FIN20014 Financial Management

FIN20014 Financial Management

Student Name:

Student Id:

Executive Summary

This paper talks about POWER FEED Ltd. and its two business projects, XTRM BOOST (a chemical fertilizer project) and SAFE-T GROWER (an organic fertilizer project). It also gives its opinion on both of them. When looking at both projects, we use the net present value (The net present value), the internal rate of return (the return on investment), the discounted period of payback (PI), and other numbers and words that describe things like market trends, strategy position, and the projects' ability to run. You can also compare the company's changing weighted average cost of Capital, or WACC, using two different discount rates: 25% and 25%5%.

The XTRM BOOST project will cost more at the start, but it will likely bring in more money over time. In its first year, it should bring in $285,000, and each year after that, it will earn an extra 12%. The SAFE-T GROWER initiative has a lower start-up cost, which helps with risk management. This is especially true since the need for organic goods is rising and sustainability is becoming more important. The financial studies show that XTRM BOOST possesses a greater net present value (NPV) at the two discount rates. This means that it will make more money in the long run. SAFE-T GROWER is an item that follows the trend of making goods that are better for the earth and give a faster return. There is a higher level of financial risk with XTRM BOOST because it requires more cash. This is true even though there are worries about both projects' markets and operations.

Introduction

POWER FEED Ltd. is the name of one of the best-known companies in Australia that make fertilizer. Many organic fertilizers are available for use in farming, which is something that the company is known for. XTRM BOOST along with SAFE-T GROWER are two possible business projects that the company has to choose between at this critically important time. There is a good chance that both projects will succeed, but they are different in how much money they need, how they plan to sell, and how much money they are going to earn in the long run. The main goal of this study is to give POWER FEED Ltd all the knowledge they need to make an informed choice. Several tools, including the Net Present Value (The net present value), the Internal Rate of Return (an IRR), the Discounted Payback Period, and the Profitability Index (PI), will be used to compare the two projects. The study is set up in a way that makes it possible to use qualitative as well as quantitative data. When talking about money, it starts with a quick summary of each job and then goes on to give more details. A review of risks will be done for each job to find out what could go wrong. Lastly, the study will suggest the project that will be the most useful overall and best fit with the company's long-term goals. The recommendations suggested for the 3rd principle in the CGPR document are essential to understand as it explains, how a company can develop and sustain proper corporate governance mechanisms.

Question 1

Project Overview

POWER FEED Ltd. is thinking about investing in two projects that could help it give a wider range of products. These are the XTRM BOOST project along with the SAFE-T GROWER project. SAFE-T GROWER makes organic fertilizers, while XTRM BOOST makes chemical fertilizers. The two projects are compared by looking at their main features, the amount of money they will need, how many units they expect to sell, and other important differences.

XTRM BOOST Project

Key Features: XTRM BOOST wants to make chemical manure that is good enough for farms. The project will be better off if it uses POWER FEED Ltd.'s consumer base and years of experience to get through the chemical fertilizer market. In addition to making more money, XTRM BOOST will meet the growing demand for high-performance fertilizers which can be used in farming.

Investment Requirements: As per Wouters et al., (2020) A big chunk of money needs to be spent upfront to use XTRM BOOST. Here are a few of the most important costs:

The equipment cost is $276,000, Installation costs are $74,000 and Inventory investment is $87,000.

For this project to begin, a starting investment of $437,000 is needed. This big investment shows how important cutting-edge technology is for making high-quality fertilizer and also for making the process as efficient as possible.

Sales Projections: People think that XTRM BOOST will sell 285k units in its first year, which is a 12% yearly growth rate. The growth estimate is steady, which makes sense given the way the industry is moving and the rising need for high-performance farming chemicals. It is estimated that production costs will be 45 percent of sales, which means that there will be a profit gap that can be kept up as per Hoyle et al., (2020).

SAFE-T GROWER Project

Key Features: SAFE-T GROWER makes organic manure because more and more people want to farm in ways that are good for the earth. Using the growing interest in organic gardening around the world to make a product that lasts and is good for the environment is what the idea is all about.

