General Comments

　　The structure of the paper was similar to past papers with two compulsory questions in section A，consisting of 60 marks，and three 20-mark questions in section B，of which candidates had to do two，for the remaining 40 marks.

　　The overall performance of the candidates was satisfactory

　　In section A，question one consisted of 28 marks and question two consisted of 32 marks. Four professional marks were allocated to question two. Both questions required candidates to undertake computations and discussion. In section B，as per previous sittings，question four was wholly discursive，while questions three and five consisted of a mixture of computational and discursive elements.

　　Excellent answers were obtained from candidates who applied their knowledge to the given scenario in the question. The presentation of such answers was good，with clear labelling and structure. In question two especially， a clear structure and effective use of appendices enabled such answers to gain the maximum professional marks. Most successful candidates attempted all the parts of the questions and managed their time well between questions.

　　Many candidates attempted the required four questions，although there were a number of instances where parts of a question were not attempted，especially in the compulsory questions. In section B，most candidates answered all the parts to the question.

　　In a minority of cases there was poor time management with candidates having to rush through the latter questions. Candidates need to bear in mind that it is easier to obtain marks at the start of a question rather than towards the end of a question. It is imperative that candidates learn to manage their time effectively through practicing past exam questions under timed and examination style conditions.

　　Some candidates were poorly prepared for the exam in terms of their knowledge. This was especially evident in question three. Candidates need to be aware that for P4 it is expected that candidates develop their knowledge and the ability to apply that knowledge to current issues in finance. Question three was using the example of the recent financial crisis as a basis for knowledge application and discussion. Many candidates failed to achieve high marks due to lack of knowledge and not being able to apply that knowledge to the scenario in the question.

　　The P4 paper has a large syllabus and numerous technical areas. Candidates need to know the syllabus well in order to apply it to the question scenario. Poor performance was also evident where candidates did not read the content and requirements of questions fully. Answers need to be directed at the scenario in the question， general answers did not gain many marks.

　　The presentation of the answers with clear structure， labelling and workings is very important across all the questions and especially so where the question has professional marks allocated to it. Question two consisted of four professional marks and given that many candidates missed a pass by only a few marks， gaining these professional marks is vital. Well presented answers demonstrate to markers and the examiner that the candidate has the necessary knowledge and application skills.

　　Specific Comments

　　Question One

　　This question required candidates to assess the net present value （NPV）of a long term project in part （i）. It was therefore necessary for candidates to calculate annuity factors using formulae rather than using tables. Parts （ii），（iii） and （iv）required candidates to consider the risks and uncertainties associated with the project and assessing these using sensitivity analysis and simulations. Part （ii）asked candidates to discuss the principal uncertainties associated with the project. Part （iii）asked candidates to undertake sensitivity analysis of the project’s NPV to changes in various input factors. Part （iv）asked candidates to explain how simulations could be used to assess the volatility of projects.

　　Parts （i）and （ii）were generally done well，with many candidates achieving high marks for both parts. Those that failed to score high marks in part （i）did so because they did not get the timing of the cash flows correct and therefore used incorrect discount factors. In part （ii）most candidates displayed a good level of discursive knowledge in answering this part.

　　Parts （iii）and （iv）were done less well. Many candidates did not undertake the correct sensitivity analysis to show the impact on the NPV due to a change in the factors which determine the NPV. It would be advisable for candidates to study the examiner’s solutions and understand how sensitivity analysis should be conducted. Many candidates confused simulations with sensitivity analysis and therefore the explanations given in part （iv）were often not relevant to the requirements. A notable minority of candidates did not attempt parts （iii）and （iv）at all.

　　Question Two

　　This question required candidates to assess the value of an acquiring company （part （i））and then use the Black-Scholes Option Pricing （BSOP）model to assess the equity value of the combined company：acquirer plus target （part （iii）.The question also required candidates to explain the use of BSOP（and its constituents）to assess the value of the company and to discuss whether the BSOP can provide a meaningful value for a company （parts （ii）and （iv））.

　　Overall the computational part of （i）was done well with many candidates gaining a high proportion of the marks for this part. However many candidates did not explain the assumptions made in detail and therefore failed to achieve many marks for this. Common errors in the calculations were where candidates used the $580，000 or $180，000 as the free cash flow，and not using the r.b model to calculate growth，resulting in fewer marks being gained.