- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
- Posts
Hi John,
In the answer to Q4 , a The examiner valued the equity at 50M at year 2 and 42.1M at year 0. Why did he work back using 1.09 to the power of 2 to get the 42.1M?
John,
Apologies, I understand it to be worked backwards based on the cost of equity of 9%. If this is the case, then I understand.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.