| Course | GF520 Corporate Finance |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Seminar reflection |
| Length | About 850 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Finance |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GF520 Unit 6
Two Projects, Two Winners, One Crossover Near 14 Percent: A Unit 6 Seminar Reflection on Ranking Projects
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GF520: Corporate Finance
Unit 6 Seminar Reflection
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The two projects, the employer and the classmates are composite; the textbooks and article cited are real.
The Two Projects
Project A costs $400,000 and returns $230,000, $190,000 and $110,000 over three years. Project B costs $1 million and returns $200,000, $370,000, $440,000 and $450,000 over four years. The two are mutually exclusive, because they would use the same production space.
With money costing the firm 10 percent, A earns an internal return near 17.7 percent and adds about $48,800 of value. B has an internal rate of about 15.0 percent and a net present value of about $125,500. Internal return prefers A; net present value prefers B, by more than $76,000.
Where I Started
For four years I worked in the finance office of a building products company that ranked every capital request by internal rate of return. A project at 18 percent went to the top of the list ahead of one at 15, almost automatically. So when the numbers came up in the seminar my first comment was that A was obviously better: it earns more per dollar and pays back faster.
What the Session Did
Our facilitator asked us to plot both projects' net present values across discount rates. At low rates, B's larger and later cash flows are worth more, so B wins. As the rate rises, B's distant cash flows lose value faster than A's, and the two lines cross. Solving for the rate at which the difference between the two streams has a net present value of zero puts the crossover at about 14.1 percent. Below that rate, B adds more value; above it, A does. At our firm's 10 percent rate, we are well below the crossover.
Then the facilitator asked what an internal rate of return assumes. It assumes, in effect, that every dollar the project throws off can be put back to work at that same percentage. For A, that means reinvesting at 17.7 percent, while the firm's other opportunities earn closer to 10. Discounting at the cost of capital implies instead that freed-up cash earns what the firm's ordinary projects earn, a far more realistic figure for most companies (Brealey et al., 2023)., 2023).
Internal rate of return measured how hard each dollar worked, but the question was how much value the firm would gain, and at a 10 percent cost of capital the larger, slower project added more than $76,000 more of it.
The Point That Complicated It
Hana raised capital rationing. Suppose the firm had only $1 million to spend this year and could fund A along with another project of similar quality using the remaining $600,000. Then the comparison is not A against B but A plus something else against B. She computed the profitability indexes: A's is about 1.12 and B's about 1.13, almost identical. If another project as good as A were available for the remaining $600,000, the combination could beat B. Without that second project, B still wins.
I had not thought of the size difference as an opportunity question. My old employer's ranking by internal return was, I now think, a rough way of handling a budget limit: it favored projects that did a lot with a little money. That made sense when capital was scarce, but it was applied in years when it was not.
Why Firms Keep Using Internal Return
Diego pointed out that managers like internal return because it is a percentage that can be compared with a hurdle without knowing the cost of capital precisely. Surveys of finance officers support him: large firms report relying on internal return nearly as much as on net present value (Graham & Harvey, 2001). The measure is not wrong; it answers a different question.
Checking the Arithmetic Myself
After the session I reworked both projects on my own spreadsheet to be sure I believed the result. At 8 percent, B's lead grows to roughly $119,000; at 16 percent, A leads by about $32,000. Seeing the gap shrink and reverse as the rate climbed made the crossover concrete in a way the graph alone had not.
The Rule I Now Use
For mutually exclusive projects without a budget limit, I will choose whichever project adds more value when discounted at what capital costs us, and use internal return only as a description. Where capital is limited, I will rank by profitability index and check combinations. In both cases I will compute the crossover rate when two measures disagree, because it shows how far the cost of capital would have to move before the ranking changed (Ross et al., 2022).
What I Still Wonder
How often was my former employer's ranking actually wrong? Most projects there were small and similar in size, where the two measures usually agree. The conflict appears with projects of very different scale or timing, which may be exactly the large strategic projects where the mistake costs most.
References
Brealey, R. A., Myers, S. C., & Allen, F. (2023). Principles of corporate finance (14th ed.). McGraw Hill.
Graham, J. R., & Harvey, C. R. (2001). The theory and practice of corporate finance: Evidence from the field. Journal of Financial Economics, 60(2-3), 187-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(01)00044-7
Ross, S. A., Westerfield, R. W., Jaffe, J., & Jordan, B. D. (2022). Corporate finance (13th ed.). McGraw Hill.
