×




Following Lance Armstrong: Excellence Corrupted Net Present Value (NPV) / MBA Resources

Introduction to Net Present Value (NPV) - What is Net Present Value (NPV) ? How it impacts financial decisions regarding project management?

NPV solution for Following Lance Armstrong: Excellence Corrupted case study


At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Net Present Value (NPV) case study solution. Following Lance Armstrong: Excellence Corrupted case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Clayton Rose, Noah Fisher. The Following Lance Armstrong: Excellence Corrupted (referred as “Armstrong Doping” from here on) case study provides evaluation & decision scenario in field of Organizational Development. It also touches upon business topics such as - Value proposition, Ethics, Leadership.

The net present value (NPV) of an investment proposal is the present value of the proposal’s net cash flows less the proposal’s initial cash outflow. If a project’s NPV is greater than or equal to zero, the project should be accepted.

NPV = Present Value of Future Cash Flows LESS Project’s Initial Investment






Case Description of Following Lance Armstrong: Excellence Corrupted Case Study


After years of vigorous denials, on January 14, 2013 Lance Armstrong admitted in a television interview with Oprah Winfrey that he "doped" in each of his record seven consecutive Tour de France victories, confirming the findings a few months earlier by the US Anti-Doping Agency that he had orchestrated "a massive team doping scheme, more extensive than any previously revealed in professional sports history." Until that moment with Oprah, Armstrong had consistently and strenuously denied using performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs), blood transfusions, or other artificial enhancers to compete in the grueling, three-week race throughout France. He verbally thrashed, bullied and threatened legal action against riders, journalists, race officials, and anyone else who had suggested he had cheated. This case explores Armstrong's leadership of a corrupt culture, the extensive nature of the cheating scandal among elite athletes, the decisions taken by other riders to both support Armstrong and his scheme and ultimately to admit to cheating, and the costs borne by those associated with Armstrong. It allows for discussion of the responsibilities that leaders have to followers, and that followers have to themselves and to others.


Case Authors : Clayton Rose, Noah Fisher

Topic : Organizational Development

Related Areas : Ethics, Leadership




Calculating Net Present Value (NPV) at 6% for Following Lance Armstrong: Excellence Corrupted Case Study


Years              Cash Flow     Net Cash Flow     Cumulative    
Cash Flow
Discount Rate
@ 6 %
Discounted
Cash Flows
Year 0 (10008857) -10008857 - -
Year 1 3471644 -6537213 3471644 0.9434 3275136
Year 2 3954120 -2583093 7425764 0.89 3519153
Year 3 3940649 1357556 11366413 0.8396 3308645
Year 4 3239499 4597055 14605912 0.7921 2565987
TOTAL 14605912 12668920




The Net Present Value at 6% discount rate is 2660063

In isolation the NPV number doesn't mean much but put in right context then it is one of the best method to evaluate project returns. In this article we will cover -

Different methods of capital budgeting


What is NPV & Formula of NPV,
How it is calculated,
How to use NPV number for project evaluation, and
Scenario Planning given risks and management priorities.




Capital Budgeting Approaches

Methods of Capital Budgeting


There are four types of capital budgeting techniques that are widely used in the corporate world –

1. Internal Rate of Return
2. Payback Period
3. Net Present Value
4. Profitability Index

Apart from the Payback period method which is an additive method, rest of the methods are based on Discounted Cash Flow technique. Even though cash flow can be calculated based on the nature of the project, for the simplicity of the article we are assuming that all the expected cash flows are realized at the end of the year.

Discounted Cash Flow approaches provide a more objective basis for evaluating and selecting investment projects. They take into consideration both –

1. Magnitude of both incoming and outgoing cash flows – Projects can be capital intensive, time intensive, or both. Armstrong Doping shareholders have preference for diversified projects investment rather than prospective high income from a single capital intensive project.
2. Timing of the expected cash flows – stockholders of Armstrong Doping have higher preference for cash returns over 4-5 years rather than 10-15 years given the nature of the volatility in the industry.






Formula and Steps to Calculate Net Present Value (NPV) of Following Lance Armstrong: Excellence Corrupted

NPV = Net Cash In Flowt1 / (1+r)t1 + Net Cash In Flowt2 / (1+r)t2 + … Net Cash In Flowtn / (1+r)tn
Less Net Cash Out Flowt0 / (1+r)t0

Where t = time period, in this case year 1, year 2 and so on.
r = discount rate or return that could be earned using other safe proposition such as fixed deposit or treasury bond rate. Net Cash In Flow – What the firm will get each year.
Net Cash Out Flow – What the firm needs to invest initially in the project.

