Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Phuket Beach Hotel Final
Phuket Beach Hotel Final
De La Salle University
Should the management of Phuket Beach Resort accept the offer made by
Planet
Karaoke Pub to set up an outlet inside the hotel or should the
management
operate a pub, Beach Karaoke Pub, by itself?
The space was located on the second floor of the main building and was
very
much under-utilised. Planat Karaoke Pub offered to sign a four-year
lease
agreement with the hotel for rending part of the unused space. It
proposed to
pay:
a. a monthly rental fee of 170,000 baht for the first two years;
and
b. thereafter, a 5% increment for the next two years.
Planet Karaoke Pub required only 70% of the unused space measuring 3,000
sq.
feet. This would allow the hotel to keep the remaining space for the
creation of an
alley two years later.
III. Objectives
With the given two alternatives on hand, this case aims to:
Submitted by:
R. Bagunas, S. Chua, C. De Guzman, N. Padon, D. Palmones, J. Valeros, O. Velarde
1
Submitted to:
Prof. R. Queddeng
Phuket Beach Resort Case Analysis
De La Salle University
a. Assumptions
2. The estimated total sales amounting to 4,672,000 baht for the first
year of
operation is a reasonable estimate and thus was applied with the 5%
sales
growth per annum.
3. The 25% fear factor is applied on the projected annual net room
revenue
representing 50% of the pub revenue – 50% from hotel guests.
6. All payments and inflows assumed to have been made at the end of
the
year.
a. Areas of Consideration
7. The two projects have unequal lives: Planet Karaoke Pub to run for
4 years
while Beach Karaoke Pub to run for 6 years.
8. It was envisaged that the proposed pub would not affect the hotel’s
future
expansion plans.
Submitted by:
R. Bagunas, S. Chua, C. De Guzman, N. Padon, D. Palmones, J. Valeros, O. Velarde
2
Submitted to:
Prof. R. Queddeng
Phuket Beach Resort Case Analysis
De La Salle University
11.Staff for the karaoke pub could be recruited internally because the
hotel had
excess manpower and the excess staff had long-term contracts with
the
hotel.
Advantages:
Additional source of revenue
Steady source of revenue in the form of “fixed” monthly
rental
Take advantage of unutilised space
Tie-up with a company that is expanding fast in the
country
(“positive image”)
Company is exposed to lesser risk since it will be a third
party who
will be doing majority of the investment of the pub
Disadvantages:
Will entail additional costs and investment
Limited control over overall pub operations
Problem on allocating overhead costs
Advantages:
Venture into a lucrative business spreading fast in the
country
Have control over overall pub operations
Additional source of revenue
Complementary pub operation with its hotel business
Disadvantages:
Submitted by:
R. Bagunas, S. Chua, C. De Guzman, N. Padon, D. Palmones, J. Valeros, O. Velarde
3
Submitted to:
Prof. R. Queddeng
Phuket Beach Resort Case Analysis
De La Salle University
Factor at 10.75%
Weighted average cost of capital:
1 0.903 0.903
debt equity
2 0.815 1.718
composition 25% 75%
3 0.736 2.454
rate 10% 12%
4 0.665 3.119
= (0.25*0.10)(1-0.30)+(0.75*0.12) = 10.75%
5 0.600 3.719
6 0.542 4.261
25% fear factor: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
13,200,000.0 14,137,000.0
15,140,000.0
