CIMA F3 Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

Current debt interest:

Existing: 5m×8%=0.40m5\text{m} \times 8\% = 0.40\text{m}5m×8%=0.40m

New: 2m×10%=0.20m2\text{m} \times 10\% = 0.20\text{m}2m×10%=0.20m

Total interest = 0.60m

Let annual sales = SSS.

Operating profit margin = 20% → OP = 0.20 S.

Interest cover covenant:

0.20S0.60≥4⇒0.20S≥2.4⇒S≥2.40.20=12.0 million\frac{0.20 S}{0.60} \ge 4 \Rightarrow 0.20 S \ge 2.4 \Rightarrow S \ge \frac{2.4}{0.20} = 12.0\ \text{million}0.600.20S​≥4⇒0.20S≥2.4⇒S≥0.202.4​=12.0 million

Correct answer: A. $12.00 million

The company is deciding between:

Selling the business via a Management Buyout (MBO), or

Selling to an external private equity (PE) buyer.

From the original company’s viewpoint, an advantage of an MBO is:

The buyers are the existing management team. Relationships already exist, and there’s usually more trust and alignment.

Post-divestment, the original company may still trade with the divested unit (e.g., as a supplier or customer). Cooperation tends to be better with a familiar internal team than with an external PE house whose primary focus is financial returns.

Why the others are wrong:

B. Enhanced big data opportunities – unrelated to the divestment method.

C. Improved relationships with MBO team in the event of a sale to PE – logically inconsistent; if sold to PE, it’s not an MBO.

D. Higher price due to synergistic benefits – PE typically looks for financial engineering and operational improvements, not classic corporate synergies. You are more likely to see synergy premia when selling to a trade buyer, not in an MBO.

So the key pro-MBO argument here is better cooperation post divestment → A.