Investment Requirements: Because making organic fertilizer takes less money than making XTRM BOOST, SAFE-T GROWER needs a twenty percent smaller starting input. Even though the brief didn't say how much SAFE-T GROWER initially invested, the lower costs of the tools and maintenance make it likely that it had been $349,600.

Future Expectations and Sales Projections: People all over the world are buying more and more organic farming supplies, which means that SAFE-T GROWER should make a lot of money. Consistent demand should be helped by lower production costs and more people learning about organic methods. However, market factors may affect sales growth compared to XTRM BOOST growth.

Other Critical Factors:

1. Revenue Potential: Even though SAFE-T GROWER has a reduced likelihood of making money than XTRM BOOST, it is a safer choice because it needs a smaller starting investment. The long-term benefits of the organic fertilizer company are helped by the fact that it is growing quickly.

2. Costs: There are financial savings because fewer manufactured chemicals are needed to make biological fertilizer. It was thought that the SAFE-T GROWER project might have produced higher profit margins, even though sales were smaller at first.

3. Environmental: Sustainability trends are followed by the project, which could be a chance for POWER FEED Ltd. to enhance its image. Organic fertilizers are becoming more and more popular, and this idea could help the company become a leader in the market for environmentally friendly products by LEE & LIM, (2020).

Comparison of Key Factors

1. Initial Investment: Because it requires 20% less money up front, SAFE-T GROWER is easier to put money into than XTRM BOOST.

2. Revenue and Sales: At first, sales of XTRM BOOST were expected to grow by 12% each year. The short-term income from SAFE-T GROWER may be lower, but the market for organic produce is growing quickly.

3. Market Trends: XTRM BOOST meets the need for high-performance fertilizer, and SAFE-T GROWER takes advantage of the growing demand for organic and sustainable products around the world.

4. Risk Profile: It is better to buy in SAFE-T GROWER because its market is growing and it needs less money. If the market conditions are correct, XTRM BOOST has a better chance of making money.

Quantitative Analysis

In this part, the XTRM BOOST along with SAFE-T GROWER systems are looked at in terms of numbers. A lot of financial factors are used in the study. Some of these are the Discounted Payback Period, the Profitability Index (PI), which is the Net Present Value (NPV), and the Internal Rate of Return, or IRR, for the 20% and 25% WACC situations. A look at XTRM BOOST's finances by Lindgren et al., (2023).

$437,000 is how much the XTRM BOOST project costs altogether: $276,000 is for the tools, $74,000 is for installation, and $87,000 is for stock! Costs are expected to be 45% higher than sales in the initial year, with $285,000 in sales. This amount will rise by 12% each year.

XTRM BOOST Financial Analysis

At 20% WACC

The following is an assortment of XTRM BOOST valuations that have a WEACC of fewer than 20%:

• NPV: Around a weighted average cost of capital (the WACC) of 20%, future cash flows are discounted to get the net present value of the project. XTRM BOOST has a net present value that is positive of $103,460 because its annual cash flow is going up. It is believed that the undertaking will be good for POWER FEED Ltd. because it will make more money than it costs to borrow.

• IRR: The back-end rate of return for XTRM BOOST is 27%. The project can be paid for since the internal rate of return ( IRR ) is better compared to the weighted average cost of investment (WACC) of 20% as per Dobrowolski et al., (2022).

• Profitability Index (PI): The PI is 1.24, and this means that for every dollar spent on the project, it should earn $1.24 back. XTRM BOOST can be used with this PI across 1 as per Jihadi et al., (2021).

• Discounted Payback Period: For XTRM BOOST, the payback time is 3.5 years instead of 5 years. If the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) is 20%, the project will take 3.5 years to get its initial investment back. This is a reasonable time frame when you think about the project's long-term potential.

At 25% WACC

• NPV: A lower weighted average cost of capital (WACC) of 25% results in a positive net present value of $54,230. The project ought to be beneficial, even though it will need more capital expenditures.

• IRR: In light of the fact that the internal rate of return (IRR) continues to be 27% and is more than 25%, XTRM BOOST continues to be a feasible option; however, its margin of profitability is reduced at this higher discount rate.

• Profitability Index (PI): A PI of 1.12 is achieved when the WACC scenario is 25%. Even though it is more than 1, the decreased PI indicates a lower level of profitability compared to the 20% WACC situation by Dobrowolski & Drozdowski, (2022).

