Financial Analysis Project
Financial Analysis Project
Madison Goldstein
June 27, 2016
Summer I 2016
Northeastern University Madison Goldstein
College of Engineering Page 1 of 23
EMGT 6225 Project Report
Table of Contents
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 2
Current Car ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Alternatives .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Financing Options ................................................................................................................................ 6
Analysis and Results ............................................................................................................................ 7
Appendix A: ......................................................................................................................................... 9
Appendix B: ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Appendix C: ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Appendix D: ....................................................................................................................................... 13
Appendix E:........................................................................................................................................ 14
Appendix F: ........................................................................................................................................ 18
References .......................................................................................................................................... 23
Summer I 2016
Northeastern University Madison Goldstein
College of Engineering Page 2 of 23
EMGT 6225 Project Report
Introduction
Description of Project:
A common economic analysis that can be used in everyday life is the evaluation of replacing your
personal automobile. What may sound like a simple question, to keep or to buy, is made
complicated by the complexity of the options in todays consumer market. It is essential to
economically evaluate the alternative options to make an informed decision that works best on an
individual level. The specific purpose of this project is to evaluate the difference between keeping
my current car and replacing my auto with the current/new version and a car of a different class.
Additionally, different methods of financing the replacement purchase are explored.
Research:
In order to appropriately evaluate the difference between keeping and replacing my current car,
extensive research had to be conducted. The sources I relied on most heavily for data estimates and
information were Edmunds.com, FuelEconomy.gov, Mazda.com, and BankRate.com.
For the entirety of the project, the following assumptions were made.
Assumptions:
The planning period is 5 years out from this analysis point (time=0), at the end of which the
car in possession will be sold for its estimated salvage value and no new purchase will be
made
All estimated values found from reliable online sources (Edmunds.com, FuelEconomy.gov)
are considered correct/exact and will not change over the planning horizon
Current car is fully paid off
Current car doesnt need any major repairs, only routine maintenance for remainder of life
Maintenance Schedule and Cost assumptions (see Appendix A for full details)
o If maintenance task is required, cost is reflected at end of the year in which the task
is completed
o Each car will be driven 15,000 miles per year, 45% highway and 55% city driving
o Current fuel prices will remain constant over 5 year planning period
Financing assumptions
o Depreciation amounts for each vehicle option are estimated using Edmunds.com
True Cost To Own calculator
o New car alternatives would be financed over a 60 month (5 year) period at 4.26%
(according to BankRate.com estimate for current auto loan interest rates)
If my current car is going to be replaced with a new alternative, I will trade my current car in
for the Dealer Trade-In value calculated from Edmunds True Market Value analysis, to
be used towards paying for the new vehicle
Personal MARR = 0.06%, the current national average savings account interest rate if my
money wasnt being used to pay for the cars, it would be gaining this interest in the bank
(national average as of April 2016 according to GoBankingRates.com)
Summer I 2016
Northeastern University Madison Goldstein
College of Engineering Page 3 of 23
EMGT 6225 Project Report
Current Car
The first step I took in approaching this problem was to determine many aspects about my current
car: details, the current worth, and the costs associated with using this car including maintenance
and fuel.
Details:
Table 1: Current Car Details
Year 2011
Make Mazda
Model CX-9
Style Grand Touring SUV / 3.7L V6 / AWD / 6-speed Auto
Color Brilliant Black Clear coat
Optional Equipment Add-Ons N/A
Mileage 60,000
Condition Clean Limited Reconditioning Required
Current Worth:
To approximate the current value of my car, I input the above details into the popular website
Edmunds.com which then provides an Edmunds True Market Value (an estimated worth).
Option Value
Dealer Trade-In $14,849
Private Party $16,472
Costs:
The next step was to estimate the costs associated with owning and maintaining my current car
which include routine maintenance costs and fuel costs. Operating under the maintenance
schedule/cost assumptions and using yearly fuel estimate usage costs from FuelEconomy.gov, both
shown in detail in Appendix A, I created the following cash flow of cost estimates.
Alternatives
The next steps I took in approaching this problem were to determine the various aspects of the
alternative vehicles with which I would replace my current car: details, the current retail prices, and
the costs associated with using the cars including maintenance and fuel. The two alternative options
I could replace my 2011 Mazda CX-9 with are the current version of it, the 2016 Mazda CX-9, or a
car of a different class, the 2016 Mazda 6.
Details:
Table 4 and 5: New Version and New Model Car Details
Year 2016
Make Mazda
Model CX-9
Style Grand Touring SUV / 3.7L V6 / AWD / 6-speed Auto
Color Jet Black Mica
Optional Equipment Add-Ons N/A
Mileage 0
Condition Outstanding
Year 2016
Make Mazda
Model 6
Style Grand Touring Car / 2.5L 4-cyl. / FWD / 6-speed Auto
Color Jet Black Mica
Optional Equipment Add-Ons N/A
Mileage 0
Condition Outstanding
To determine the current retail prices of these alternatives, shown below in Table 6, I used
Mazda.com to build the cars (see Appendix C for details).
