CAP 2 SFMA Exam

Ciara471

I am so lost as to how to even do a study plan for this subject. The notes on the website are scattered and I don't know what's relevent from the books.
Can anyone help??
Thanks

Hanley

Ciara471 wrote: »

I am so lost as to how to even do a study plan for this subject. The notes on the website are scattered and I don't know what's relevent from the books.
Can anyone help??
Thanks

Go thru the sample papers, identify the topics being questioned and look at the examiner's comments. From the samples there seems to be some weighting towards particular topics, and they're relatively similar to the weights given in the syllabus.

Hackysack

Yeah i'm a bit confused by this. There seems to be a lot of Management Accounting from briefly looking at the sample papers.

The topics i'm looking at now are mainly Cost of Capital and Risk Assessment/Analysis.

but I don't really know if i'm covering enough material myself.

Ciara471

I've decided to go by the toolkit. Just for some sort of structure.

Ideo

Obviously Risk Analysis and Company Valuation are new on the course so both of those topics stand a good chance of coming up, also as indicated by the sample papers, but I was just wondering if people know the standard of questions that we are required to answer with respect to Risk Analysis?

I went through the chapter and sample papers and got a bit of handle on the topic but when I looked at the FAE Qs I didn't know where to start! Anybody?!

Hanley

Ideo wrote: »

Obviously Risk Analysis and Company Valuation are new on the course so both of those topics stand a good chance of coming up, also as indicated by the sample papers, but I was just wondering if people know the standard of questions that we are required to answer with respect to Risk Analysis?

I went through the chapter and sample papers and got a bit of handle on the topic but when I looked at the FAE Qs I didn't know where to start! Anybody?!

Interest and currency risk are the main areas of risk analysis as far as I know. Dealing with hedges and the computations as a result of them seems to be a big part of it. Pricing forwards, options etc.... Currency's been examined in 2 out of 3 sample papers (and was on the mock as part of the case study) and interest rate risk in the case study of the other paper. AFAIK you need to be able to discuss the benefits and drawbacks of different hedging strategies too. From what I've seen there's a fair few marks going for the discursive element too.

Might want to know a bit of the theory behind VAR as well. It's only a couple of lines worth and could come in handy.

Company valuations is looking like it could be a MAJOR part of the exam. It's on all 3 sample papers and the mock.

Cost of capital in some form or another is likely is well apparently, but not as an end in itself, could be used as part of the company valuations Q or the case study.

I've 3 solid days of SFMA ahead of me so hopefully I can get a lot covered in that time. Fingers crossed!!

EDIT: I think decision making and standard costing and variance analysis are likely as well, but again a lot of the marks seem to be going for being able to explain them and why they do or do not apply in context rather than pure number crunching.

Ideo

Yeah I think we are thinking along the same lines Hanley. Suppose what I was trying to say about the hedging was do you think the sample paper questions are the standard of numerical application that we need to know and not the FAE Qs?

There's a massive leap in application between the two imo!

Hanley

Ideo wrote: »

Yeah I think we are thinking along the same lines Hanley. Suppose what I was trying to say about the hedging was do you think the sample paper questions are the standard of numerical application that we need to know and not the FAE Qs?

There's a massive leap in application between the two imo!

From the examiners comments they seem about the right level?? I know the one on sample paper 2 is pretty straight forward computation wise, but the theory in part B's a bit trickier (I'm literally after just finishing it!!).

Ideo

Hanley wrote: »

From the examiners comments they seem about the right level?? I know the one on sample paper 2 is pretty straight forward computation wise, but the theory in part B's a bit trickier (I'm literally after just finishing it!!).

Yeah I just wasn't sure! Sample papers it is so!

Hackysack

Lads, you both seem to be well clued in. I'm looking at the sample papers at the moment and in particular i'm looking at Question 3, Sample Paper 1 - Metro Ltd part b.

It's asking for the Free Cash Flow approach as a meant to calculate enterprise value.

I'm looking at the solutions and I can't understand for the life of me where they're getting their growth figure from (to calculate the Terminal Value). They're saying that 4% will be used for illustration purposes!?!.

On the following page they have a compound interest for 11.14%. I'm not sure where this 11.14% comes from, and why they use it on the top half for the Terminal Value calculation and they use 4% on the bottom half of the formula.

Do any of yas know why?

