Murphy Stores: Capital Projects john 3. Strong, College of William and Mary Tom Becker, Manager of Capital Planning for Murphy Stores, was reviewing possible projects that might be funded in

Murphy Stores: Capital Projects john 3. Strong, College of William and Mary Tom Becker, Manager of Capital Planning for Murphy Stores, was reviewing possible
projects that might be funded in 2007. The slowdown in the housing market had made
Murphy’s capital committee (which approved all capital spending over $1 million)
cautious about a few investments that were aimed at increasing revenues; the capital
committee now wanted to consider reallocating capital funds to cost—saving projects.
Becker had previously been a project analyst, but had been promoted to Manager of
Capital Planning (reporting to the Chief Financial Officer) not just for his technical
financial skills, but also for his willingness to thoroughly discuss projects with members
of the store operations and merchandising teams who were on the front lines of the
business. Murphy Stores was a large retailer with multiple brands and formats. There were
large “full—line” department stores which carried a complete assortment of apparel,
appliances, home goods, and general merchandise. (These stores were similar to Sears
orJC Penney or Target.) The second format was smaller hardware stores which carried
a moderate assortment of home improvement merchandise, comparable to larger Ace
or True Value Hardware stores. The company also had small locally—franchised dealer
stores, and tire and auto centers, but which were a much smaller part of the total
business. Murphy had 200 full—line department stores and 200 hardware stores, with
total revenues of about $10 billion. Including online operations, the department store segment had experienced sales
growth of about six percent annually for several years. Growth in home improvement
spending had driven the hardware store sales growth at nine percent annually over the
past five years. Murphy’s total capital budget, like many broadline retailers, averaged
about 1.5% — 2.0% of revenues, and about 4% — 7% of fixed assets. The 2007 capital
budget had been revised downward from an initial $175 million to $150 million, as
some projects were deferred. storically, the company had allocated about 40 percent
to reinvestment or replacement of existing assets, 35 percent to investments aimed at
improving business operations and efficiency, and 25 percent to new growth initiatives.
The company’s weighted average cost of capital typically was applied for reinvestment
or business improvement projects, with a varying premium of 2% to 4% for higher risk
projects or growth initiatives. Copyright © 2017 by the Can Reumrbjoamd and byJohn S. Strong. The case study was prepared
as the basis for classroom discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling
of an administrative situation. The author wishes to Charles h-IossmanJohn Lawrence, and
the anonymous CR] reviewers for their thorough and ful suggestions on how to make this a
more effective case. The case is based on actual data, although the names ofthe organization, some
company financial information, and people inthe case have been disguised for confidentiality. NA0520 ‘Ihe reallocation from revenue growth projects meant that Murphy Stores had
approximately $7 million remaining in its capital budget for 2007. Becker was
evaluating two potential cost—saving opportunities: enhanced security systems to
reduce theft, and energysefficient lighting replacements. Becker felt that considering
these two potential investments would be wellsreceived by the store operations
managers. Becker commented, “Frequently, our operations team feels that the finance
group doesn’t really understand what is going on in stores.” Becker felt that these two
projects could store managers deal with the growing amount of stolen
merchandise and with the headache of continually having to change burnedsout
lighting and “dark spots” in departments. Because both projects involved improvements to existing operations, Becker
believed they could be analyzed using the standard weighted average cost of capital for
the company. Becker noted, Our policy is to evaluate cost saving projects in existing stores on a consistent
basis. We find it hard to estimate project specific discount rate adjustments.
