Browse Certification Practice Tests by Exam Family

CISI IM: Valuation

Try 10 focused CISI IM questions on Valuation, with answers and explanations, then continue with Securities Prep.

On this page

Open the matching Securities Prep practice page for timed mocks, topic drills, progress tracking, explanations, and full practice.

Topic snapshot

FieldDetail
Exam routeCISI IM
IssuerCISI
Topic areaValuation
Blueprint weight14%
Page purposeFocused sample questions before returning to mixed practice

How to use this topic drill

Use this page to isolate Valuation for CISI IM. Work through the 10 questions first, then review the explanations and return to mixed practice in Securities Prep.

PassWhat to doWhat to record
First attemptAnswer without checking the explanation first.The fact, rule, calculation, or judgment point that controlled your answer.
ReviewRead the explanation even when you were correct.Why the best answer is stronger than the closest distractor.
RepairRepeat only missed or uncertain items after a short break.The pattern behind misses, not the answer letter.
TransferReturn to mixed practice once the topic feels stable.Whether the same skill holds up when the topic is no longer obvious.

Blueprint context: 14% of the practice outline. A focused topic score can overstate readiness if you recognize the pattern too quickly, so use it as repair work before timed mixed sets.

Sample questions

These questions are original Securities Prep practice items aligned to this topic area. They are designed for self-assessment and are not official exam questions.

Question 1

Topic: Valuation

A manager running a UK equity growth portfolio benchmarked to the FTSE All-Share is comparing two retailers. Both are forecast to grow revenue by 8% next year and both trade on a price/sales ratio of 1.2x. Company A has a 14% operating margin and net debt/equity of 20%. Company B has a 6% operating margin and net debt/equity of 140%, with most debt at floating rates. Which is the best valuation conclusion?

  • A. Company A is likely undervalued relative to Company B
  • B. Both are fairly valued because growth and price/sales are identical
  • C. Company B is likely undervalued because more debt should reduce WACC
  • D. Company B deserves a higher equity valuation because leverage boosts ROE

Best answer: A

What this tests: Valuation

Explanation: The best answer is the view favouring Company A. Similar revenue growth does not imply similar valuation when one business converts sales into much more operating profit and carries much less financial risk. Equal price/sales multiples can therefore mask a meaningful relative mispricing.

This is a capital structure and operating economics question. A price/sales ratio looks only at top-line value, so it can miss two critical drivers of equity valuation: how efficiently sales become operating profit, and how much risk debt adds to the equity. Company A has a much stronger operating margin, so each pound of revenue produces more EBIT and potential cash flow. It also has far lower leverage, which reduces interest burden, refinancing pressure, and sensitivity to rising rates.

Company B may have the same revenue growth, but weaker margins and heavy floating-rate debt make its equity riskier and less resilient. If both companies trade on the same price/sales ratio, the stronger business and cleaner balance sheet would usually deserve the higher multiple.

The key takeaway is that similar growth can still lead to different valuation conclusions once profitability and leverage are considered together.

  • Leverage trap: Higher debt can amplify ROE in favourable periods, but it also raises equity risk and does not by itself justify a higher valuation.
  • Top-line trap: Equal revenue growth and the same price/sales ratio do not mean two companies are equally attractive when margins differ sharply.
  • WACC trap: Debt does not automatically lower WACC; excessive and floating-rate leverage can increase overall risk and depress equity value.

Higher margins and far lower leverage mean Company A should normally command a stronger equity valuation than Company B, so the same price/sales ratio suggests relative undervaluation.


Question 2

Topic: Valuation

An analyst is reviewing Kestrel plc and uses market-value weights when calculating WACC.

Extract:

ItemFigure
Ordinary shares outstanding30 million
Share price£6.00
Cost of equity12%
Listed bonds nominal value£200 million
Bond market value£120 million
Pre-tax cost of debt7%
Corporation tax rate25%

Which statement is best supported?

  • A. Equity is 47% of capital and WACC is about 8.4%.
  • B. Equity is 60% of capital and WACC is about 10.0%.
  • C. Debt is 60% of capital and WACC is about 8.0%.
  • D. Equity is 60% of capital and WACC is about 9.3%.

