*** F9 June 2013 Exam was.. Post your comments ***

<cite> @merkada said:</cite>
i did but i don’t know if it was correct

In the exam I also understand that sales volume will increase by 9000 per year, so i took 9000 for Y1, 18000 for Y2 and so on. But now i realize that that was not realistic…..Upset about that!! how dou you think many marks it will cost?

Also reading other comments, i figure out how many silly mistakes did i do like not including overdraft in new net assets…ahhh… and all because of time pressure….
Will keep the fingers cross to pass!!!

<cite> @narinemalakyan said:</cite>
In the exam I also understand that sales volume will increase by 9000 per year, so i took 9000 for Y1, 18000 for Y2 and so on. But now i realize that that was not realistic…..Upset about that!! how dou you think many marks it will cost?

Also reading other comments, i figure out how many silly mistakes did i do like not including overdraft in new net assets…ahhh… and all because of time pressure….
Will keep the fingers cross to pass!!!

I did the same with the demand, increasing by 9000 every year. Once I got to the (ridiculously high) NPV, I realised that I had made an error. I didn’t want to waste time correcting it, so I put a footnote saying that the demand should have been 9000 for every year.

At most we should be penalised 1 mark I would say. As I am sure I did everything else 100% correct.

Any thoughts on this people?

<cite> @donizback said:</cite>
for me WACC was 12.2% looks a decent figure to me,
Q1 i think u r wrong the project was with positive NPV

He said that his NPV was 4.9m not the PV cash flow Mr.Decent

I think one does not have to increase the sales units by 9000 each year. This is bcos the increase should be interpreted as an increase on previous production and sale. Hence, 9000 units wud be incremental units on whatever was produced b4. Also I don’t think adding or not adding the bank loan makes any difference. I didn’t add the bank loan bcos there was no mkt value of the bank loan given and the interest rate given wan an average of the variable interest which in it self is in appropraite to use. But I believe which ever calculation one did is based on assumptions.

<cite>@bayigga said:</cite>
I remember the lecturer mentioning in class that if you get the units wrong, but compute the rest correctly, basing on the figures you have got, you only loose like a max’m of 2mks. Given in this question the units were copy and paste, you would probably loose just one mark.

let’s face it, there are 3mks for tax savings through CA alone. Then initial outlay and scrap value in their right periods (0 and 4); adjusting for inflation using the right rates; A mark for using the right discount factor; another for copying the right figures from PV tables. and one mark for making a decision basing on your figures.
And all these are not really affected by the units.

We shouldn’t be worried even if we got the units fugures wrong.

Wat was ur NPV

<cite> @narinemalakyan said:</cite>
Thats good to hear, thank you!!!

Yeah I wasn’t too worried about it. I even left a note for Marker to say it should be 9000 every year. It would have looked like a horrible mess if I tried to correct it all for one mark. NPV was around 40 million I think due to that error.

<cite> @merkada said:</cite>
to me it increased by 9000 per year

if increased 9k per year then yur npv number must be really big :S how much u got?

yea increase by 9k units every year produced and sold !!! this mean for year 1 you hav produced an incremental amount of 9k and sold all, Thensecond year onwards same thing…. i think it meant that every year it could produce an incremental amount of 9k units!!! not increase by 9k every year xD

Nope

<cite> @furqan2994 said:</cite>
Did anyone inflated the scrap value…like 5000,000 * .05 = 250,000 * (1.049)^4 ……………………..supposing general inflation rate was 4.9%

Scrap value is supposedly given as a nominal amount (i.e. the value we would receive in 4 years time, not the present scrap value of the asset >> the future value)… Perhaps if you included a note saying you assumed it was given in real terms you may be given marks. 😀

<cite> @wall19 said:</cite>
In q1). For NPV, how many marks will be lost if the sales figures are wrong??. I did not increase the units by 9000 each year.

I didn’t either, but apparently that was correct *phew*. It was supposed to be 9000 units for each year (according to most students who have posted on this thread). The units affected variable costs too.. But out of 12 marks it wouldn’t be too much.. If you have written 9000 for years 1-4 it should be fine 🙂

<cite>@shincody said:</cite>
Yeah I wasn’t too worried about it. I even left a note for Marker to say it should be 9000 every year. It would have looked like a horrible mess if I tried to correct it all for one mark. NPV was around 40 million I think due to that error.

My friend it’s not one mark u lose more since u r given one mark for correct NPV one for correct selling price and another for inflating it