net room revenue 0 13,464,000.00 0
14,844,000.00 0 15,443,000.00
6,600,000.0 7,068,500.0
7,570,000.0 7,721,5
50% hotel guests -pub 0 6,732,000.00 0
7,422,000.00 0 00.00
25% reduction in 1,650,000.0 1,767,125.0
1,892,500.0
revenue 0 1,683,000.00 0
1,855,500.00 0 1,930,375.00
Submitted by:
R. Bagunas, S. Chua, C. De Guzman, N. Padon, D. Palmones, J. Valeros, O. Velarde
4
Submitted to:
Prof. R. Queddeng
Phuket Beach Resort Case Analysis
De La Salle University
/ years 4
4
250,000.0
192,500.0
annual depreciation 0
0
Submitted by:
R. Bagunas, S. Chua, C. De Guzman, N. Padon, D. Palmones, J. Valeros, O. Velarde
5
Submitted to:
Prof. R. Queddeng
Phuket Beach Resort Case Analysis
De La Salle University
NPV of
Year(s) Amount
PV factor cash flows
Annual Operating Cash Flow 1 323,750.00
0.903 292,346.25
2 300,650.00
0.815 245,029.75
3 313,162.50
0.736 230,487.60
4 251,300.00
0.665 167,114.50
Renovation costs 0 770,000.00
1.000 (770,000.00)
164,978.10
Alternative 1 (scenario two): Planet Karaoke Pub (Upper Limit)
NPV of
PV
Year(s) Amount factor
cash flows
341,000.0 0.90
Annual Operating Cash Flow 1 0 3
307,923.00
317,900.0 0.81
2 0 5
259,088.50
330,412.5 0.73
3 0 6
243,183.60
268,550.0 0.66
4 0 5
178,585.75
1,000,000.0 1.00
Renovation 0 0 0
(1,000,000.00)
(11,219.15)
Submitted by:
R. Bagunas, S. Chua, C. De Guzman, N. Padon, D. Palmones, J. Valeros, O.
Velarde 6
Submitted to:
Prof. R. Queddeng
Phuket Beach Resort Case Analysis
De La Salle University
(283,333.3
(283,333.3 (283,333.3
Depreciation (283,333.33) 3)
(283,333.33) 3) 3) (283,333.33)
623,634.6
717,631.3
Net Income 532,826.67 7
669,508.07 9 823,954.62 936,569.02
(187,090.4
(215,289.4 (247,186.3
Less: Tax (30%) (159,848.00) 0)
(200,852.42) 2) 9) (280,970.71)
436,544.2
502,341.9
Net Income After Tax 372,978.67 7
468,655.65 7 576,768.24 655,598.31
283,333.3
283,333.3
Add: Gross Depreciation 283,333.33 3
283,333.33 3 283,333.33 283,333.33
719,877.6
785,675.3
656,312.00 0
751,988.98 0 860,101.57 938,931.65
note: salaries 16% is not relevant since workforce will be coming from
hotel staff.
NPV of
PV
Year(s) Amount
factor cash flows
800,000.0
1.00 (800,000.0
Initial investment 0 0 0
0)
900,000.0
1.00 (900,000.0
Other capital investment 0 0 0
0)
656,312.0
0.90
Annual Operating Cash Flow 1 0 3
592,649.74
719,877.6
0.81
2 0 5
586,700.24
751,988.9
0.73
3 8 6
553,463.89
785,675.3
0.66
4 0 5
522,474.08
860,101.5
0.60
5 7 0
516,060.94
938,931.6
0.54
6 5 2
508,900.95
1,580,249.84
Submitted by:
R. Bagunas, S. Chua, C. De Guzman, N. Padon, D. Palmones, J. Valeros, O.
Velarde 7
Submitted to:
Prof. R. Queddeng
Phuket Beach Resort Case Analysis
De La Salle University
(10,000.00 (10,000.00
(10,000.00 (10,000.00 (10,000.00
Repairs )
(10,000.00) ) ) ) )
(350,000.0 (350,000.0
(350,000.0 (350,000.0 (350,000.0
Depreciation 0) (350,000.00) 0)
0) 0) 0)
602,841.4
757,287.9 869,902.3
Net Income 466,160.00 556,968.00 0
650,964.72 6 5
(139,848.0 (180,852.4
(195,289.4 (227,186.3 (260,970.7
Less: Tax (30%) 0) (167,090.40) 2)
2) 9) 1)
Net Income After 421,988.9
530,101.5 608,931.6
Tax 326,312.00 389,877.60 8
455,675.30 7 5
Add: Gross 350,000.0
350,000.0 350,000.0
Depreciation 350,000.00 350,000.00 0
350,000.00 0 0
771,988.9
880,101.5 958,931.6
676,312.00 739,877.60 8
805,675.30 7 5
note: salaries 16% is not relevant since workforce will be coming from hotel
staff.