Best answer: D

What this tests: Valuation

Explanation: WACC should use market-value weights and the after-tax cost of debt. Equity is £180m and debt is £120m, so the business is 60% equity financed; applying 12% for equity and 5.25% for debt gives a WACC of about 9.3%.

The core concept is that WACC uses the market values of financing sources, not the bond nominal value, and debt is adjusted for the tax relief on interest. From the extract, equity market value is 30 million × £6 = £180 million, while debt contributes its market value of £120 million. Total capital is therefore £300 million, giving weights of 60% equity and 40% debt.

  • After-tax cost of debt = 7% × (1 - 0.25) = 5.25%
  • WACC = (0.60 × 12%) + (0.40 × 5.25%) = 9.30%

The closest distractor keeps the correct capital weights but forgets to tax-adjust the cost of debt.

  • Using 47% equity treats the bond nominal value as the debt weight, but WACC uses market value.
  • Using 60% debt reverses the market-value capital structure shown by the share and bond prices.
  • Using 10.0% keeps the right weights but applies the pre-tax debt cost instead of the after-tax cost.

Using market values gives equity of £180m and debt of £120m, so WACC is (0.60 × 12%) + (0.40 × 7% × 0.75) = 9.3%.


Question 3

Topic: Valuation

A capital project is expected to report a positive accounting profit, but its return on capital is below the firm’s weighted average cost of capital (WACC). Which statement is correct?

  • A. It creates value because any positive accounting profit implies a positive NPV.
  • B. It destroys economic value because EVA would be negative.
  • C. It creates value because economic profit excludes the cost of equity capital.
  • D. It is value-neutral because WACC is relevant only to funding mix, not project appraisal.

Best answer: B

What this tests: Valuation

Explanation: Positive accounting profit does not by itself mean a project creates shareholder value. If the return on capital is below WACC, the project fails to earn its required return, so economic value added is negative.

The key concept is the difference between accounting profit and economic profit. Accounting profit records revenues less accounting expenses, but economic value creation also charges for the opportunity cost of all capital employed, including equity. That is why EVA is a useful measure in capital budgeting and performance analysis.

If a project’s return on capital is below WACC, it is not covering its required cost of capital. In economic terms, the project is destroying value even if reported profit is positive.

  • Positive accounting profit can still coexist with negative EVA.
  • A project that earns less than WACC will generally have a negative NPV if assessed on the same assumptions.
  • WACC is a hurdle rate for appraisal, not just a funding description.

The closest confusion is to treat reported profit as proof of value creation, but value creation depends on returns exceeding the cost of capital.

  • Profit vs value: Positive accounting profit does not guarantee a positive NPV or shareholder value creation.
  • Role of WACC: WACC is central to project appraisal because it represents the required return on invested capital.
  • Cost of equity: Economic profit does include the cost of equity; ignoring it is a common accounting-only mistake.

EVA deducts the full cost of capital, so a return below WACC means value is being destroyed despite positive accounting profit.


Question 4

Topic: Valuation

A portfolio manager for a UK equity fund compares two listed business-services companies. Alpha has invested in a digital platform with high fixed development costs, very low incremental servicing cost, 85% recurring subscription revenue and spare capacity. Beta has expanded rapidly, but management layers, customer-support costs and rework are rising faster than revenue. End-markets and balance-sheet leverage are otherwise similar. If both trade on the same forward EV/EBIT multiple, which is the best assessment?

  • A. Beta is more likely to justify a higher multiple, as rising overheads indicate stronger operating leverage.
  • B. Both should justify the same multiple, as EV/EBIT removes cost-structure differences.
  • C. Alpha should justify a lower multiple, as high fixed costs always weaken margin resilience.
  • D. Alpha is more likely to justify a higher multiple, as scalable costs support operating leverage and margins.

Best answer: D

What this tests: Valuation

Explanation: Alpha shows classic economies of scale: once the platform is built, additional subscription revenue can be serviced at low marginal cost. Because most revenue is recurring, that operating leverage is more likely to convert into resilient margins and stronger valuation support than Beta’s diseconomies of scale.

