Victoria Chemicals

Case #22 capital of Seychelles Chemicals Synopsis and Objectives go/no-go decision 1.The acknowledgement of relevant currency flows; in particular, the treatment of: a. sunk costs b. cash flows obtained by cannibalizing an new(prenominal) activity within the firm c. exploitation of superfluity transportation capacity d. corporate overhead allocations e. cash flows of unrelated projects f. inflation. 2.The deprecative assessment of a capital-investment evaluation system. 3.The treatment of conflicts of interest and other ethical dilemmas that may arise in investment decisions. Suggested Questions 1.What changes, if any, should Lucy Morris lead Frank Greystock to make in his discounted cash flow (DCF) epitome? Why? What should Morris be prepared to say to the Transport Division, the manager of Sales, her assistant plant manager, and the analyst from the Treasury Staff? 2.How captivating is the Merseyside project? By what criteria? 3.Should Morris continue to promote the project for living? Case B: 1. Why are the Merseyside and Rotterdam projects mutually scoop? 2. How do the two projects compare on the basis of Victoria Chemicals investment criteria? 3.

Is it possible to quantify the value of managerial tractability associated with the Merseyside project? How, if at all, does this flexibility in style instill the economic attractiveness of the project? 4. What are the differences in the ship canal Elizabeth Eustance and Lucy Morris have advocated their respective projects? How might these differences in style tinct the outcome of the decision? 5. Which project should crowd together Fawn get to the chief executive officer and the board of directors? Exhibit 1 capital of Seychelles CHEMICALS Excerpts from Morriss Expenditure Proposal Memo Regarding the Merseyside Project VICTORIA CHEMICALS To: James Fawn From:... If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Orderessay

If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my essay .