CIMA F3 Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

Equity: $30m

Debt: $35m at 5% interest, redeemable in 5 years

They require 30% p.a. compound on the equity and no dividends are paid.

Equity value required in 5 years

Future value=30×1.35=30×3.71293≈$111.39m\text{Future value} = 30 \times 1.3^5 = 30 \times 3.71293 \approx \$111.39\text{m}Future value=30×1.35=30×3.71293≈$111.39m

Debt cash flows

Annual interest: 35×5%=$1.75m35 \times 5\% = \$1.75\text{m}35×5%=$1.75m → over 5 years: 1.75×5=$8.75m1.75 \times 5 = \$8.75\text{m}1.75×5=$8.75m

Principal repaid in year 5: $35m

Total due to venture capitalists

111.39+8.75+35=$155.14m (approx)111.39 + 8.75 + 35 = \$155.14\text{m (approx)}111.39+8.75+35=$155.14m (approx)

Answer: A. $155.14 million

Residual dividend policy → dividends are not a good reflection of underlying performance → rules out A.

Highly cyclical earnings and capital structure not matched by listed peers make simple P/E comparison (D) unreliable.

Net asset value (C) rarely captures earnings potential for a going concern.

A discounted cash flow approach using free cash flows and a cost of equity derived from a proxy company (adjusted for gearing) is most appropriate.

Answer: B: Discounted cash flow analysis at WACC based on free cash flow to equity.

(Conceptually: FCFE discounted at cost of equity.)

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.