Instead, projects with less information should be subject to greater levels of
sensitivity or scenario analysis. When we have undertaken export reviews, we
have found more errors due to incorrect assumptions than any other factor. Becker noted that the IRR calculations would assess whether a higher
discount rate would lead to a different project recommendation. Becker also
commented that it was important not to double—count — that is, taking into account
risk by changing variables in the cash flows as well as assuming higher discount rates. The company’ 5 project evaluation review process assumed the company average
tax rate of 39 percent and an average cost of capital of 12 percent, although this
discount rate might be adjusted for projects of higher or lower risk. Each year, the
capital planning team provided basic assumptions for capital project submissions, so
that each division was not making its own determinations of general factors like
inflation and the cost of capital. Becker also knew that the cost of capital could change,
and had not been re—calculated recently, so he collected relevant financial market data
to update his calculations. This data is presented in Exhibit 1 (next page). Being a
fairly conservative organization, Murphy Stores had set its target capital structure with
long—term debt at 20% of capital and equity at 80% of capital (measured at market
values). The company typically used investment grade bond yields as its cost of debt,
and believed that medium term Treasury notes and medium term spreads matched the
asset lives of most of its investments. Like many companies, however, Murphy’s practice was to use a discount rate for
its base case project evaluation slightly above the exact cost of capital as calculated,
because the company felt this was a more conservative way to incorporate changes in
financial markets and inherently optimistic project submissions. As one senior
executive noted, “Nobody ever submits a project he doesn’t like, so our base case
analysis frequently turns out to be overly optimistic.” Becker knew that finance theory suggested that all positive NPV projects should
be funded. However, in practice companies like Murphy Stores established capital
budgets that operated within managerial constraints about the extent of external
financing, required reinvestments, and the like. These constraints acted as a means of
“soft” capital rationing, because any unfunded positive NPV projects were likely to be
carried over and undertaken in the following year. Current revenue and expense
forecasts indicated that there was no opportunity to increase the capital budget this
year. Thus, it was only possible to recommend projects totaling $7 million. Exhibit 1: Financial Market Data, 2.007 Murphy Stores Equity Beta 1.20
Treasury bills (90 day) 4.00%
LIedium term Treasury notes (10 years maturity) 4.50%
Long term Treasury bonds (30 year maturity) 5.00%
Corporate bonds Investment Grade (A) 6.75%
Corporate bonds Below Investment Grade (CCC) 10.50%
Prime Rate 7.25%
LIBOR (5 years) 5.80%
Expected Inflation 4% Spreads (Rm — R1) Rm—Rf (T—bills) 7.50%
Rm—Rf (T —notes) 7.00%
Rm—Rf (T—bonds) 6.50%
Rm—Rd (A rated corporate bonds) 4.75%
Return on S&P 500 (last 52 weeks) 14.60% Sources: Morningstar, SBBI Yeaifioa/é 2007; Simdam’ aadPoar’:
Bond Guide; The WM! Sheerfoamaf, Value Line, 2007. ELECTRONIC ARTICLE SURVEILLANCE {EASE EAS was a technology that utilized tags, entry and exit systems, and audible signals to
deter merchandise theft. Many major retailers used EAS extensively. Increasingly,
vendors were supplying products to stores with EAS source tags already attached. The
most common version, and the one under consideration by Murphy, was the white
sensor channels commonly seen just inside the exit doors of many stores. Radio
Frequency Identification (RFID) chips were placed inside tags attached to merchandise
using special devices that were required to remove them. If an attempt was made to
remove a tagged item, a second RFID chip in the sensor channel sounded an alarm.
Retail consulting studies indicated that stores that used EAS tended to drive shoplifters
to stores without EAS. Other industry estimates suggested that shrink (industry
terminology for stolen goods) fell 20% 7 50% after EAS systems were installed.
Merchandise shrink was a hotly debated topic in the retail industry. Industry trade groups estimated that stolen merchandise (by customers, employees, suppliers, and
system errors) equated to about 1.5% of total retail sales (and as high as 5%—7% in some sectors). There was much discussion and disagreement as to the source of shrink,
but shoplifting by customers and by employees were believed to be much more
significant than supplier theft or system reporting errors. JMurphy believed that the
presence of EAS would not only reduce customer theft, but also deter employee
theft because the tags had to be physically removed. Current Murphy hardware store shrinkage in 2006 was about 3.1% of sales, up
from 1.8% a year earlier. Full—line stores had shrink of 2.8% in 2006, compared with
1.8% in 2005. Full—line stores shrink by selected store departments are shown in
Exhibit 2. Hardware store shrink had been growing steadily in recent years. Full—line
store shrink had been more variable, but recent data indicated a sharp uptick to 3.6%
in the first quarter of 2007. Exhibit 2: Shrink as a Percentage of Sales by Category Categogz 2006 Shrink 2005 Shrink
Fulliline store, selected departments
Computers 3.6% 2.1%
Home electronics 3.7% 2.4%
Womens Apparel 4.2% 3.8%
Mens Apparel 3.9% 2.5%
Average— full—line stores” 2.8% 1.8%
Average — hardware stores 3.1% 1.8% “k N am: Ammger repaired an armrr all dgbmz’mmir, mtjmz’ rbefam" {and abow. Fail—.5239 more; r/eré mg? 2007 3.6%)
Source: Company information. Murphy’s had installed EAS in three stores in high—risk markets in 2005. Store A
subsequently experienced shrink of 1.3%, while Store B had a rate of 0.2%.