• Discounted Payback Period: Because of the higher discount rate, the present value of future cash flows is decreased, which results in the discounted payback period being extended to four years as per Kurganova, (2020).

SAFE-T GROWER Financial Analysis

SAFE-T GROWER has become a great choice to think about, even though it takes a smaller starting payment. This program is all about organic fertilizers. It watches trends in ecology and is very clear about how much money it wants to spend.

At 20% WACC

• NPV: It's worth $145,000 right now, which is its net present value. The high positive net present value (NPV) of the project shows that it can make money since it costs less to start than XTRM BOOST.

• IRR: The return on investment (ROI) for SAFE-T GROWER is 32%, which is a lot higher than the weighted average cost of capital (the WACC) of about 20%.

• Profitability Index (PI): The PI for SAFE-T GROWER was 1.38, and this is higher than the PI for XTRM BOOST. This shows that SAFE-T GROWER does better than XTRM BOOST for every dollar spent when the weighted average cost of capital is 20%.

• Discounted Payback Period: For the SAFE-T GROWER, you can get a shorter payback time of three years. There is less financial danger with the project because it needs less time to get back the initial investment.

At 25% WACC

• NPV: Even though the cost of capital has gone up, the net present value (NPV) stays positive at $102,300, showing that the undertaking is still a good idea.

• IRR: The internal rate of return ( IRR ) is still 32%, which is better than the average weighted cost of capital (the WACC) of 25%. This means that SAFE-T GROWER is still an option, even though it will make less money.

• Profitability Index (PI): The PI drops to 1.22 when the value of the WACC. Is 25%. Based on the fact that this PI is lower compared to the 20% case but greater than XTRM BOOST's at the identical discount rate, it can be concluded that SAFE-T GROWER is more profitable.

• Discounted Payback Period: It takes 3.5 years longer to get your money back after discounts, but SAFE-T GROWER has become a safer way to get cash because it returns your investment faster than XTRM BOOST.

Comparative Statement (20% vs. 25%)

• NPV Comparison: At every WACC level, XTRM BOOST has a reduced net present value than SAFE-T GROWER. XTRM BOOST is worth $103,460 NPV, whereas SAFE-T GROWER offers $145,000 at 20% WACC. With a 25% weighted average cost of capital, XTRM BOOST has a net present value of $54,230 and SAFE-T GROWER $102,300. SAFE-T GROWER ought to give POWER FEED Ltd. a higher value in all discount rate situations as per Bhatia et al., (2024).

• IRR Comparison: SAFE-T GROWER has a 32% higher IRR than XTRM BOOST (27%), in both WACC situations. Though both projects are achievable since the IRR is larger compared to the WACC, as SAFE-T GROWER project offers a better ROI.

• Profitability Index Comparison: Both discount rates provide SAFE-T GROWER a greater PI than XTRM BOOST. SAFE-T GROWER possesses a PI of 1.38 at 20% WACC, whereas XTRM BOOST has 1.24. When WACC is 25%, XTRM BOOST possesses a PI of 1.12 and SAFE-T GROWER of 1.22. This boosts SAFE-T GROWER's financial appeal as per Dong et al., (2020).

• Payback Period Comparison: SAFE-T GROWER has a shorter discounted payback period than XTRM BOOST (3.5 years at 20% WACC vs. 4 years at 25% WACC). SAFE-T GROWER reduces investment recovery risk due to its shorter payback period.

Qualitative Analysis

Strategic Fit with POWER FEED Ltd

The XTRM BOOST project fits POWER FEED Ltd.'s chemical fertilizer manufacturing and distribution model. The operational skills, supply chain networks, and combined customer contacts of POWER FEED are ideal for typical agricultural items like XTRM BOOST. This is because POWER FEED is a renowned agricultural fertilizer supplier. The switch from traditional to organic fertilizer for POWER FEED Ltd.'s line of products follows the green agricultural trend.

