Yes, it has been mentioned that two NEDs from Fouce are not independent. Which means they will not act in the best interest of all of the Slide's shareholders but only in the interest of Fouce. Also, if there is a situation with takeover by Fouce they will breach confidentiality since their allegiance is to Fouce (since they are paid by it) they might divulge Slide's inside information.
I am so confused by the whole P&L statement that I have given up trying to make sense out of it...
Sitting my exam tomorrow so doing some before midnight revisions...
Hi everyone, has anyone actually sat the case study yet?? I am sitting tomorrow and was hoping that some of the questions would have been spoken about!
I suspect no-one is saying anything because they'll get thrown out of CIMA if they do and it can get traced back to them! Never worth it at this stage.
It would also put them at a disadvantage on the variant they took and given that they would be competing against you it could actually mean people who share information actually end up failing when the people they share it with pass!
Hey, did anybody purchase the Astranti's written analysis of the industry and Slide? (not videos, the PDF documents)? There are so many mistakes in there... Bad... ;( Also, for some reason they say that Slide does not have a Nomination Committee... But they do... What's up with that...
Apologies for any errors. Yes the Nomination's committee was an error - they do have a nomination's committee. We actually corrected that in later versions of our material but know it remained in the sample as we forgot to change that one.
There could have been other minor errors - formatting etc. We do proof read the analysis, and do our best to avoid this, but we also have to produce these very quickly so some minor errors do creep in. I do hope that didn't detract from the crux of the analysis which I hope you found useful.
Nick / Astranti - you say in the pre-seen vids that you would not recommend Slide pursues a strategy of diversification into mid- or down-stream activities.
However, one of Slide's 2014/15 strategic objectives is to 'continue to investigate areas for exploration and diversification'. Thus if we are presented with this option in the exam can we say it is a good strategic fit?? Currently I would probably argue against it but would then mention as one of my points that it could be suitable, although perhaps it doesn't fit with their wider mission statement anyway as this wants to focus on exploration. So maybe Slide needs to rethink this strategic objective...
Can you please advise?
It does say about diversification in the case. You could use this as an argument to diversify if you feel there is a very good opportunity, but you should always bring up Ansoff and say it's in the high risk box, and then practically justify why (new products, and new customers - always tough).
Personally I wouldn't be diversifying as I think their resources are better spent on improving their technology and skills at explorations and focusing on this as an area of core strength and building the business around this. I agree that it's the objective that should be changed.