- This topic has 92 replies, 69 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
@qing said:
Anyone remember? Does Q2 ask to calculate the value of combined company or the target only? I very confused.it asked to value the company which was acquiring the other, and thats soo weird i also almost ended up doing the valuation for the company which was being acquired however its market value was already available as the per share market value was easily computable
bobby played his best for his last
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 5
- ☆
Thanks Kwanh85.
I valued the target. T_T- Topics: 0
- Replies: 5
- ☆
i thought the examiner want us to value the target using BSOP and compare it with current mv, and decide how much premium to pay them.
i did not read the requirement carefully.
i donot think i will pass then.@qing said:
i thought the examiner want us to value the target using BSOP and compare it with current mv, and decide how much premium to pay them.i did not read the requirement carefully.
i donot think i will pass then.cheer up dude the checkers r like ur best friends, if you look at the marking scheme you can even pass the papers if you dont even do one question the right way, like you mustev calculated the BSOP model correctly with wrong figures?? you will still get alot of marks for that
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 7
- ☆
The examiner clearly has his own agenda. I’ve done virtually all the questions in the Kaplan exam kit and I could have studied for 100 years and I would get the same mark as I did do on the 10th.
That’s the 4rd exam in a row he’s ignored hedging with futures/options etc.
Finally he mentioned toxic assets… after having written an article 5 recessions ago.
The written question was irrelevant to almost everything.
All the people I spoke to after the exam came out saying… what on earth was that? I went for some of the baby marks – I didn’t know what that meant so I wrote this.
And some of these people will undoubtedly pass…. (as has happened before)
But I guess the ACCA want those kinds of people to represent their organisation. People who come out of exams and don’t know what they’ve just done.
You try asking someone who sat this paper last time what something means and very often, they won’t have a clue. Yeah good exam Bob.At least Bob’s gone… we’ll be singing.. “Ding dong the witch is dead” at his leaving parade.
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 1
- ☆
@kwanh85 said:
it asked to value the company which was acquiring the other, and thats soo weird i also almost ended up doing the valuation for the company which was being acquired however its market value was already available as the per share market value was easily computable
bobby played his best for his lastIt was required to value the combined entity, then subtract the value of the predator company and derive the maximum bid price for the target company. Then compare this price with the current fair value – derive max premium to be paid
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 2
- ☆
@zigot14 said:
Q2’s based on the latest tech article on option pricing.Did anyone think that the annuity factor formuia in Q1 was wrong?
I also thought that the formula was incorrect. I’m sure that the formula given multiplied everything in the big square brackets by (1 + g), but it should have been by A, where A is the annuity in year 1.
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 2
- ☆
@qing said:
Anyone remember? Does Q2 ask to calculate the value of combined company or the target only? I very confused.My take on it was that he wanted us to value the predator company before acquisition, then combined after. I thought that the point was that the predator company started off profitable and worth lots, then acquired another profitable company, but then because of the large amount of liabilities in the target company, the combined company could be perceived as being of little value if, say, net assets method used. It seems illogical that the combined value of two profitable companies should be less than the predator company alone. That brings in time value / near the money / Black-Scholes option valuing as being suitable – per examiners article.
Anyone agree, or am I way off the mark?!
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 4
- ☆
THE PAPER WAS A DISASTER.
JUST HOPING TO PASS AS I DID MY LEVEL BEST- Topics: 0
- Replies: 2
- ☆
A challenging exam for this attempt, wishing all those out there the best on their results for putting in hard work as this exam could’ve raped anyone!
Q1 was awesome, would’ve been perfect had i ever thought Monte Carlo Simulation would show up anywhere in any p4 exam! 😛
Q2 was good until i got the answer for the value of a firm from Black Scholes model, that was impossible to interpret as the combined value i was getting was less than the equity value of the first company using free cash flows!! and it was asking for how much premium to pay?! that was confusing, otherwise still pretty good.
Q3, i dont think i even read the question properly and was out of time.