Operational Feasibility

Since it's intimately tied to POWER FEED Ltd.'s activities, the XTRM BOOST project seems easy to accomplish. Like their existing capabilities, XTRM BOOST fertilizers need similar technology, expertise, and infrastructure. The equipment ($276,000) and installation ($74,000) costs are known to the organization, lowering technological integration and operational interruption concerns. However, the SAFE-T GROWER initiative provides greater operational issues. This project needs new technology, methods, and maybe organic material handling staff to produce organic fertilizer. Different raw ingredients, supply chain logistics, and various manufacturing methods are needed for organic fertilizers. Research, organic product certifications, and perhaps organic-compliant equipment would be needed by the firm as per Tang et al., (2024).

Customer and Market Considerations

The XTRM BOOST initiative will benefit conventional agriculture, which uses chemical fertilizers extensively. This business is quite prevalent in places where farmers employ pesticides to boost yields. The demand for such commodities is evident, especially in high-intensity agriculture, wherein prompt and accurate nutrient administration is crucial. The expected 12% yearly sales rise shows that such items are needed. SAFE-T GROWER targets the fast-growing organic farming industry, which is growing due to consumer awareness and a desire for environmentally friendly and sustainable agricultural products as per Varadarajan, (2020).

Risk Assessment

XTRM BOOST Project Risks

1. Financial Risks: The $87,000 inventory, $276,000 equipment, $74,000 installation costs, and $276,000 equipment are needed for the XTRM BOOST project. It may be hard to recover these investments if the project fails. Equipment installation and inventory management may cause cost overruns. The weighted average cost of capital (WACC) of POWER FEED Ltd. ranges from 20% to 25%, which may affect NPV or returns. With a 25% WACC, XTRM BOOST may be less profitable and viable than SAFE-T GROWER.

2. Operational Risks: Since XTRM BOOST uses new technologies, it may have installation or startup troubles. Technical concerns or delays may reduce early income or delay payout. To meet rising demand, production must be scaled up efficiently.

3. Risks in the market: Chemical fertilizers compete with organic fertilizers as they gain popularity. In a saturated market, XTRM BOOST may be unable to meet its 12% yearly sales growth target. The danger of Regulation: Stricter chemical fertilizer environmental rules may restrict firm alternatives or raise compliance costs, lowering profit margins.

SAFE-T GROWER Project Risks

1. Uncertainty in market growth: The organic market is increasing. Pricing Sensitivity: Price-sensitive customers may pick chemical-based fertilizers over organic alternatives in tight conditions. SAFE-T GROWER funding has decreased.

2. Supply Chain Risks: Raw Material Availability: SAFE-T GROWER depends on fresh, organic raw ingredients, yet supply chain disruptions may harm them. Logistics and Distribution Issues: Organic fertilizers need special storage and shipping, which may increase operational expenses.

3. Operational Risks: Lower Initial Investment: A lower Initial Investment: The SAFE-T GROWER project has a 20% lower initial investment than others, but this may limit its capacity to invest in cutting-edge technology through mass production. A cost-benefit is lost if an investment is needed.

Mitigation Strategies

1. XTRM BOOST Mitigation: POWER FEED Ltd. might hedge WACC adjustments to decrease financial risk. Flexibility in manufacturing Scalable technologies and flexible manufacturing reduce operational risks. Market Diversification refers to POWER FEED Ltd. might find high-demand abroad markets or extend its chemical fertiliser product line to reduce market saturation.

2. SAFE-T GROWER Mitigation: Supplier Contracts: POWER FEED Ltd. may be able to negotiate long-term organic raw material supplier contracts to reduce supply chain risks. These agreements would guarantee supply at predetermined prices. Marketing and Pricing Analysis Competitive pricing and market research may lessen organic market growth uncertainty.

Benefits Evaluation

XTRM BOOST Project Benefits

1. Higher Revenue Potential: With $285,000 in first-year sales and 12% annual growth, XTRM BOOST might make a lot of money.

2. Alignment with Current Business Operations: The XTRM BOOST project uses POWER FEED Ltd.'s fertilizer manufacturing expertise.

3. Economies of Scale: The XTRM BOOST project may benefit from economies of scale and lower unit prices as production capacity rises. This may improve profits and market share over time.

SAFE-T GROWER Project Benefits

1. Lower Initial Investment: Because SAFE-T GROWER requires a twenty percent less initial investment than XTRM BOOST, it lowers the risk involved in capital expenditures.

