Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 11 items for :

  • "internal rate of return" x
Clear All
Free access

William S. Castle, James C. Baldwin, Ronald P. Muraro and Ramon Littell

estimated internal rates of return. The outcomes are based on hypothetical 1-ha groves in three scenarios with trees planted at their respective trial spacing: 1) no tree loss; 2) actual tree loss with no replacement; and 3) actual tree loss with replacement

Full access

Thomas H. Spreen and Marisa L. Zansler

internal rate of return (IRR) is used as an application of the NPV calculation. Stated simply, IRR is the discount factor associated with an NPV of zero over a fixed planning horizon ( Kay and Edwards, 1999 ). In this analysis, a 20-year investment horizon

Free access

William S. Castle, James C. Baldwin and Ronald P. Muraro

the time value of money, a discount rate (because a dollar today is worth more than one received in future years) of 15% was used for the cash flow calculations and estimated internal rates of return. The analyses are of hypothetical 1-ha groves on

Full access

Carlos E. Carpio, Charles D. Safley and E. Barclay Poling

muscadine grape enterprise with other opportunities is to calculate the internal rate of return (IRR) on the total investment in muscadine grapes and then compare this rate of return with the interest yields on other investments. In this analysis, muscadine

Free access

Terence L. Robinson, Alison M. DeMarree and Stephen A. Hoying

We performed an economic analysis of five orchard production systems [Slender Pyramid/M.26 (840 trees/ha), Vertical Axis/M.9 (1538 trees/ha), Slender Axis/M.9 (2244 trees/ha), Tall Spindle/M.9 (3312 trees/ha), and Super Spindle (5382 trees/ha)] using composite yield and labor usage data from several replicated research plots in New York state. Other costs and fruit returns were averages from a group of commercial fruit farms in New York state. The systems varied in costs of establishment from a low of $18,431/ha for the Slender Pyramid system to high of $47,524/ha for the Super Spindle system. The large differences in establishment costs were largely related to tree density. All of the systems had a positive internal rate of return (IRR) and net present value (NPV) after 20 years. They ranged from a low of 7.5% IRR for the Slender Pyramid system to a high of 11.1% IRR for the Slender Axis system. Profitability, as measured by NPV, was curvilinearly related to tree density with intermediate densities giving greater profitability than the highest densities. The optimum density was 2600 trees/ha when NPV was calculated per hectare, but only 2200 trees/ha when NPV was calculated per $10,000 invested. The earliest break-even year was 10 for the Slender Axis and Tall Spindle systems. The latest break-even year was 13 for the Slender Pyramid. An estimate of the number of hectares required to produce a $100,000 annual profit to the business was 222 for the slender pyramid system and 84–104 ha of the three best systems (Super Spindle, Tall Spindle, and Slender Axis). The analysis revealed that efforts to control establishment costs of land, trees and support system can substantially increase lifetime profits.

Full access

Edward A. Evans and Jordan Huntley

the following three areas: investment inputs, variable (recurrent) inputs, and returns and residual values. The model used well-known key output variables (KOVs) such as net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), benefit cost ratio (BCR

Full access

the bearing tree inventory. Spreen and Zansler (p. 720) conducted an economic analysis of incentives proposed by both public and private sector entities. They found varying degrees of success in increasing the estimated internal rate of return on

Full access

Jorge A. Cardona, Allen F. Wysocki and Stephen T. Talcott

value (NPV) was calculated based on a discount rate (12%), which was compared with a calculated internal rate of return (IRR). Inflation (3.43%) was estimated by historical yearly inflation rates and consumer price indexes from 1980 through 2007 from the

Restricted access

Ariel Singerman, Marina Burani-Arouca and Stephen H. Futch

best-case scenario. Table 2. Internal rate of return (IRR) from investing in a new citrus grove. Table 2 also shows that in a grove with 544 trees/ha, despite the greater initial investment relative to the 358-trees/ha density baseline, the returns are

Full access

Edward A. Evans, Fredy H. Ballen and Jonathan H. Crane

well-known key output variable of internal rate of return (IRR) ( Barry et al., 2000 ). A 12% rate of return was considered to be the lower cut-off point for the grove to be considered profitable given the inherent risks associated with the enterprise