Our Detailed Overview of the Real Examination

Apologies for the delay in preparing our review of the real examination! We normally complete this within around 48 hours of the exam, however the real paper was not released until last week and with a short period of downtime we took a break!

Students who were well prepared should have found the paper relatively straight forward. The requirements were clear and students should have had no difficulty understanding these.

Students who completed their mock exams with us should have found the Requirements to be very familiar.

Requirement 1

The Twist - There Was No Twist!

The Requirement

A review of Scour’s management accounts for the year ended 31 May 2020 in comparison with the year ended 31 May 2019.

Your review should be based on the management accounts as set out in Exhibit 15 and the additional information in Exhibit 16. It should cover, separately for (a) owned operations and (b) franchised operations: revenue, cost of sales and gross profit. Please also provide brief comments summarising the performance of the overall business.

Overview and comparison to our Mock examinations

This was very similar to our Mock 1 examination, with almost identical numbers for revenue. The real exam and our mock both had 19 new franchisees opening during the year and a very similar split for all four of the franchisee revenue lines. A large number of the points we developed in our answer were also relevant to the real examination.

Owned operations (Revenue and Gross Profit)

In the real exam, Students who are likely to have performed well would have used the information in Exhibit 16 to help develop their answers.

  • Average price being unchanged should lead to students linking the growth to a change in the volume.
  • Y4 being taken over helps to explain why customer satisfaction rates increased and yet retention rates fell. A reasonable recommendation would be to consider how to compete against Y4 for future bids as this is a risk into 2020, after all it is a considerable amount of revenue to lose in just a 5 month period.
  • Colleges and Tonto explain a reasonable proportion of the net growth in revenue based on the 10% increase in college cleaning hours and the new Tonto stores. We believe the examiner could have changed the exam paper slightly as a consequence of the Coronavirus outbreak as he mentions the colleges were closed in April & May 2020 and the Tonto stores required higher cleaning in the same months. We certainly would not go into detail on these points in our analysis, but it should be sufficient to suggest a recommendation to “consider the impact of the COVID-19 on different types of customers in order to minimise idle time and maintain optimal headcount.”
  • The Revenue per Employee £35,200 should also allow students to comment on the efficiency of the division (no price increase to customers suggests improved efficiency and lower idle time), but also to work out the FTE headcount and then consider how Personnel Costs have changed. There is a slight increase in average personnel costs, which has not been passed onto the end customer and helps to explain the small decrease in GP Margin.

 

Franchised Operations (Revenue and Gross Profit)

Students should have also used the extra information presented in Exhibit 16 to enhance their answers:

  • 19 new franchisees – students should compare to target and also be able to consider how the loss per new franchisee has moved (reducing loss per new franchisee). This is explained by the online induction programme. However, it is still loss making and could be a recommendation.
  •  The combined revenue earned by the new franchisees was lower than their budgets – a point which can be made easily by students. More interesting is the 11 franchisees figure, which should enable students to compare to the £220k annualised figure from the AI and therefore state about the improved performance of the existing franchisees.
  • The ongoing costs relating to the new franchisees would allow students to comment on the disproportionate costs relating to the support needed for new franchisees over established franchisees – a point also repeated in the AI.
  • Gross profit margin for the franchisee operation was expected to grow as the division matures and again students were able to comment on this point.


Overall performance

Students were also asked to comment on the overall performance of the business. We would expect students to automatically comment on Overall Revenue, Overall Gross Profit and Gross Profit Margin. The change in the sales mix from Owned to Franchise should help to explain the change in gross profit margin.

However, less obvious would be for students to comment on the Operating Profit for the business overall as the examiner has only asked for Revenue, COS and GP. However, we would expect students, if unsure and with sufficient time available, to cover the change in Operating Profit and OP% as this has increased considerably. As it is brief, we would not expect students to go into any real detail on the overhead costs, perhaps pulling out one of the costs.

There is the possibility that the examiner would also want students to comment on the net cash flow for the business too. However, we believe very few students would do this and if there is a point on the key it is likely to be one bullet point. We personally would not have covered net cash flow in our answer.

Requirement 2

Thom 'v' Violetta Exclusive Supply Contract

The Requirement

An evaluation of the proposal for the supply of cleaning products, as set out in Exhibit 17a.