Reading the GF 520 Unit 6 instructions
Unit 6 of GF520 pairs a seminar on a capital budgeting problem with a written reflection. Begin with the figures the session worked, so your argument rests on numbers. Say what habit or belief you carried in and how you came by it. Then explain what the session did, such as plotting value across discount rates, computing a crossover or discussing an assumption hidden in a measure. Record the specific contributions from classmates or the facilitator that changed your thinking, and say why they did. Where possible, check the arithmetic yourself afterward. Finish with the rule you now intend to use and a question still open. Write in the first person but support claims with the course text and research. Cite in APA 7 and stay within the seminar's length guidance.
How this GF520 Unit 6 example is built
The two projects and their four measures open the sample, ending with the $76,000 difference in value. The writer then traces an old habit to a building products company that ranked requests by internal return. The session's graph and the 14.1 percent crossover come next, followed by the facilitator's question on reinvestment, answered with Brealey, Myers and Allen. The highlighted sentence separates how hard a dollar works from how much value is added. Hana's capital-rationing point is worked through with profitability indexes, and Diego's defense of internal return draws on Graham and Harvey's survey. A short section reports the writer's own recalculation at 8 and 16 percent. The new rule distinguishes budget-limited from unlimited choices, citing Ross and colleagues, and the closing question asks how often the old employer's ranking was wrong.
Reading the GF520 Unit 6 grading rubric
GF520 reflection rubrics reward demonstrated change in thinking backed by the session's evidence. Graders look first for accurate figures, since the reflection's argument depends on them. The largest share of points then goes to explaining the shift: where the old view came from, which arguments moved it and why. Credit rises when classmates' contributions are described specifically and engaged rather than listed. Applying a concept such as the reinvestment assumption or capital rationing correctly shows understanding beyond the mechanics. A new rule stated precisely, with the conditions under which it applies, signals that learning will carry forward. A first-person voice is expected, and APA 7 references to the text and research complete the grade for this MS in Finance seminar.
GF520 Unit 6 help from the desk
Seminar reflections in GF520 often summarize the session's math and leave out the writer's own starting view and final one. Some declare one measure always right, missing that the session's point was the conditions under which each applies. Classmates are mentioned generally rather than for a specific argument. The reinvestment assumption is described incorrectly or skipped. Capital rationing, if raised, is dismissed in a sentence. The closing rule is vague, such as "use both measures." If your seminar compared payback with net present value or discussed projects of unequal lives, keep the same order: the figures, your starting habit, what the session showed, the point that moved you, a check of your own and the rule you now follow.
Get a GF520 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Which projects, or which measures, did your GF520 Unit 6 seminar set against each other? Send those figures, or the text your section substitutes for the live session, plus the rubric. That conflict anchors the reflection, which records a rule that changes. First custom sample free; turnaround usually 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GF520 papers and MS in Finance samples
- GF520 Unit 1: Funding Choice Discussion Post
- GF520 Unit 2: Time Value of Money Problem Set
- GF520 Unit 3: Weighted Cost of Capital Computation
- GF520 Unit 4: Packaging Line Capital Budgeting
- GF520 Unit 5: Distribution Center Appraisal Memo
- GF520 Unit 7: Capital Structure Case Study
- GF520 Unit 8: Dividend Policy Brief
- GF520 Unit 9: Working Capital Plan
- GF520 Unit 10: Corporate Finance Report
- GF510 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection on the LTCM Rescue
- GF500 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection on Deposit Rates
GF520 Unit 6 questions, answered
What if my seminar compared payback with net present value instead?
Then the reflection works that conflict. Payback ignores cash after the cutoff and the time value of money within it, so a quick project can beat a more valuable one. The sample's order still holds: prior rule, the figures, the session's analysis, the counterpoint and the revised rule. Only the measures and the explanation of their disagreement change in the custom version.
Can the reflection include my workplace experience?
Yes, and it strengthens the piece when it explains where your prior view came from. The sample traces the writer's habit to a capital request form that asked only for a return. Workplace detail works best kept to a sentence or two, with the seminar's analysis carrying the body, since rubrics reward the link between experience and course concepts.
Where can I find a free GF520 Unit 6 sample paper?
A full GF520 Unit 6 seminar reflection on conflicting NPV and IRR rankings is on this page, with the projects' figures, the crossover rate, classmates' points, a new decision rule and APA 7 references.
What is the crossover rate?
It is the rate where the two projects' values match exactly. Below about 14.1 percent the larger project adds more value; above it the smaller one does, so the firm's cost of capital decides which wins.
Why does capital rationing change the comparison?
With a fixed budget, the larger project uses money that could fund other work. The question becomes which combination of projects adds the most value per dollar available, which the profitability index helps rank.