[haibe]

P1 70
P3 65
P7 58

Now an Affiliate.

For those who care to know, all the link and e business bulsheet didn’t work for me as they all pointed to me failing but here i am today, an affiliate.

[haibe]

P1 70
P3 65
P7 58

Affiliate.. Thank God

[haibe]

@dskinner83 said:
They have NOT delayed! It is only just approaching midnight in the UK – please stop spreading thinks that aren’t true – there is nothing suspicious about the timing of the results.

Normally i get it at 12am in my country consistently but it is different now. Whats it abt day light saving?

[haibe]

@tayyabom said:
I looked at my watch it was 3:25am and after some half an hour I looked at it again and it was 3:26am, time is that dead slow 🙁 Einstein you beauty, you were right about the relativity.

Opposite here; the last onr hour ran like 30 minutes.. very fast

[haibe]

@pathway said:
What option paper did you write haibe.is it P5

P7

[haibe]

I see the tick box after logging in to e business. Would you like your name to be included in the passed finalist list. *fingers crossed*

[haibe]

@kolkleen said:
I think we were supposed to get the current P/E ratio which was market value divided by FCFE (9000/1500 = 6). The P/E ratio was to increase by 20% in scenario 1 and 10% in scenario two. The value of the combined company would then be the new P/E ratio per each case multiplied by the combined FCFE. That was my logic anyways.

How did u get the combined company free cash flow to equity?

I also had a problem with valuing the combined company. Still regret why i didn’t do question 4

[haibe]

Dear sir.

In this same question, the examiner derived the net benefit to pursuit co shareholders by: getting the synergy benefit and deducting the premium required to acquire folder co.

This is different from how bpp treats the same scenerio in similar questions. For example page 327 of bpp text has an example called Nessie inc. In deriving the net value to Nessie shareholders, the total value of the firm is derived, debts for both Nessie and patsy are deducted, and then the payment for the acquisition is also deducted to get the net value to shareholders.

In order words: Total value of combined firm – Nessie debt – Patsy debt – acquisition amount = net value to Nessies shareholders.

I tried this same approach in the Pusuit co question but didn’t get the same thing as the examiner. Which of these approaches are correct?

Thanks

[haibe]

Hello guys.. Now i have completed all F papers and my scores are below.

F5- 59
F6- 73
F7- 65
F8 -63
F9- 69

Average is 65.8

Question: will this be approximated to 66?

And does this mean if i get an A in the Research Thesis i will get a first class?

Thanks.

[haibe]

All F papers passed in one attempt, thank God, thank open tuition!!

Unto professional papers now ?

[haibe]

@sferguson said:
Can anyone help me I’m feeling mega shocked at the moment! This is the 3rd time I’ve sat this paper. I can out that exam so confident and happy thinking I’ve finally passed was 99% sure and I’ve failed again. I got 44%. I honestly have no clue how that can be. Other times I can admit I didn’t think I’d passed but I have actually never felt so sure. I feel like I obviously don’t know what I’m talking about! Does anyone else feel the same? I can see I few people thought they were going to get higher. I actually thought I got a really decent mark!! Help I don’t know what to do!!

Bro.i feel.pity for you.. The key is to really appreciate financial management concepts and be willing to know as much as possible from every possible source. I attended a tutor centre for example but still relied on open tuition and even google searches. Grow a passion for financial management and this will lead you having a desire to learn more about different areas.

Bro just try again, u will pass this time. Solve lots and lots of questions and be very professional in the kind of answers you give. From your expectation about your performance, i think you really attempted the questions well but maybe fall.short in presentation. Try as much as possible to give examiner-like answers.

Better luck next time bro

[haibe]

69% in f9

73% in f6

Thanks open tuition for contributing to this performance

[haibe]

73% in f6

69% in f9

Thanks open tuition for contributing to this performance

[haibe]

For the inheritance tax.. What do they mean by “no lifetime inheritance tax were made on this gift”.. and whats the implication of that? We are not supposed to do anything? Or we use Gross or Net amount

[haibe]

Great paper.. although Mcqs were too tricky.

Question 5 had a negative Npv for me.

But after considering constant csah flows from year 5-10, total Npv becomes positive and investment worthwhile

[haibe]

Wow that’s an amazing answer, thank you so much. And yes I will use the Ask the tutor forum next time I wanna ask you. Thank you ?

[haibe]

Thank you so much John. That really cleared my confusion.

I have another question on Lease or Buy Decisions as seen in Page 41 Bpp revision kit (Asop Co), solutions on page 154.

In determining whether to lease or buy (“a” part of the question), the Net cash flows were discounted using the aftertax cost of debt of 6%. I can understand why the 6% rate is used for discounting net cash flows from purchasing the asset (because the question says the purchase will be financed by a loan paying interest of 8.6% before tax.

However I don’t seem to understand why the same 6% rate is used to discount to net cash flows from leasing the asset. Does that means the lessor also demands the same 6% interest rate like the loan financing?

Also the “b” part of the question asks us to determine the NPV of buying the new technology. The Net cash flows here were discounted using the weighted average cost of capital of 11%. Why is this the case? I expect that since the purchase will be financed by a loan with an after tax rate of 6%, then it should also be discounted with the 6% rate (reflecting the specific interest payment on taking up the $1m dollar loan) and not the WACC.

Finally , why is tax savings on license fee not considered in this same part b.

Thanks

[haibe]

Thank you John, I have also thought so too. However I got confused when I saw a question in Bpp kit Page 37 called BRT Co.

In this question , the production/sales will continue after the fourth year. However working capital was recovered in the fourth year as seen in the solution to the question on page 140. The working capital of 820 was recouped in year 4. Any reason for this?

[haibe]

1st Acca attempt ever: F5 59, F7 65, F8 63

Thank God

[haibe]

1st Acca attempt ever: F5 59, F7 65, F8 63

Thank God

[haibe]

@sophiemuzz said:
ROI question, is it the non current asset/relevant profit or is it assets-liabilities? I cant remember and cant find it anywhere that explains it in black and white

I think ROI is strictly investment like non current asset and not capital employed which would include long term liability and all.

Although they are essential the same

[haibe]

@chrismary said:
Q1..in the mix variance, I didnt convert grams to kg..in the yield variance, I converted grams to kg..eg 450/1000×950…All adverse for mix variance, all favourable for yield variance…….Q2…A..I saw it in a technical article but forgot the methodology…The lesson to the company thoigh is that as the management elevates a bottleneck, another one appears…

I was wondering if converting grams to kg is necessary as the actual and standard usage were similar.. Example Actual 626 kg and Standard 600 gramms.. Converting gramms to Kg will mean a very unrealistic huge variance. I simply worked it the way it was in the question. No conversion to gramms

[haibe]

After converting the standard usage from grams to Kgs.. Why is there significant difference between the standard (which is converted to Kg) and the actual (which is in kg already).

I think the standard usage should not have been in gramms but in kgs (from the question)

[haibe]

Why were the questions that ambiguous. I think questions should not be open to different interpretations ; that really trapped me. What did the question on throughout require from us exactly? The one with 3 options to choose from, and was anything like this in our syllabus? How are we expected to know such solutions.

That question is far beyond throughout in my opinion.

I agree the question on limiting factor is tricky but it is answerable, even though it requires too much time for just 7 marks.

Acca needs fair examiners, there is no point trying to make exams unanswerable, just treat the students fairly for pètes sake.

[haibe]

Gromit you deserve a huge appreciation. Thank you ?

[Author]

Posts