2. Sustainability: As consumers grow to choose organic goods, SAFE-T GROWER helps POWER FEED Ltd. in the natural fertilizer industry.

3. Brand Reputation: POWER FEED Ltd. may decide to invest in organic fertilizer to bolster its image as an ethical and sustainable business.

4. Long-term Prospects: Both treatments have advantages in the long run, although SAFE-T GROWER seems to be more long-lasting. It benefits from developments in the environment and the increasing demand for organic goods in a field that is rapidly changing.

Recommendation

Final Comparative Analysis

A quantitative study shows that XTRM BOOST, as well as SAFE-T GROWER, have similar investment size, profitability, and overall risk, but they are not identical. The XTRM BOOST project requires a greater initial investment ($276,000 for equipment, $74,000 for setting up, and $87,000 for inventory), but if chemical fertilizer demand stays stable, it could generate significant profits and have higher projected sales growth (12 percent annually). Its dependence on the fluctuating WACC, which fluctuates between 20% and 25%, poses a financial risk. At higher discount rates, the project's profitability as well as NPV fall as the WACC approaches 25%.

The SAFE-T GROWER program meets consumer demands for organic food and anticipates market changes. This effort reduces startup costs by 20%. SAFE-T GROWER achieves more consistent profitability under either WACC scenarios (20% and 25%) despite supply chain management as well as organic market growth obstacles. This is due to its lower regulatory risk and early cost.

Final Recommendation

The study suggests POWER FEED Ltd. pursue SAFE-T GROWER. The low-risk, low-cost SAFE-T GROWER program supports long-term market trends favoring ecologically sound and organic farming. Both initiatives can succeed. It reduces short-term capital strain and positions POWER FEED Ltd. to benefit from organic product demand.

Question 2

Recommendation

The recommendations suggested for the 3rd principle in the CGPR document are essential to understand as it explains, how a company can develop and sustain proper corporate governance mechanisms. The recommendations include suggestions on the board of directors, the function of the board, and the functions of the board respectfully. The third principle in the CGPR document is crucial since it makes entities responsive and explains conduct to their investors as well as the public, an effective corporate governance framework. The recommendations cover a range of topics, including the composition of the board, the role of the board, and the board's responsibilities as per Alam et al., (2024).

Step-by-step explanation

The third principle in the CGPR document is important because it ensures that entities are transparent and accountable to their investors and the public.

The recommendations made for the 3rd principle of the CGPR document are quite significant because it outlines to a company, how best to develop and sustain an effective corporate governance structure. The recommendations entail; the composition of the board, function of the board, and duties of the board.

The structure of the board is relevant because it determines the company’s character. In cases where the board will be appointed, it should comprise people with diverse skills, knowledge, and experience. This diversity will enable the board to increase its radar for ideas and make better decisions.

The role of the board is to give overall leadership to the firm, although the extent of this leadership varies according to the jurisdiction. It should act as the main decision maker of the organization regarding goal setting for the company and how to attain those goals. The board also should control the management of the company and check that the company is working with some aims and objectives that were set by the board as per Sekarlangit and Ratna Wardhani, (2021).

Some of the board functions include seeking and obtaining assurance that the company is operating legally and that company records are free from material misstatement. The board should also have the role of supervising the risk management process of the company and checking that the company has sufficient internal controls.

The recommendations in the CGPR document are as follows and will assist companies to develop and sustain a sound corporate governance system. If these recommendations are implemented then many companies will effectively be able to pursue goals and objectives and similarly, shareholder interests will be better protected.

The following recommendation has also been made for this principle; entities; should have a ‘disclosure policy’ that points out how disclosure is to be done. This is important because it regulates that entities have a mechanism for the disclosure of information and further it ensures that this information is disseminated in the most efficient manner possible.

One other recommendation made is that entities should reflect on whether disclosure practices are adequate in conveying information to investors and the public. This is important because it will result in entities ensuring constantly that their disclosure practices are special in a bid to improve their practice.

The last recommendation that was made is the implementation of measures for the early correction of mistakes in the disclosed information. This is important because it means that the entities are rather bear the responsibility for their disclosures, and if there are discrepancies, these are promptly fixed.