The core concept is that economies of scale spread fixed costs over a larger revenue base, lowering unit cost and improving operating leverage when demand grows. Alpha’s platform has high fixed development cost but low incremental servicing cost, so extra subscription revenue should flow through to EBIT more efficiently. The 85% recurring revenue base also makes those margins more resilient because revenue visibility is stronger. By contrast, Beta’s rising management, support and rework costs indicate diseconomies of scale: complexity is increasing costs faster than sales, which weakens margin resilience and reduces confidence in future operating leverage. If both shares trade on the same forward EV/EBIT multiple, Alpha is the one more likely to deserve the premium, not Beta.

  • Rising overhead trap: Higher overhead does not automatically mean better operating leverage; when support and rework rise faster than revenue, scale is becoming inefficient.
  • Multiple misunderstanding: EV/EBIT does not neutralise cost structure in valuation; investors use it to reflect expectations for future margins and cash generation.
  • Absolute fixed-cost claim: High fixed costs do not always damage resilience; with recurring revenue and spare capacity, they can underpin scalable and durable margins.

Alpha combines economies of scale with recurring revenue, so incremental sales should lift EBIT margins while Beta’s rising overhead suggests diseconomies.


Question 5

Topic: Valuation

An investment manager is reviewing Apex Engineering plc. For this question, financial gearing = net debt / ordinary shareholders’ funds, and interest cover = operating profit / net finance cost.

£m20232024
Operating profit9690
Net finance cost1218
Net debt240300
Ordinary shareholders’ funds400360

Which interpretation is best supported by the exhibit?

  • A. Financial gearing fell and interest cover rose, reducing financial risk.
  • B. Financial gearing rose and interest cover fell, increasing financial risk.
  • C. Interest cover weakened, but financial gearing was broadly unchanged.
  • D. Financial gearing rose, but interest cover improved because profit stayed positive.

Best answer: B

What this tests: Valuation

Explanation: Using the stated definitions, financial gearing rises from 60% to 83.3%, while interest cover falls from 8.0x to 5.0x. That means the company is more leveraged and has less headroom to service its interest payments, so financial risk has increased.

The key is to assess both leverage and debt-servicing capacity using the definitions given in the stem. Financial gearing rises because net debt increases from £240m to £300m while ordinary shareholders’ funds fall from £400m to £360m. Interest cover weakens because operating profit falls and net finance cost rises.

  • 2023 financial gearing = 240 / 400 = 60.0%
  • 2024 financial gearing = 300 / 360 = 83.3%
  • 2023 interest cover = 96 / 12 = 8.0x
  • 2024 interest cover = 90 / 18 = 5.0x

Taken together, those ratios show higher financial risk, not improvement. The closest distractor is the idea that positive profit means better cover, but interest cover depends on profit relative to interest cost, not on profit simply remaining positive.

  • Debt still below equity: this does not mean gearing fell; the relevant ratio increased materially from 60.0% to 83.3%.
  • Positive profit misconception: interest cover did not improve just because operating profit stayed positive; higher finance cost and lower profit reduced cover to 5.0x.
  • Unchanged leverage claim: higher net debt and lower shareholders’ funds clearly indicate materially higher gearing, not a stable position.

Net debt increased while equity fell, and operating profit covered interest fewer times than before.


Question 6

Topic: Valuation

An ESG disclosure is most likely to be material to an investor when it could reasonably:

  • A. align the report with a recognised sustainability framework
  • B. improve the firm’s public narrative without a clear financial effect
  • C. change expected cash flows, asset values, or the firm’s cost of capital
  • D. interest a wide range of stakeholders regardless of valuation impact

Best answer: C

What this tests: Valuation

Explanation: An ESG point is financially material when a reasonable investor could use it to change valuation assumptions. If it can affect cash flows, asset values, or the discount rate, it may alter price or portfolio decisions; narrative value or reporting format alone is not enough.

The core concept is financial materiality. For an investor, ESG information is material when it has a credible pathway to valuation, such as changing revenues, margins, capital expenditure, liabilities, asset lives, or the discount rate used in valuation models. In other words, it must be capable of affecting expected return or risk.

