OpenTuition | ACCA | CIMA
Free ACCA and CIMA on line courses | Free ACCA, CIMA, FIA Notes, Lectures, Tests and Forums
Spread the word
If you have benefited from our materials, please spread the word so more students can benefit.
To help us keep materials up to do and add new content you can also donate
May 23, 2019 at 2:35 pm
Dear Mr. Moffat
With regard to part (a) of the Question on Flufftort Co, the ratio of equity to long term liabilities comes down to 1.285, (rounded 1.29) which does not meet the requirement of the covenant on the bank loan and as such, it should have led the company to effect immediate payment of the bank loan of $30 million. In the same line of thought, why does the bank loan of $30 million still appear on the Statement of Financial Position as at 30 June 2016?
John Moffat says
May 23, 2019 at 4:43 pm
These are proposed schemes of restructuring in order to keep the company viable, and the question is asking for the projected SOFP’s for each of the schemes.
Any of the proposed schemes are subject to the finance providers agreeing to it, and that is the subject of part (b) of the question (which is carrying more than half the marks). As the examiner’s answer to part (b) does state, the covenant is broken, but it is only broken marginally, and although the bank may be concerned, they may be prepared to accept it. Do read the last paragraph before ‘conclusion’ of the answer to part (b).
May 11, 2019 at 11:55 am
Hi sir, regarding to the sample answer provided for question (b), I don’t really understand about this (as follows):
[Extract from sample answer: Purchase of Gupte VC’s shares In the worst case scenario, Gupte VC will demand repayment of its investment in a year’s time. The calculations in (a) show the financial position in a year’s time, assuming that there is no net investment in non-current assets or working capital, the purchase of shares is financed solely out of cash reserves and the shares are cancelled. Repayment by this method would mean that the limits set out in the covenant would be breached (45/35 = 1·29) and the bank could demand immediate repayment of the loan.
The directors can avoid this by buying some of Gupte VC’s shares themselves, but this represents money which is not being put into the business. In addition, the amount of shares which the directors would have to purchase would be greater if results, and therefore reserves, were worse than expected.]
On the last paragraph, what does it mean by amount of shares would have to purchase would be greater??
May 11, 2019 at 1:26 pm
If the results are worse than expected, then the total equity (share capital + reserves) will be lower than expected. Therefore to bring the equity to non-current liabilities ratio up to the required level will mean they would have to put even more money in and buy even more shares.
August 7, 2018 at 4:43 pm
The Overdraft of $5, the additional $5m added to the Current Liabilities? is the reason why the Overdraft charge was not added to the Profit or loss statement because the amount was not given.? and do you need to evaluate that the O/D charge will reduce the profit, or do we just ignore it?
August 13, 2018 at 4:33 pm
Wee Kiat says
March 10, 2020 at 7:01 am
Flufftort Co is ‘allowed’ to use it, but it doesn’t not use it. Meaning they do not take up the liabilities and therefore not relevant to both Cash and CL i n Part a. Hope this help
You must be logged in to post a comment.