SlideShare una empresa de Scribd logo
1 de 6
Jennifer Eickert
Lauryn Jashinsky
Logan Moore
Madeline Rynkiewicz
Homework 2
B&K Distributors: Calculating Return on Investment for a Web-Based Customer Portal
After examining the assumptions provided in the case surrounding B&K’s average
transaction cost, base growth projection, and upside growth projection, we have determined that
they are facing a five-year internal rate of return of 40.6% (Exhibit 14A). If the assumptions are
correct, the implementation of a web-based portal for customers to place orders is a logical
investment. B&K’s internal rate of return for five years without the portal would only be 12%,
which is clearly inferior to the projected 40.6% stated earlier. Ultimately, our group would
recommend the implementation of the web based portal. However, one must consider the nature
of these projections before making any decisions and a sensitivity analysis must also be
conducted to determine how different sources of growth have the possibility to effect the
projected return if they vary from the initial projections. If our group were in Anfield and
O’Neil’s position of advising B&K’s upper level management, we would strongly recommend
that they consider answering the following questions of hypothetical scenarios that were not
addressed in the case:
 What if the initial projections of growth (internal and external) are invalid or flawed?
 How will our competitors respond?
 If the portal experiences unforeseen technical issues what are the costs for additional
maintenance and customer service?
 When technology advances, will it leave this portal outdated? If so, how soon?
These questions have no definitive answers, but a further analysis of IRR through different
years reveals that the project carriers significant risk. The three year IRR is only 3.3%, which is
significantly less than the 12% discount rate that B&K would achieve if they did not implement
the web portal (Exhibit 14A). Even though they will experience a positive total incremental cash
Jennifer Eickert
Lauryn Jashinsky
Logan Moore
Madeline Rynkiewicz
flow after Year 3, their net present value (NPV) is still negative because the IRR will not surpass
the discount rate until some point in Year 4. Therefore, if the project is set back by technical
difficulties or becomes outdated by further technological advancements, they may never
experience a rate of return higher than 12% and therefore, will never experience a positive NPV.
Of the many variables that are under assumption, one of the most radical is that their market
share will increase from 50% penetration to 70% (Exhibit 14B). As seen by the sensitivity
analysisthat was conducted, if the market share does not increase pass the base of 50%, B&K
will end up with a net present value of $ (337.62) (Figure 1). Therefore, in order to have a
positive NPV, they will need to be above almost 50% of their projected upside market
penetration (approximately 60%). This number is also aligned with the flat 2% growth rate of
franchises in general. If that estimate is understated, B&K will still be able to record a positive
NPV with a lesser degree of penetration. However, the inverse is also true, wherein the event that
their estimate is overstated, they will have to be much closer to their projected upside in order to
avoid a negative NPV.
The projected is undoubtedly carries a large amount of risk, but our group would recommend
that B&K’s senior management team move forward with the decision to implement the web
portal. There is a tremendous amount of upside to outweigh the risk and if things are managed
correctly after implementation, any major trouble should be avoided. They risk losing ground to
competition by not implementing it and may be forced to do it in the future regardless, where
costs have the potential to be higher and the upside significantly lower. The external assumptions
they have made are important, but internal assumptions such as market penetration are critical
because B&K has the opportunity to (at the very least) partially control them. Therefore, the
success of this project will be ongoing and must see commitment from all parties involved.
Jennifer Eickert
Lauryn Jashinsky
Logan Moore
Madeline Rynkiewicz
Exhibit 14A: B&K Distributors—ROI Model—Summary Page
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Revenue
Upside 3,400 4,643 5,619 6,487 7,293 7,886
Baseline 3,400 3,608 3,828 4,061 4,308 4,569
Incremental 1,035 1,791 2,426 2,986 3,316
Net income
Upside 411 583 734 878 1,003 1,121
Baseline 411 436 463 491 521 552
Incremental 147 272 387 482 569
Incremental investment program (after tax)
Upfront costs (387)
Ongoing costs (283) (291) (300) (309) (319)
Total (387) (283) (291) (300) (309) (319)
Total (after tax) (240) (175) (181) (186) (192) (197)
Total incremental cash flow (240) (28) 91 201 291 371
(240) (268) (177) 24 314 685
5 years 3 years
Internal rate of return 40.6% 3.31%
