Introduction

Michael Livingston has recently been hired as the CEO of California Best Trucks, Inc. Previously he had been the marketing manager for a large manufacturing company and had established a reputation for identifying new consumer trends. California Best Trucks Inc. is a California-based truck manufacturing company. The company is well known for manufacturing large, heavy-duty trucks at a reasonable cost. One of its greatest achievements is that its trucks can be easily modified or customized for different applications. California Best Trucks also builds school buses.

The company is considering an expansion of its current product line to include transit buses. Mr. Livingston feels that due to high gasoline prices, commuters will be more willing to consider using mass transit instead of using their cars to commute to work.

Company Profile

California Best Trucks, Inc. was established by the Turner brothers in 1880 as the California Wagon Company. The firm started manufacturing horse-drawn wagons to serve the growing population in California. The brothers quickly realized that the times were changing, so they started looking for the technologies that would keep them at the forefront of their field of business. In 1915, the Turner brothers decided that they needed to make trucks as replacements for the wagons, because trucks were starting to serve the same uses as wagons, and the wagon industry was not going to be viable in the longer term.

The company started making school buses in the early 1940s. Most manufacturers had been commissioned by the government to produce different large vehicles to support World War II operations. California Best Trucks opted to produce buses. It was an easy decision to make, since the buses would use common parts with the companys trucks, and the customers were local governments. Starting in the 1950s, the school bus business accounted for about 50% of California Best Trucks revenues.

The Transit Bus Opportunity

Mr. Livingston arranged a meeting with the firms top management, as well as the chief design and manufacturing engineers to propose his new product. He presented an argument that more individuals in the United States and Canada would be willing to use public transportation than before, because people were becoming more environmentally conscious. Also, recent increases in fuel costs seemed to be long lasting. This was an opportunity to get people hooked on transit buses, as he put it.

The proposal under consideration was for the introduction of a large, public transport bus. To distinguish California Best Trucks from other manufacturers, the proposal included details about the level of comfort, air-conditioning, efficiency, and quietness of operation that needed to be developed.

Mr. Phillips and Mr. Lopez, the two engineers, reacted enthusiastically and quickly pointed out that the bus could be based on the companys trucks. The frame currently used for building the trucks could be modified to accommodate buses at a relatively low cost. The marketing vice president, Mr. Chen, pointed out that a marketing analysis could be done quickly, and at a reasonable cost. At this point, Mr. Livingston charged the participants in the meeting to produce a financial plan for the development and production of a transit bus.

Public Transportation

The use of public transportation had declined steadily since the 1950s. Most people were opting to use their personal vehicles for all of their transportation needs. Recently, however, most of the metropolitan areas in the United State and Canada, the target markets for the new bus, had become more and more congested; and parking, which was already very expensive, was becoming scarce.

This combination of trends has renewed the publics interest in good and reliable public transportation. Several municipalities have been campaigning to their residents and commuters that they should use public transportation for business commuting, and only use their cars for shopping and weekend activities. However, such campaigns need to be supported by making high quality public transportation available to the target riders.

The Decision

Three weeks after the initial meeting, the vice presidents presented the sales and cost forecasts shown in the attached exhibits. The information presented contains the cost of production, financing information, and warranty cost estimates. The proposals also contained two engine options for the engines: The Los Angeles engine, and the California engine. The Los Angeles engine was more expensive to install, but had a lower warranty cost. The California engine was less expensive to install, but had a higher warranty cost. This begged the question: Which engine should be used?

Issues and Analyses

Mr. Livingston noticed that there was a great deal of enthusiasm among the management group about the transit bus opportunity, but his cautious nature told him to also seek a more objective viewpoint. Consequently, he sought out you to analyze the proposed project and provide your recommendations directly to him.

Exhibit 1: Sales and Cost Forecast

The sales forecast is based on projected levels of demand. All the numbers are expressed in todays dollars. The forecasted average inflation per year is 3.0%

Price per bus	$220,000
Units sold per year	11,000
Labor cost per bus	$50,000
Components & Parts per bus	$95,000
Selling General & Administrative (fixed)	$250,000,000
NOTE: Average warranty cost per year per bus for the first five years is $1,000. The present value of this cost will be used as a cost figure for each bus. Afterwards, the bus operator will become responsible the repairs on the buses.
The buses can be produced for twenty years. Afterwards, the designs become obsolete.

