- This topic has 735 replies, 152 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
- Posts
@manonaseriousmission said:
and by the way, was anyone else caught out (or nearly so) with 360 days to use for receivables calculation? I had gone a bit far into the calculation using 365 days before i realized at the end that examiner pedantically specifies 360..The factor wasn’t a viable option anyway… well, that’s what i deduced. don’t know if i was correct.
Never understand why they sometimes use 360 days – in which universe is this the case??
I also said factor wasn’t viable – can’t remember the difference but it was quite substantial. Kept reading the bit that said the factor advance was made on invoice value just to be sure as previous questions have been based on factor receivable balance – but to be fair, in real life it’s on invoices raised.
My answers to the MCQs:
Q1. A
Q2. C
Q3. D
Q4. A
Q5. B
Q6. C
Q7. C
Q8. C
Q9. B
Q10. B
Q11. A
Q12. B
Q13. C
Q14. D
Q15. B
Q16. A
Q17. C
Q18. B
Q19. D
Q20. BAlso, there was one mcq, where they told that expected net present values are calculated for projects with several outcomes ONCE. But, if i am not mistaken, expected values work for several times, not ONCE, so marked this one as incorrect
@emo777 said:
Jenny, so, you are right on VC, they were correct, as other two. Regarding next section, all were correct ( interest rates). Regarding beta of debt, this one was incorrect.Marvellous – we’re in agreement – feel a bit better now. Spent the reading time looking at Section B and was feeling good til I say Section A – thought it was horrible but maybe not as bad as I thought?
Still love to know if anyone knows the answer to Q17 – the fwd rate needed for no gain/loss compared to investing. Thought I knew the fx stuff inside out but could not deal with that one!
Jenny, i think the factor was viable, i studied this question carefully during preparation, it was viable by 87000 and smth
MCQ’s were a plain joke in my opinion really harsh..
Doing F7 and working full time didn’t cover the full syallabus on theory.
Made a silly mistake on tad’s did reducing balance, will I get a mark at all?
Hopefully still 7/9 on NPV and 5/6 for sensitivity analysis.Q1 hopefully 10/10, I messed up the calcs on 2 a little hopefully 5/10, 3 perhaps close to full thought I did it all okay. 9/10.
Q4 hopefully 7/15 what did you write for the theory on 4 with regards to capital structure. Then 12/15 on the last.
Would leave 44 with MCQ’s to go but thats ambitious marking so not sure.Don’t think I got more than 4/5 on MCQ’s, all on one area.
I wish I could do the old exam.@emo777 said:
Also, there was one mcq, where they told that expected net present values are calculated for projects with several outcomes ONCE. But, if i am not mistaken, expected values work for several times, not ONCE, so marked this one as incorrectAgree again!
Problem I found with the wordy MCQs was like that one – even when sure of one or two of the answers, unsure of the other so couldn’t be sure of overall answer (if that makes sense!)
@jenny3549 said:
Marvellous – we’re in agreement – feel a bit better now. Spent the reading time looking at Section B and was feeling good til I say Section A – thought it was horrible but maybe not as bad as I thought?Still love to know if anyone knows the answer to Q17 – the fwd rate needed for no gain/loss compared to investing. Thought I knew the fx stuff inside out but could not deal with that one!
I did the interest rate parity for this
Also, share options do not ALWAYS reward good performance. Regarding the question on FX, i used interest parity formula and the answer I got was 4.718 or 4.817, smth like this. It was C
@emo777 said:
Jenny, i think the factor was viable, i studied this question carefully during preparation, it was viable by 87000 and smthI could well be wrong. Can’t remember the figures exactly but:
Savings – on reduction of receivables x 5%
– on bad debts (revenue x 1% x 70%)
– on admin costsCosts – factor fee
– factor advance (on revenue x 80% x 2%)My costs totalled more than my savings.
@emo777 said:
Jenny, i think the factor was viable, i studied this question carefully during preparation, it was viable by 87000 and smth</blockquotPretty sure I got 87000 too.
For part 1 did the factors receivable balance x5% and the bad debts 27200 x1%Then the 70% reduction in bad debts gave a big saving with admin too on top of 50k. Factors fee of .75 was a cost with also the revised debt days of 35 gave a debtor figure of 2000 something, x80% x7% was the cost.
Agree?
@emo777 said:
Also, share options do not ALWAYS reward good performance. Regarding the question on FX, i used interest parity formula and the answer I got was 4.718 or 4.817, smth like this. It was CI did try as was trying to calculate forward rate for when deposited amt was converted back but then got lost.
So, you agree on reward scheme? Also, i think your mistake was when you forgot to multiple advance by 35/360 and then only multiply by 80 percent and by 2 percent
Ok, what about money deposits, kinks, beta of debt and net present value of project ONCE? Was it true?
@emo777 said:
So, you agree on reward scheme? Also, i think your mistake was when you forgot to multiple advance by 35/360 and then only multiply by 80 percent and by 2 percentProbably got this wrong by the looks of it. Suggested factoring was too costly. But why multiply the credit sales by 35/360 in the cost of the advance?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.