Net present value 346 (50)
Discount rate 12%
Tax rate 38%
Support cost inflation rate 3%
Jennifer Eickert
Lauryn Jashinsky
Logan Moore
Madeline Rynkiewicz
Exhibit 14B: B&K Distributors—ROI Model—Upside Projection
(Numbers in thousands) Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Number of franchise locations 3,400 3,468 3,537 3,608 3,680 3,754
Growth 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
Base 50.0% 50.5% 51.0% 51.5% 52.0% 52.5%
Upside 100% 50.0% 60.0% 65.0% 68.0% 70.0% 70.0%
Penetration 50.0% 60.0% 65.0% 68.0% 70.0% 70.0%
Number of customers 1,700 2,081 2,299 2,454 2,576 2,628
Tier structure
Percent 25% 28% 30% 32% 33% 33%
A # of locations 425 583 690 785 850 867
Order frequency 12 12 12 12 12 12
Percent 55% 58% 60% 60% 60% 60%
B # of locations 935 1,207 1,380 1,472 1,546 1,577
Order frequency 8 8 8 8 8 8
Percent 20% 14% 10% 8% 7% 7%
C # of locations 340 291 230 196 180 184
Order frequency 3 3 3 3 3 3
Average order size $250.00 $265.00 $280.90 $297.75 $315.62 $334.56
Growth 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0%
Total transactions
A accounts 5,100 6,991 8,277 9,421 10,202 10,406
B accounts 7,480 9,655 11,037 11,777 12,366 12,613
C accounts 1,020 874 690 589 541 552
Total 13,600 17,520 20,004 21,787 23,108 23,571
Revenue
A accounts 1,275 1,853 2,325 2,805 3,220 3,481
B accounts 1,870 2,559 3,100 3,507 3,903 4,220
C accounts 255 232 194 175 171 185
Total 3,400 4,643 5,619 6,487 7,293 7,886
Unit margin
COGS % 68.70% 68.70% 68.70% 68.70% 68.70% 68.70%
Gross margin per order 78.25 82.95 87.92 93.20 98.79 104.72
Processing cost per order $29.50 $29.25 $28.71 $28.19 $28.77 $27.99
Net contribution per order 49 54 59 65 70 77
Account contribution
Transactions 13,600 17,520 20,004 21,787 23,108 23,571
Net margin per order 49 54 59 65 70 77
Operating income 663 941 1,184 1,416 1,618 1,808
Tax
Tax rate 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% 38%
Tax 252 357 450 538 615 687
Net contribution after tax 411 583 734 878 1,003 1,121
Jennifer Eickert
Lauryn Jashinsky
Logan Moore
Madeline Rynkiewicz
Exhibit 14C: B&K Distributors—ROI Model—Base Case Projection
(Numbers in thousands) Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Number of franchise locations 3,400 3,468 3,537 3,608 3,680 3,754
Growth 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
Penetration 50.0% 50.5% 51.0% 51.5% 52.0% 52.5%
Number of customers 1,700 1,751 1,804 1,858 1,914 1,971
Tier structure
Percent 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%
A # of locations 425 438 451 465 478 493
Order frequency 12 12 12 12 12 12
Percent 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55%
B # of locations 935 963 992 1,022 1,053 1,084
Order frequency 8 8 8 8 8 8
Percent 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
C # of locations 340 350 361 372 383 394
Order frequency 3 3 3 3 3 3
Average order size $250.00 $257.50 $265.23 $273.18 $281.38 $289.82
Growth 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
Total transactions
A accounts 5,100 5,254 5,412 5,575 5,741 5,912
B accounts 7,480 7,706 7,938 8,176 8,420 8,671
C accounts 1,020 1,051 1,082 1,115 1,148 1,182
Total 13,600 14,011 14,432 14,865 15,310 15,766
Revenue
A accounts 1,275 1,353 1,435 1,523 1,615 1,714
B accounts 1,870 1,984 2,105 2,234 2,369 2,513
C accounts 255 271 287 305 323 343
Total 3,400 3,608 3,828 4,061 4,308 4,569
Unit margin
COGS % 68.70% 68.70% 68.70% 68.70% 68.70% 68.70%
Gross margin per order 78.25 80.60 83.02 85.51 88.07 90.71
Processing cost per order $29.50 $30.39 $31.30 $32.24 $33.20 $34.20
Net contribution per order 49 50 52 53 55 57
Account contribution
Transactions 13,600 14,011 14,432 14,865 15,310 15,766
Net margin per order 49 50 52 53 55 57
Operating income 663 704 746 792 840 891
Tax
Tax rate 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% 38%
Tax 252 267 284 301 319 339
Net contribution after tax 411 436 463 491 521 552
Jennifer Eickert
Lauryn Jashinsky
Logan Moore
Madeline Rynkiewicz
Exhibit 14D: B&K Distributors—ROI Model— Average Transaction Cost Matrix
Figure 1
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Percentage of orders by channel:
Phone 60% 60% 57% 55% 52% 48%
Fax/mail 40% 35% 33% 30% 33% 32%
Web 0% 5% 10% 15% 15% 20%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Cost per order:
Phone 32.50$ 33.48$ 34.48$ 35.51$ 36.58$ 37.68$
Fax/mail 25.00$ 25.75$ 26.52$ 27.32$ 28.14$ 28.98$
Web 3.00$ 3.03$ 3.06$ 3.09$ 3.12$ 3.15$
Weighted average cost 29.50$ 29.25$ 28.71$ 28.19$ 28.77$ 27.99$
WAC without Web 29.50$ 30.39$ 31.30$ 32.24$ 33.20$ 34.20$
Difference $ 1.14$ 2.58$ 4.04$ 4.43$ 6.21$
Inflation increases:
Phone 3.00%
Fax/mail 3.00%
Web 1.00%
Percent
of Upside
345.57$
Market
Penetration
100.0% 345.57$ 70%
90.0% 277.25$ 68%
80.0% 208.93$ 66%
70.0% 140.61$ 64%
60.0% 72.30$ 62%
50.0% 3.98$ 60%
40.0% (64.34)$ 58%
30.0% (132.66)$ 56%
20.0% (200.98)$ 54%
10.0% (269.30)$ 52%
0.0% (337.62)$ 50%
Net Present Value