NPV of
Year(s) Amount
PV factor cash flows
1,200,000.0
Initial investment 0 0
1.000 (1,200,000.00)
900,000.0
Other capital investment 0 0
1.000 (900,000.00)
676,312.0
Annual Operating Cash Flow 1 0
0.903 610,709.74
739,877.6
2 0
0.815 603,000.24
771,988.9
3 8
0.736 568,183.89
805,675.3
4 0
0.665 535,774.08
880,101.5
5 7
0.600 528,060.94
958,931.6
6 5
0.542 519,740.95
1,265,469.84
Submitted by:
R. Bagunas, S. Chua, C. De Guzman, N. Padon, D. Palmones, J. Valeros, O. Velarde
8
Submitted to:
Prof. R. Queddeng
Phuket Beach Resort Case Analysis
De La Salle University
It would seem that the measures rank the projects identifically, all
points to
alternative two – own pub: Beach Karaoke Pub, with lower limit
investment of
1,700,000 baht. The best criterion would be to use either NPV or IRR
since both
considers time value of money.
Submitted by:
R. Bagunas, S. Chua, C. De Guzman, N. Padon, D. Palmones, J. Valeros, O. Velarde
9
Submitted to:
Prof. R. Queddeng
Phuket Beach Resort Case Analysis
De La Salle University
Submitted by:
R. Bagunas, S. Chua, C. De Guzman, N. Padon, D. Palmones, J. Valeros, O. Velarde
10
Submitted to:
Prof. R. Queddeng
Phuket Beach Resort Case Analysis
De La Salle University
Submitted by:
R. Bagunas, S. Chua, C. De Guzman, N. Padon, D. Palmones, J. Valeros, O. Velarde
11
Submitted to:
Prof. R. Queddeng
Phuket Beach Resort Case Analysis
De La Salle University
Submitted by:
R. Bagunas, S. Chua, C. De Guzman, N. Padon, D. Palmones, J. Valeros, O. Velarde
12
Submitted to:
Prof. R. Queddeng
Phuket Beach Resort Case Analysis
De La Salle University
Submitted by:
R. Bagunas, S. Chua, C. De Guzman, N. Padon, D. Palmones, J. Valeros, O. Velarde
13
Submitted to:
Prof. R. Queddeng
Phuket Beach Resort Case Analysis
De La Salle University
The projects are comparable based on the standard NPV measure even
though
they have unequal lives. In NPV, cash flows are discounted into the
present
time.
All are put on "equal" footing, as if all the "inflows" would be
received today,
and as if all the
"outflows" would be spent today. Thus, the relevant time value of
money being
considered, evaluation is comparable. The only adjustment required
would
have to be in terms determining and evaluating the most effective cost
of
capital in decision-making.
