indicator about whether to accept the project or not. However, when comparing two projects, the NPV and IRR may provide conflicting results. It may be so that one project has higher NPV while the other has a higher IRR.

Sensitivity Analysis in Capital Budgeting

Let’s have a look first at what each of the two discounting rates stands for. If these two projects were independent, it wouldn’t matter much because the firm can accept both the projects. However, in case of mutually exclusive projects, the firm needs to decide one of the two projects to invest in. Such conflict between NPV and IRR is the reason why net present value is considered a better screening criterion than the internal rate of return.

This assumption is problematic because there is no guarantee that equally profitable opportunities will be available as soon as cash flows occur. The risk of receiving cash flows and not having good enough opportunities for reinvestment is called reinvestment risk. NPV, on the other hand, does not suffer from such a problematic assumption because it assumes that reinvestment occurs at the cost of capital, which is conservative and realistic.

Net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR) are two of the most widely used investment analysis and capital budgeting techniques. They are similar in the sense that both are discounted cash flow models i.e. they incorporate the time value of money. But they also differ in their main approach and their strengths and weaknesses. NPV is an absolute measure i.e. it is the dollar amount of value added or lost by undertaking a project. IRR, on the other hand, is a relative measure i.e. it is the rate of return that a project offers over its lifespan. In such cases, while choosing among mutually exclusive projects, one should always select the project giving the largest positive net present value using appropriate cost of capital or predetermined cut off rate.

In the NPV calculation, the implicit assumption for reinvestment rate is 10%. In IRR, the implicit reinvestment rate assumption is of 29% or 25%. The reinvestment rate of 29% or 25% in IRR is quite unrealistic compared to NPV. IRR is also easier to calculate because it does not need estimation of cost of capital or hurdle rate. However, this same convenience can become a disadvantage if we accept projects without comparison to cost of capital. Conventional proposals often involve a cash outflow during the initial stage and are usually followed by a number of cash inflows.

The background is that NPV reflects the additional shareholders’ value created by a project. The internal rate of return of Project Y is 19.85% and 21.04% for Project Z. If IRR is the only screening criterion, Project Z looks more attractive and should be accepted. Between these two techniques, NPV is more reliable since it makes more sense compared to IRR. NPV is theoretically sound because it has realistic reinvestment assumption.

Again, if these were mutually exclusive projects, we should choose the one with higher NPV, that is, project B. Now we can see a typical “NPV vs. IRR problem” when those criteria are producing conflicting conclusions. To solve that problem, let’s calculate the NPV at a number of different discount rates to create the graph below. (i) Significant difference in the size (amount) of cash outlays of various proposals under consideration. Such a project exerts a positive effect on the price of shares and the wealth of shareholders.