Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@davidlemonhhl said:
I agree. And I used 3E value for money as a guide for analysisI thought about using Three E’s but there is not enough data to establish relevant metrics.
Also, i believe in the scenario, it stated that the CEO did not want us to establish new metrics therefore use what was provided.
I compared the three main metrics used and obviously B stood out as the better organisation.
However, i also mentioned its important to note that B was in another country and unlike, it did not state the countries, population therefore it may not be directly comparable like A may be.
Furthermore, C did not have enough data therefore relevance and reliability is in question.
However, it could still be possible for the company to learn from B in terms of their methods and processes as they are still performing better despite the higher costs.
@eagledave said:
I calculated them and did a quick narrative, they weren’t really required, although the question says to incorporate the financial information into the contextual features answers? I wasn’t really sure how to do that, but I thought, the data was given, so I might as well do something with it, so time consuming, that paper was a nightmare.I think the examiner needs to have more consideration in the marking process, cause the questions and case were too vague and unclear.
You can calculate them for Time and preservation.
For time, the declining ratios and for preservation the current and quick ratios which were slightly above industry average which they should try to retain as part of the change if considered.
There is no right answer for that question.
Literally any of them could be argued and chosen.
I chose Merger which was one of the options as it is similar to acquisition but the fusion between two companies is mutual with synergy benefits and the main costs (transactional) are cheaper than an acquisition despite there previous experience in it.
The upfront cost in an acquisition would seriously stall the benefits to the shareholders especially if the high cost are outweighed by quick dividends which would mean that that company is performing better than the current company which makes them more stronger so acquiring them would the opposite of reality.
@eagledave said:
No, it didn’t but the CEO would like to understand the implication of the proposed change and wants to have holistic view of this.. We therefore have to look at the current situation based from the case, the proposed change, and then the impact. So by explaining all this, you have to somehow express your opinion by critical analysis and also we are allowed to disagree and then justify why.This was part b i believe using POPIT, which is the holistic view.
@adeoluomosanya said:
did Q1 tell us to choose if we were for or against the radical change proposal by TCA for FMC? I dont think I chose a side…Q1a was asking us how the 5 contextual factors of change would need to be considered when managing the proposed change by TMA.
This part has come up many times.
@dvyn07 said:
if they apply big bang the board will be reluctant to change…They wouldn’t be reluctant if their financial position is unstable.
Revenues were falling, direct and indirects where doing up…
A past paper in the kit said that if there are financial troubles then Time Contextual factor would be considered to require immediate attention.
@hassanatcams said:
no doubt this one got to be one of the lengthiest case studies to appear in P3 historyYou reckon marks are available for the remaining professional marks if the report format wasn’t adhered to i.e. just the start bit with the from and to…
@dvyn07 said:
plus change was supposed to be incremental not big bangI agreed with TMA in that it is a revolutionary change.
Reason being that they should predominantly be an e-commerce business.
Therefore the scope changed dramatically meaning a transformational change.
The fact that they are there financial statements and profitability ratios were falling meant that the change needed to be quick and with simultaneous tasks as it a change in the entire process being online.
Did 1a ask for a particular format?
OR was is just general professional marks?
I can’t remember if it said report format or not?
@eagledave said:
IThe published reports were independently audited so therefore the claim was unfounded, and the company was taking their strategic CSR very seriously.
Thats something i put in the second to last part which spoke about environmental and social audit and the benefits of it in the integrated report.
But the last part was about the environmental footprint and report specifically. Therefore, its possible to put the argument across that even though they are branding natural honey which improves footprint, the fact that people in the production process stated themselves of still using honey can undermine that.
I don’t think these questions are about absolution. It requires points with justification to back it up.
@kireeti said:
It was more on the lines with How diversification is useful to reduce the risk…Q2Btw, in q3, was the investigators’ allegation against Honeybuzz stated as untrue?
Even so, answers to that basically mean show ways it can be reduced which shows how it is useful.
Q3 – The investors allegation was said to be false by operations director, doesn’t mean it was true. But it can affect the credibility of the environmental footprint and hence the environmental report as asked for in the last part.