Using the information in Exhibit 17a and Exhibit 17b, you should evaluate the bids from the existing supplier, Thom, and the potential new supplier, Violetta. For each supplier, you should calculate the total expected cost of purchasing cleaning products (including transport and distribution costs) for the two years ending 30 November 2022. You should assess the adequacy of the assumptions; compare and contrast the key terms; and recommend, with reasons, which bid Scour should accept. You should include in your evaluation the ethical and business trust issues that Scour should consider when making its decision.

Overview and comparison to our Mock examinations

The requirement set was extremely similar to our Mock 1 Requirement 3 where we asked students to choose between Thom, Violetta or a combination of both suppliers. The slight difference is the Examiner is making the supplier exclusive so it is a choice between Thom and Violetta only.

Students should have found similarity in that Violetta’s prices were 5% higher than Thom in both the real exam and the mock. Additionally, Violetta’s concentration was 15% higher in the real exam (10% higher in the mock) – both the real exam and the mock stated these were Violetta’s own estimates.

Other similarities were the longer payment terms offered by Violetta (45 days real exam v 60 days mock) and the changes in the minimum order levels.

There were also some similarities to Mock Exam 4 Requirement 3, where we introduced Violetta offering environmentally friendly products for a new cleaning process, which restricted the product range.

Calculation

The calculation, whilst straight forward, could have taken students a while to complete and students who were less prepared are likely to have got the calculation around the concentration differences wrong.

Another difficulty for students would have been the difference in the number of products available and whether to include or exclude this in your calculation.

Our approach would have been to calculate the differences based on the numbers as presented (projected costs for 2021 and 2022). Whilst not asked for, you could sensitise the calculation by assuming the estimated concentration of 15% is not achieved.

We would have then considered the likelihood of achieving the minimum order value by applying a 40/70 ratio. This would give us the position that it is unlikely the minimum order value would be achieved by Violetta, which would form part of our discussion. It would also allow us to comment on where the other 30 product ranges could be sourced from and how important the missing items from the range are for Scour.

Assumptions

The assumptions should have been straight forward and we believe they would be very similar to our mock. A key assumption is the forecasts that drives the analysis (compared to existing levels), the concentration rate, product usage by cleaners, training costs for using Violetta are not considered, the cost of transitioning to a new supplier etc.

Comparing key terms

The table in the exhibit should provide the main framework for your discussion. However, you could bring in the fact Violetta has a better web portal with the mobile app, less frequent ordering and containers that indicate they need to be replenished.

Ethical considerations

These should have been easy to spot and straight forward to include. Discussions around the environmental claims. The Crocus article should have you considering the impact of changing to Violetta on the Franchise network and that the network must be considered, together with the impact on reputation if the Franchise network doesn’t follow the instructions or uses different products.

Requirement 3

Leicester Franchise

The Requirement

An evaluation of the approach from the prospective franchisee, Edna Jones (Exhibit 18a).

You should evaluate the financial, operational, strategic, ethical and business trust issues, including those arising from Exhibit 18b. You should advise, with reasons, whether Scour should accept Edna as a franchisee.

Overview and comparison to our Mock Exam

Students who completed Mock Exam 2 would have been prepared for a number of the points the examiner brought up in the real exam. Our Requirement 3 focused on the Leicester franchise network, which is the same as the real exam.

The main difference is that our mock exam had a level of extra complexity in it made you consider the expansion with Tracy Harris, Employees or a third party. The real exam focuses on one employee who is looking for multiple territories.

Similarities also included multiple territories, a 5% ongoing fee and customers of Tracy Harris who have premises in other territories.

Whilst the focus is very much on the Employee in the real exam, you cannot forget the likely impact on Tracy Harris, especially as her agreement is due to expire in November 2020.

Financial

You would have been able to perform a calculation to cover gross profit from set up and ongoing fees. The information is not available for purchases, however, you could comment on the 20% mark up on purchases from Thom. We would be surprised if there was more than the 2 boxes for figures in the final marking key.

You would, also be able to challenge some of the assumptions and Edna’s figures, especially as she has not included any fees due to Scour in her costs.