Engine choices

Engine	Los Angeles engines	California engines
Price per engine, including installation	$25,000	$18,000
Average annual warranty cost per year for five years. Afterwards, the bus operator will become responsible for the repairs on the buses.*	$500	$2,000
The chosen engine will be installed in every bus and will become a cost figure for each bus. NOTE: The engine manufacturers are not providing California Best Trucks with any warranty. However, California Best Trucks will provide a warranty to its customers. After the initial five years, the bus operators may purchase an extended warranty from any insurance company that offers such packages.

Exhibit 2: Investment Needs

To implement the project, the firm has to invest funds as shown in the following table:

Year 0	Year 1	Year 2
$1 billion*	$100 million*	$100 million*
* California Best Trucks estimated that it would cost a total of $1 billion to build the factory and purchase the necessary equipment to produce the buses. The other $200 million investment, divided equally in years 1 and 2, is for non-depreciable labor training costs. Such investment is treated as regular business expenses.

Straight line depreciation will be used for the sake of simplicity.

To facilitate the operation of manufacturing the transit buses, the company will have to allocate funds to net working capital (NWC) equivalent to 15% of annual sales. The investment in NWC will be recovered at the end of the project.

The equipment will be sold for salvage at about $25,000,000 at the end of the project.

Exhibit 3: Financing Assumptions

The following assumptions are used to determine the cost of capital.

Historically, the company has maintained a debt ratio is 50%. This ratio was used, because lowering the debt implies giving up the debt tax shield, and increasing it makes debt service a burden on the firms cash flow. In addition, increasing the debt level may cause a reduced rating of the companys bonds. The marginal tax rate is 30%. All the numbers are expressed in todays dollars. The forecasted average inflation per year is 3.0%.

Cost of debt:

The companys bond rating is roughly at the high end of the A range. Surveying the debt market yielded the following information about the cost of debt for different rating levels:

Bond rating	AA	A	BBB
Interest cost range	5.5% ~ 6.5%	6.25% ~ 7.5%	7.5% ~ 9%

The companys current bonds have a yield to maturity of about 6.5%.

Cost of equity:

The current 10-year Treasury notes have a yield to maturity of 2.50% and the forecast for the S&P 500 market premium is 9.46%. The companys overall b is 1.35.

Questions:

I need the projects cash flows for both engines for the next 20 years

As well as the discounted cash flows of the project for both engines for the next 20 years

In this format:

Regular:

Year	Los Angeles Engine	California Engine
0	-$642,000,000	-$642,000,000
1	-$323,859,746	-$324,947,019
2	$22,711,826	$21,586,498
3	$128,949,056	$127,784,342
4	$195,404,588	$194,199,109
5	$202,086,065	$200,838,394
6	$209,001,393	$207,710,054
7	$216,158,757	$214,822,221
8	$223,566,630	$222,183,315
9	$231,233,778	$229,802,047
10	$239,169,276	$237,687,434
11	$247,382,516	$245,848,810
12	$255,883,220	$254,295,834
13	$264,681,448	$263,038,504
14	$273,787,615	$272,087,168
15	$283,212,497	$281,452,534
16	$292,967,250	$291,145,689
17	$303,063,420	$301,178,104
18	$313,512,955	$311,561,653
19	$324,328,225	$322,308,627
20	$824,250,933	$822,160,649

Discounted:

Year	Los Angeles Engine	California Engine
0	-$642,000,000	-$642,000,000
1	-$298,630,865	-$298,686,275
2	$21,390,300	$21,337,080
3	$104,808,715	$104,757,599
4	$146,601,801	$146,552,706
5	$140,697,778	$140,650,624
6	$135,034,969	$134,989,679
7	$129,603,276	$129,559,776
8	$124,393,040	$124,351,259
9	$119,395,021	$119,354,892
10	$114,600,380	$114,561,838
11	$110,000,661	$109,963,642
12	$105,587,770	$105,552,215
13	$101,353,961	$101,319,812
14	$97,291,823	$97,259,024
15	$93,394,259	$93,362,756
16	$89,654,475	$89,624,218
17	$86,065,968	$86,036,907
18	$82,622,510	$82,594,598
19	$79,318,138	$79,291,329
20	$185,773,848	$185,748,099
Total	$1,126,957,828	$1,126,181,778