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.

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.

A – Quality of current management: affects risk of default and how well the business is run.

B – Current gearing ratio: shows how much existing leverage there is and the risk of over-gearing.

E – Interest cover on existing debt: key indicator of the firm’s ability to service interest payments.

EPS (C) and dividend cover (D) are more relevant to equity investors than to new long-term lenders.