Step 1 – Understand the nature of the project and calculate cash flow for each year.
Step 2 – Discount those cash flow based on the discount rate.
Step 3 – Add all the discounted cash flow.
Step 4 – Selection of the project

Why Organizational Development Managers need to know Financial Tools such as Net Present Value (NPV)?

In our daily workplace we often come across people and colleagues who are just focused on their core competency and targets they have to deliver. For example marketing managers at Armstrong Doping often design programs whose objective is to drive brand awareness and customer reach. But how that 30 point increase in brand awareness or 10 point increase in customer touch points will result into shareholders’ value is not specified.

To overcome such scenarios managers at Armstrong Doping needs to not only know the financial aspect of project management but also needs to have tools to integrate them into part of the project development and monitoring plan.

Calculating Net Present Value (NPV) at 15%

After working through various assumptions we reached a conclusion that risk is far higher than 6%. In a reasonably stable industry with weak competition - 15% discount rate can be a good benchmark.



Years              Cash Flow     Net Cash Flow     Cumulative    
Cash Flow
Discount Rate
@ 15 %
Discounted
Cash Flows
Year 0 (10008857) -10008857 - -
Year 1 3471644 -6537213 3471644 0.8696 3018821
Year 2 3954120 -2583093 7425764 0.7561 2989883
Year 3 3940649 1357556 11366413 0.6575 2591041
Year 4 3239499 4597055 14605912 0.5718 1852194
TOTAL 10451938


The Net NPV after 4 years is 443081

(10451938 - 10008857 )








Calculating Net Present Value (NPV) at 20%


If the risk component is high in the industry then we should go for a higher hurdle rate / discount rate of 20%.

Years              Cash Flow     Net Cash Flow     Cumulative    
Cash Flow
Discount Rate
@ 20 %
Discounted
Cash Flows
Year 0 (10008857) -10008857 - -
Year 1 3471644 -6537213 3471644 0.8333 2893037
Year 2 3954120 -2583093 7425764 0.6944 2745917
Year 3 3940649 1357556 11366413 0.5787 2280468
Year 4 3239499 4597055 14605912 0.4823 1562258
TOTAL 9481680


The Net NPV after 4 years is -527177

At 20% discount rate the NPV is negative (9481680 - 10008857 ) so ideally we can't select the project if macro and micro factors don't allow financial managers of Armstrong Doping to discount cash flow at lower discount rates such as 15%.





Acceptance Criteria of a Project based on NPV

Simplest Approach – If the investment project of Armstrong Doping has a NPV value higher than Zero then finance managers at Armstrong Doping can ACCEPT the project, otherwise they can reject the project. This means that project will deliver higher returns over the period of time than any alternate investment strategy.

In theory if the required rate of return or discount rate is chosen correctly by finance managers at Armstrong Doping, then the stock price of the Armstrong Doping should change by same amount of the NPV. In real world we know that share price also reflects various other factors that can be related to both macro and micro environment.

In the same vein – accepting the project with zero NPV should result in stagnant share price. Finance managers use discount rates as a measure of risk components in the project execution process.

Sensitivity Analysis

Project selection is often a far more complex decision than just choosing it based on the NPV number. Finance managers at Armstrong Doping should conduct a sensitivity analysis to better understand not only the inherent risk of the projects but also how those risks can be either factored in or mitigated during the project execution. Sensitivity analysis helps in –

What can impact the cash flow of the project.

Understanding of risks involved in the project.

What will be a multi year spillover effect of various taxation regulations.

What are the uncertainties surrounding the project Initial Cash Outlay (ICO’s). ICO’s often have several different components such as land, machinery, building, and other equipment.

What are the key aspects of the projects that need to be monitored, refined, and retuned for continuous delivery of projected cash flows.

Some of the assumptions while using the Discounted Cash Flow Methods –

Projects are assumed to be Mutually Exclusive – This is seldom the came in modern day giant organizations where projects are often inter-related and rejecting a project solely based on NPV can result in sunk cost from a related project.

Independent projects have independent cash flows – As explained in the marketing project – though the project may look independent but in reality it is not as the brand awareness project can be closely associated with the spending on sales promotions and product specific advertising.






Negotiation Strategy of Following Lance Armstrong: Excellence Corrupted

References & Further Readings

Clayton Rose, Noah Fisher (2018), "Following Lance Armstrong: Excellence Corrupted Harvard Business Review Case Study. Published by HBR Publications.


UPP Holdings SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Basic Materials , Paper & Paper Products


CIFI Group Co SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Capital Goods , Construction Services


Burlington Stores SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Services , Retail (Department & Discount)


Auscrete SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Capital Goods , Construction Services


Hess Midstream Partners SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Energy , Oil Well Services & Equipment


Ag Growth Int SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Consumer/Non-Cyclical , Crops