Submitted by:
R. Bagunas, S. Chua, C. De Guzman, N. Padon, D. Palmones, J. Valeros, O. Velarde
14
Submitted to:
Prof. R. Queddeng
Phuket Beach Resort Case Analysis
De La Salle University
Submitted by:
R. Bagunas, S. Chua, C. De Guzman, N. Padon, D. Palmones, J. Valeros, O. Velarde
15
Submitted to:
Prof. R. Queddeng
Phuket Beach Resort Case Analysis
De La Salle University
at 8%
Alternative 1 : Planet Karaoke Pub (Lower Limit)
NPV of
Year(s) Amount
PV factor cash flows
Annual Operating Cash Flow 1 323,750.00
0.926 299,792.50
2 300,650.00
0.857 257,657.05
3 313,162.50
0.794 248,651.03
4 251,300.00
0.735 184,705.50
Renovation costs 0 770,000.00
1.000 (770,000.00)
220,806.08
Alternative 1: Planet Karaoke Pub (Upper Limit)
NPV of
Year(s) Amount
PV factor cash flows
Annual Operating Cash Flow 1 341,000.00
0.926 315,766.00
2 317,900.00
0.857 272,440.30
3 330,412.50
0.794 262,347.53
4 268,550.00
0.735 197,384.25
Renovation 0 1,000,000.00
1.000 (1,000,000.00)
47,938.08
Submitted by:
R. Bagunas, S. Chua, C. De Guzman, N. Padon, D. Palmones, J. Valeros, O. Velarde
16
Submitted to:
Prof. R. Queddeng
Phuket Beach Resort Case Analysis
De La Salle University
NPV of
Year(s) Amount
PV factor cash flows
Initial investment 0 1,200,000.00
1.000 (1,200,000.00)
Other capital investment 0 900,000.00
1.000 (900,000.00)
Annual Operating Cash Flow 1 676,312.00
0.926 626,264.91
2 739,877.60
0.857 634,075.10
3 771,988.98
0.794 612,959.25
4 805,675.30
0.735 592,171.35
5 880,101.57
0.681 599,349.17
6 958,931.65
0.630 604,126.94
1,568,946.72
Alternative 2 : Beach Karaoke Pub (Lower Limit)
NPV of
Year(s) Amount
PV factor cash flows
Initial investment 0 800,000.00
1.000 (800,000.00)
Other capital investment 0 900,000.00
1.000 (900,000.00)
Annual Operating Cash Flow 1 656,312.00
0.926 607,744.91
2 719,877.60
0.857 616,935.10
3 751,988.98
0.794 597,079.25
4 785,675.30
0.735 577,471.35
5 860,101.57
0.681 585,729.17
6 938,931.65
0.630 591,526.94
1,876,486.72
at 10%
Alternative 1 : Planet Karaoke Pub (Lower Limit)
NPV of
Year(s) Amount
PV factor cash flows
Annual Operating Cash Flow 1 323,750.00
0.909 294,288.75
2 300,650.00
0.826 248,336.90
3 313,162.50
0.752 235,498.20
4 251,300.00
0.683 171,637.90
Renovation costs 0 770,000.00
0.621 (478,170.00)
471,591.75
Alternative 1: Planet Karaoke Pub (Upper Limit)
NPV of
Year(s) Amount
PV factor cash flows
Annual Operating Cash Flow 1 341,000.00
0.909 309,969.00
2 317,900.00
0.826 262,585.40
3 330,412.50
0.752 248,470.20
4 268,550.00
0.683 183,419.65
Renovation 0 1,000,000.00
1.000 (1,000,000.00)
4,444.25
NPV of
Year(s) Amount
PV factor cash flows
Submitted by:
R. Bagunas, S. Chua, C. De Guzman, N. Padon, D. Palmones, J. Valeros, O. Velarde
17
Submitted to:
Prof. R. Queddeng
Phuket Beach Resort Case Analysis
De La Salle University
1,344,098.97
Alternative 2: Beach Karaoke Pub (Lower Limit)
NPV of
Year(s) Amount
PV factor cash flows
Initial investment 0 800,000.00
1.000 (800,000.00)
Other capital investment 0 900,000.00
1.000 (900,000.00)
Annual Operating Cash Flow 1 656,312.00
0.909 596,587.61
2 719,877.60
0.826 594,618.90
3 751,988.98
0.752 565,495.71
4 785,675.30
0.683 536,616.23
5 860,101.57
0.621 534,123.07
6 938,931.65
0.564 529,557.45
1,656,998.97
at 14%
Alternative 1 : Planet Karaoke Pub (Lower Limit)
NPV of
Year(s) Amount
PV factor cash flows
Annual Operating Cash Flow 1 323,750.00
0.877 283,928.75