Ideo

I haven't looked at the quesiton but have the taken an average growth rate over the preceding period? I'll look at it 2mo and report back

Hanley

Hackysack wrote: »

Lads, you both seem to be well clued in. I'm looking at the sample papers at the moment and in particular i'm looking at Question 3, Sample Paper 1 - Metro Ltd part b.

It's asking for the Free Cash Flow approach as a meant to calculate enterprise value.

I'm looking at the solutions and I can't understand for the life of me where they're getting their growth figure from (to calculate the Terminal Value). They're saying that 4% will be used for illustration purposes!?!.

On the following page they have a compound interest for 11.14%. I'm not sure where this 11.14% comes from, and why they use it on the top half for the Terminal Value calculation and they use 4% on the bottom half of the formula.

Do any of yas know why?

Firstly, They made a balls of it on the solution.... 11.4% should not be used because it's an unsustainable growth figure, and for anything other than a start up it's not indicative of future growth potential and will over estimate the value of the firm (worth pointing out in your answer if it comes up). When you come out with a growth figure that big, you're better off assuming a lower sustainable growth rate (ie the "economic" growth rate/inflation - 4-5%) as they did.

Secondly, you can't use 11.4% in this case because then your growth figure is bigger than your WACC, which would give you a negative terminal value (ie negative cash flows to infinity), that's another reason why they assume 4%.

Finally (and to answer your question), the terminal value, ie all the future cash flows from year 4 to infinity is calculated as follows;

FCFF(1+g)/WACC-g

FCFF = free cash flow to firm (operating profit + depreciation - capital expenditure on assets +/- change in working capital - tax) - in this case it's the final projected CF (336)


Tbh, what seems to have happened is that they've used 2 different figures for g. 11.4% on top and 4% on the bottom. They musta realised WACC - 11.4% was going to give them negative cash flows so they changed it, but didn't bother doing likewise on top!!

Hackysack

Thanks for the replies. Yeah I was thinking about that, I knew that you couldn't have a greater growth rate than the WACC (which I assume is why they used 4% on the bottom).

I've been looking through the other sample paper (3), and i'm also caught on where they're getting the dividing figure for the Price Earnings Ratio (i know it's usually supposed to be EPS), but they have a figure of 28.63 (if memory serves me) and I can't figure out where it's coming from.

The solutions to these things are so vague though.

SFMA is gonna be a nightmare, and the closer it gets, the less time I can afford to spend on it.

Pressure's definitely on now!

Thanks again for answering.

Edit: I have a theory about this question (Sample paper 2 Question 2).

From looking at the question and the solution it appears that the Institute got the sequence of years wrong. If we assume the paper is correct, they calculate the EPS for 2005. They take 20.04 (profit after tax for 2005) / 70 (equity shares *2) to equal 28.63, which is what they use in the question.

Also in the first part, where they're using the dividend growth model the 8.8% growth they calculate is based on the change between what they have is 2006-2005. (i.e. (11.6 / 12.92) - 1 *100 = 8.8%).

So to calculate the Divdend per share for '2005' you use 12.62 / 70 = 18.03. Apply the 8.8% growth rate which makes it 19.62 (which is in the solution), so you can calculate Ke.

So I guess my theory boils down to this. The order of the years on the question must be wrong.

it has:

2009
2008
2007
2006
2005

Where I think it should be:

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009.

What does everyone else think?

Prezatch

Yea I remember doing that question a while back, the order of the years is definitely wrong as you've pointed out.

mrduffy

Q2

Answer

Assets Basis Valuation how did they get Medium term loan of 768. When question states 964

Can't figure this out?

All replys would be helpfull!

Hanley

mrduffy wrote: »

Q2

Answer

Assets Basis Valuation how did they get Medium term loan of 768. When question states 964

Can't figure this out?

All replys would be helpfull!

It's an error in the question!!

768 is the right figure, and shareholders equity changes to 1124!

mrduffy

Thanks!

mrduffy

Q3

I cannot understand this question and do not have a notion where to start in trying to understand it! Can some one help? Really stressed out here!

Hanley

It makes a bit of sense once it's explained.... I'm probably gonna sit down and try to do all the FX questions later so I'll get back latre with some tips!

Hackysack

the amount of mistakes in the SFMA papers is actually unreal.

It's a challenge in itself to identify the mistake and try and work around it. It's gotten to the stage where they should allocate marks for doing it!!!

mrduffy

Hanley do you think it will be okay for these subjects if I go over exam papers during the week?

