Pass the WGU Courses and Certificates Financial-Management Questions and answers with CertsForce

Asset tangibility refers to the proportion of a firm’s assets that are physical and can be used as collateral, such as property, plant, and equipment. Firms with high asset tangibility typically have greater borrowing capacity because tangible assets reduce lender risk by providing collateral in case of default. This allows firms to secure debt financing at lower interest rates and with more favorable terms. Capital structure theory recognizes asset tangibility as a key determinant of leverage, particularly under the trade-off theory of capital structure. Option A accurately reflects the standard financial management view.

Dividends paid to shareholders can be determined by analyzing the relationship between net income and retained earnings. Net income represents the total earnings generated during the period, while retained earnings show the portion of net income that is reinvested in the company rather than distributed to shareholders. The basic relationship is:

Net Income = Dividends Paid + Increase in Retained Earnings.

In this case, net income is $50,000 and retained earnings increased by $30,000. Therefore, dividends paid must be the remaining portion of earnings:

$50,000 − $30,000 = $20,000.

The change in total assets is not directly relevant for calculating dividends, as asset growth can be financed through retained earnings, debt, or equity issuance. From a financial management perspective, this calculation helps analysts assess dividend policy, payout ratios, and the firm’s balance between returning cash to shareholders and reinvesting in growth. Option A correctly identifies the dividends paid based on standard accounting relationships used in financial statement analysis.

Multinational corporations (MNCs) often seek the lowest-cost and most flexible sources of long-term financing. The global bond market expands their choices beyond domestic lenders and investors, enabling firms to issue debt in multiple countries, currencies, and structures (fixed vs. floating rates, maturities, secured vs. unsecured, and different covenant packages). This broad access can reduce the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) if foreign markets provide lower yields, deeper investor demand, or better terms for the issuer’s credit profile. Global issuance can also support operational needs: an MNC earning revenues in euros or yen may issue bonds in those currencies to create a natural hedge, matching debt service with foreign-currency cash inflows and reducing exchange-rate exposure. However, the global bond market does not remove currency risk automatically (so B is incorrect), nor does it guarantee fixed interest rates (D is incorrect). While domestic issuance remains important, global markets increase strategic flexibility, allowing firms to optimize capital structure, diversify funding sources, manage refinancing risk, and tailor financing to geographic cash flows—core themes in international financial management.

Effective financial analysis requires context. Analysts must understand not only numerical differences but also the underlying reasons for those differences. Variations in firm size, accounting policies, capital structure, industry positioning, and macroeconomic conditions can significantly affect ratios. By identifying why firms differ and adjusting for external influences such as interest rates, inflation, or economic cycles, analysts gain more meaningful insights into performance and risk. This comparative, contextual approach aligns with best practices in financial statement analysis and avoids misleading conclusions drawn from raw numbers alone. Option D reflects this disciplined analytical process, while the other options oversimplify analysis or ignore critical dimensions of comparability.

Extending credit allows firms to attract customers who are unable or unwilling to pay cash at the time of purchase. In competitive markets, offering favorable credit terms can increase sales volume, improve customer relationships, and enhance market share. While credit sales delay cash inflows and introduce default risk, they can generate higher revenues and profits if managed properly. Financial management texts stress the importance of balancing increased sales against the costs of credit, including collection expenses and bad debt losses. Option C correctly identifies the primary strategic benefit of extending credit in competitive environments.

This question applies dividend-based stock valuation principles commonly covered under the Dividend Discount Model (DDM). The intrinsic value of a stock is determined by discounting expected future dividends at the investor’s required rate of return. When dividends are expected to grow at a constant rate, financial management texts recommend using the Gordon Growth Model, which states that stock value equals the next expected dividend divided by the difference between the required return and the growth rate. The calculated value of $66.55 reflects the present value of expected future dividends based on the assumptions provided in the problem. This valuation technique is widely used for mature, dividend-paying firms with stable growth. The result represents the theoretical fair value of the stock, which investors compare to the current market price to assess whether the stock is undervalued or overvalued.

When sales grow and cost of goods sold (COGS) is assumed to be a spontaneous account, COGS increases proportionally with sales. In the current year, Kretsmart’s gross margin ratio is calculated as Gross Margin ÷ Sales = $55 ÷ $100 =55%, while COGS represents45%of sales.

Sales are projected to grow by 10% per year for two years. Therefore, projected sales for Year 2 are:

$100 × 1.10 × 1.10 =$121.00.

Since COGS remains 45% of sales, projected COGS for Year 2 equals:

$121.00 × 0.45 =$54.45.

Gross margin is then calculated as:

$121.00 − $54.45 =$66.55.

Financial management forecasting techniques commonly use percentage-of-sales assumptions for spontaneous accounts such as COGS, inventory, and receivables. This method allows managers to project future income statements consistently with expected growth. Option B ($66.55) correctly reflects the projected gross margin for Year 2 under these assumptions.

Within the CAPM framework, beta quantifies the degree of systematic risk relative to the market portfolio, which by definition has a beta of 1. A portfolio with a beta greater than 1 carries more systematic risk than the market, meaning its returns are expected to be more sensitive to market movements. This higher sensitivity increases both upside potential and downside exposure. According to CAPM, investors require a higher expected return for bearing this additional risk. Importantly, a higher beta does not guarantee superior performance; it simply reflects greater volatility relative to the market. Option B accurately captures this risk-based interpretation.

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.

No single model perfectly estimates the cost of common equity under all conditions. CAPM focuses on systematic risk, the Gordon growth model emphasizes dividends and growth, and other approaches may rely on market comparables. Each method has strengths and weaknesses depending on firm characteristics and market conditions. Financial management best practice therefore recommends using multiple approaches and comparing results to arrive at a more reliable estimate. This triangulation reduces model-specific bias and highlights potential inconsistencies in assumptions. Managers then apply judgment to select a reasonable cost of equity that reflects risk, growth prospects, and investor expectations. Option A correctly reflects this practical, widely accepted approach.