Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:49:21.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Note on the Use of DCF for Marine Project Evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2010

J. S. McKenzie
Affiliation:
(Marine & General Computer Consultancy (I.O.M.) Ltd.)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

King's observation that a false impression could be gained from long-term savings that do not take account of the time value of money is no doubt true if all aspects and factors of comparative projects are taken into account. However, he must think readers a little naive if he offers his Fig. 3 as a full interpretation of the possible savings from installing the various levels of shipborne automation explored in my recent article. An examination of Section 8 (Cost Equations) will show that the DCF technique was deliberately discarded in order to simplify the argument. In fact, there was an additional note—deleted by the Editor through lack of space—which observed that the appraisal could be based on the assumption that the discount rate was equal to the escalation rate of the savings occasioned by taking into account the rise in wages, victualling, &c. over the equivalent project period.

Type
Forum
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 1972

References

REFERENCES

1King, J. (1971). A note on manning reductions and navigation. This Journal, 24, 556.Google Scholar
2McKenzie, J. S. (1971). Manning reductions and the cost of navigation. This Journal, 24, 123.Google Scholar
3McKenzie, J. S. (1970). The economics of a shipborne computer, Shipbuilding & Shipping Record, Vol. 116, No. 4.Google Scholar