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

Optical Distortion, Inc
Optical Distortion, IncOptical Distortion, Inc
Optical Distortion, Inculugbek55
 
Mednet.com Confronts "Click-Through" Competition
Mednet.com Confronts "Click-Through" CompetitionMednet.com Confronts "Click-Through" Competition
Mednet.com Confronts "Click-Through" CompetitionSameer Mathur
 
Launching krispy natural case study analysis
Launching krispy natural case study analysisLaunching krispy natural case study analysis
Launching krispy natural case study analysisAbhishek Pathak
 
Air france case study
Air france case studyAir france case study
Air france case studyArthur Marot
 
AIR FRANCE INTERNET MARKETING
AIR FRANCE INTERNET MARKETINGAIR FRANCE INTERNET MARKETING
AIR FRANCE INTERNET MARKETINGSwarupa Rani Sahu
 
Final hubspot presentation
Final hubspot presentationFinal hubspot presentation
Final hubspot presentationanushagovindan
 
Cree Case
Cree CaseCree Case
Cree Casehimosh
 
Launching Krispy Natural: Harvard Case analysis
Launching Krispy Natural: Harvard Case analysisLaunching Krispy Natural: Harvard Case analysis
Launching Krispy Natural: Harvard Case analysisShubhayu Khedia
 
RCI Case Studies
RCI Case StudiesRCI Case Studies
RCI Case Studiesnsegura85
 
SONY AIBO-The value proposition and rationale behind the positioning
SONY AIBO-The value proposition and rationale behind the positioningSONY AIBO-The value proposition and rationale behind the positioning
SONY AIBO-The value proposition and rationale behind the positioningJoel Daniel
 
Marico - Over the wall Case Competition 2018 PPT
Marico - Over the wall Case Competition 2018 PPTMarico - Over the wall Case Competition 2018 PPT
Marico - Over the wall Case Competition 2018 PPTBhargava Ram
 
Zipcar case analysis
Zipcar case analysisZipcar case analysis
Zipcar case analysisAndrew Olsen
 