@nomonet said:
It asked to explain the benefits of diversification across the fund managers trans-national portfolio, if I remember correctly.I definitely recall it asking ways to use diversification to reduce financial risk when choosing investments?
@kireeti said:
Btw, was position in q3 Expedient(Instrumental)?I chose social ecologist because it spoke so much about social and environmental footprint resolution and that is what social ecologist underpins. Expedients do minimum CSR so having environmental and social audit in that position seems extreme.
With regards to questions 1e iii, i used ACCURATE but i thought it meant into in the context of the scenario.
@tayyabom said:
there were three stake holders:1) RICE – High Power – Low Interest
2) Oldshires – Low Power – High Interest
3) Doctors – Low Power – High InterestThat’s what I wrote. RICE low interest because there is no hint that they opposed this reduction. If they were pro-health care then why they didn’t take any action? that was my opinion anyway.
You can interpret it has that RICE did have high interest because they said even though you have lower budget, you have to maintain primary health care
Disadvantages of principles are basically the advantages of rules:
I.e. – no standardisation
– reduced confidence in compliance as they have a choice due to comply and explain
– difficult to interpret levels of governance whereas its easier to in rules based due to its exacting nature etc etc@tayyabom said:
I wrote something like this about disclosures that since principles-based doesn’t have any fixed guidelines or rules therefore competitors are disclosing more information due to the fear that if their competitor is doing they have to do as well and then resembling it to Kohlberg’s peer pressure in conventional behavior. If your competitor is revealing more information about CSR and stuff then you have to do that as well hence more disclosures. there was no harm in contrasting this information with rules-based approach where there is fixed guidelines which makes it consistent and fixed closures for everyone, that was gist of my answer on disclosures.Diversification to avoid financial risk, you can diversify easily to avoid these 2 things:
1) Liquidity risk – in case there is credit crunch in your economy even if not today it can be tomorrow so diversification covers that risk
2) Currency risk – in country you are operating may deteriorate its currency and therefore diversification is a good idea to cover this aspect of financial risk.
I thought you were meant to write about the type of investments to choose when trying to avoid financial risk.
I.e. negatively correlated investments so that if one goes down, the other one goes up and offsets the financial loss/risk?
Or doing stuff like backward/forward/horizontal integration?
2a Describe elements of principles based and why Julia would benefit from volutary disclosures when finding investments – 12 Marks
2b Ways of diversifying risk in Julias investments – 4 Marks
2ci Why companies like AAM Investment funds should follow principles of harmonisation of global governance standards written by ICGN – 5 Marks
2cii Limitations of Principles based rules for Julia & AAM – 4 Marks
@kireeti said:
Dividend expected is used in calculation.BTW, anyone remember the very 1st mcq?
Dividend paid is always considered. Check open tuition notes, all questions on TSR include dividend paid.
Q1 was about corporate governance. Answer was option C. A is a close second but it is wrong.
@aqillos said:
regarding quesrion 5 I remember got 3836, but do not remember whether it was in option A or B.I have looked at exam kit in relation to shareholder return. there was dividend declared, not paid. I considered dividend paid and got 22 %. hope it will not be mistake.
If I am not wrong remember, option related to transaction risk mentioned accounts… something like this… I think it is translation risk… that’s why I chosed economic risk…
Answer for TSR is option A. Always chose dividend paid over declared as it isn’t guaranteed payment.
@sahil1234 said:
For the SME question I chose (B) that is debt finance only. As in the notes it was clearly mentioned that small companies might find it difficult to raise equity finance as not many people would be interested in buying their shares. So they would be inclined towards debt finance.But Debt finance includes long term finance such as bonds so the choice isn’t justified.
If you look at the technical article on acca website on Business Finance for SME’s, it shows a variety of different ways they could get finance. Most of them implying towards, business angels, venture capitalist, crowdfunding, etc. This all indicates that they will take their finance however way they can get it.
@pinkyjovin123 said:
In q no .32 should we add bac TA Depreciation..We add back 28% of the T.A.D in arrears (starting from T2).
@gawcram said:
Net assets = equity I thinkCorrect. Thats if its the Book Value of Equity.
The option state the Market Value of Equity which is using the Market Share Price, not whats all the Balance Sheet.