Q4 didnt attempt, i hate theory
Q5. netting was soooo easy. calculate all the external transactions into one currency (say euro) and you should be getting a net receipt of around 6 billion. then calculate the total monies needed for group payments and receipts (note, payments and receipts are all amounts that need to be paid with money!) so you end up requiring somewhere over 20 or 30 billion (cant remember) and then subtract the 6 billion you will receive from others and thats your total requirement (guys i really think i nailed this one, but i can never say about p4!)!!!
does anybody ever remember advantages and disadvantages??
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 2
- ☆
AND I SWEAR THAT ANNUITY FORMULA IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!
just calculate 2 or 3 years growth and discount seperately and use the formula, your answers should differ!
who is the new smarta** examiner??
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 1
- ☆
zigot14
Regarding the anuity formula I also thought It was wrong but I was not so sure,I think there is something missing as the factor cannot be that much smallHow disappointing. I feel like I may as well have not bothered revising at all as I would have been prepared for that as much as I was anyway. Qu 4 and 5 were fine but i struggled mainly with Q2 as it confused the hell out of me.
I think ACCA need to address this problem so people aren’t wasting their time resitting this exam. What a nightmare.
section B questions were unexpected…i would not say it was difficult but as it was surprising it required more time to plan the right approach for answer..considering the exam time pressure it was challenging…particularly Q no.3 took my all reading and planning time and finally i decided not to answer it…so 15 minute was lost..and i started getting panic…so couldn’t attempt to my ability..
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 9
- ☆
I think the exam was unfair. It offered very limited choice for a student. Non core topics were tested. Yes we are suppose to know our f9 material but I did the old 2.4 financial management and I was never tested on Monte Carlo simulation. Section B offered very little choice. Q3 was an article but I was not expecting it cause the article was released many months ago. I think both lectures and students should complain to ACCA that the exam material does not correspond to what is being taught in class. They should mark us out 50 and not 100. They should select the best two questions answered. There should be moderation. Please all who found the paper a disaster, please complain to ACCA. Resiting cost a lot of money.
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 7
- ☆
Good luck to you all, i failed P4 twice and decided to do tax this time round as P4 was still a Bob Ryan paper. Hopefully in December it will be a better paper for any of your that may need to retake, with more of the core topics covered in slightly easier to understand ways. I did find after a exam debrief that once i understood what the examiner was asking for the questions were ok, but it is very hard to do that under exam conditions and in 3 1/4 hrs.
everybody, do u know why u failed P4 or why u find P4 so difficult, the ans is all
in examiner bobryan ‘s website professorbobryan.blogspot.com and see below link to comment.[url=https://https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6624979079617922504&postID=8830877172010025763&page=1&token=1277122463507_AIe9_BHNCrbWkbIC1fuFIs6nK4Ee_3poYqupfYGhkMb5Ye1xkOjCW0H6lI4Dl7a-xsCgJQp6j0vgSttoAGqpH9GYpT8tV26_1Ejcxb2VI5zBMgJWAO-8cbcTL2Yt70hROQNuKZzYNSvjdgoZ1WBg7sis0kTIOITgXiqV8M6KayPJI7toHfzxtMJY-Q_iveoDCWRbusK9IxlU1L6lR1HuHNNltbTAuAsRsBTEG5h9xZwIErHLZzjSwoU]https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6624979079617922504&postID=8830877172010025763&page=1&token=1277122463507_AIe9_BHNCrbWkbIC1fuFIs6nK4Ee_3poYqupfYGhkMb5Ye1xkOjCW0H6lI4Dl7a-xsCgJQp6j0vgSttoAGqpH9GYpT8tV26_1Ejcxb2VI5zBMgJWAO-8cbcTL2Yt70hROQNuKZzYNSvjdgoZ1WBg7sis0kTIOITgXiqV8M6KayPJI7toHfzxtMJY-Q_iveoDCWRbusK9IxlU1L6lR1HuHNNltbTAuAsRsBTEG5h9xZwIErHLZzjSwoU[/url]
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.