HubSpot - Inbound marketing and web 2.0 case study
HubSpot - Inbound marketing and web 2.0 case studyHubSpot - Inbound marketing and web 2.0 case study
HubSpot - Inbound marketing and web 2.0 case studyRonak Shah
 
Abbott Business Challenge 2.0 Case Competition PPT- Campus Winners
Abbott Business Challenge 2.0 Case Competition PPT- Campus WinnersAbbott Business Challenge 2.0 Case Competition PPT- Campus Winners
Abbott Business Challenge 2.0 Case Competition PPT- Campus WinnersBhargava Ram
 

La actualidad más candente (20)

Wildfang Case Study
Wildfang Case StudyWildfang Case Study
Wildfang Case Study
 
Optical Distortion, Inc
Optical Distortion, IncOptical Distortion, Inc
Optical Distortion, Inc
 
Mednet.com Confronts "Click-Through" Competition
Mednet.com Confronts "Click-Through" CompetitionMednet.com Confronts "Click-Through" Competition
Mednet.com Confronts "Click-Through" Competition
 
Launching krispy natural case study analysis
Launching krispy natural case study analysisLaunching krispy natural case study analysis
Launching krispy natural case study analysis
 
Air france case study
Air france case studyAir france case study
Air france case study
 
AIR FRANCE INTERNET MARKETING
AIR FRANCE INTERNET MARKETINGAIR FRANCE INTERNET MARKETING
AIR FRANCE INTERNET MARKETING
 
Local Motors Story
Local Motors StoryLocal Motors Story
Local Motors Story
 
Final hubspot presentation
Final hubspot presentationFinal hubspot presentation
Final hubspot presentation
 
Cree Case
Cree CaseCree Case
Cree Case
 
Launching Krispy Natural: Harvard Case analysis
Launching Krispy Natural: Harvard Case analysisLaunching Krispy Natural: Harvard Case analysis
Launching Krispy Natural: Harvard Case analysis
 
RCI Case Studies
RCI Case StudiesRCI Case Studies
RCI Case Studies
 
SONY AIBO-The value proposition and rationale behind the positioning
SONY AIBO-The value proposition and rationale behind the positioningSONY AIBO-The value proposition and rationale behind the positioning
SONY AIBO-The value proposition and rationale behind the positioning
 
Marico - Over the wall Case Competition 2018 PPT
Marico - Over the wall Case Competition 2018 PPTMarico - Over the wall Case Competition 2018 PPT
Marico - Over the wall Case Competition 2018 PPT
 
Zipcar case analysis
Zipcar case analysisZipcar case analysis
Zipcar case analysis
 
HubSpot - Inbound marketing and web 2.0 case study
HubSpot - Inbound marketing and web 2.0 case studyHubSpot - Inbound marketing and web 2.0 case study
HubSpot - Inbound marketing and web 2.0 case study
 
The Coop Market Research
The Coop Market ResearchThe Coop Market Research
The Coop Market Research
 
Signode case study
Signode case studySignode case study
Signode case study
 
Optical distortion, inc
Optical distortion, incOptical distortion, inc
Optical distortion, inc
 
Abbott Business Challenge 2.0 Case Competition PPT- Campus Winners
Abbott Business Challenge 2.0 Case Competition PPT- Campus WinnersAbbott Business Challenge 2.0 Case Competition PPT- Campus Winners
Abbott Business Challenge 2.0 Case Competition PPT- Campus Winners
 
Land Rover North America
Land Rover North AmericaLand Rover North America
Land Rover North America
 

Similar a 418 Homework 2

Session 2 - Valuing a business
Session 2  - Valuing a businessSession 2  - Valuing a business
Session 2 - Valuing a businessPontus Engstrom
 
Final Presentation Insight-2
Final Presentation Insight-2Final Presentation Insight-2
Final Presentation Insight-2Carl Schiro
 
LinkedIn Q1 2016 Earnings Call
LinkedIn Q1 2016 Earnings CallLinkedIn Q1 2016 Earnings Call
LinkedIn Q1 2016 Earnings CallLinkedIn
 
1st quarter 2016 LinkedIn results
1st quarter 2016 LinkedIn results1st quarter 2016 LinkedIn results
1st quarter 2016 LinkedIn resultsPierluca Santoro
 
