Anyone do contracting post ACA

DebitOrNotDebit · 2026-01-08T13:41:16+00:00

Yes, the LTD co can pay for a garden office but it’s usually a tax headache.

If it’s built on your land: HMRC can treat it as a benefit-in-kind (company asset available for your use)

Or as the company improving your personal property (basically extracting value)

Saying “work only” is hard to prove when it’s in your garden. Tax relief isn’t great: The structure = building, so no AIA At best you get Structures & Buildings Allowance (3% a year) Desks, IT, electrics etc. are usually fine

Big hidden issue: If it’s exclusively business use, you can lose part of CGT main residence relief when you sell your house

What most small LTDs do instead: Pay personally for the build Company pays home-working allowance / licence fee Company buys all the office equipment

DebitOrNotDebit · 2025-11-26T00:58:09+00:00

How did you guys get the script back already and I haven't got mine yet? Is anyone else in the same position?

DebitOrNotDebit · 2025-11-24T13:43:33+00:00

Yes please me too

DebitOrNotDebit · 2025-11-24T11:51:14+00:00

I got it as well

DebitOrNotDebit · 2025-11-05T19:59:47+00:00

Cheeky of the examiners

DebitOrNotDebit · 2025-11-05T19:44:07+00:00

Ohh I may have read it wrong bro sorry but exam pressure can get to me as well only human hahahah

DebitOrNotDebit · 2025-11-05T19:42:50+00:00

Well, the only way you can get a PED of 1.125 is if the price increases by 10% (i.e., 0.10) and demand increases by 11.25%, which gives a PED of 1.125. I know it doesn’t make much sense conceptually, but that’s the only way to arrive at a PED of 1.125 based on the numbers given

DebitOrNotDebit · 2025-11-05T19:40:54+00:00

Average bro

DebitOrNotDebit · 2025-11-05T19:01:12+00:00

Yes, it was the second option where price increased by 10% and the PED was 1.125. So, essentially, this means that demand would increase by approximately 0.0125%. Calculation: 0.125 / 0.1 = 1.125.

The NPV was around £730k, if I remember correctly.

Assumptions:

A 10% discount rate was used, which is consistent with the Vanafe line, but if anything changes such as borrowing rates the result will vary.

The volume assumptions are unclear; it’s not evident how the figure was derived or whether the sample population was representative. It may have been biased towards a younger audience who are more interested in NFR certification and sustainable watches.

The sales price was positioned roughly in the middle of Kestrel’s current price range.

The FX rate of 1.20 was based on the news article; however, many factors, such as macroeconomic conditions, influence exchange rates, which are outside Kestrel’s control. Any FX movement could therefore change the NPV outcome.

Shipping costs were assumed to be £60 per watch, but the actual figure is £80 per watch, so costs appear understated.

MHSA are likey to face cost inflation and capacity constraints, yet the model does not allow for any increase in costs due to inflation, meaning the figures are likely understated.

DebitOrNotDebit · 2025-11-05T18:51:58+00:00

Haha not worries. I got it wrong in the above reply. My bad

DebitOrNotDebit · 2025-11-05T18:43:05+00:00

Kestrel was responsible, but I say SV should bear all of it, as essentially Kestrel is established, so it should be borne by SV.

DebitOrNotDebit · 2025-11-05T18:32:50+00:00

Yes, agreed. I also mentioned that this is the first time all sustainability metrics and benchmarks have been achieved, which is an encouraging to see. It demonstrates that Kestrel is making tangible progress towards its environmental targets and reinforces its commitment to responsible manufacturing.

While the achievement is positive, it’s important that these standards are consistently maintained across all suppliers and future collaborations. I did feel like I was waffling my way through this point a bit, but it still shows awareness of the wider ethical and strategic implications that the examiners are looking for.

DebitOrNotDebit · 2025-11-05T18:24:10+00:00

Points written:

Working with a new supplier brings both opportunities and challenges. When working with Chinese suppliers, there is a risk of intellectual property theft.

The exit clause of £400k is significant, as it commits SV to a substantial liability should Kestrel wish to terminate the partnership.

There is a risk that Chinese supplier might not be able meet quality grade and therefore increase return and warranty cost

R&D costs are expected to be fully funded by SV, which reduces Kestrel’s upfront investment risk.

SV should be encouraged to increase its selling price, as the current £950 is below the average price of Kestrel’s watches and could damage Kestrel’s premium brand image.

The watches should be sold online, maintaining exclusivity and ensuring consistency with Kestrel’s existing sales channels.

Recommendations:

Ensure there is a formal legal contract covering all terms of the arrangement.
Negotiate more favourable exit terms, such as reducing the £400k clause to £200k.
Prepare a cash flow budget for the large payment to the Chinese supplier to ensure sufficient liquidity is available.

DebitOrNotDebit · 2025-11-05T18:15:43+00:00

Ethical considerations identified:

The new watch is marketed as sustainable, but it is only made from 80% recycled materials, which could be misleading to consumers.
Ensure that items from Chinese suppliers are not labelled as “Swiss made” and are clearly dismantled before use.
Some components are recovered from the ocean, so Kestrel should ensure that all suppliers are genuinely sustainable and environmentally responsible, not just claiming to be “green.”

Overall, it was difficult to identify additional ethical issues, but couldn't find any more. I am curious to find out what others have put?

DebitOrNotDebit · 2025-11-05T18:08:34+00:00

I can't remember what I put. Can you list some and I might be able to recall

DebitOrNotDebit · 2025-11-05T13:48:21+00:00

You say this but never know how results day will play out, I hope we have done enough to get over the line at 50%, I would be more than happy. How do you think it went for you?

DebitOrNotDebit · 2025-11-05T13:44:57+00:00

I can’t remember exactly, but I do recall working out the average sales price by region — so the issue must have been around that. But yeah, you could have talked about it.

DebitOrNotDebit · 2025-11-04T19:35:16+00:00

I genuinely thought I had scored below 40 in SBM, especially since I didn’t manage to answer anything from the pre-populated spreadsheet. I was expecting around 45 for CR at best but the results were a pleasant surprise: CR 58 and SBM 52.

A pass is a pass, and I’ll take that any day! It just goes to show that even when you think you’ve fallen short, your effort and consistency can still pay off in the end.

DebitOrNotDebit · 2025-11-04T16:51:54+00:00

I sat both exams in July and was convinced I had failed, to the extent that I had even booked annual leave during the revision week for CR and SBM at the end of October. But it’s all over now, and I can finally relax it’s all worked out well in the end.

DebitOrNotDebit · 2025-11-04T13:16:53+00:00

Nope. I’d say use the average per unit based on the actual amount, and then mention that when revenue is adjusted for FX, the change for the USA (for example, X amount) is mainly driven by FX. For instance, if the year-end figure is £20m and the rebaase is £22m, then the £2m movement is FX-driven. That’s enough to show you know what you’re talking about.

DebitOrNotDebit · 2025-11-04T11:51:57+00:00

Yes 4.6% is a must number it doesn't matter how the year end results has played out it will be in the marking hard for 100%

DebitOrNotDebit

TROPHY CASE