(a) The Zenith Enterprises Ltd. has two investment proposals—project X and project Y. These are mutually exclusive. Project X requires an initial outlay of ₹3·4 crores and project Y requires an initial outlay of ₹3·3 crores. The risk-free rate is 8%

Question

(a) The Zenith Enterprises Ltd. has two investment proposals—project X and project Y. These are mutually exclusive. Project X requires an initial outlay of ₹3·4 crores and project Y requires an initial outlay of ₹3·3 crores. The risk-free rate is 8% for both the projects. The risk premium rate for project X is 2% and project Y is 4%.

The expected cash inflow and certainty equivalent coefficient for projects are given below:

| Year | Project X | | Project Y | |
| | Expected Cash Inflow | CE | Expected Cash Inflow | CE |
| 1 | ₹1·8 crores | ·85 | ₹1·8 crores | ·90 |
| 2 | ₹2·0 crores | ·75 | ₹1·8 crores | ·85 |
| 3 | ₹2·0 crores | ·60 | ₹2·0 crores | ·75 |

The PVF for 3 years:

| | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
| PVF @ 8% | ·926 | ·857 | ·794 |
| PVF @ 10% | ·909 | ·826 | ·751 |
| PVF @ 12% | ·893 | ·797 | ·712 |

From these details, determine which of the two projects should be accepted by using—
(i) risk-adjusted discount rate method;
(ii) certainty equivalent approach method. (20 marks)

(b) What is credit policy? Explain the criteria involved in assessing the credit-worthiness of a customer. (15 marks)

(c) Discuss the phases of operating procedures of monetary policy framework in India. (15 marks)

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

Solve this multi-part numerical and theoretical question by first computing NPV under both risk-adjusted discount rate and certainty equivalent methods for part (a), then defining credit policy with 5Cs/6Cs of credit analysis for part (b), and finally tracing RBI's monetary policy operating framework phases for part (c). Structure with clear headings, tabular presentations for calculations, and integrated conclusions.
- Part (a)(i): Calculate risk-adjusted discount rates (10% for X, 12% for Y), apply to expected cash flows, compute NPVs, and select higher NPV project
- Part (a)(ii): Convert certain cash flows using CE coefficients, discount at risk-free rate 8%, compute NPVs, and reconcile/justify any ranking conflict with RADR
- Part (b): Define credit policy (credit standards, terms, collection), explain 5Cs/6Cs criteria (Character, Capacity, Capital, Collateral, Conditions, Compliance) with brief elaboration
- Part (c): Trace evolution from CRR/SLR-based direct control (pre-1991) to LAF (1998), then MCLR (2016), and finally external benchmark-based lending/FLEX framework (2019 onwards)
- Explicit comparison showing certainty equivalent method theoretically superior as it separates time value from risk adjustment, while RADR compounds risk over time

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	15%	7.5	Correctly identifies 'solve' demands precise numerical computation for (a) and analytical exposition for (b)-(c); distinguishes between mutually exclusive project selection criteria and treats three independent parts with appropriate weightage	Attempts all parts but confuses calculation methods or misallocates time across 20-15-15 mark distribution; minor directive misinterpretation	Treats (a) as purely theoretical without calculations, or ignores either RADR or CE method; fails to recognize part (b) requires criteria enumeration and (c) requires phased tracing
Content depth & accuracy	35%	17.5	Numerical accuracy in NPV calculations with correct discount rate selection (10%/12% for RADR; 8% for CE); proper CE coefficient application; correct ranking and reconciliation; comprehensive 5Cs/6Cs coverage; accurate RBI framework phases with years	Minor calculation errors in PV factors or CE application; incomplete 5Cs explanation; vague monetary policy phases without specific years or instruments	Major computational errors (wrong discount rates, incorrect CE usage, arithmetic mistakes); confused credit criteria with credit policy instruments; jumbled monetary policy timeline
Structure & flow	20%	10	Clear tripartite structure with labeled sections (a)(i), (a)(ii), (b), (c); tabular presentation of calculations showing year-wise working; logical progression from computation to analysis to policy discussion	Present but cluttered calculations; missing sub-headings; some mixing of RADR and CE workings; adequate but not crisp organization	Unstructured narrative without tables; scrambled part sequencing; illegible or unexplained numerical jumps; no visual separation between distinct methods
Examples / case-law / data	15%	7.5	Uses given Zenith Enterprises data precisely; cites RBI monetary policy committee formation (2016) or recent liquidity adjustment facility operations; references SEBI/RBI guidelines on credit assessment; contextual Indian banking examples	Uses provided data adequately but no external illustration; generic mention of RBI without specific frameworks or years; missing contemporary credit policy references	Ignores provided cash flow/CE data; no Indian context in monetary policy discussion; fabricated or irrelevant examples
Conclusion & analytical edge	15%	7.5	Resolves ranking conflict if methods differ (CE theoretically preferred); synthesizes capital budgeting risk handling with credit risk and systemic risk management; evaluates trade-offs between RADR simplicity and CE precision; forward-looking note on integrated risk frameworks	Simple restatement of selected project without conflict resolution; standard summary of credit criteria and monetary policy without integration	Missing conclusion for any part; contradictory recommendations; no recognition of method limitations; abrupt ending without synthesis

(a) The Zenith Enterprises Ltd. has two investment proposals—project X and project Y. These are mutually exclusive. Project X…

Directive word: Solve

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Practice this exact question

More from Commerce & Accountancy 2021 Paper I