F3 Exam Dumps : Financial Strategy

Advantages of a debt-funded cash offer vs a share exchange:

A. Shareholder control will remain with AB’s current shareholders.

B. More of the synergistic benefits will accrue to AB’s current shareholders.

D. EPS will increase (no dilution of equity; if synergies materialise, earnings are spread over the same number of shares).

Answer: A, B, D

CIMA F3 examines acquisition financing choices under Financial Policy Decisions and Mergers and Acquisitions, with a particular focus on how cash offers versus share exchanges affect shareholder wealth, control, gearing and earnings. The key issue from the perspective of Company AB’s shareholders is whether the method of financing enhances shareholder value without undermining the firm’s optimal capital structure.

A debt-funded cash offer involves Company AB raising debt to pay cash to the shareholders of Company DC. In contrast, a share exchange issues new equity, diluting existing ownership.

Option A is an advantage.

CIMA F3 highlights that a cash offer allows existing shareholders to retain control, because no new shares are issued. With a share exchange, ownership and voting power are diluted as DC’s shareholders become part-owners of the combined company.

Option B is an advantage.

Under a cash offer, all future synergies accrue to AB’s existing shareholders. F3 explains that with a share exchange, synergy benefits are shared with the target’s shareholders through their new equity stake. Therefore, a debt-funded cash offer concentrates the upside of synergies with the acquirer’s shareholders.

Option D is an advantage.

CIMA F3 notes that debt financing can lead to EPS growth, provided the return on the acquisition exceeds the cost of debt. Because no new equity is issued, earnings are spread over the same number of shares, and financial gearing magnifies returns to equity holders.

The remaining options are not advantages:

C (Gearing will increase) is a consequence, not an advantage. Since AB is already at its optimum capital structure, higher gearing increases financial risk.

E is incorrect; increasing WACC would reduce shareholder value, not enhance it.

For a company valued using the free cash flow to equity with constant growth, the standard Gordon growth formula is:

Value of equity=FCF1ke−g\text{Value of equity} = \frac{\text{FCF}_1}{k_e - g}Value of equity=ke​−gFCF1​​

Where:

FCF₁ = free cash flow in one year’s time

kek_eke​ = cost of equity

ggg = constant growth rate

Here:

FCF₁ = $100,000

ke=10%=0.10k_e = 10\% = 0.10ke​=10%=0.10

g=5%=0.05g = 5\% = 0.05g=5%=0.05

Correct valuation:

Value=100,0000.10−0.05=100,0000.05=$2,000,000\text{Value} = \frac{100{,}000}{0.10 - 0.05} = \frac{100{,}000}{0.05} = \$2{,}000{,}000Value=0.10−0.05100,000​=0.05100,000​=$2,000,000

The analyst instead did:

100,000×(1+0.05)/0.10=105,000/0.10=$1,050,000100{,}000 \times (1 + 0.05) / 0.10 = 105{,}000 / 0.10 = \$1{,}050{,}000100,000×(1+0.05)/0.10=105,000/0.10=$1,050,000

So the true value is $2,000,000 and the analyst’s value is $1,050,000.

Undervaluation=2,000,000−1,050,000=$950,000\text{Undervaluation} = 2{,}000{,}000 - 1{,}050{,}000 = \$950{,}000Undervaluation=2,000,000−1,050,000=$950,000

So the company has been undervalued by $950,000 → Option A.

Once Division B is sold, Division A becomes heavily reliant on B as a major external customer. If the new owner reduces purchases or switches supplier, Division A’s volumes and viability are at risk. That makes:

C. Division A's going concern is highly dependent on its relationship with Division B – the main risk.