Investment In Business Assets PowerPoint Presentation Slides
Investment In Business Assets PowerPoint Presentation SlidesInvestment In Business Assets PowerPoint Presentation Slides
Investment In Business Assets PowerPoint Presentation SlidesSlideTeam
 
Value Line Investment Research
Value Line Investment ResearchValue Line Investment Research
Value Line Investment ResearchCarson Fears
 
Blue Star Infotech Q1FY15: Revenues grow 13% y-o-y; Positive outlook
 Blue Star Infotech Q1FY15: Revenues grow 13% y-o-y; Positive outlook Blue Star Infotech Q1FY15: Revenues grow 13% y-o-y; Positive outlook
Blue Star Infotech Q1FY15: Revenues grow 13% y-o-y; Positive outlookIndiaNotes.com
 
Earnings Release Presentation - First Quarter 2010 (1Q10).
Earnings Release Presentation - First Quarter 2010 (1Q10).Earnings Release Presentation - First Quarter 2010 (1Q10).
Earnings Release Presentation - First Quarter 2010 (1Q10).MRVRI
 
3 q11 conference call presentation
3 q11 conference call presentation3 q11 conference call presentation
3 q11 conference call presentationBancoABCRI
 
Square Pitch Deck
Square Pitch DeckSquare Pitch Deck
Square Pitch DeckChris Ellis
 
Square Slide Deck (Startup Deck)
Square Slide Deck (Startup Deck)Square Slide Deck (Startup Deck)
Square Slide Deck (Startup Deck)Alex Gorski
 
Square: $10M VC investment turned into $40B. Square's initial pitch deck
Square: $10M VC investment turned into $40B. Square's initial pitch deckSquare: $10M VC investment turned into $40B. Square's initial pitch deck
Square: $10M VC investment turned into $40B. Square's initial pitch deckAA BB
 
Earnings Release Presentation - Second Quarter 2010 (2Q10).
Earnings Release Presentation - Second Quarter 2010 (2Q10).Earnings Release Presentation - Second Quarter 2010 (2Q10).
Earnings Release Presentation - Second Quarter 2010 (2Q10).MRVRI
 
IEDC Real Estate Training Course Financial Feasibility - 2018
IEDC Real Estate Training Course Financial Feasibility - 2018IEDC Real Estate Training Course Financial Feasibility - 2018
IEDC Real Estate Training Course Financial Feasibility - 2018Economic Development Navigator
 
Cfa research presentation university at buffalo
Cfa research presentation university at buffalo Cfa research presentation university at buffalo
Cfa research presentation university at buffalo Ke Guo
 
Fixed investment Evaluation PowerPoint Presentation Slides
Fixed investment Evaluation PowerPoint Presentation SlidesFixed investment Evaluation PowerPoint Presentation Slides
Fixed investment Evaluation PowerPoint Presentation SlidesSlideTeam
 

Similar a 418 Homework 2 (20)

COF2015-10 (1)
COF2015-10 (1)COF2015-10 (1)
COF2015-10 (1)
 
Session 2 - Valuing a business
Session 2  - Valuing a businessSession 2  - Valuing a business
Session 2 - Valuing a business
 
Final Presentation Insight-2
Final Presentation Insight-2Final Presentation Insight-2
Final Presentation Insight-2
 
LinkedIn Q1 2016 Earnings Call
LinkedIn Q1 2016 Earnings CallLinkedIn Q1 2016 Earnings Call
LinkedIn Q1 2016 Earnings Call
 
1st quarter 2016 LinkedIn results
1st quarter 2016 LinkedIn results1st quarter 2016 LinkedIn results
1st quarter 2016 LinkedIn results
 
Investment In Business Assets PowerPoint Presentation Slides
Investment In Business Assets PowerPoint Presentation SlidesInvestment In Business Assets PowerPoint Presentation Slides
Investment In Business Assets PowerPoint Presentation Slides
 
1 q17 earnings presentation final
1 q17 earnings presentation final1 q17 earnings presentation final
1 q17 earnings presentation final
 
Value Line Investment Research
Value Line Investment ResearchValue Line Investment Research
Value Line Investment Research
 
Blue Star Infotech Q1FY15: Revenues grow 13% y-o-y; Positive outlook
 Blue Star Infotech Q1FY15: Revenues grow 13% y-o-y; Positive outlook Blue Star Infotech Q1FY15: Revenues grow 13% y-o-y; Positive outlook
Blue Star Infotech Q1FY15: Revenues grow 13% y-o-y; Positive outlook
 
Earnings Release Presentation - First Quarter 2010 (1Q10).
Earnings Release Presentation - First Quarter 2010 (1Q10).Earnings Release Presentation - First Quarter 2010 (1Q10).
Earnings Release Presentation - First Quarter 2010 (1Q10).
 