Costs:
The next step was to estimate the costs associated with owning and maintaining these two car
alternatives which include routine maintenance costs and fuel costs. Operating under the
maintenance schedule/cost assumptions and using yearly fuel estimate usage costs from
Summer I 2016
Northeastern University Madison Goldstein
College of Engineering Page 5 of 23
EMGT 6225 Project Report
FuelEconomy.gov, both shown in detail in Appendix A, I created cash flows of cost estimates, seen
below in Tables 7 and 8.
Financing Options
The final step before evaluating my alternatives was to determine the financing details. For my
current car, this process was simplified due to the fact that it is already fully paid off. For each of
the other two alternatives, two different financing methods are considered: lump sum purchases and
financing over a 60 month period at 4.26%. In each method, my current car would be traded in to
the dealer for $14,849 to be used as an immediate payment toward the cost of the new vehicle.
Lump Sum:
For the lump sum purchase option, the prices for the two new alternatives were calculated as seen
below in Tables 9 and 10.
Table 9 and 10: New Version and New Model Lump Sum Financing
Financing:
Assuming that for the financing option, equal end-of-period payments will be made, the monthly
payments seen below in Tables 11 and 12 were calculated:
The full loan repayment amortization schedules for each vehicle can be seen in Appendix E.
Summer I 2016
Northeastern University Madison Goldstein
College of Engineering Page 7 of 23
EMGT 6225 Project Report
For my current vehicle, the estimated depreciation expense, approximately $9000, was subtracted
from the Private Party Current Value to determine the salvage value, seen below in Table 13.
Table 13: Current Car Salvage Value
For the two alternatives, depreciation estimates of $18,677 and $17,203 were used and subtracted
from the Current Retail Prices to determine the salvage values, found below in Tables 14 and 15.
Table 14 and 15: New Version and New Model Salvage Values
In order to determine the best financial decision in terms of keeping or replacing my current car, I
compared the alternatives using a cash flow (insiders viewpoint) before-tax annual worth analysis.
The results are summarized below in Table 16.
Table 16: Present Worth of Each Alternative
Recommendation:
Based on the Present Worth calculated for each alternative, the least expensive option for me is to
keep my current car. The ranking of alternatives, from least expensive to most is:
Current Car
New Class - Lump Sum
New Class - Financed
New Version Lump Sum
New Version Financed
Although it appears that keeping my current car is the most economical approach, this decision is
ultimately influenced by many other, quite subjective, factors. The first factor that could change this
finding is the planning horizon. I chose a five year planning horizon because of the simplicity of
this number, as well as the assumption that my current vehicle would reach approximately 135,000
miles after this time period. For me personally, I assumed that I would not want to drive the car
beyond this point, however, it is possible that I could have and therefore extended the planning
period. Additionally, there is no reason for the two new vehicle alternatives to be sold at the end of
the five year period, this was another decision I made for the purpose of this analysis. If these
vehicles were kept beyond this point, their worth could change drastically.
In performing this analysis, I chose to explore the financing options of a lump sum payment, or
financing with a loan. Intuitively, it is obvious that paying for the new vehicles with a lump sum at
time zero is preferred to paying interest on a loan. However, given that I am a college student with
debts that need to be paid off, the reality of being able to drop lump sums of $16,181-$28,021 to
purchase a new vehicle outright is highly doubtful. Leasing the purchases could prove to be an
interesting alternative financing method which may have produced different results.
Finally, I think it is worth noting that I am very fortunate to be considering my current, relatively
new vehicle of such great worth that is already paid for. Having no payments left to make on this
car, thanks to my very generous parents, is the factor that makes keeping this car the best
alternative. Had this not been the case, the results may have been different.
