Free WGU Financial-Management Practice Exam with Questions & Answers

This question applies the Gordon growth (constant growth dividend discount) model, which values a stock as the present value of an infinite stream of dividends growing at a constant rate. The model assumes that dividends grow steadily and that the required rate of return exceeds the growth rate, ensuring a finite value. The formula is:

Stock Value = D₁ ÷ (r − g),

where D₁ is the dividend expected next year, r is the required rate of return, and g is the growth rate. If the current dividend is $5, the next dividend equals $5 × (1 + 0.03) = $5.15. Substituting into the formula gives:

$5.15 ÷ (0.09 − 0.03) = $5.15 ÷ 0.06 = $85.83.

This valuation approach is commonly used for mature firms with stable dividend policies and predictable growth. Financial managers and analysts rely on this model to estimate intrinsic stock value and assess whether a stock is overvalued or undervalued relative to its market price.

The internal rate of return (IRR) represents the discount rate at which a project’s net present value (NPV) equals zero. Financial management theory states that a project should be accepted if its IRR exceeds the firm’s required rate of return (or hurdle rate), assuming conventional cash flows and no capital rationing.

In this scenario, the hospital has a minimum required return of 11% and sufficient capital to undertake all acceptable projects. Based on the provided IRR calculations, both Project A and Project B have IRRs exceeding 11%, making them financially acceptable under the IRR decision rule. Because there is no capital constraint and the investment horizon is sufficient, the hospital should accept both projects.

Financial management texts caution that IRR can sometimes produce misleading rankings when projects differ significantly in scale or timing. However, when evaluating independent projects with acceptable IRRs, the correct decision is to accept all projects that meet or exceed the required return. Option B correctly reflects this principle.

The Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) is widely used to estimate the cost of common equity because of its clear risk–return framework. However, a major limitation is that it relies on several simplifying assumptions that may not hold in real-world markets. CAPM assumes investors are rational, markets are frictionless, all investors have the same expectations, and that a single factor—systematic risk measured by beta—fully explains expected returns. In reality, markets are affected by taxes, transaction costs, information asymmetry, and multiple sources of risk. Empirical evidence also suggests that factors such as firm size, value characteristics, and momentum can influence returns beyond beta alone. Because of these limitations, CAPM may underestimate or overestimate the true cost of equity for certain firms. Financial managers therefore often supplement CAPM with other models or judgment when estimating required returns. Option C correctly captures this fundamental limitation recognized in financial management theory.

The Gordon growth model values a stock assuming dividends grow at a constant rate indefinitely. The formula is:

Stock Value = D₁ ÷ (r − g),

where D₁ is the expected dividend next year, r is the required rate of return, and g is the growth rate. Substituting the values:

$2 ÷ (0.10 − 0.05) = $2 ÷ 0.05 = $40.

This model is widely used in valuation for mature companies with stable dividend growth. It highlights the sensitivity of stock value to growth expectations and required returns. Option C correctly applies the Gordon growth model formula.

Maintaining a cash reserve is a core element of prudent working capital management. Firms hold cash to meet transaction needs, precautionary needs, and sometimes speculative opportunities. The precautionary motive is particularly important, as it allows firms to handle unexpected expenses, revenue shortfalls, or economic disruptions without relying on costly external financing. Adequate liquidity reduces the risk of financial distress and enhances operational flexibility. Financial management theory emphasizes balancing the opportunity cost of holding cash against the benefits of liquidity. Option C accurately reflects this precautionary and liquidity-focused rationale.

Tax expense reported on the income statement is calculated using accrual accounting, which recognizes revenues and expenses when they are earned or incurred, not necessarily when cash is paid. In contrast, actual taxes paid are based on tax laws and cash payments made to tax authorities. Differences arise due to temporary and permanent timing differences between financial reporting rules and tax regulations. Examples include depreciation methods, revenue recognition timing, loss carryforwards, and deferred tax assets or liabilities. These differences cause tax expense to diverge from cash taxes paid in a given period. Financial managers and analysts must understand this distinction to accurately assess cash flows, particularly when forecasting free cash flow or valuing firms. Option A correctly explains this discrepancy, whereas the other options either deny the existence of differences or incorrectly characterize tax expense accounting.

In a competitive bond sale, the issuer invites multiple underwriters (often investment banks) to bid on underwriting the bond issue. Each underwriting group proposes terms—commonly including the interest cost to the issuer (true interest cost or net interest cost), pricing, and underwriting spread. The issuer then selects the bid that provides the most favorable overall financing terms, typically the lowest borrowing cost for the desired structure and risk profile. This process is designed to create market competition among underwriters, which can reduce underwriting costs and improve pricing efficiency—especially when the issuer is well-known and the bond issue is relatively standard. This differs from a negotiated sale (option A), where the issuer works directly with a chosen underwriter to set terms through discussion rather than competitive bidding. Option C describes how an issuer might choose firms to participate, but it is not the defining mechanism of a competitive sale. Option D is incorrect because governments do not set fixed rates for corporate bond underwriting; pricing is determined by market conditions, issuer credit risk, investor demand, and the competitive bidding process itself.

Free cash flow concepts are central to valuation. Free cash flow to the firm (FCFF) represents cash available to all capital providers—both debt and equity—before interest and principal repayments. In contrast, free cash flow to equity (FCFE) measures the cash available exclusively to common shareholders after all operating expenses, capital expenditures, working capital needs, and debt obligations (interest and principal) have been satisfied. This distinction determines which discount rate analysts use: FCFF is discounted at the weighted average cost of capital (WACC), while FCFE is discounted at the cost of equity. FCFE is especially useful when valuing equity directly or when a firm’s leverage is stable and predictable. Option C correctly captures this defining difference, while the other options misstate cash flow allocation or confuse accounting adjustments with distributable cash.

Traditional corporate finance defines the primary objective of most firms—especially publicly held corporations—as maximizing shareholder wealth (shareholder value). This goal is operationalized by making decisions that increase the present value of expected future cash flows available to owners, adjusted for risk. While stakeholders such as employees, customers, communities, and regulators matter, the “shareholder value” framework treats them as critical constraints and drivers of long-term cash flow rather than the ultimate objective itself. For example, investing in employee satisfaction can improve productivity and retention; investing in customer satisfaction can increase revenues and reduce churn; and expanding globally can open new markets. However, under the traditional view, these actions are chosen because they enhance long-run free cash flow or reduce risk—thereby raising firm value—rather than because they are the final goal. In practice, managers translate this objective into measurable targets: profitable growth, margin improvement, efficient capital allocation, and disciplined investment appraisal (positive NPV projects). Therefore, the most accurate answer is that Synesthor will center its efforts on maximizing shareholder value, while balancing stakeholder considerations as part of sustaining competitive advantage and protecting the firm’s future cash flows.

The sustainable growth rate (SGR) represents the maximum rate at which a firm can grow its sales, assets, and earnings without raising new external equity. It is calculated as ROE × retention ratio, where the retention ratio equals one minus the dividend payout ratio. When a firm increases its dividend payout ratio, it retains less earnings for reinvestment, thereby reducing internally generated equity growth. Unless return on equity increases enough to offset this reduction—which is not assumed here—the sustainable growth rate will decline. Financial management theory emphasizes the trade-off between paying dividends and reinvesting earnings to support future growth. Option C correctly reflects this fundamental relationship between dividend policy and sustainable growth.