CIMA F3 Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

Translation risk arises when the foreign subsidiary’s net assets (in BS) are translated into the parent’s currency (A$). The most effective hedge is to match those net assets with liabilities in the same foreign currency. By financing the acquisition with BS borrowings, AAB creates a BS liability that offsets BBA’s BS net assets, reducing the net exposure to translation movements.

A$: equity in A$ doesn’t hedge BS assets.

Multi-currency bank accounts and forward contracts mainly address transaction risk, not long-term translation of balance sheet net assets.

A – Access to technical expertise: Q’s staff are leading experts and human capital is very valuable; acquiring this is a clear benefit.

D – Gain economies of scale: Both firms operate in the same technical service industry, so combining operations can reduce average costs and share overheads.

E – Improve EPS: Q has shown consistent earnings growth; if acquired at a reasonable price, this growth can enhance M’s earnings and potentially its EPS.

Diversification benefits (B) are limited because they are in the same industry, and intangible assets such as human capital are not strong collateral for borrowing (C).

For a company valued using the free cash flow to equity with constant growth, the standard Gordon growth formula is:

Value of equity=FCF1ke−g\text{Value of equity} = \frac{\text{FCF}_1}{k_e - g}Value of equity=ke​−gFCF1​​

Where:

FCF₁ = free cash flow in one year’s time

kek_eke​ = cost of equity

ggg = constant growth rate

Here:

FCF₁ = $100,000

ke=10%=0.10k_e = 10\% = 0.10ke​=10%=0.10

g=5%=0.05g = 5\% = 0.05g=5%=0.05

Correct valuation:

Value=100,0000.10−0.05=100,0000.05=$2,000,000\text{Value} = \frac{100{,}000}{0.10 - 0.05} = \frac{100{,}000}{0.05} = \$2{,}000{,}000Value=0.10−0.05100,000​=0.05100,000​=$2,000,000

The analyst instead did:

100,000×(1+0.05)/0.10=105,000/0.10=$1,050,000100{,}000 \times (1 + 0.05) / 0.10 = 105{,}000 / 0.10 = \$1{,}050{,}000100,000×(1+0.05)/0.10=105,000/0.10=$1,050,000

So the true value is $2,000,000 and the analyst’s value is $1,050,000.

Undervaluation=2,000,000−1,050,000=$950,000\text{Undervaluation} = 2{,}000{,}000 - 1{,}050{,}000 = \$950{,}000Undervaluation=2,000,000−1,050,000=$950,000

So the company has been undervalued by $950,000 → Option A.