CIMA F3 - Financial Strategy

In CIMA F3, a money market hedge is a contractual-style hedge created using the spot rate today plus borrowing/lending in the two currencies to lock in a known domestic-currency outcome for a future foreign-currency receipt or payment. Under interest rate parity, the synthetic forward rate implied by money-market borrowing and lending is broadly consistent with the forward market, so the hedge typically delivers roughly the same outcome as a forward contract (A). Unlike leaving the position unhedged, the money market hedge does not leave the company exposed to currency risk once set up because the future cash flows are effectively fixed through today’s borrow/lend transactions (so B is false). Because a money market hedge can be tailored using available loan/deposit maturities and amounts (and can sometimes be implemented when a forward is unavailable or less convenient), it may be a little more flexible than a forward in practical terms (C). However, it requires multiple steps—borrow or invest, convert at spot, and invest/repay—so it is more complex than a forward contract (D). “Easy to set up” is not usually considered a defining advantage versus forwards because it depends on access to credit lines and money-market instruments (so E is not selected).

IFRS 7 requires detailed disclosures about financial instruments and risk management, including currency risk, sensitivity analysis, and how those risks are managed. When these are published for the first time, investors may learn new information about:

The extent of US$ exposure (40% export sales), and

The quality of risk management (hedging, matching, etc.).

Efficient market theory (covered in F3) says prices adjust to new, relevant information. That new information could make investors more confident (if risks are well managed) or more concerned (if risks are high and poorly managed). So the share price could either increase or decrease, depending on the market’s reaction.

That matches option D.

Options A and C assume a one-way direction (always up or always down), which is unrealistic. B is wrong because segmental analysis does not normally give the same detailed, risk-focused disclosure as IFRS 7.

Competition authorities focus primarily on market structure and competition, not on whether the bid is generous or on employment promises. Their concern is: Will this merger substantially lessen competition?

In food retailing, a key issue is local market concentration – for example, a single group owning too many supermarkets in particular towns or regions. A classic remedy is for the bidder to divest overlapping outlets so that effective competition remains.

B. Agreeing to dispose of specified outlets which overlap geographically directly addresses the competition authority’s main concern and is the standard structural remedy used in practice.

A (more cash) is irrelevant to competition issues.

C (job guarantees) is mainly a political/employment concern, not an antitrust one.

D (promise to pass on cost savings) is difficult to monitor and enforce and is normally viewed as less credible than structural remedies.

So the action most likely to persuade the competition authorities is B.

Sales in S$ and T$

Purchases in U$

Profit margin measured in R$

To improve or maintain operating margin in R$ terms:

You want costs in R$ to fall and/or revenues in R$ to rise.

Strengthening of the R$ against U$ means each U$ costs fewer R$, so purchase costs fall in home-currency terms → margin improves.

Weakening of customer currencies (S$ or T$) against R$ would reduce revenue in R$, harming the margin.

Weakening of the R$ against U$ would make U$ costs more expensive.

So the helpful change is: R$ strengthens against U$ → option C.

CIMA F3 links the cost of debt to the tax shield created by the tax deductibility of interest. The effective cost of servicing debt to a company is therefore the post-tax cost of debt, commonly expressed as kd(1−T)k_d(1-T)kd​(1−T). This makes statement C correct: when evaluating financing decisions and WACC, the company benefits from interest tax relief, so the relevant servicing cost is after tax. Statement A is also treated as correct in the standard F3 exam context: zero-coupon debt pays no periodic coupon interest, so there are no regular interest payments generating the conventional annual tax-deductible interest expense and therefore the familiar tax-shield effect on “interest payments” is not obtained in the same way (i.e., the typical coupon-based shield is eliminated). Statement B is incorrect because the size of the tax shield depends on the tax rate; if corporation tax changes, the value of the tax relief changes. Statement D is incorrect because if corporation tax rates rise, the tax shield from deductible interest would increase, not reduce (a higher tax rate increases the tax saving per dollar of interest). Hence the two correct statements are A and C.

For a listed company in the food retailing industry, the most relevant non-financial objectives are typically focused on customers and people, because success depends heavily on service quality, shopping experience and motivated staff.

A. Reduce customer complaints – Very appropriate. Complaints are a direct indicator of service problems, product quality issues, or process failures. Reducing complaints improves reputation and customer retention.

B. Increase customer service quality – Core objective for food retailers. Better service quality (speed at checkout, helpful staff, availability of products) improves competitive position and supports long-term sales growth.

D. Improve staff morale – Also highly relevant. Retail is labour-intensive and customer-facing. Motivated staff deliver better service, are more productive, and turnover is reduced.

Options C (Reduce production time) and E (Reduce raw material wastage) are more typical of manufacturing businesses, not retailers, who primarily buy finished goods rather than “produce” them. A retailer might track stock wastage or shrinkage, but the wording “raw material wastage” points clearly to a production environment.

So the best three for a listed food retailer are A, B and D.

Reasoning:

After an all-cash acquisition which the market views positively, shareholders in Company Z will mainly focus on value delivery from the deal:

A. Realisation of anticipated synergies – core reason for doing the deal.

C. Integration and retention of key employees – critical in an advertising business where human capital and client relationships are key.

E. Retention of key customers of the acquired company – losing major clients would quickly destroy acquisition value.

B is not a priority: target company shareholders have already been paid out in cash.

D is irrelevant now: the acquisition has already been completed, so regulatory approval is in the past.

Quick check of each offer (per Company Z share):

Current price of Z: $5

Required 15% premium:

5×1.15=5.755 \times 1.15 = 5.755×1.15=5.75

Cash offer = $5.50

Premium = (5.50 − 5) / 5 = 10% → below 15%

Share-for-share: 3 A shares for every 2 Z shares

For 1 Z share → 1.5 A shares

A’s price = $4 → value = 1.5 × 4 = $6.00

Premium = (6 − 5) / 5 = 20% → above 15%

Bond offer: 1 bond for every 20 Z shares

Coupon = 10.5% of 100 = 10.5

Required yield = 10% → bond value ≈ 10.5 / 0.10 = $105

Value per Z share = 105 / 20 = $5.25

Premium = (5.25 − 5) / 5 = 5% → below 15%

So only the share exchange meets her required premium → C is correct.