Forums › Ask ACCA Tutor Forums › Ask the Tutor ACCA AFM Exams › Sea Island 6/10

- This topic has 7 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by John Moffat.

- AuthorPosts
- November 30, 2015 at 11:41 am #286390
In this question while calculating the discount factor from year 20×5 to 20y4, the annuity actor of 14.11 is being multiplied by 0.751 which is discount factor of year 3.Could you please explain why we did that. Thank you.

November 30, 2015 at 12:15 pm #286403I assume that you are happy with the calculation of the 14.11.

Had the flows been from time 1 to time 30, then you would simply have multiplied by 14.11 and the result would have been the PV at time 0.

However the first of the 30 flows is actually at time 4 instead of time 1. i.e. they start 3 years late. So using 14.11 discount to a PV that is 3 years late as well. i.e. a PV at time 3 instead of time 0.

So to get to a PV at time 0 we need to discount the result for those 3 years,

November 30, 2015 at 4:16 pm #286461I understand it now. Thank you Sir. 🙂

November 30, 2015 at 4:27 pm #286472Great 🙂

December 3, 2015 at 12:51 pm #287243In this ques how are we supposed to calculate sensitivity in percentages and values? Is there any formula that has been applied?

December 3, 2015 at 3:38 pm #287298The sensitivity (in value) is the change in the the relevant flow that would result in a NPV of zero.

If it is wanted in % terms, then it is the NPV / PV of the relevant flow as a percentage.

If you are unsure about sensitivities then best it to watch the Paper F9 lecture on investment appraisal under uncertainty (because it is revision of F9.

December 3, 2015 at 6:17 pm #287351I get the way we calulate sensitivity in percantage…But (for example) how has the examiner calculated sensitivity of construction costs in value in this question(seal island) ?

December 4, 2015 at 7:52 am #287417The way the answer is typed is a bit confusing.

If the construction costs got up by $100M (but you could use any figure – the end result would be the sale), then the change in the NPV would be (3 x 0.909) + (6 x 0.826) + (1 x 0.751) = 8.434

We need the NPV to change by $122.2M to fall to zero, which means that the total change in the construction costs has to be 122.2 / 8.434 = $14.49M

Since the question says that the change is proportional each year, then the actual cost in each of the three years should hopefully not make sense 🙂

- AuthorPosts

- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.