CIMA F3 Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

CIMA F3 explains that the Dividend Growth Model (DGM) is only suitable where dividends are stable, predictable, and capable of being forecast with reasonable confidence. It is therefore weak when applied to young, unlisted, high-risk companies, especially those with uncertain future cash flows.

A. No established dividend payment pattern – ✔ Correct

Company B has made losses in its first three years and has not paid dividends. CIMA F3 explicitly states that the dividend growth model is unsuitable where there is no dividend history, because the model relies on extrapolating future dividends from past patterns.

B. Uses future projected dividends – ✘ Incorrect

This is not a weakness, but a fundamental feature of the dividend growth model. All valuation models are forward-looking, and CIMA F3 does not consider this a limitation.

C. Growth rate difficult to determine – ✔ Correct

The business operates in a unique, high-risk sector, and future earnings and dividends are highly uncertain. CIMA F3 highlights that the DGM is extremely sensitive to the assumed growth rate, making it unreliable when growth cannot be estimated with confidence.

D. Time value of money ignored – ✘ Incorrect

The dividend growth model explicitly discounts future dividends, meaning it fully incorporates the time value of money, a core principle taught in F3.

E. Cost of capital difficult to estimate – ✔ Correct

As an unlisted company, Company B has no observable beta or market data. CIMA F3 stresses that estimating the cost of equity for private, high-risk businesses is problematic, reducing the reliability of DGM outputs.

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.