3 q11 conference call presentation
3 q11 conference call presentation3 q11 conference call presentation
3 q11 conference call presentation
 
Square Pitch Deck
Square Pitch DeckSquare Pitch Deck
Square Pitch Deck
 
Square Pitch Deck
Square Pitch DeckSquare Pitch Deck
Square Pitch Deck
 
Square Slide Deck (Startup Deck)
Square Slide Deck (Startup Deck)Square Slide Deck (Startup Deck)
Square Slide Deck (Startup Deck)
 
Square: $10M VC investment turned into $40B. Square's initial pitch deck
Square: $10M VC investment turned into $40B. Square's initial pitch deckSquare: $10M VC investment turned into $40B. Square's initial pitch deck
Square: $10M VC investment turned into $40B. Square's initial pitch deck
 
Earnings Release Presentation - Second Quarter 2010 (2Q10).
Earnings Release Presentation - Second Quarter 2010 (2Q10).Earnings Release Presentation - Second Quarter 2010 (2Q10).
Earnings Release Presentation - Second Quarter 2010 (2Q10).
 
IEDC Real Estate Training Course Financial Feasibility - 2018
IEDC Real Estate Training Course Financial Feasibility - 2018IEDC Real Estate Training Course Financial Feasibility - 2018
IEDC Real Estate Training Course Financial Feasibility - 2018
 
Cfa research presentation university at buffalo
Cfa research presentation university at buffalo Cfa research presentation university at buffalo
Cfa research presentation university at buffalo
 
Fixed investment Evaluation PowerPoint Presentation Slides
Fixed investment Evaluation PowerPoint Presentation SlidesFixed investment Evaluation PowerPoint Presentation Slides
Fixed investment Evaluation PowerPoint Presentation Slides
 
