Projects: Cost/Benefits Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total

PVF: 0.93 0.86 0.79 0.74

Costs 4,000 5,000 4,000 2,000 15,000
Benefits 2000 4,000 5,000 6,000 17,000
cash flow -2000 -1,000 1,000 4,000
Project 1 discounted cost 3,720 4,300 3,160 1,480 12,660
discounted benefit 1860 3,440 3,950 4,440 13,690
discounted b - c -1,860 -860 790 2,960 1,030 <---NPV
cumulative b - c -1860 -2,720 -1,930 1,030

Project1 feasibility
NPV 1030 yes
ROI 8.14 no
IRR 23% yes
payback 4 years no

part c
Considering all the criteria, Project 3 appears to be the most favorable choice.
It has the highest NPV, ROI, and IRR among the three projects. Additionally, it has the shortest payback period, indicating a qu
These factors suggest that Project 3 offers the best potential for profitability and return on investment compared to Projects 1
Therefore, I recommend selecting Project 3 based on its superior performance across all the evaluation criteria.
 Projects: Cost/Benefits Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total
PVF: 0.93 0.86 0.79 0.74
Costs 2,000 4,000 5,000 7,000 18,000
Benefits 1,000 3,000 6,000 8,000 18,000
cash flow -1,000 -1,000 1,000 1,000
Project 2 discounted cost 1,860 3,440 3,950 5,180 14,430
discounted benefit 930 2,580 4,740 5,920 14,170
discounted b - c -930 -860 790 740 -260 <---NPV
cumulative b - c -930 -1,790 -1,000 -260

Project 2 feasibility
NPV -260 no
ROI -1.8018018018018 no
IRR 0% no
Payback no pay back no

ayback period, indicating a quicker recovery of the initial investment.

stment compared to Projects 1 and 2.
aluation criteria.
Projects: Cost/Benefits Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total
PVF: 0.93 0.86 0.79 0.74
Costs 2,000 2,000 8,000 5,000 17,000
Benefits 1,000 4,000 8,000 7,000 20,000
cash flow -1,000 2,000 0 2,000
Project 3 discounted cost 1,860 1,720 6,320 3,700 13,600
discounted benefit 930 3,440 6,320 5,180 15,870
discounted b - c -930 1,720 0 1,480 2,270 <---NPV
cumulative b - c -930 790 790 2,270

Project 3 feasibility
NPV 2270 yes
ROI 16.6911764705882 yes
IRR 136% yes
Payback 2 years yes