2 300,650.00
0.769 231,199.85
3 313,162.50
0.675 211,384.69
4 251,300.00
0.592 148,769.60
Renovation costs 0 770,000.00
1.000 (770,000.00)
105,282.89
Alternative 1: Planet Karaoke Pub (Upper Limit)
NPV of
Year(s) Amount
PV factor cash flows
Annual Operating Cash Flow 1 341,000.00
0.877 299,057.00
2 317,900.00
0.769 244,465.10
3 330,412.50
0.675 223,028.44
4 268,550.00
0.592 158,981.60
Renovation 0 1,000,000.00
1.000 (1,000,000.00)
(74,467.86)
NPV of
Year(s) Amount
PV factor cash flows
Initial investment 0 1,200,000.00
1.000 (1,200,000.00)
Submitted by:
R. Bagunas, S. Chua, C. De Guzman, N. Padon, D. Palmones, J. Valeros, O. Velarde
18
Submitted to:
Prof. R. Queddeng
Phuket Beach Resort Case Analysis
De La Salle University
954,189.39
Alternative 2: Beach Karaoke Pub (Lower Limit)
NPV of
Year(s) Amount
PV factor cash flows
Initial investment 0 800,000.00
1.000 (800,000.00)
Other capital investment 0 900,000.00
1.000 (900,000.00)
Annual Operating Cash Flow 1 656,312.00
0.877 575,585.62
2 719,877.60
0.769 553,585.87
3 751,988.98
0.675 507,592.56
4 785,675.30
0.592 465,119.78
5 860,101.57
0.519 446,392.71
6 938,931.65
0.456 428,152.83
1,276,429.39
at 16%
Alternative 1: Planet Karaoke Pub (Lower Limit)
NPV of
Year(s) Amount
PV factor cash flows
Annual Operating Cash Flow 1 323,750.00
0.862 279,072.50
2 300,650.00
0.743 223,382.95
3 313,162.50
0.641 200,737.16
4 251,300.00
0.552 138,717.60
Renovation costs 0 770,000.00
1.000 (770,000.00)
71,910.21
Alternative 1: Planet Karaoke Pub (Upper Limit)
NPV of
Year(s) Amount
PV factor cash flows
Annual Operating Cash Flow 1 341,000.00
0.862 293,942.00
2 317,900.00
0.743 236,199.70
3 330,412.50
0.641 211,794.41
4 268,550.00
0.552 148,239.60
Renovation 0 1,000,000.00
1.000 (1,000,000.00)
(109,824.29)
NPV of
Year(s) Amount
PV factor cash flows
Initial investment 0 1,200,000.00
1.000 (1,200,000.00)
Other capital investment 0 900,000.00
1.000 (900,000.00)
Submitted by:
R. Bagunas, S. Chua, C. De Guzman, N. Padon, D. Palmones, J. Valeros, O. Velarde
19
Submitted to:
Prof. R. Queddeng
Phuket Beach Resort Case Analysis
De La Salle University
784,378.03
Alternative 2 : Beach Karaoke Pub (Lower Limit)
NPV of
Year(s) Amount
PV factor cash flows
Initial investment 0 800,000.00
1.000 (800,000.00)
Other capital investment 0 900,000.00
1.000 (900,000.00)
Annual Operating Cash Flow 1 656,312.00
0.862 565,740.94
2 719,877.60
0.743 534,869.06
3 751,988.98
0.641 482,024.94
4 785,675.30
0.552 433,692.77
5 860,101.57
0.476 409,408.35
6 938,931.65
0.410 384,961.98
1,110,698.03
10.75% 8%
10% 14% 16%
Alternative 1 (Scenario One):
Planet Karaoke Pub (Upper 164,978.1 220,806.0
471,591.7 105,282.8 71,910.2
Limit) 0 8
5 9 1
Alternative 1 (Scenario Two):
Planet Karaoke Pub (Lower (11,219.1 47,938.0
(74,467.8 (109,824.2
Limit) 5) 8
4,444.25 6) 9)
Alternative 2 (Scenario One):
Beach Karaoke Pub (Upper 1,580,249.8 1,876,486.7
1,656,998.9 1,276,429.3 1,110,698.0
Limit) 4 2
7 9 3
Alternative 2 (Scenario Two):
Beach Karaoke Pub (Lower 1,265,469.8 1,568,946.7
1,344,098.9 954,189.3 784,378.0
Limit) 4 2
7 9 3
IV. Conclusion
Based on the computations done by the group given the current and projected
financial data of the two alternatives, the group recommends that Phuket Beach
Resort builds its own pub because of the figures that we derived from the
computations of IRR, ROI, Payback Period, and NPV.