Presentation 3Q14
Presentation 3Q14Presentation 3Q14
Presentation 3Q14
 

418 Homework 2

  • 1. Jennifer Eickert Lauryn Jashinsky Logan Moore Madeline Rynkiewicz Homework 2 B&K Distributors: Calculating Return on Investment for a Web-Based Customer Portal After examining the assumptions provided in the case surrounding B&K’s average transaction cost, base growth projection, and upside growth projection, we have determined that they are facing a five-year internal rate of return of 40.6% (Exhibit 14A). If the assumptions are correct, the implementation of a web-based portal for customers to place orders is a logical investment. B&K’s internal rate of return for five years without the portal would only be 12%, which is clearly inferior to the projected 40.6% stated earlier. Ultimately, our group would recommend the implementation of the web based portal. However, one must consider the nature of these projections before making any decisions and a sensitivity analysis must also be conducted to determine how different sources of growth have the possibility to effect the projected return if they vary from the initial projections. If our group were in Anfield and O’Neil’s position of advising B&K’s upper level management, we would strongly recommend that they consider answering the following questions of hypothetical scenarios that were not addressed in the case:  What if the initial projections of growth (internal and external) are invalid or flawed?  How will our competitors respond?  If the portal experiences unforeseen technical issues what are the costs for additional maintenance and customer service?  When technology advances, will it leave this portal outdated? If so, how soon? These questions have no definitive answers, but a further analysis of IRR through different years reveals that the project carriers significant risk. The three year IRR is only 3.3%, which is significantly less than the 12% discount rate that B&K would achieve if they did not implement the web portal (Exhibit 14A). Even though they will experience a positive total incremental cash
  • 2. Jennifer Eickert Lauryn Jashinsky Logan Moore Madeline Rynkiewicz flow after Year 3, their net present value (NPV) is still negative because the IRR will not surpass the discount rate until some point in Year 4. Therefore, if the project is set back by technical difficulties or becomes outdated by further technological advancements, they may never experience a rate of return higher than 12% and therefore, will never experience a positive NPV. Of the many variables that are under assumption, one of the most radical is that their market share will increase from 50% penetration to 70% (Exhibit 14B). As seen by the sensitivity analysisthat was conducted, if the market share does not increase pass the base of 50%, B&K will end up with a net present value of $ (337.62) (Figure 1). Therefore, in order to have a positive NPV, they will need to be above almost 50% of their projected upside market penetration (approximately 60%). This number is also aligned with the flat 2% growth rate of franchises in general. If that estimate is understated, B&K will still be able to record a positive NPV with a lesser degree of penetration. However, the inverse is also true, wherein the event that their estimate is overstated, they will have to be much closer to their projected upside in order to avoid a negative NPV. The projected is undoubtedly carries a large amount of risk, but our group would recommend that B&K’s senior management team move forward with the decision to implement the web portal. There is a tremendous amount of upside to outweigh the risk and if things are managed correctly after implementation, any major trouble should be avoided. They risk losing ground to competition by not implementing it and may be forced to do it in the future regardless, where costs have the potential to be higher and the upside significantly lower. The external assumptions they have made are important, but internal assumptions such as market penetration are critical because B&K has the opportunity to (at the very least) partially control them. Therefore, the success of this project will be ongoing and must see commitment from all parties involved.
  • 3. Jennifer Eickert Lauryn Jashinsky Logan Moore Madeline Rynkiewicz Exhibit 14A: B&K Distributors—ROI Model—Summary Page Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Revenue Upside 3,400 4,643 5,619 6,487 7,293 7,886 Baseline 3,400 3,608 3,828 4,061 4,308 4,569 Incremental 1,035 1,791 2,426 2,986 3,316 Net income Upside 411 583 734 878 1,003 1,121 Baseline 411 436 463 491 521 552 Incremental 147 272 387 482 569 Incremental investment program (after tax) Upfront costs (387) Ongoing costs (283) (291) (300) (309) (319) Total (387) (283) (291) (300) (309) (319) Total (after tax) (240) (175) (181) (186) (192) (197) Total incremental cash flow (240) (28) 91 201 291 371 (240) (268) (177) 24 314 685 5 years 3 years Internal rate of return 40.6% 3.31% Net present value 346 (50) Discount rate 12% Tax rate 38% Support cost inflation rate 3%
