Vantage Grid: A Thin-Margin Project With a Real Downside
Vantage Grid is evaluating a six-year project: $10 million of equipment depreciated straight-line to zero, plus $1.0 million of working capital required immediately and fully recovered at the end. Base case is 200,000 units per year at $49, variable cost $30, fixed cash costs $900,000 per year. Tax rate is 25%, required return 11%, no salvage value. A technology consultant warns that a competing design has a 40% chance of forcing the market price down 20% and volume down 15% beginning in year 3. The capital committee approves projects without board review only if expected NPV is positive; anything else goes to the board with a written risk assessment. The 6-year annuity factor at 11% is 4.2305; the 2-year factor is 1.7125; the PV factor for year 6 is 0.5346.
1. Compute the base-case NPV.
Read the worked answer
Annual operating cash flow (years 1–6)
| Line | Amount |
|---|---|
| Revenue (200,000 × $49) | $9,800,000 |
| Variable cost (200,000 × $30) | (6,000,000) |
| Fixed cash costs | (900,000) |
| EBITDA | 2,900,000 |
| Depreciation (10,000,000 / 6) | (1,666,667) |
| EBIT | 1,233,333 |
| Tax at 25% | (308,333) |
| NOPAT | 925,000 |
| Add back depreciation | 1,666,667 |
| Operating cash flow | $2,591,667 |
NPV
- PV of OCF: 2,591,667 × 4.2305 = $10,964,000
- PV of working-capital recovery: 1,000,000 × 0.5346 = $535,000
- Initial outlay: 10,000,000 + 1,000,000 = (11,000,000)
- NPV ≈ +$499,000
About 4.5% of the initial investment - a thin positive NPV. Note how little margin for error exists: a 5% miss on price or volume erases it entirely.
2. Model the consultant's downside scenario and compute the probability-weighted NPV. What does the result imply for the committee's decision rule?
Read the worked answer
Downside cash flows, years 3–6 (price $49 × 0.80 = $39.20; volume 200,000 × 0.85 = 170,000):
| Line | Amount |
|---|---|
| Revenue (170,000 × $39.20) | $6,664,000 |
| Variable cost (170,000 × $30) | (5,100,000) |
| Fixed cash costs | (900,000) |
| EBITDA | 664,000 |
| Depreciation | (1,666,667) |
| EBIT | (1,002,667) |
| Tax benefit at 25% | 250,667 |
| NOPAT | (752,000) |
| Add back depreciation | 1,666,667 |
| OCF | $914,667 |
Years 1–2 remain at $2,591,667 because the shock begins in year 3.
Downside NPV
- Years 1–2: 2,591,667 × 1.7125 = $4,438,000
- Years 3–6: 914,667 × (4.2305 − 1.7125) = 914,667 × 2.5180 = $2,303,000
- PV of working capital: $535,000
- Less initial outlay: (11,000,000)
- Downside NPV ≈ −$3,724,000
Expected NPV = 0.60 × $499,000 + 0.40 × (−$3,724,000) = $299,000 − $1,490,000 = −$1,191,000
Implication: expected NPV is negative, so under the committee's own rule the project cannot be approved at committee level - it must go to the board. More important analytically, this is a textbook case where the expected value is not the decision: the project is a bet with a small gain and a catastrophic loss, and a $499,000 base-case NPV is far too thin to compensate for a −$3.7M outcome that occurs 4 times in 10. The distribution matters, not just the mean.
3. What recommendation would you give the board, and what specific design or contractual changes could convert this into an approvable project?
Read the worked answer
Recommendation: do not approve as an unfunded, all-or-nothing commitment. Expected NPV is −$1.19M and the loss in the downside is roughly 7.5× the base-case gain. Even a risk-neutral rule rejects it; a risk-averse board rejects it more firmly.
Changes that could make it approvable - each one attacks either the size of the downside or the timing of the commitment:
- Stage the investment. Build a pilot line or run a limited-volume phase for the first 24 months, with the bulk of the capacity spend deferred until the competing technology resolves. This converts one irreversible bet into a decision tree and preserves the option to abandon before year 3. Quantify it: the option to walk away is worth avoiding the present value of the years 3–6 cash losses plus the unrecovered capital.
- Contract the price risk away. A multi-year supply agreement with a price floor (or a cost-plus/take-or-pay structure) removes the 20% price shock from the model. Recompute NPV with price risk transferred; if it stays positive, proceed.
- Contract the volume risk away. Minimum-volume commitments reduce the 15% volume exposure and make the downside less severe than modeled.
- Preserve salvage value. Negotiate equipment that has a resale market or can be redeployed to another product line; the model assumes zero salvage, which is a choice, not a fact.
- Re-examine the cost structure. Converting $900,000 of fixed cost into variable cost (outsourcing a step, temporary labor) lowers the operating leverage that makes the downside so deep.
- Write the risk assessment honestly. The board memo should show the distribution (base, downside, and a combined case with both price and fixed-cost overruns), not just the expected value - and should state the decision criterion being applied (e.g., "no project whose downside loss exceeds 25% of the capital budget").