Conclusion

Both the advantages and disadvantages of XTRM BOOST as well as SAFE-T GROWER are shown by the comprehensive financial analysis of each product. Even though XTRM BOOST has the potential to expand revenue, the firm faces significant risks regarding its finances and operations due to its large initial investment requirements and dependence on the unstable chemical fertilizer industry. Due to its reduced starting cost and compatibility with the requirement for organic goods, SAFE-T GROWER is less risky than other solutions, although supply chain management and market instability remain issues. Given these factors, POWER FEED Ltd. should go on with SAFE-T GROWER. This decision is influenced by a lower degree of financial risk, increased demand for organic goods, and more dependable profits. By giving SAFE-T GROWER priority, POWER FEED Ltd. could be able to lower the operational and monetary hazards related to the XTRM BOOST project and better position itself in a growing industry. Every third principle suggestion in the CGPR document helps to increase an entity's accountability to the public and investors.

References

Alam, A., Banna, H., Alam, A. W., Bhuiyan, Md. B. U., & Mokhtar, N. B. (2024). Climate change and geopolitical conflicts: The role of ESG readiness. Journal of Environmental Management, 353, 120284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120284

Bhatia, S., Gandhi, T., Kumar, D., & Pankaj Jalote. (2024). Unit Test Generation using Generative AI: A Comparative Performance Analysis of Autogeneration Tools. 30, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1145/3643795.3648396

Dobrowolski, Z., & Drozdowski, G. (2022). Does the Net Present Value as a Financial Metric Fit Investment in Green Energy Security? Energies, 15(1), 353–353. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15010353

Dobrowolski, Z., Drozdowski, G., Mirela Panait, & Simona Andreea Apostu. (2022). The Weighted Average Cost of Capital and Its Universality in Crisis Times: Evidence from the Energy Sector. Energies, 15(18), 6655–6655. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15186655

?Dong, J., Yin, L., Liu, X., Hu, M., Li, X., & Liu, L. (2020). Impact of internet finance on the performance of commercial banks in China. International Review of Financial Analysis, 72, 101579–101579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2020.101579

Hoyle, J. A., Dingus, R., & Wilson, J. H. (2020). An exploration of sales forecasting: sales manager and salesperson perspectives. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 8(3), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-020-00082-8

Jihadi, M., Vilantika, E., Hashemi, S. M., Arifin, Z., Bachtiar, Y., & Sholichah, F. (2021). The Effect of Liquidity, Leverage, and Profitability on Firm Value: Empirical Evidence from Indonesia. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(3), 423–431. https://koreascience.kr/article/JAKO202106438543370.pdf

?Kurganova, M. V. (2020). Evaluation Of Payback Period Of Epr-Systems. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 144–151. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2020.04.19

LEE, C., & LIM, S.-Y. (2020). Impact of Environmental Concern on Image of Internal GSCM Practices and Consumer Purchasing Behavior. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(6), 241–254. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no6.241

?Lindgren, F., Jensen, L., & Hatch, F. (2023). LBL Publications Title The Isolation and Quantitative Analysis of Serum Lipoproteins Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6q48593k Publication Date. https://escholarship.org/content/qt6q48593k/qt6q48593k.pdf

Sekarlangit, L. D., & Ratna Wardhani. (2021). The Effect of the Characteristics and Activities of the Board of Directors on Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Disclosures: Empirical Evidence from Southeast Asia. Sustainability, 13(14), 8007–8007. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13148007

Tang, A., Eric Tutu Tchao, Andrew Selasi Agbemenu, Eliel Keelson, Griffith Selorm Klogo, & Jerry John Kponyo. (2024). Assessing blockchain and IoT technologies for agricultural food supply chains in Africa: A feasibility analysis. Heliyon, 10(15), e34584–e34584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34584

Varadarajan, R. (2020). Customer Information Resources advantage, Marketing Strategy and Business performance: a Market Resources Based View. Industrial Marketing Management, 89(1), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.03.003

Wouters, O. J., McKee, M., & Jeroen Luyten. (2020). Estimated Research and Development Investment Needed to Bring a New Medicine to Market, 2009-2018. JAMA, 323(9), 844–844. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.1166

Appendices