  • 4. Jennifer Eickert Lauryn Jashinsky Logan Moore Madeline Rynkiewicz Exhibit 14B: B&K Distributors—ROI Model—Upside Projection (Numbers in thousands) Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Number of franchise locations 3,400 3,468 3,537 3,608 3,680 3,754 Growth 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Base 50.0% 50.5% 51.0% 51.5% 52.0% 52.5% Upside 100% 50.0% 60.0% 65.0% 68.0% 70.0% 70.0% Penetration 50.0% 60.0% 65.0% 68.0% 70.0% 70.0% Number of customers 1,700 2,081 2,299 2,454 2,576 2,628 Tier structure Percent 25% 28% 30% 32% 33% 33% A # of locations 425 583 690 785 850 867 Order frequency 12 12 12 12 12 12 Percent 55% 58% 60% 60% 60% 60% B # of locations 935 1,207 1,380 1,472 1,546 1,577 Order frequency 8 8 8 8 8 8 Percent 20% 14% 10% 8% 7% 7% C # of locations 340 291 230 196 180 184 Order frequency 3 3 3 3 3 3 Average order size $250.00 $265.00 $280.90 $297.75 $315.62 $334.56 Growth 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% Total transactions A accounts 5,100 6,991 8,277 9,421 10,202 10,406 B accounts 7,480 9,655 11,037 11,777 12,366 12,613 C accounts 1,020 874 690 589 541 552 Total 13,600 17,520 20,004 21,787 23,108 23,571 Revenue A accounts 1,275 1,853 2,325 2,805 3,220 3,481 B accounts 1,870 2,559 3,100 3,507 3,903 4,220 C accounts 255 232 194 175 171 185 Total 3,400 4,643 5,619 6,487 7,293 7,886 Unit margin COGS % 68.70% 68.70% 68.70% 68.70% 68.70% 68.70% Gross margin per order 78.25 82.95 87.92 93.20 98.79 104.72 Processing cost per order $29.50 $29.25 $28.71 $28.19 $28.77 $27.99 Net contribution per order 49 54 59 65 70 77 Account contribution Transactions 13,600 17,520 20,004 21,787 23,108 23,571 Net margin per order 49 54 59 65 70 77 Operating income 663 941 1,184 1,416 1,618 1,808 Tax Tax rate 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% Tax 252 357 450 538 615 687 Net contribution after tax 411 583 734 878 1,003 1,121
  • 5. Jennifer Eickert Lauryn Jashinsky Logan Moore Madeline Rynkiewicz Exhibit 14C: B&K Distributors—ROI Model—Base Case Projection (Numbers in thousands) Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Number of franchise locations 3,400 3,468 3,537 3,608 3,680 3,754 Growth 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Penetration 50.0% 50.5% 51.0% 51.5% 52.0% 52.5% Number of customers 1,700 1,751 1,804 1,858 1,914 1,971 Tier structure Percent 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% A # of locations 425 438 451 465 478 493 Order frequency 12 12 12 12 12 12 Percent 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% B # of locations 935 963 992 1,022 1,053 1,084 Order frequency 8 8 8 8 8 8 Percent 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% C # of locations 340 350 361 372 383 394 Order frequency 3 3 3 3 3 3 Average order size $250.00 $257.50 $265.23 $273.18 $281.38 $289.82 Growth 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Total transactions A accounts 5,100 5,254 5,412 5,575 5,741 5,912 B accounts 7,480 7,706 7,938 8,176 8,420 8,671 C accounts 1,020 1,051 1,082 1,115 1,148 1,182 Total 13,600 14,011 14,432 14,865 15,310 15,766 Revenue A accounts 1,275 1,353 1,435 1,523 1,615 1,714 B accounts 1,870 1,984 2,105 2,234 2,369 2,513 C accounts 255 271 287 305 323 343 Total 3,400 3,608 3,828 4,061 4,308 4,569 Unit margin COGS % 68.70% 68.70% 68.70% 68.70% 68.70% 68.70% Gross margin per order 78.25 80.60 83.02 85.51 88.07 90.71 Processing cost per order $29.50 $30.39 $31.30 $32.24 $33.20 $34.20 Net contribution per order 49 50 52 53 55 57 Account contribution Transactions 13,600 14,011 14,432 14,865 15,310 15,766 Net margin per order 49 50 52 53 55 57 Operating income 663 704 746 792 840 891 Tax Tax rate 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% Tax 252 267 284 301 319 339 Net contribution after tax 411 436 463 491 521 552
  • 6. Jennifer Eickert Lauryn Jashinsky Logan Moore Madeline Rynkiewicz Exhibit 14D: B&K Distributors—ROI Model— Average Transaction Cost Matrix Figure 1 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Percentage of orders by channel: Phone 60% 60% 57% 55% 52% 48% Fax/mail 40% 35% 33% 30% 33% 32% Web 0% 5% 10% 15% 15% 20% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Cost per order: Phone 32.50$ 33.48$ 34.48$ 35.51$ 36.58$ 37.68$ Fax/mail 25.00$ 25.75$ 26.52$ 27.32$ 28.14$ 28.98$ Web 3.00$ 3.03$ 3.06$ 3.09$ 3.12$ 3.15$ Weighted average cost 29.50$ 29.25$ 28.71$ 28.19$ 28.77$ 27.99$ WAC without Web 29.50$ 30.39$ 31.30$ 32.24$ 33.20$ 34.20$ Difference $ 1.14$ 2.58$ 4.04$ 4.43$ 6.21$ Inflation increases: Phone 3.00% Fax/mail 3.00% Web 1.00% Percent of Upside 345.57$ Market Penetration 100.0% 345.57$ 70% 90.0% 277.25$ 68% 80.0% 208.93$ 66% 70.0% 140.61$ 64% 60.0% 72.30$ 62% 50.0% 3.98$ 60% 40.0% (64.34)$ 58% 30.0% (132.66)$ 56% 20.0% (200.98)$ 54% 10.0% (269.30)$ 52% 0.0% (337.62)$ 50% Net Present Value