i have a tiny little problem with regards to counting the number of periods.

When we say ‘in three years’ time , shouldnt it be any period which falls within the third period???rather than what i am seeing within the examples ‘in three years time = time period 2’

Example

What is the present value of $48000 first receivable *in three years time* and thereafter each year for a total period of seven years?
Cost of capital is 10%

As I explain in my free lectures, we only ever discount cash flows that are whole years apart.

In three years time means time 3.

For your example, the annuity runs from time 3 to time 9, and to get the discount factor we take the 9 year annuity factor and subtract the 2 year annuity factor in order to be left with the factor for 3 to 9.

If you are unsure about this then do watch the free Paper MA lectures on discounting, because this is revision from Paper MA.

Im in dilemma! normally when you discount a cash flow at suppose 11%, should not it be 0.901 multiply by 12000 = 10812 like we do for the other PV calculation then why it used PV= CF (1+1/r), this perplexes me with the Future CF

The discount factor for a perpetuity is 1/r, where r is the rate of interest. However that applies for a perpetuity that starts in 1 years time. In this question (and I assume you are referring to question 1, but you have not said!), then the first receipt is immediate rather than in 1 years time, and the PV of a flow receive immediately is the amount of the flow.

This basic discounting is revision from Paper MA (was F2) and I suggest that you watch the free Paper MA lectures on interest and on investment appraisal (as well as the Paper FM lectures).

If you are using the tables provided then the NPV at 15% is 0.343m as stated in the answer. If you are not using tables then the answer will be slightly different because the tables are rounded to 3 decimal places, but rounding is irrelevant in the exam (just as in real life).

17.82% is not one of the answer choices available. Just as in the exam the question is expecting you to use the nearest answer.

You should not be using a formula to calculate the IRR but should understand what we are doing, as I explain in my lectures. The examiner is always trying to set questions that check you understand and have not simply learned rules. You will see plenty of the sort of questions I mean in your Revision Kit.

Sir.. I want to ask how can i get ready for april attempt… I dont know how to get prepare myself for Financial management paper..please help me out.. I m really nervous regarding thoery and all

In future please pose this kind of question in the Ask the Tutor Forum and not as a comment on a test.

There is no exam session in April so I don’t know whether you are meaning March or June.

You need to study by watching all of our free lectures, and then you need to practice by buying a Revision Kit from one of the ACCA Approved Publishers and attempting every question in it.

Sir, I have a doubt pertaining to the 4th question.

Why is the statement “A graph showing NPV on the Y axis and Interest rate on the X axis will have a negative slope,” not true? Please could you help me understand?

(I agree that the statement “Two NPVs are required to estimate IRR using linear interpolation,” is true. I was just wondering if there were two true statements).

I’m not sure why discount for 2 year instead of 3 year, sir?
E.g, the second one, why not discount for 3 years as the title saying that the amount from 3 year but 2 years?

Multiplying by the 7 year annuity factor gives the PV ‘now’ for an annuity starting in 1 years time.
The annuity starts in 3 years time, which is 2 years later than 1 years time. Therefore the annuity factor gives the PV two years later – i.e. time 2 instead of time zero and therefore we need to discount it for 2 years to get the PV ‘now’.

Using a discount factor of 1/r for a perpetuity gives the PV when the first inflow is in 1 years time.
Here the first inflow is immediate i.e. at time 0, and the PV of $12,000 at time 0 is $12,000.

Therefore this needs adding to the PV of the perpetuity.

If you are still at all unsure then look back to the Paper MA (was F2) lectures on discounting, because this is revision of Paper MA.

By definition, the IRR is the rate of interest at which the NPV is zero.

The cost of capital is of no relevance in the calculation. It is only relevant if we are using an IRR approach to decide whether or not to invest – it the IRR is greater than the cost of capital the project is worthwhile. If the IRR is less than the cost of capital then the project should be rejected.

Did you watch my free lectures before attempting this test? If you did and are still not clear then watch also my free Paper MA (was F2) lectures on the IRR because this is revision from Paper MA.

The difference between + 0.343 and – 0.2659 is the sum of the two (or if you want to be mathematical (although this is not a maths exam) subtract a negative number is the same as adding the number).

