Scour - The Exam Review
Read our feedback on the Scour 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.
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.
Franchised Operations (Revenue and Gross Profit)
Students should have also used the extra information presented in Exhibit 16 to enhance their answers:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mock exams designed to look and feel like the real exam and the most detailed marking service guaranteed!