Descriptive ESG content can still be useful, but it is not automatically material just because it sounds positive, is widely discussed, or follows a recognised reporting framework. Materiality depends on decision-usefulness for investors, not on presentation quality or general stakeholder interest.

The key test is whether the disclosure could change the numbers or risks that drive value, rather than simply adding context.

  • Public narrative: Reputation language may be informative, but without a clear channel to profits, cash flow, assets, or risk, it is not financially material.
  • Framework alignment: Using a recognised ESG framework can improve comparability and disclosure quality, but it does not itself make the underlying information material.
  • Stakeholder interest: A topic may attract broad attention, yet still be immaterial to investors if it has no reasonable impact on valuation or required return.

Investor materiality is about whether the information can affect valuation inputs and therefore the investment decision.


Question 7

Topic: Valuation

A UK equity analyst is reviewing a listed engineering company’s proposal to build one of two mutually exclusive plants. The projects have conventional cash flows but different initial sizes, and the company’s WACC has already been estimated at 8%. The analyst wants the framework that best shows which project adds the most shareholder value in GBP.

Which is the single best choice?

  • A. Net present value (NPV)
  • B. Economic value added (EVA)
  • C. Internal rate of return (IRR)
  • D. Weighted average cost of capital (WACC)

Best answer: A

What this tests: Valuation

Explanation: NPV is most appropriate when the aim is to choose between mutually exclusive projects and identify which one creates the greatest monetary value. Because WACC is already known, it can be used as the discount rate, while NPV gives the clearest GBP measure of shareholder value added.

The core concept is matching the tool to the decision. WACC is primarily the discount rate or hurdle rate, not the final decision framework. IRR is often useful, but with mutually exclusive projects of different scale it can rank projects incorrectly because it gives a percentage return rather than the absolute value created. EVA is mainly a period-by-period performance measure based on profit after a capital charge, rather than the standard capital-budgeting method for selecting between projects.

Here, the analyst wants to know which project adds the most shareholder value in money terms, so NPV is the most appropriate framework. The key takeaway is that when projects are mutually exclusive and differ in size, NPV is usually preferred over IRR.

  • WACC confusion: WACC is an input to valuation and capital budgeting, not the measure that tells which project creates the most value.
  • IRR trap: IRR can be appealing because it is intuitive, but percentage returns can mis-rank mutually exclusive projects when project scale differs.
  • EVA mismatch: EVA is better for assessing operating performance after a capital charge over a period, not for choosing between alternative investment projects.

NPV is the best choice because, given an estimated WACC, it measures the absolute GBP value created and is most reliable for comparing mutually exclusive projects of different scale.


Question 8

Topic: Valuation

An equity analyst is reviewing a potential investment in a listed manufacturer. Use gross profit = revenue - cost of sales, and calculate both margins as a percentage of revenue.

Revenue: £250 million Cost of sales: £150 million Net profit after tax: £15 million

Which assessment best applies valuation discipline?

  • A. Gross margin 60%, net margin 15%; little profit is lost below gross profit.
  • B. Gross margin 40%, net margin 6%; non-production costs are materially high.
  • C. Gross margin 40%, net margin 6%; the wide gap proves strong earnings quality.
  • D. Gross margin 6%, net margin 40%; final profitability exceeds trading profitability.

Best answer: B

What this tests: Valuation

Explanation: Gross profit is £100 million, so gross profit margin is 40%, while net profit margin is 6%. A large gap between these margins usually means costs below cost of sales, such as overheads, interest or tax, are absorbing much of the profit generated from trading.

The key concept is to separate profitability at the gross level from profitability after all expenses. From the figures given, gross profit is £250 million - £150 million = £100 million, so gross margin is £100 million / £250 million = 40%. Net profit margin is £15 million / £250 million = 6%.

  • Gross margin shows how much profit remains after direct production or purchase costs.
  • Net margin shows how much revenue is left after operating expenses, finance costs and tax as well.
  • The 34 percentage point gap suggests the company is losing a substantial amount of profit below the gross profit line.