Hanley

mrduffy wrote: »

Hanley do you think it will be okay for these subjects if I go over exam papers during the week?

Absolutely no idea mate, sorry. There's a lot of adjustments that can come up with FR re: Q1, and not all of them are covered in the samples. There's a lot of common ones like leases, consignment goods, warranties, intergroup trading, intergroup balances not agreeing etc etc.... On top of the normal ones like depreciation, revaluations, minority interest and the likes.

FWIW, I'm concentrating on doing the Q1's on the sample papers and previous prof III's - both consolidated and non-consolidated accounts, construction contracts, EPS, deferred tax and cash flow statements (cos I'm weak on them). That's not ALL that I'm goin to do, but anything else will get max 30 mins attention now. I figure I have a decent chance of half figuring out any other IAS's that come up on the day!

Tax.. .haven't looked at the sample's yet. Mostly been working off PIII and college notes. Maybe someone else can advise?

Ploughing thru SFMA at the moment. Gonna try that other currency question this evening.

Hanley

mrduffy wrote: »

Q3

I cannot understand this question and do not have a notion where to start in trying to understand it! Can some one help? Really stressed out here!

Merchant contracts to buy 1,500t of a product, it's June, he pays when he receives. To avoid potential fx shifts he buys the currency he needs to give the supplier (THB) now.

500t rec'd now - (500 x 11820)/107.45
1000t rec'd in a month - (1000 x11820)/107.45+.055 - you always ADD a discount

That's the "cost" figure

Sells in SGD to the customer. He wants to shift the money he will receive (SGD) in his home currency (Eur) now, to avoid any fx shifts down the road.

Soo...

500t rec'd in 2 months (july + 1 months credit) - (500x462)/3.88-.03 - you always SUBTRACT a premium
1000t rec'd in 3 months (aug + 1 months credit) - (1000x462)/3.88-.055

That's the "sales" figures

Sales - cost = GP
GP - commision = Net profit (ie the solution to part A)

Commision = €1 per mile (thousand) to a max of €10. In all cases the max is reached.

So GP - 40 = profit

Make sense??

Prezatch

Hanley wrote: »

Tax.. .haven't looked at the sample's yet. Mostly been working off PIII and college notes. Maybe someone else can advise?

I just went through the first sample paper and I really feel like just crawling up into a ball and dying. I'v spent all week going through tax in the hope that I won't have to look at it again until the night before. I found the book and the past prof 3's very manageable. But really the standard required in the sample paper and to a lesser extent the mock is depressingly high, they make prof 3 look so basic.

I also can't help but get the feeling the questions are designed to catch you out as opposed to test your knowledge. I have been well and truly 'caught out' today anyway.

And it really doesn't help when the ICAI's solutions are wrong, for instance in the mock paper for Q2 the level of PPR exemption is ****ed up. The not occupied part is actually deemed occupied (let while working abroad). I seem to remember the example in the book regarding this topic as also wrong. (Coincidentally written by the ICAI). The "updated to 2008" prof 3 solutions have mistakes too (not just in tax as mentioned elsewhere in this forum) but alas I'll never be sure as my lecturer won't reply to my emails. Just what exactly are you paid for??

Not to mention the randomness of some of the emails received from 'cas' during the year reminding us again to print notes for a lecture that happened the week before and bring them along...or that other great mail about some people getting the wrong edition of the IFRS book. There must be around 2000 bible-style pages in that book but not to worry, if you got the wrong edition the whole thing is available to read on the internet! And can someone please explain to me what the point of that big weird book is? The 'student technical handbook', what a ridiculous waste of trees. I received two copies of it thanks to the highly organised book distributing abilities of the ICAI and both of them sit in my locker in work gathering dust.

Rant over
In short, I think I'll be happy to pass 2 of these exams first time round.


Off to the pub for a few pints lads, w'hey! We've stemmed the surge of accountants into Ireland

bloodninja

I don't want to rant against the ICAI in this post. But the following points are important

- There is quite a lot of inconsistencies between different sources of information regarding treatment of items. This is very frustrating to work with especially since lecturers are not as accessable as they were in college. (I have to commend the lecturers in general - they were good and interested in my location)

- The standard is really hard. I've been lucky that I have not had trouble with exams before and I work hard for them. However for these I do not believe I will pass all 4. It raises the point - how much study do you have to do and how much your life should take a back seat to pass these bloody things.

- Is it fair that if I sat a prof 3 exam today and a CAP 2 next week that i would pass the Prof 3 flying and not pass all the CAP 2s.

- I'll be joining poor ole Susan Boyle in a place like the priory after next week. I'm sure I could be doing more rewarding things with my life than these CAP 2s.

- I did the CAP1s and thought they were good exams, harder than the Prof 2s but at least they were achievable. These are not in the slightest approachable.

- I guess to keep the post relevant to SFMA - Imagine if they asked for absorption costing or something specific from the CAP 1 syllabus. That would be game, set, match.

Hanley

I've gone thru all the sample papers and the mock for SFMA and the mock seems A LOT more computational heavy than the samples. What have other people found? Am I just imagining it??

Hackysack

I'd agree with the above posters. The closer I get to these things, I really can't see myself pulling out all four. There's just too much of a variety and prettymuch anything can come up.

I've been looking through the tax sample papers and I'd agree with Joey, I also feel that they are there to catch you out. Particularly sample paper 2 and 3. Some of the stuff is insane/I wouldn't have anticipated in a lifetime!



I dunno about the SFMA thing Hanley, I think it's around the same extent imo. Granted I've yet to work on the SFMA papers in over the top detail yet.

Hanley

JoeyD wrote: »

And it really doesn't help when the ICAI's solutions are wrong, for instance in the mock paper for Q2 the level of PPR exemption is ****ed up. The not occupied part is actually deemed occupied (let while working abroad).

Haven't look at the Q or solution, so maybe I'm reading you wrong, but are you saying for PPR, the client is required to work abroad by his employer and this time counts towards his "occupancy", cos if so, that's right. Does he have it rented as well??? Not sure how that changes things... he might just be subject to income tax on that?

Hackysack

Hanley wrote: »

Haven't look at the Q or solution, so maybe I'm reading you wrong, but are you saying for PPR, the client is required to work abroad by his employer and this time counts towards his "occupancy", cos if so, that's right. Does he have it rented as well??? Not sure how that changes things... he might just be subject to income tax on that?

Off the top of my head at the moment, they can do that for a certain time period as well, I think the limit is 4 years I think? If they're abroad for over four years the house isn't treated as their PPR I think?

I need to read up on it but...

Hanley

Hackysack wrote: »

Off the top of my head at the moment, they can do that for a certain time period as well, I think the limit is 4 years I think? If they're abroad for over four years the house isn't treated as their PPR I think?

I need to read up on it but...

Pretty sure time abroad is unlimited, but if you're required to work elsewhere in Irl it's a max of 4 years at a time.

Prezatch

Hanley wrote: »

Pretty sure time abroad is unlimited, but if you're required to work elsewhere in Irl it's a max of 4 years at a time.

Yes you're right there. She went abroad due to employer once, let it and this is deemed occupied. She came back and lived in it for a while, also deemed occupied. Then she was 'posted abroad' again and let it again but this is deemed not occupied according to the solution. My arguement is that of course this final part should be deemed occupied. You may have interpreted my earlier post wrong.

Hanley

JoeyD wrote: »

Yes you're right there. She went abroad due to employer once, let it and this is deemed occupied. She came back and lived in it for a while, also deemed occupied. Then she was 'posted abroad' again and let it again but this is deemed not occupied according to the solution. My arguement is that of course this final part should be deemed occupied. You may have interpreted my earlier post wrong.

Again, having not read the question, it MAY be the case that she didn't return to the house after her second posting abroad. You must spent AT LEAST 1 night in it when you return for it to be considered occupied.

So if she was posted abroad, then came home and went to live somewhere else in the country, or in a different house/rented accomodation and put her own house up for sale then it doesn't count.

You DO get the last 12 months of ownership as occupation tho, even if you don't return to it after you've been away.

Prezatch

Hanley wrote: »

Again, having not read the question, it MAY be the case that she didn't return to the house after her second posting abroad. You must spent AT LEAST 1 night in it when you return for it to be considered occupied.

So if she was posted abroad, then came home and went to live somewhere else in the country, or in a different house/rented accomodation and put her own house up for sale then it doesn't count.

You DO get the last 12 months of ownership as occupation tho, even if you don't return to it after you've been away.

