CIMA F3 Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

Workings (Modigliani & Miller with tax):

Current (unlevered) cost of capital ku=9%k_u = 9\%ku​=9%

Cost of debt kd=3%k_d = 3\%kd​=3%

Tax rate T=25%T = 25\%T=25%

Target D/E=1/2=0.5D/E = 1/2 = 0.5D/E=1/2=0.5

Formula with tax:

ke=ku+(ku−kd)(1−T)DEk_e = k_u + (k_u - k_d)(1-T)\frac{D}{E}ke​=ku​+(ku​−kd​)(1−T)ED​ ke=9%+(9%−3%)×0.75×0.5=9%+6%×0.375=9%+2.25%=11.25%≈11.3%k_e = 9\% + (9\% - 3\%) \times 0.75 \times 0.5 = 9\% + 6\% \times 0.375 = 9\% + 2.25\% = 11.25\% \approx 11.3\%ke​=9%+(9%−3%)×0.75×0.5=9%+6%×0.375=9%+2.25%=11.25%≈11.3%

So the nearest option is 11.3% (C).

A. Any opportunity to benefit from future exchange rate movements is lost.

True – a money market hedge locks in the effective exchange rate now, so you remove both downside risk and upside potential.

B. It can be tailored to match the size of the payment.

True – you can structure the borrowing/lending and FX transaction to exactly match the foreign currency amount due.

C. It manages transaction risk.

True – transaction risk (uncertainty in the home currency value of a known future foreign-currency cash flow) is what a money market hedge directly addresses.

D. It offers a significantly better outcome than a forward contract.

False – under interest rate parity, a money market hedge and a forward contract should give similar effective rates (ignoring spreads and costs).

E. It avoids the need to find immediate finance.

False – for a payable, you normally borrow or use cash now as part of the hedge, so it does not avoid immediate financing; it actually requires it.

✅ Answer to Q29: A, B, C

The company is deciding between:

Selling the business via a Management Buyout (MBO), or

Selling to an external private equity (PE) buyer.

From the original company’s viewpoint, an advantage of an MBO is:

The buyers are the existing management team. Relationships already exist, and there’s usually more trust and alignment.

Post-divestment, the original company may still trade with the divested unit (e.g., as a supplier or customer). Cooperation tends to be better with a familiar internal team than with an external PE house whose primary focus is financial returns.

Why the others are wrong:

B. Enhanced big data opportunities – unrelated to the divestment method.

C. Improved relationships with MBO team in the event of a sale to PE – logically inconsistent; if sold to PE, it’s not an MBO.

D. Higher price due to synergistic benefits – PE typically looks for financial engineering and operational improvements, not classic corporate synergies. You are more likely to see synergy premia when selling to a trade buyer, not in an MBO.

So the key pro-MBO argument here is better cooperation post divestment → A.