Unfortunately, no pre—installation shrink data was available for these two stores. In
Store C, shrink fell from 1.8% pre—EAS to 0.1% after the installation of EAS. Murphy’ 5
currently had EAS installed in 19 full—line stores and 5 hardware stores. The proposed EAS initiative would install the systems in 23 full—line stores and/ or
110 hardware stores in 2007. The initial costs for the filll—line stores are shown in
Exhibit 3. Ten years was the expected life of the project, with no salvage value. Of
the total $4.6 million required, just over $3 million would be depreciated on a modified
accelerated cost recovery system (lVIACRS) schedule, with the equipment classified in
the seven year recovery period by the IRS. The lVLACRS seven year depreciation
schedule is presented in Exhibit 4. The remainder would be expensed immediately.
The only significant cash expense item going forward was the ongoing cost of tags,
which needed to be replaced each year. It was assumed that labor costs to install and
remove the tags would be taken care of by suppliers or existing sales staff during slow
periods, so that there would be no incremental employee costs. Similar cost estimates for the Hardware stores were shown in Exhibit 5. Again,
the only significant expense going forward would be for label tags. However, because
hardware stores included many items in which tags could be reused, only one—fourth of label tags would need to be replaced each year. Exhibit 3: EAS Project Costs, Full-line Stores
Cost per Store
Cost for Project
(thousands $)
(thousands $)
Door Pedestal/ Alarm
$ 41
$ 943
Floor system
Message Units
Deactivator/ Detachers
Total capital
$ 132
$ 3,036
Total expense
$ 68
$ 1,564
Total cost
$ 200
$ 4,600
Note: Capital category is subject to depreciation.
Source: Company information.
Exhibit 4: Modified Accelerated Depreciation Schedule (MACRS)
Seven Year Equipment Category
Depreciation Rate %
Depreciation Rate %
Note: Assumes half-year convention for the first year put in service; zero salvage value.
Exhibit 5: EAS Project Costs, Hardware Stores
Cost per Store
Cost for Project
(thousands $)
(thousands $)
Door Pedestal/ Alarm
$ 10
$ 1,100
Message Units
Total capital
$ 19
$ 2,090
Total expense
$ 2
Total cost
$ 21
$ 2,310
Note: Capital category is subject to depreciation. No floor system is required in hardware stores because
entry/ exit is smaller and therefore can be contained in the door pedestal unit.
Source: Company information. The financial benefit of reducing merchandise theft was also a topic of discussion.
From a financial perspective, Becker felt that there were three possible ways to account for the benefit of reduced shrink: 1. gher sales: Becker recalled that his finance classes in business school
emphasized that sunk costs should not be considered in project evaluation.
In the case of EAS, the cost of the merchandise was sunk, but the opportunity
cost of the merchandise that was stolen was a lost sale. This would mean that
the benefit of reducing shrink would be the higher differential sales that would
result. 2. Cost savings: Becker also thought that it might be reasonable to assume
that the cost to the company was replacing the merchandise that was stolen.
Thus the benefit of reducing shrink would be the savings from not having to
replenish merchandise — that is, the reduction in cost of goods sold. This
meant that Murphy would not assume the replaced item would have been
sold. 3. gher gross margin dollars: Becker thought it would also be a good idea
to discuss how the store operations and buying and merchandising teams
thought about the benefits of reducing shrink from a managerial perspective.
The retailers explained that stolen merchandise would have been sold. Their
view was that shrink resulted in a lost sale, but as soon as an item was sold it
would be replenished by the supplier. The supplier then included this
estimated loss in the product cost paid by Murphy Stores. Murphy’s
executives thus believed the cost of shrink was the lost gross margin
(differential margin : differential sales — differential cost of goods sold). Becker decided that his analysis should take into account all of these approaches.
If the EAS investments were attractive under all 3 approaches, this would likely
strengthen support for implementation. If not, further discussion would be warranted.
Because gross margin percentages were 44.7% for full—line stores and 40.8% for
hardware stores, Becker realized that the calculated benefits from EAS would be higher
for sales or cost of goods sold measures compared to the use of differential gross
margin dollars. Becker thought it was ironic that the operations and merchandise team,
who generally assumed optimistic forecasts, believed in a measure that would result in
a lower estimate of financial benefits. To undertake the analysis in full—line stores, Murphy’s gross margin was 44.7%.
