CIMA F3 Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

A spin-off/demerger normally involves separating a division or subsidiary and giving its shares to the existing shareholders. It doesn’t in itself raise finance (A), it doesn’t introduce new shareholders to the core entity (B), and it does not inherently increase takeover risk (D). Its main advantage is that it allows the market to value the demerged business separately, revealing its “true” value – C is correct.

A: Reduce the annual dividend to a more sustainable level

Price controls are expected to be long-term and have cut annual profit from $3bn to $1bn. Continuing to pay a $1.5bn dividend would rely on running down cash and reserves, which is not sustainable. A rational response is to reset the dividend to a level that can be covered by ongoing earnings in the new regulatory environment.

B: Review costs and staffing to find savings

With revenues capped, GDE’s main lever to protect profitability and cash flow is cost efficiency. A thorough review of operating costs and staffing can help offset some of the profit reduction, which supports long-term shareholder value and the ability to pay dividends in future.

C: Seek new revenue streams outside the price controls

Since core electricity prices are constrained, diversifying into related goods and services that are not regulated (e.g. energy services, maintenance contracts, renewables consulting, etc.) is a sensible strategic response. This can grow earnings without breaching the price cap.

Why not D or E?

D: Rights issue to maintain historical dividend levels would mean issuing equity essentially to fund dividends, which destroys shareholder value and signals poor financial discipline.

E: Bringing in a private equity investor is not an obvious or necessary response here; private equity would demand high returns and major restructuring, and it doesn’t directly address the regulatory profit squeeze in the way cost control and new revenue lines do.

Under traditional (pre–Modigliani & Miller) capital structure theory, there is an assumed inverse relationship between WACC and company value. The idea is:

As a firm moves towards its optimal capital structure, the WACC falls, and the total value of the firm (equity + debt) rises.

Beyond that optimal point, extra gearing increases financial risk, so the required return from both debt and equity goes up, causing WACC to rise and firm value to fall.

So, within this framework, if a company’s WACC increases, that means it has moved away from its optimal capital structure, and the value of the company will decrease.

Therefore, under traditional theory, an increase in WACC → decrease in company value, so the correct answer is B.