Goddamit you're right, mystery solved. You should be a lecturer not a power lifter :pac:

Hanley

JoeyD wrote: »

Goddamit you're right, mystery solved. You should be a lecturer not a power lifter :pac:

Haha glad it's sorted now. It's worth remembering about moving back for one night to get the benefit of the extra PPR if you get a narrative question on "how could X reduce their CGT liability" or something a long those lines!

Tax can be VERY tricky, it's just the way they have to ask em really!!

CapallBan

Hello I'm just looking through the sample paper 1 qs 3 b) and i'm confused as to why they are dividing the TV3 figure of 9,335,000 by 0.776 instead of multiplying it like the other years??

I would be grateful of any help,thanks.

Hanley wrote: »

Firstly, They made a balls of it on the solution.... 11.4% should not be used because it's an unsustainable growth figure, and for anything other than a start up it's not indicative of future growth potential and will over estimate the value of the firm (worth pointing out in your answer if it comes up). When you come out with a growth figure that big, you're better off assuming a lower sustainable growth rate (ie the "economic" growth rate/inflation - 4-5%) as they did.

Secondly, you can't use 11.4% in this case because then your growth figure is bigger than your WACC, which would give you a negative terminal value (ie negative cash flows to infinity), that's another reason why they assume 4%.

Finally (and to answer your question), the terminal value, ie all the future cash flows from year 4 to infinity is calculated as follows;

FCFF(1+g)/WACC-g

FCFF = free cash flow to firm (operating profit + depreciation - capital expenditure on assets +/- change in working capital - tax) - in this case it's the final projected CF (336)


Tbh, what seems to have happened is that they've used 2 different figures for g. 11.4% on top and 4% on the bottom. They musta realised WACC - 11.4% was going to give them negative cash flows so they changed it, but didn't bother doing likewise on top!!

woodie3

for answer 1b did the icai make a mistake or am i not getting someting, for instance i taught the net cash flow after 12 months for contract one would be 38,740 as i taught the 1631209 you would multiply by 1.43436 to convert to dollars which is 2339740 and then you would subtract the 2301000 fro, it to get an answer of 38740. if im missing something can someone let me know as this is wrecking my head sorry if its something really basic!

woodie3

for sample paper 2 question 3 b is the soloution wrong can anyone explain it?

wardso84

that paper was an absolute joke.

100% certain i've failed. No-one I've spoken to is happy at all. Dunno how I'm meant to be bothered starting financial reporting now....

Raging!

fiesta97

Same here I haven't heard of anyone thinking they passed.

It was a much harder than any of the samples paper

In one way I'm more motivated for F reporting cause I don't want to resit 2.

Mat85

thought it was just me heres to repeats!

Ciara471

they can't fail everyone, can they?

Prezatch

Yea add me to the definite fail list for SFMA. I attempted Q1 and Variances but the only other part I attempted was a bit of theory in the risk question.

Couldn't believe they gave 22% to the very first bit, it was so broad I didn't know what to put down or how to divide my time between the two parts of it (cheers for not splitting out the marking scheme!!)

prinz

JoeyD wrote: »

Couldn't believe they gave 22% to the very first bit, it was so broad I didn't know what to put down or how to divide my time between the two parts of it (cheers for not splitting out the marking scheme!!)

+1, especially the first part. Vague wasn't the word.

Only got two questions done, Q1 and Q4. Wasn't happy with 4. The weighting of the the papers of 60% to the obligatory question is ridiculous. It removes any point to having a choice between the rest of the questions, plus spent way too much time on it, added to the fact that it wasn't clear what they were looking for.

Repeats I think. Reckon I'll be resitting Tax and possibly FR aswell. As it stands I'm hoping to get 1 out of 4 first time round.

Pinky Pixie

Thank god you all agree that sfma was a nightmare

I started on the case study and spent ages trying to format the question, which left me only a bit over an hour to get actually get the question done! I will be seening all you guys in October

I'm surprised how nice the auditing was, I managed to predict everything coming up.

Good luck on the next ones I'm off to shove my head in a few books for the night !!

Hanley

+1 to the SFMA hate.

The variance question was horrendous. Nothing at all like the same papers. It's so hard to know what they're actually looking for. Hoping that I at least pick up some marks for the planning and operating variances part.

