In: Finance
| 
 Sri Lanka  | 
 Malaysia  | 
|
| 
 Initial investment ($’000,000)  | 
 250  | 
 500  | 
| 
 Land lease (years)  | 
 10  | 
 15  | 
| 
 Payback period (years)  | 
7 | 11 | 
| IRR% | 
 15%  | 
 16.25%  | 
| WACC | 15% | 15% | 
| Evaluation of the two proposals: | 
| Financial factors | 
| $ amt. of Investment is high for Malaysia | 
| In case of SriLanka , the initial investment is recovered by 7 years ,but the same takes 10 yrs. For Malaysia. Both pays back within the lease period | 
| Malaysian proposal scores over SriLanka's as its IRR 16.25% >WACC 15% | 
| Non-financial factors : | 
| SriLanka's economy & its people thrive on tea plantation-business , | 
| so may be a good option where quality tea-leaves as well as both quality and cheap labor availability is possible. | 
| But the country's political climate will be the major deciding factor , with too much of internal strifes, which will categorise this as a high-risk investment. | 
| For that , there is not much of an incentive in the form of IRR , | 
| but for the fact that the initial investment is half of that required for Malaysia. | 
| But as far as Malaysia is concerned, adequate quantum of physical labor will not be available, as here, the tea does not form much part of the whole agricultural produce. | 
| As a result, quality will also be less than that of SriLanka and the wages also high, in the event of the Malaysian government having raised the minimum wages. | 
| But the wage part might be taken care of by the increased IRR | 
| provided Tea Life is prepared to spend twice the amount of initially , with respect to this investment. | 
| Taking into consideration , all the above financial & non-financial factors | 
| Malaysia seems to be of low-risk category , fetching a better IRR , not only when compared to that of SriLanka but also the WACC of 15% |