So, the most appropriate valuation conclusion is that underlying trading margin looks reasonable, but overall profitability is being heavily reduced by other costs.

  • Treating the 40% and 6% margins as proof of strong earnings quality is the wrong inference; the wide gap points to substantial costs below gross profit.
  • Using 60% and 15% miscalculates both margins from the data provided.
  • Reversing the margins makes net profitability higher than gross profitability, which is inconsistent with the figures.

Gross profit is £100 million, so the gross margin is 40%; net margin is 6%, showing substantial costs below gross profit.


Question 9

Topic: Valuation

In fundamental analysis, return on capital employed (ROCE) is commonly decomposed into which two components?

  • A. Net profit margin and equity turnover
  • B. Operating margin and financial gearing
  • C. Gross margin and asset turnover
  • D. Operating margin and asset turnover

Best answer: D

What this tests: Valuation

Explanation: ROCE combines a profitability measure with an efficiency measure. In standard analysis, it is broken into operating margin and asset turnover, showing how much operating profit is earned on sales and how effectively capital employed generates revenue.

The core concept is that ROCE measures return from operations relative to the capital used in the business, and it can be split into two drivers: margin and turnover.

\[ \begin{aligned} ROCE &= \frac{\text{Operating profit}}{\text{Capital employed}} \\ &= \frac{\text{Operating profit}}{\text{Revenue}} \times \frac{\text{Revenue}}{\text{Capital employed}} \end{aligned} \]

The first part is operating margin, and the second part is asset turnover. This helps an analyst see whether a strong ROCE comes from high operating profitability, efficient use of the asset base, or both. The closest distractor is the pair using gross margin, but ROCE uses operating profit rather than gross profit.

  • Financial gearing relates to capital structure and leverage, not the standard two-part breakdown of operating return on capital employed.
  • Net profit margin and equity turnover point more towards an equity-return style analysis, because they focus on after-tax profit and equity rather than capital employed.
  • Gross margin and asset turnover is tempting, but gross margin is not the margin used in the standard ROCE decomposition; operating margin is.

ROCE can be written as operating profit divided by revenue, multiplied by revenue divided by capital employed.


Question 10

Topic: Valuation

Which measure is derived directly from income-statement figures and used as a profitability indicator?

  • A. Return on capital employed
  • B. Operating profit margin
  • C. Free cash flow
  • D. Current ratio

Best answer: B

What this tests: Valuation

Explanation: Operating profit margin is the clearest income-statement profitability measure because it uses operating profit and revenue. The other measures rely on balance-sheet amounts or cash-flow information, so they do not arise directly from the income statement alone.

The key distinction is whether the measure is built from profit-and-loss figures or from balance-sheet or cash-flow data. Operating profit margin is an income-statement profitability indicator because it relates operating profit to revenue, both reported in the income statement. By contrast, return on capital employed mixes profit with capital employed from the balance sheet, current ratio is a balance-sheet liquidity measure, and free cash flow is a cash-flow measure rather than an accounting-profit measure.

  • Income statement: revenue, operating profit, net profit
  • Balance sheet: assets, liabilities, capital employed
  • Cash flow: operating cash flow, capital expenditure, free cash flow

A common trap is to choose a profitability ratio such as ROCE, but it is not derived from income-statement figures alone.

  • ROCE confusion: return on capital employed is a profitability ratio, but it depends on capital employed from the balance sheet as well as profit.
  • Liquidity mix-up: current ratio measures short-term liquidity, not profitability, and comes from current assets and current liabilities.
  • Cash versus profit: free cash flow reflects cash generation after investment spending, not income-statement profit performance.

Operating profit margin compares operating profit with revenue, both taken from the income statement.

Continue with full practice

Use the CISI IM Practice Test page for the full Securities Prep route, mixed-topic practice, timed mock exams, and explanations.

Open the matching Securities Prep practice route for timed mocks, topic drills, progress tracking, explanations, and full practice.

Free review resource

Use the full Securities Prep practice page above for the latest review links and practice route.

Revised on Thursday, May 14, 2026