F3 Exam Dumps : Financial Strategy

CIMA F3 explains that the Dividend Growth Model (DGM) is only suitable where dividends are stable, predictable, and capable of being forecast with reasonable confidence. It is therefore weak when applied to young, unlisted, high-risk companies, especially those with uncertain future cash flows.

A. No established dividend payment pattern – ✔ Correct

Company B has made losses in its first three years and has not paid dividends. CIMA F3 explicitly states that the dividend growth model is unsuitable where there is no dividend history, because the model relies on extrapolating future dividends from past patterns.

B. Uses future projected dividends – ✘ Incorrect

This is not a weakness, but a fundamental feature of the dividend growth model. All valuation models are forward-looking, and CIMA F3 does not consider this a limitation.

C. Growth rate difficult to determine – ✔ Correct

The business operates in a unique, high-risk sector, and future earnings and dividends are highly uncertain. CIMA F3 highlights that the DGM is extremely sensitive to the assumed growth rate, making it unreliable when growth cannot be estimated with confidence.

D. Time value of money ignored – ✘ Incorrect

The dividend growth model explicitly discounts future dividends, meaning it fully incorporates the time value of money, a core principle taught in F3.

E. Cost of capital difficult to estimate – ✔ Correct

As an unlisted company, Company B has no observable beta or market data. CIMA F3 stresses that estimating the cost of equity for private, high-risk businesses is problematic, reducing the reliability of DGM outputs.

Regulations likely to hurt ZZZ most:

A. Minimum staff-to-client ratio – raises operating costs, particularly for a large operator.

B. Maximum price controls – directly restrict ZZZ’s ability to charge premium prices.

C. Monopoly controls forcing disposals – may force ZZZ to sell homes and shrink.

D is a one-off hit, and E is less of a threat to a high-quality provider.

Cash flows:

Years 1–3: 100, 100, 100

From year 4: grow at 2% forever. Cost of capital = 12%.

PV of years 1–3:

PV1−3=1001.12+1001.122+1001.123≈240\text{PV}_{1-3} = \frac{100}{1.12} + \frac{100}{1.12^2} + \frac{100}{1.12^3} \approx 240PV1−3​=1.12100​+1.122100​+1.123100​≈240

Terminal value at end of year 3:

Year 4 CF = 100×1.02=102100 \times 1.02 = 102100×1.02=102

TV3=1020.12−0.02=1020.10=1,020\text{TV}_3 = \frac{102}{0.12 - 0.02} = \frac{102}{0.10} = 1{,}020TV3​=0.12−0.02102​=0.10102​=1,020

PV of terminal value:

PV(TV)=1,0201.123≈726\text{PV(TV)} = \frac{1{,}020}{1.12^3} \approx 726PV(TV)=1.1231,020​≈726

Total value ≈ 240+726=966240 + 726 = 966240+726=966.

So the value is $966 million → Option A.