The fourth scenario supposes that Ocean Carriers holds the capesize for 25 years until the ship has no salvage value. The same assumptions used in the first scenario are also applied. Such inputs yield an NPV of -$2,877,256.19, an amount greater than that yielded in the first scenario. Clearly, holding the ship for longer holds more value because the discounted earnings outweigh the discounted costs as time goes on.

The fourth scenario supposes that Ocean Carriers holds the capesize for 25 years until the ship has no salvage value. The same assumptions used in the first scenario are also applied. Such inputs yield an NPV of -$2,877,256.19, an amount greater than that yielded in the first scenario. Clearly, holding the ship for longer holds more value because the discounted earnings outweigh the discounted costs as time goes on.

The fourth scenario supposes that Ocean Carriers holds the capesize for 25 years until the ship has no salvage value. The same assumptions used in the first scenario are also applied. Such inputs yield an NPV of -$2,877,256.19, an amount greater than that yielded in the first scenario. Clearly, holding the ship for longer holds more value because the discounted earnings outweigh the discounted costs as time goes on.

The fourth scenario supposes that Ocean Carriers holds the capesize for 25 years until the ship has no salvage value. The same assumptions used in the first scenario are also applied. Such inputs yield an NPV of -$2,877,256.19, an amount greater than that yielded in the first scenario. Clearly, holding the ship for longer holds more value because the discounted earnings outweigh the discounted costs as time goes on.

The fourth scenario supposes that Ocean Carriers holds the capesize for 25 years until the ship has no salvage value. The same assumptions used in the first scenario are also applied. Such inputs yield an NPV of -$2,877,256.19, an amount greater than that yielded in the first scenario. Clearly, holding the ship for longer holds more value because the discounted earnings outweigh the discounted costs as time goes on.

The fourth scenario supposes that Ocean Carriers holds the capesize for 25 years until the ship has no salvage value. The same assumptions used in the first scenario are also applied. Such inputs yield an NPV of -$2,877,256.19, an amount greater than that yielded in the first scenario. Clearly, holding the ship for longer holds more value because the discounted earnings outweigh the discounted costs as time goes on. The fourth scenario supposes that Ocean Carriers holds the capesize for 25 years until the ship has no salvage value. The same assumptions used in the first scenario are also applied. Such inputs yield an NPV of -$2,877,256.19, an amount greater than that yielded in the first scenario. Clearly, holding the ship for longer holds more value because the discounted earnings outweigh the discounted costs as time goes on. The fourth scenario supposes that Ocean Carriers holds the capesize for 25 years until the ship has no salvage value. The same assumptions used in the first scenario are also applied. Such inputs yield an NPV of -$2,877,256.19, an amount greater than that yielded in the first scenario. Clearly, holding the ship for longer holds more value because the discounted earnings outweigh the discounted costs as time goes on. The fourth scenario supposes that Ocean Carriers holds the capesize for 25 years until the ship has no salvage value. The same assumptions used in the first scenario are also applied. Such inputs yield an NPV of -$2,877,256.19, an amount greater than that yielded in the first scenario. Clearly, holding the ship for longer holds more value because the discounted earnings outweigh the discounted costs as time goes on. The fourth scenario supposes that Ocean Carriers holds the capesize for 25 years until the ship has no salvage value. The same assumptions used in the first scenario are also applied. Such inputs yield an NPV of -$2,877,256.19, an amount greater than that yielded in the first scenario. Clearly, holding the ship for longer holds more value because the discounted earnings outweigh the discounted costs as time goes on. The fourth scenario supposes that Ocean Carriers holds the capesize for 25 years until the ship has no salvage value. The same assumptions used in the first scenario are also applied. Such inputs yield an NPV of -$2,877,256.19, an amount greater than that yielded in the first scenario. Clearly, holding the ship for longer holds more value because the discounted earnings outweigh the discounted costs as time goes on. The fourth scenario supposes that Ocean Carriers holds the capesize for 25 years until the ship has no salvage value. The same assumptions used in the first scenario are also applied. Such inputs yield an NPV of -$2,877,256.19, an amount greater than that yielded in the first scenario. Clearly, holding the ship for longer holds more value because the discounted earnings outweigh the discounted costs as time goes on. The fourth scenario supposes that Ocean Carriers holds the capesize for 25 years until the ship has no salvage value. The same assumptions used in the first scenario are also applied. Such inputs yield an NPV of -$2,877,256.19, an amount greater than that yielded in the first scenario. Clearly, holding the ship for longer holds more value because the discounted earnings outweigh the discounted costs as time goes on. The fourth scenario supposes that Ocean Carriers holds the capesize for 25 years until the ship has no salvage value. The same assumptions used in the first scenario are also applied. Such inputs yield an NPV of -$2,877,256.19, an amount greater than that yielded in the first scenario. Clearly, holding the ship for longer holds more value because the discounted earnings outweigh the discounted costs as time goes on. The fourth scenario supposes that Ocean Carriers holds the capesize for 25 years until the ship has no salvage value. The same assumptions used in the first scenario are also applied. Such inputs yield an NPV of -$2,877,256.19, an amount greater than that yielded in the first scenario. Clearly, holding the ship for longer holds more value because the discounted earnings outweigh the discounted costs as time goes on.