I do suggest that you watch my free lectures on this and if necessary my Paper MA (was F2) lectures on discounting, because this is revision from Paper MA.

This might be a silly question, but when I was calculating the NPV in Question 3 for 20%, I accidentally got a positive net present value which ofcourse, messed up my IRR. Fixed that, no worries.
But would they ever ask us to use two discount rates which BOTH give a positive NPV to calculate the IRR? Or do you need the second discount rate to result in a negative NPV for IRR calculations…

I have a question about the question n.5: I have tried to carry out the excercise using (for the 2 years) both the annuity for two years (1.736) and also calculating yearly with the annual discount (0.877and 0.756) but I arrive a two different results. In the first case with the annuity the amount is 83,328 (48,000 * 1.736), menawhile in the second case the amount is 83,280 (43,632+39,648). am I making a mistake? I was expecting the calculation to have the same result.

Emmanuel Mashaya says

i have a tiny little problem with regards to counting the number of periods.

When we say ‘in three years’ time , shouldnt it be any period which falls within the third period???rather than what i am seeing within the examples ‘in three years time = time period 2’

Example

What is the present value of $48000 first receivable *in three years time* and thereafter each year for a total period of seven years?

Cost of capital is 10%

John Moffat says

As I explain in my free lectures, we only ever discount cash flows that are whole years apart.

In three years time means time 3.

For your example, the annuity runs from time 3 to time 9, and to get the discount factor we take the 9 year annuity factor and subtract the 2 year annuity factor in order to be left with the factor for 3 to 9.

If you are unsure about this then do watch the free Paper MA lectures on discounting, because this is revision from Paper MA.

Emmanuel Mashaya says

Thank you very much for the clarification.

John Moffat says

You are welcome.

Shivvy says

Im in dilemma! normally when you discount a cash flow at suppose 11%, should not it be 0.901 multiply by 12000 = 10812 like we do for the other PV calculation then why it used PV= CF (1+1/r), this perplexes me with the Future CF

John Moffat says

The discount factor for a perpetuity is 1/r, where r is the rate of interest. However that applies for a perpetuity that starts in 1 years time. In this question (and I assume you are referring to question 1, but you have not said!), then the first receipt is immediate rather than in 1 years time, and the PV of a flow receive immediately is the amount of the flow.

This basic discounting is revision from Paper MA (was F2) and I suggest that you watch the free Paper MA lectures on interest and on investment appraisal (as well as the Paper FM lectures).

Shivvy says

Can plz explain the NPV for the discounting 10% and 15% as I cant find it…

John Moffat says

I assume that you are referring to question 3. If you submit your answers and then click on ‘review quiz’ the answers and workings will appear.

(I do assume that you watched the free lectures on investment appraisal before attempting the quiz?)

Shivvy says

Sorry I did not mention the ques num. but in any way for the ques 3, I got it right but at 15%, NPV= +0.338 m when its 0.343m

Also, using the formula of IRR, the nominator stands the lowest NPV but here, it is the +ve NPV

My answer = 17.82%

John Moffat says

If you are using the tables provided then the NPV at 15% is 0.343m as stated in the answer. If you are not using tables then the answer will be slightly different because the tables are rounded to 3 decimal places, but rounding is irrelevant in the exam (just as in real life).

17.82% is not one of the answer choices available. Just as in the exam the question is expecting you to use the nearest answer.

You should not be using a formula to calculate the IRR but should understand what we are doing, as I explain in my lectures. The examiner is always trying to set questions that check you understand and have not simply learned rules. You will see plenty of the sort of questions I mean in your Revision Kit.

aribasiraj says

Sir.. I want to ask how can i get ready for april attempt… I dont know how to get prepare myself for Financial management paper..please help me out.. I m really nervous regarding thoery and all

John Moffat says

In future please pose this kind of question in the Ask the Tutor Forum and not as a comment on a test.

There is no exam session in April so I don’t know whether you are meaning March or June.

You need to study by watching all of our free lectures, and then you need to practice by buying a Revision Kit from one of the ACCA Approved Publishers and attempting every question in it.

maddie20 says

Sir, I have a doubt pertaining to the 4th question.

Why is the statement “A graph showing NPV on the Y axis and Interest rate on the X axis will have a negative slope,” not true? Please could you help me understand?

