[dannyshao]

Finally, I am not finding excuses for my failure. But I do not think that the always lowest pass-rate of this paper makes its examiner feeling proud of himself. I also think any exam should be a method to help students to solidify the knowledge they have learnt, it should not be an obstacle lying in front of students and stop them from making normal progress and confidence.
Thanks

[dannyshao]

My suggestion is the question should be asking in plain way. for example, when it is asking “Assess”, it should ask candidates directly to “To judge the worth, importance, evaluate or estimate the nature, quality, ability, extent, or significance”, when it is asking “Evaluate”, it should ask candidates directly to “Determine the scenario in the light of the arguments for and against” etc.

[dannyshao]

I don’t think this will be working as well. But I do have some concerns on this paper. Frankly and being ashamed by myself, I have attempted more than 8 times but always failed and the highest mark got was the hell 48! I do not think myself is stupid enough on this area, but just could not adapt well to this paper’s exam method, because every time, I always can write many many answers and always be feeling good but actually always failed.

Following are my concerns concluded

Firstly, some of questions in this paper are allocated with too large marks, such as 10, 15 or even 25 just in one ask. Candidates sometimes can not be thinking effectively and clearly to find out what he/they should write and what should not, because under the time-pressure condition, candidates have no time to think too much on what the exactly the question was asking. The BEST way should be to divide all questions into some more small-mark asks which will give candidates more opportunities to gain potential small marks, AND those divided questions other than that just on big question will also help candidates to clear out their thinking and get more potential lethal marks to pass.

[dannyshao]

Yes, I agree with that “Shareholders funds” does not include intangible assets which is included in the net assets. Thanks

[dannyshao]

Thank you sir for your replies.

But I do NOT think that all companies will ALWAYS in need of future money. For a theoretical example, if a company only raises equity capital one time, and will never raise more money in future because they are operating very successfully, and can satisfied by own funds instead of paying too much dividend, thus their capital cost should be very little or even zero if no dividend paid.

On the other hand, could I just think that the equity capital cost is actually only the expectation of potential investment return from shareholders, And this expectation urges the company should to operate their business very effectively and successfully, otherwise they will not be able to raise future money if they need. But I still think if they are not raising future money and when they are not paying dividend, the equity cost should be zero.

Thanks for your time.

[dannyshao]

Dear Sir, thank you for your reply.

Regarding the dividend, a company always has the right on deciding when and how much they will be paying the dividend, even not paying. I mean dividend is always NOT compulsory comparing with debt interest payment. Also shareholders investment return can come from the increase on the share price itself even when company is not paying out dividend or paying very little.

Thus, at least during the period before a company’s share price goes down (not really all the time actually in market), if the company is not paying dividend, then there will be no cost on using equity capital, at least during that period.

Am I correct?

Thank you again for your time.

[dannyshao]

<cite>@1ragnar said:</cite>
72 I still can’t believe it.

Hi guy, any hint or advice on how you can score such high? I failed sadly again. Cheers

[dannyshao]

Thank you Anna for your post. Yes I am reseating P4 next week, good luck for both of us!

[dannyshao]

Plus:

Simply saying, the annuity should be discounted an extra FOUR years not 3 years as he has done, coz the cash flow starts at END of year 4, not beginning of year 4!

Cheers again.

[dannyshao]

Thank you very much sir for your reply! But my point was not at the annuity factor (7.191, and I understand that thoroughly).

My arguement is the Present Value factor he used on calculating “the operating cash inflows commencing at END of year FOUR and last for 15 years”. I think, the PV factor should be 1.11^(-4), not 1.11^(-3) he used. The reason is the cash flow starts at END OF YEAR 4, not BEGINNING of YEAR 4!!

THERE SHOULD BE ANOTHER ONE YEAR From beginning of year4 till end of year4!

Thats my point. Please give a consideration and thank you for your time!!

[dannyshao]

Hi,

If cashflow at the END of year4 is using” ^(-3)”, could you tell me what to use if cash flow on START of year4?

Thanks.

[Author]

Posts