Author
Listed:
- Lindon J. Robison
- Peter J. Barry
- Robert J. Myers
Abstract
Purpose - – It is well known that internal rate of return (IRR) and net present value (NPV) rankings of mutually exclusive investments are sometimes inconsistent. This inconsistency, when it occurs, requires decision makers to choose between the two ranking methods. The purpose of this paper is to deduce sufficient conditions for consistentIRRandNPVinvestment rankings of mutually exclusive investments. Design/methodology/approach - – Deductive reasoning is used to obtain the sufficient conditions required for consistent rankings of mutually exclusive investments. Findings - – There are different sufficient conditions (methods) that can be used to resolve inconsistentIRRandNPVrankings. However, the different methods do not necessarily produce the same consistent rankings. In particular, different size adjustment methods and reinvestment rate assumptions can produce differentIRRandNPVconsistent rankings. This paper suggests the appropriate criteria for selecting a particular method for ranking mutually exclusive investments. Research limitations/implications - – Like all deduced models, the results apply only to the set of assumptions and preconditions adopted in the model. Furthermore, the application is to ranking mutually exclusive investments. Practical implications - – There is probably no other issue in the capital budgeting literature that has generated more attention and debate than the consistency (or lack thereof) betweenIRRandNPVrankings. This paper summarizes conditions that can be followed to resolve the conflict which should have near universal interest to those working in the capital budging area. This paper offers alternative methods for obtaining consistent IRR and NPV rankings which can be used to improve investment ranking decisions. The particular method used should depend on the decision environment. Guides for choosing the appropriate ranking method are described in the paper. Social implications - – Significant decisions, projects, and investments are evaluated using eitherIRRorNPVmethods. This paper shows that existing evaluation methods can lead to sub-optimal investment choices and provides an improved framework that facilitates better investment choices. Lacking an understanding of the sufficient conditions forIRRandNPVconsistency – means that resource allocations have been made to investments and projects that are not optimal. Originality/value - – To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the results are this paper have not been published nor are they available elsewhere. That said, this paper builds on important earlier work which is carefully cited and credited.
Suggested Citation
Lindon J. Robison & Peter J. Barry & Robert J. Myers, 2015.
"Consistent IRR and NPV rankings,"
Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 75(4), pages 499-513, November.
Handle:
RePEc:eme:afrpps:v:75:y:2015:i:4:p:499-513
DOI: 10.1108/AFR-06-2015-0025
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Xudong Rao & Terrance M. Hurley & Philip G. Pardey, 2020.
"Recalibrating the reported returns to agricultural R&D: what if we all heeded Griliches?,"
Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(3), pages 977-1001, July.
- Rao, Xudong & Hurley, Terrance M. & Pardey, Philip G., 2017.
"Recalibrating the Reported Returns to Agricultural R&D: What if We All Heeded Griliches?,"
2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois
259125, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
- Rao, Xudong & Hurley, Terrance M. & Pardey, Philip G., 2019.
"Recalibrating the Reported Returns to Agricultural R&D: What if We All Heeded Griliches?,"
Staff Papers
298430, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:afrpps:v:75:y:2015:i:4:p:499-513. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.