You could bring in doubt over her ability to manage all 4 territories, the achievability of her budgets compared to other franchisees experience (especially Leicester 1), and the ability to achieve L4 forecasts.

Additionally, will Edna need to be replaced at HO and the likely cost of this – remembering she could leave anyway if Scour refuses her request.

Operational

You should cover a range of points, such as staff progression helps with overall retention, short time scale to opening all 4 franchises (1 Sept), covering HO duties, overstretching in an area, recruitment of staff, encroachment on other territories, impact if Tracy leaves network, the difficulties in managing multi-regions, lack of experience in bidding for new business, her experience in IT / HR and other areas may not be as  detailed as required to successfully run the business, she may need more ongoing support. More support required as she is taking on more territories.

Strategic

Allowing franchisees to have multiple territories is a strategic decision and balancing this with the growth ambitions for the franchise division. Employees being franchisees is also a strategic consideration. Additionally, Edna will understand the Scour promise, Leicester area expected to expand.

Impact on the rest of the network if lower ongoing fees are charged to Edna and also the reduced initial fees.

Ethical

The ethical points are again more difficult to identify. However, offering a discount to existing Leicester 1 customers and entering into an oral contract is certainly a dubious practice with implications on the relationship with Leicester 1. Offering enhanced terms to Goodglow cleaners (bonus is unlikely to be replicated in Leicester 1) before the franchise set up is confirmed is also dubious.

Final Summary

Where Students Could Have Gone Wrong

We believe students who completed our mock exam papers would have found the Case Study to be familiar and relatively straight forward.

The main areas we feel students could struggle with, if less prepared are:

Requirement 1 – Sufficient depth of discussion especially after identifying that the “Twist” was there was no “Twist”! It therefore means more detail is likely to be required to ensure a pass in the section. We may find the key is structured differently to normal, however the typical points we discussed in our mock examinations and the details we gave in our blogs will be sufficient to pass this Requirement.

Requirement 2 – The calculation is likely to have caused some students problems as will the assumptions, which we found were poorly answered in all the mock examinations. However, students who had completed mock 1 would have had an advantage and also should have been able to identify a number of the likely wider issues, conclusions and recommendations.

Requirement 3 – We believe this is the toughest section of this examination, with the difficulty in knowing how many boxes are likely to be given for the calculation. We believe  a number of students would not have done a calculation as the requirement did not specifically ask for one, however enough information is in the exhibit to do a calculation.

Students may have struggled to develop a sufficient range of points, especially under time pressure and we believe students that did not fully manage their time well enough will find it difficult to pass this requirement.

November 2020 - Mock Exams & Marking

Mock exams designed to look and feel like the real exam and the most detailed marking service guaranteed!

  • £60.00

    £60.00July 2023 - Mock Exam 1

    Each mock exam can be purchased for £50.00, but check out our two, three and four mock bundles which reduces the cost per paper to you. Our Four Mock bundle is £155.00 (£38.75 per paper).
    Buy Now
  • £60.00

    £60.00July 2023 - Mock Exam 2

    Each mock exam can be purchased for £50.00. You can also buy our extensive marking service for £50.00 per paper. This is the same rate as we pay our markers who on average spend over 2hrs per paper to provide you with the best feedback.
    Buy Now
  • £60.00

    £60.00July 2023 - Marking Service Mock Exam 1

    Our marking service gives you details on why you have not got credit on certain points, how to improve your answer and some great statistical feedback on your performance. We are confident our feedback is the best available and will improve your overall exam performance.
    Buy Now
  • £160.00

    £160.00July 2023 - All Four Mock Exam Bundle

    Our four mock exam bundle will cover all the key areas of the real exam and provide you with the opportunity to practice and enhance your knowledge with our indicative answers, planning sheets and marking keys. It also comes with our Pass Guarantee meaning if you fail, for whatever reason, you get the bundle again for free until you pass!
    Buy Now
  • £350.00

    £350.00November 2022 - Self Tuition With Marking Service

    This All Inclusive Bundle includes our Steps To Pass In Case course, the Advance Information, all four mock exams and all your mocks marked too. It also comes with our Pass Guarantee meaning if you fail, for whatever reason, you get the bundle again for free until you pass!
    Buy Now