Newly Released CIMA F3 Exam PDF

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.

Strategic reasons for a horizontal acquisition (same industry/level of value chain):

A Reduction of risk by building a larger portfolio – broader product / customer base in the same industry can reduce business risk → strategic.

C To achieve economies of scale – classic horizontal motive (sharing overheads, volume discounts, etc.).

E Reduction of competition – by acquiring a rival, the combined firm increases market power.

B is a financial motive (undervalued target), and D is a vertical integration motive.

Answer: A, C, E

Net book value of equity = $20m

Net realisable value of equity = $25m

Free cash flow to equity = $3.5m indefinitely

Cost of equity (ke) = 10%

Value from FCFE (perpetuity):

Vequity=3.50.10=35mV_{\text{equity}} = \frac{3.5}{0.10} = 35\text{m}Vequity​=0.103.5​=35m

A reasonable minimum is the break-up / net realisable value = $25m.

A reasonable maximum is the going-concern DCF value = $35m.

Answer: A. Minimum $25.0m, maximum $35.0m