Submitted by:
R. Bagunas, S. Chua, C. De Guzman, N. Padon, D. Palmones, J. Valeros, O. Velarde
20
Submitted to:
Prof. R. Queddeng
Phuket Beach Resort Case Analysis
De La Salle University
d. Competitors
How many competitors are there in the market?
How are the financial muscles of the competitors?
How is the market situation for pub?
What is the foreseen growth of the industry?
e. Market Size
Is the market big enough to welcome another competitor?
What is the projected market growth in the next 5 years?
Submitted by:
R. Bagunas, S. Chua, C. De Guzman, N. Padon, D. Palmones, J. Valeros, O. Velarde
21
Submitted to:
Prof. R. Queddeng
Phuket Beach Resort Case Analysis
De La Salle University
V. Recommendation
Annual returns for each investment alternative are related to the net
investment
to arrive at a certain rate which in turn are compared with the minimum
standard
established based on the lowest acceptable rate of return. Generally, the
investment rating procedures are classified into two categories: (1)
methods that
do not consider the time value of money; and (2) methods that consider the
time
value of money. Although not any one of these methods serves every
purpose,
nevertheless, the determination of the most appropriate method to be used
would
be dependent upon the circumstances and needs of a particular situation.
The existing capital budgeting system at Phuket Beach Hotel ranks projects
according to their average return on investment and payback period;
neglecting
the fact that both investment ranking alternatives do not consider time
value of
money. This does not present an accurate measurement of investment
profitability especially since a dollar today is worth more than a dollar
a year from
now. Recognition of time value of money is important in capital budgeting
decisions. Business investments commonly promise returns that extend over
fairly long periods of time and therefore it is necessary to employ
techniques that
recognize the time value of money.
The Payback Period is the length of time necessary to recover the entire
cost of
an investment from the resulting annual net cash flows. Payback period is
not a
true measure of the profitability of an investment. It simply tells the
manager
how many years will be required to recover the original investment. A
shorter
payback period does not always means that one investment is more desirable
than another. It has not inherent mechanism for highlighting differences
in useful
life between investments. Such differences can be very important, and
relying on
payback alone may result in incorrect decisions. It does not consider time
value
of money. Cash inflow to be received several years in the future is
weighted
equally with cash inflow to be received right now. Although it can be also
be very
useful under certain conditions since it can be used as a screening tool
and is
often of great importance to new firms that are “cash poor.”
Submitted by:
R. Bagunas, S. Chua, C. De Guzman, N. Padon, D. Palmones, J. Valeros, O. Velarde
22
Submitted to:
Prof. R. Queddeng
Phuket Beach Resort Case Analysis
De La Salle University
Discounting future cash flows is a technique that does into account cash
flow
timing issues. The present value of the future cash flow is the amount
that a
knowledgeable investor would pay today for the right to receive that
future
amount. Arriving at a present value depends on - the amount of future cash
flows,
the length of time that the investor must wait to receive the cash flow,
and the
rate of return required by the investor. Discounting is the process by
which the
present value of cash flows (the discounted cash flows) is determined.
Submitted by:
R. Bagunas, S. Chua, C. De Guzman, N. Padon, D. Palmones, J. Valeros, O. Velarde
23
Submitted to:
Prof. R. Queddeng