(I agree that the statement “Two NPVs are required to estimate IRR using linear interpolation,” is true. I was just wondering if there were two true statements).

Thank you!

John Moffat says

There can be more than one IRR in which case the slope of the curve will be negative in some places and positive in others.

Oshedu says

Hello,

Please in question 5, a 2yr AF was used instead of a 2yr DF. Why is that so please?

John Moffat says

The flows are from time 3 to 9.

You can do it in either or two ways:

The 9 year annuity factor less the 2 year annuity factor will leave us with the total factor for 3 to 9.

Alternatively, you can take the 7 year annuity factor and then discount for 2 years because the annuity starts 2 years late.

Both approaches give the same answer (any small difference is simply due to rounding in the tables).

I do explain this in my free lectures.

mangto says

I’m not sure why discount for 2 year instead of 3 year, sir?

E.g, the second one, why not discount for 3 years as the title saying that the amount from 3 year but 2 years?

John Moffat says

Multiplying by the 7 year annuity factor gives the PV ‘now’ for an annuity starting in 1 years time.

The annuity starts in 3 years time, which is 2 years later than 1 years time. Therefore the annuity factor gives the PV two years later – i.e. time 2 instead of time zero and therefore we need to discount it for 2 years to get the PV ‘now’.

Morrison240 says

Hi Sir,

In question 1, why was the cash inflow added back.

John Moffat says

Using a discount factor of 1/r for a perpetuity gives the PV when the first inflow is in 1 years time.

Here the first inflow is immediate i.e. at time 0, and the PV of $12,000 at time 0 is $12,000.

Therefore this needs adding to the PV of the perpetuity.

If you are still at all unsure then look back to the Paper MA (was F2) lectures on discounting, because this is revision of Paper MA.

Morrison240 says

Very clear,? since the inflow is at time 0.

Thank you sir, all good.

John Moffat says

You are welcome 🙂

Pratibhapahwa4313 says

Sir, could you please explain why the IRR would not change even if there is change in the cost of capital. (referring- question 2)

I totally messed this question up!

Thanks in advance!

John Moffat says

By definition, the IRR is the rate of interest at which the NPV is zero.

The cost of capital is of no relevance in the calculation. It is only relevant if we are using an IRR approach to decide whether or not to invest – it the IRR is greater than the cost of capital the project is worthwhile. If the IRR is less than the cost of capital then the project should be rejected.

Did you watch my free lectures before attempting this test? If you did and are still not clear then watch also my free Paper MA (was F2) lectures on the IRR because this is revision from Paper MA.

Pratibhapahwa4313 says

Yes sir, I went back and watched the lectures again and understood the whole point.

Thank you 🙂

John Moffat says

You are welcome 🙂

asher2019 says

100% score. Helpful questions. Thanks John

John Moffat says

You are welcome 🙂

herna05 says

quest 3

In the example we find the difference between the upper and lower 5 and same for the NPv. why do add the 2 NPVs amount in this question?

John Moffat says

The difference between + 0.343 and – 0.2659 is the sum of the two (or if you want to be mathematical (although this is not a maths exam) subtract a negative number is the same as adding the number).

I do suggest that you watch my free lectures on this and if necessary my Paper MA (was F2) lectures on discounting, because this is revision from Paper MA.

herna05 says

Thank you. Will go over the lecture for f2

Shivangi says

This might be a silly question, but when I was calculating the NPV in Question 3 for 20%, I accidentally got a positive net present value which ofcourse, messed up my IRR. Fixed that, no worries.

But would they ever ask us to use two discount rates which BOTH give a positive NPV to calculate the IRR? Or do you need the second discount rate to result in a negative NPV for IRR calculations…

asher2019 says

Thanks

andrea91 says

HI Sir,

I have a question about the question n.5: I have tried to carry out the excercise using (for the 2 years) both the annuity for two years (1.736) and also calculating yearly with the annual discount (0.877and 0.756) but I arrive a two different results. In the first case with the annuity the amount is 83,328 (48,000 * 1.736), menawhile in the second case the amount is 83,280 (43,632+39,648). am I making a mistake? I was expecting the calculation to have the same result.

Thanks in advance.

John Moffat says

The difference is due to the fact that the tables are rounded to 3 decimal places. It is irrelevant in the exam.