The co. valuation question STANK. Wtf was with the NAV giving the highest valuation????? That's just wrong!! I was lucky cos I did all the calcs in rough work before commenting and I spotted it, but nearly everyone I spoke to did NAV first and made the normal comment that it's the minimum value... only for the others to be frickin lower. Grrrr!!! Managed to bluff it and say a purchasing co will probably break them up and sell them unless some form of increased profit can be gained from synergy.

And WTF was going on with dividend yield?/??? Why was that there???

Q1 was a shocker. Does ANYONE know what was going on in part (a)?? Like 22 marks for pure waffle.. and it could be anything. Literally. Thought the rest of it was ok-ish, hoping I picked up some theory marks anyway. What were they looking for in that one about what to consider when choosing debt?? LT -v- ST and venture capital, nod to possible equity issue??

The interest/cost of debt part was just weeeeeeeird. Like was it just a pure logical maths part or did I miss something??

Shocker of a paper all in all. I'll get down on the ground and kiss it if I pass.

Ideo

yeah ill def be joining you guys for the repeats! jesus, that was awful! and im wrecked now too! the thoughts of studying...

Ideo

ps, did anybody notice that the exact same comp valuation question was in one of the sfma question packs?! i never saw it myself, was told after the exam!

Hanley

Ideo wrote: »

ps, did anybody notice that the exact same comp valuation question was in one of the sfma question packs?! i never saw it myself, was told after the exam!

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaat??? fcuk.

Prezatch

Ideo wrote: »

ps, did anybody notice that the exact same comp valuation question was in one of the sfma question packs?! i never saw it myself, was told after the exam!

Hmm I had a look at the question pack that was uploaded for Dublin 1 group, there's a similar-ish question on page 55 of the pdf but jaysus it's a long long way from EXACT SAME

prinz

Hanley wrote: »

The co. valuation question STANK. Wtf was with the NAV giving the highest valuation????? That's just wrong!! I was lucky cos I did all the calcs in rough work before commenting and I spotted it, but nearly everyone I spoke to did NAV first and made the normal comment that it's the minimum value... only for the others to be frickin lower. Grrrr!!! Managed to bluff it and say a purchasing co will probably break them up and sell them unless some form of increased profit can be gained from synergy.And WTF was going on with dividend yield?/??? Why was that there???

for share value based on AV i got €4.51 i think it was and the rest all came in at €1.26 or something, that sound familiar? The dividend yield ratio, mk value of a private co = div per share/dividend yield of a similar private co. Only made sense if the dividend per share of the co was €45000, and not €0.15 ( 45000/300000 ord shares which i thought it was at first ), plus taking the average div yield of the other three co.s ( presumed that was ok ) Did anyone use the average CoC at 16% as required ROCE? tbh i thought in that question there was a lot of assumptions to be made.

when you did the free cash flow approach was debt assumed to be 0? was going to take the long term debt from the BS but it would have given a negative share value.

Hanley wrote: »

What were they looking for in that one about what to consider when choosing debt??

waffled it with strategic man rubbish, issues re genertion of future cash flows to make repayments, if cash flow can service it.

Hanley wrote: »

The interest/cost of debt part was just weeeeeeeird. Like was it just a pure logical maths part or did I miss something??

i hope so.

Hanley

prinz wrote: »

for share value based on AV i got €4.51 i think it was and the rest all came in at €1.26 or something, that sound familiar? The dividend yield ratio, mk value of a private co = div per share/dividend yield of a similar private co. Only made sense if the dividend per share of the co was €45000, and not €0.15 ( 45000/300000 ord shares which i thought it was at first ), plus taking the average div yield of the other three co.s ( presumed that was ok ) Did anyone use the average CoC at 16% as required ROCE? tbh i thought in that question there was a lot of assumptions to be made.

That sounds reasonable alright!!

I used 14% and said it was cos the asset base of the co was so high....

I used the div growth model instead of div yield... just d1/ke like. Qualified it by saying it could be a bit misleading cos they have enough year on year profits to support a doubling of the div, which a new owner would probably do. Did a quick calc on that and it came out broadly similar to what I got for future earnings.

when you did the free cash flow approach was debt assumed to be 0? was going to take the long term debt from the BS but it would have given a negative share value.

I just took the CF's given at the end of the question and used them as the basis for it. Stated I was assuming if was FCFF like.

waffled it with strategic man rubbish, issues re genertion of future cash flows to make repayments, if cash flow can service it.

Yeah interest cover and all that sh!t. Same as!!