Summer I 2016
Northeastern University Madison Goldstein
College of Engineering Page 9 of 23
EMGT 6225 Project Report
Appendix A:
Maintenance Schedule and Cost Assumptions
Appendix B:
Current Car Costs
Maintenance
Mileage EOY Costs ($)
Procedures
45,000 N/A -1 N/A
Windshield, Oil x5,
60,000 0 2720
Fluid/Coolant, Fuel
Windshield, Oil x5,
75,000 1 2120
Fuel
Windshield, Oil x5,
90,000 2 4320
Brakes, Tires, Fuel
Windshield, Oil x5,
105,000 3 2720
Fluid/Coolant, Fuel
Windshield, Oil x5,
120,000 4 4320
Brakes, Tires, Fuel
Windshield, Oil x5,
135,000 5 2120
Fuel
Summer I 2016
Northeastern University Madison Goldstein
College of Engineering Page 11 of 23
EMGT 6225 Project Report
Appendix C:
Mazda.com Car Alternatives Build
2016 Mazda 6:
Summer I 2016
Northeastern University Madison Goldstein
College of Engineering Page 13 of 23
EMGT 6225 Project Report
Appendix D:
Alternatives Costs
Maintenance
Mileage EOY Costs ($)
Procedures
0 N/A 0 0
Windshield, Oil x5,
15,000 1 1770
Fuel
Windshield, Oil x5,
30,000 2 1770
Fuel
Windshield, Oil x5,
45,000 Fluid/Coolant, Brakes, 3 4570
Fuel
Windshield, Oil x5,
60,000 4 1770
Fuel
Windshield, Oil x5,
75,000 5 1770
Fuel
2016 Mazda 6:
Maintenance
Mileage EOY Costs ($)
Procedures
0 N/A 0 0
Windshield, Oil x5,
15,000 1 1320
Fuel
Windshield, Oil x5,
30,000 2 1320
Fuel
Windshield, Oil x5,
45,000 Fluid/Coolant, Brakes, 3 4120
Fuel
Windshield, Oil x5,
60,000 4 1320
Fuel
Windshield, Oil x5,
75,000 5 1320
Fuel
Summer I 2016
Northeastern University Madison Goldstein
College of Engineering Page 14 of 23
EMGT 6225 Project Report
Appendix E:
2016 Mazda 6:
Appendix F:
Present Worth Calculations
EOY CF
0 -2720
1 -2120
2 -4320
3 -2720
4 -4320
5 5352
PW: ($10,842.33)
EOY CF
0 -28021
1 -1770
2 -1770
3 -4570
4 -1770
5 22423
PW: ($15,529.51)
EOY CF
0 -16181
1 -1320
2 -1320
3 -4120
4 -1320
5 12507
PW: ($11,778.51)
Summer I 2016
Northeastern University Madison Goldstein
College of Engineering Page 19 of 23
EMGT 6225 Project Report
End of
Month CF
0 0.00
1 -519.34
2 -519.34
3 -519.34
4 -519.34
5 -519.34
6 -519.34
7 -519.34
8 -519.34
9 -519.34
10 -519.34
11 -2289.34
12 -519.34
13 -519.34
14 -519.34
15 -519.34
16 -519.34
17 -519.34
18 -519.34
19 -519.34
20 -519.34
21 -519.34
22 -519.34
23 -519.34
24 -2289.34
25 -519.34
26 -519.34
27 -519.34
28 -519.34
29 -519.34
30 -519.34
31 -519.34
32 -519.34
33 -519.34
34 -519.34
35 -519.34
36 -5089.34
37 -519.34
Summer I 2016
Northeastern University Madison Goldstein
College of Engineering Page 20 of 23
EMGT 6225 Project Report
38 -519.34
39 -519.34
40 -519.34
41 -519.34
42 -519.34
43 -519.34
44 -519.34
45 -519.34
46 -519.34
47 -519.34
48 -2289.34
49 -519.34
50 -519.34
51 -519.34
52 -519.34
53 -519.34
54 -519.34
55 -519.34
56 -519.34
57 -519.34
58 -519.34
59 -519.34
60 21903.66
PW: ($18,621.76)
Summer I 2016
Northeastern University Madison Goldstein
College of Engineering Page 21 of 23
EMGT 6225 Project Report
End of
Month CF
0 0.00
1 -299.90
2 -299.90
3 -299.90
4 -299.90
5 -299.90
6 -299.90
7 -299.90
8 -299.90
9 -299.90
10 -299.90
11 -299.90
12 -1619.90
13 -299.90
14 -299.90
15 -299.90
16 -299.90
17 -299.90
18 -299.90
19 -299.90
20 -299.90
21 -299.90
22 -299.90
23 -299.90
24 -1619.90
25 -299.90
26 -299.90
27 -299.90
28 -299.90
29 -299.90
30 -299.90
31 -299.90
32 -299.90
33 -299.90
34 -299.90
35 -299.90
36 -4419.90
37 -299.90
Summer I 2016
Northeastern University Madison Goldstein
College of Engineering Page 22 of 23
EMGT 6225 Project Report
38 -299.90
39 -299.90
40 -299.90
41 -299.90
42 -299.90
43 -299.90
44 -299.90
45 -299.90
46 -299.90
47 -299.90
48 -1619.90
49 -299.90
50 -299.90
51 -299.90
52 -299.90
53 -299.90
54 -299.90
55 -299.90
56 -299.90
57 -299.90
58 -299.90
59 -299.90
60 12207.10
PW: ($13,564.11)
Summer I 2016
Northeastern University Madison Goldstein
College of Engineering Page 23 of 23
EMGT 6225 Project Report
References
[1] Bankrate, Inc. (2016). Current Auto Loan Interest Rates. Retrieved from Bankrate:
http://www.bankrate.com
[3] GOBankingRates. (2016). What Is The Average Savings Account Interest Rate? Retrieved from
GOBankingRates: http://www.gobankingrates.com
[4] Mazda North American Operations. (2016). Build A Vehicle. Retrieved from Mazda USA:
http://www.mazdausa.com