Thus, each $1 of lost sales due to shrink represented 55.3 cents of cost of goods, and
lost margin of 44.7 cents. If this shrink were reduced, there would be higher sales,
lower costs, and higher gross margin dollars, each resulting in higher taxable income. The systems would be installed inJanuary, 2007, and benefits would begin midway
through the year, so that the 2007 benefits would only be for six months. All cash
flows were assumed to occur at the end of each year. Because the company did not
have a lot of experience with EAS, Murphy’s had decided to target its full—line store
EAS investments on the categories shown in Exhibit 1. The total 2007 sales
represented by these categories in the full—line stores were expected to be
approximately $500 million (an average of $21.8 million in sales for each of the 23 full—
line stores where EAS installation was being considered). Inflation was expected to average 4%; sales in fulliline stores were expected to grow at 6% annually (including
inflation). For hardware stores, the affected 2007 sales were expected to be $406 million ($3.7
million times 110 stores). Sales were expected to grow at 9% annually (including the
4% inflation). Hardware store gross margins were 40.8%. LIGHTING REPLACEMENT The next potential project involved replacement of metal halide lighting fixtures with
new generation fluorescent lighting (LED lighting was even more efficient, but was
limited to more focused lighting, rather than general ceiling illumination of large store
areas). The benefits of conversion were expected in three areas. First, the new lighting
was much more energy—efficient and would reduce energy consumption 30%—40%.
Second, the new lighting would create less heat and was thus expected to decrease air
conditioning use. Third, the new lighting was expected to improve brightness and
visibility by up to 75% compared with the old lights. Becker also felt that the new
lighting technology would support the company’s sustainability goals, although he felt
it would be very hard to quantify these benefits. The proposal would install this lighting in 187 hardware stores, at an average cost
of $37,400 per store. Depreciation would be on a seven year MACRS basis. Ten years
was the expected life of the project, with no salvage value. There would be negligible
effects on bulb replacement rates and other ongoing investments relative to metal
halide bulbs. Each store averaged 56.9 kilowatt—hours (kWh) of lighting—related
electricity use per hour in 2006. Annual hours of store operation averaged 5,100, with
an electricity cost of 7.5 cents per kWh. The lower heat levels produced by the new
lighting were expected to reduce hourly electricity requirements for air conditioning in
a typical store by 9—10 kilowatts. Air conditioning was typically in operation for 2,000
hours annually. The replacement would occur in early 2007, so again there would only
be 6 months of savings in the first year. RECCOMENDATION Tom Becker knew his review would require building different financial models for EAS
and for lighting. He felt that the uncertainty of assumptions would require him to pay
careful attention to sensitivity and scenario analysis. Becker also realized that the
projects were not necessarily mutually exclusive; it was possible to do some mix of
EAS and lighting if the results warranted, as long as the total project investment did
not exceed the $7 million of funds available. Becker felt that if the results were
particularly attractive, any unfunded projects would receive high priority in the next
budget cycle, which would start in only three months. Becker knew that Murphy’s
capital committee was awaiting his report. Because the capital committee was
comprised of the CFO, controller, and heads of the operating units, Becker knew that
they would have detailed questions and would expect him to be able to discuss project risks, sensitivities, and scenarios. 1. Provide the synopsis of the case and state the issue(s). 2. Describe the two investment opportunities and why each of them has appeal for Murphy
Stores. 3. Calculate the WACC for Murphy Stores and compare it with the 12 % assumption the
company made for project submissions. 4. Evaluate the two EAS projects and the lighting proposal. Prepare and interpret a project
analysis that includes NPV, IRR and Profitability Index calculations, As a starting point, you
should assume . that investments must be made upfront ( att = 0), – you can evaluate the cash flows at the end of each year ( with a 10 year horizon) . that only six months of benefits occur in year 1, because your investment is at t= O
o is installed in the first 6 months of year 1 5. are the key value drivers for each project? are the major risks or uncertainties
that you are concerned about for these projects? 6. From your analysis, prepare and discuss best and worst case scenarios for the projects.
7. do you recommend that Murphy do? could you out with this

Do you need us to help you on this or any other assignment?

Make an Order Now
0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *