CIMA CIMAPRO19-CS3-1 valid exam dumps : Strategic Case Study Exam

Nobody budgets for a retake, yet the CIMAPRO19-CS3-1 exam charges full price for one. The CIMA Strategic Case Study practice questions at ValidDumps, 46 of them, cost a fraction of that and exist to keep a second fee hypothetical.

CIMA CIMAPRO19-CS3-1 Exam Overview:

Certification Vendor:	CIMA (Chartered Institute of Management Accountants)
Exam Name:	Strategic Case Study (SCS)
Exam Number:	CIMAPRO19-CS3-1
Exam Duration:	180 minutes
Exam Price:	£270 (typical CIMA case study exam fee, may vary by region)
Related Certifications:	F3 Financial Strategy E3 Strategic Management CGMA P3 Risk Management
Certificate Validity Period:	Permanent (CGMA designation subject to membership and experience requirements)
Passing Score:	80/150 (scaled score, approx. 53%)
Available Languages:	English
Real Exam Qty:	Case-based (multi-task written response; variable)
Exam Format:	Pre-seen scenario with unseen tasks, Case study simulation, Written responses, Four task sections (time-managed)
Recommended Training:	Case Study Preparation Courses (Kaplan / BPP / LearnSignal) CIMA Official Study Resources
Exam Registration:	CIMA Exam Registration Portal
Sample Questions:
Exam Way:	Computer-based case study exam (pre-seen released ~6 weeks before exam window)
Pre Condition:	Must pass E3, P3, and F3 objective tests before sitting the Strategic Case Study
Official Syllabus URL:	https://www.aicpa-cima.com/

CIMA CIMAPRO19-CS3-1 Exam Syllabus Topics:

CIMAPRO19-CS3-1 Exam Questions Candidates Actually Ask

CIMA Strategic Case Study Sample Questions:

Question 1

A further eight weeks have passed since the discussion concerning Wodd's creation of an accredited Forest Certification Service.
Wodd's Chairman has asked you to a meeting:
"I thought that we had a lucky escape over the Barry Crauder story from a recent news article, but the Government is considering modifying the tax arrangements associated with forestry. Professional forestry companies such as Wodd will continue to pay no tax on forestry profits, but private individuals such as Mr Crauder will be taxed on profits just as they would for any other business. The Government is taking this action because public opinion is against granting generous tax relief to wealthy individuals.
For the moment, this is all highly secret. The minister responsible for forestry has spoken to the chairmen of all of the major forestry companies on the basis that each gives a personal guarantee to respect the Government's confidence. The minister has done so because she is concerned that stock markets will panic when the news of the tax changes are announced next week. If the shareholders incorrectly believe that we will lose the tax shield on our profits then the share price will drop like a stone. We will be able to announce that we are aware of the changes and that we will not be taxed differently because of them.
I have spoken to the Board about this, making them promise not to repeat any of this information. We have called in and briefed the key analysts who advise the main institutional investors in Marland on the forestry industry.
As things stand, we can expect a lot of the wealthy individuals who own forests to divest themselves as soon as they discover that there are no more tax incentives. That will have significant implications for Wodd, both directly and indirectly.
The Board believes that the markets will overreact when the tax changes are first announced and that we will be unable to do much to manage that. One suggestion that has been put forward is that we should increase the dividend slightly as a signal that we are confident in the future strength of the industry. I suspect that the executive directors are just a little too concerned with the fact that they all have stock options that can only be exercised on a date that falls just after the government is due to announce its intentions on tax.
I need your thoughts in order to have an independent viewpoint from that voiced by the Board:
* What effect will the tax changes have on our business?
* Do you agree that briefing the analysts will mitigate the risk of our share price overreacting when the tax changes are announced?
* Will the additional dividend payment help to maintain the share price?
* Is granting executive stock options always a sound basis for aligning the interests of the executive directors and the shareholders?"

Question 2

SIMULATION
A week later, Romuald Marek stops by your workspace and hands you a document.

The Board minute extract from Romuald can be viewed by clicking the Reference Material button above.
Reference Material
Board minutes extract: proposal to profit from ongoing strength of NS
Anna Obalowu Sole, Chief Operating Officer, reported that the strong NS was helping generate revenues from fuel sales. Discussion followed as to whether the strong N$ was likely to persist and whether a strong N$ benefits Arrfield overall.
Markus Jokel
a. Chief Executive Officer, stated that the Board should develop contingency plans that could be implemented if it seemed likely that the strong N$ would persist. In particular. Arrfield need not renew the contracts that permit aviation fuel suppliers to operate from its airports. Arrfield would then be free to create its own fuel sale business, buying fuel in bulk to replenish the storage tanks at each of its airports in Norland and then selling it directly to airlines He stated that this would almost certainly enhance Arrfield's share price Romuald Marek reminded the Board that four of Arrfield's six airports are located in Norland and that those airports charge for aeronautical and non-aeronautical services in N$.

Question 3

Three months has passed since the discussion concerning Fouce Oil's proposal.
You have received the following email from William Seaton, Director of Finance:
From: William Seaton, Director of Finance
To: Finance Manager
Subject: Fouce Oil's proposal to collaborate on exploration
Hi,
After deliberating at length on the various discussions that we have had with Fouce Oil since its initial approach, we have decided to proceed.
We need to work out some important details, otherwise this venture will be a disaster.
Please draft a report that covers the following matters:
* Should we create a formal coaching and mentoring scheme, whereby members of Fouce Oil's exploration staff will receive guidance from their counterparts at Slide? Please explain the advantages and disadvantages of doing so very clearly.
* Please explain how best to organise a formal coaching and mentoring scheme, if we decide that we should create one.
* How should we manage the business relationship between the two companies' exploration staff for the duration of this arrangement?
* What are the difficulties associated with decision-making on exploration issues and how should we address those?
The collaboration goes live in a few weeks and so I need your input urgently so that I can get things moving.
William

Question 4

Six months have passed since you briefed William Seaton, Director of Finance on the relationship between Slide and Fouce Oil.
You have been called into William Seaton's office:
"We had a visit from the Chief Executive Officer of Fouce Oil yesterday. We had not received any prior notice of the purpose of the visit and assumed that he simply wished to make a courtesy call while he was visiting Fouce Oil's subsidiary in this country. Instead, he came to initiate discussions over a strategy of collaboration on oil exploration.
Rather than explain things myself, please read the memorandum of understanding that he has asked us to sign. It is self-explanatory.
Once you have read the memorandum, I would like you to email me your thoughts on the following:
* The suitability of this proposal for Slide.
* The likelihood that Fouce Oil's strategic interests will clash with our own.
* The strategic risks that are likely to arise because of this arrangement.
* The manner in which this strategic relationship should be communicated to the stock market.
I realise that this is a challenging request, but I need your response quickly because we need to respond to Fouce Oil." The Memorandum of Understanding can be found by clicking on the Reference Materials button.

Question 5

SIMULATION

Hello
I have attached a news article
Arrfield does not set the price for aviation fuel sold at our airports, but we do receive a percentage of the revenues earned by the fuel companies.
I need your help to prepare for a Board meeting to discuss this matter Please write a paper covering the following
* Firstly, explain the impact that the criticisms voiced by the environmental campaigners will have on the frequent PESTEL analysis that Arrfield's Board conducts.
[sub-task (a) = 34%
* Secondly, evaluate the commercial logic of Arrfield's strategy of basing charges for non-aeronautical services (such as fuel sales and retail activities) on percentages of the revenues generated by the companies that operate at its airports
[sub-task (b) = 33%)
* Thirdly, recommend with reasons whether Arrfield should attempt to justify strategic decisions to its shareholders when the commercial logic of those decisions is not immediately obvious
[sub-task (c) = 33%}
Thanks
Romuald Marek
Chief Finance Officer

Solutions: