CIMAPRO19-CS3-1 Exam Preparation Material | Strategic Case Study Exam

The Director of Finance, William Seaton, has stopped you in the corridor:
“Your report was really helpful, but the Board is still considering the implications of that email from Jan Archibald at Fouce Oil. I need to make a more detailed report to the Board and I would like you to draft it for me.
I know that we have owned and operated oil wells in the past, but that has always been with the intention of finding a buyer who is prepared to pay a realistic price. We have chosen never to think about the implications of keeping wells.
I need a report from you that covers the following issues:
The key political risks of retaining our interest in these oil wells, with particular emphasis on high consequence, high
likelihood risks.
A suitable response to each of your political risks.
An overview of how changes in the global economy and the demand for oil could affect the decision to proceed.
The challenges associated with putting together a management team to take charge of the production side of this
proposed new strategy.
I realise that this is a lot to ask of you, but I need you to move quickly because of the interest from our biggest shareholder.”

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.

William Seaton, the Director of Finance stopped you in the corridor a week after the Head Geologist’s announcement that reserves had been overstated:
“We informed the stock exchange that our reserves had been downgraded and our share price has taken a solid hit. We need to work towards making sure that this is never repeated.
The Board is actively considering some changes that we hope will improve our forecasting system. I am not convinced that the suggestions will work. Frankly, if we could predict the future with certainty then I would have us stop looking for oil and start selling forecasts.
I would like you to work through the proposals that have been put forward and to recommend on their adoption, with changes if you think it necessary.
The issues that we are most seriously considering are:
A suggestion that Big Data could be used to monitor oil prices. Do you think this would be a sensible way to proceed?
A suggestion that we should update our reserves information on the company website in real time. Do you think that would be an effective communication strategy?
Finally, we have considered a number of issues surrounding the motivation and inspiration of our geologists. Two quite distinct schemes have been proposed. Firstly, some Board members believe that our geologists should be rewarded in relation to the accuracy of their forecasts. Bonuses will be paid on the basis of correct initial evaluation of wells. The bonus will increase if a well that was initially identified as commercially viable goes into production and will decrease if a well that was classified as viable is reclassified as unproductive.
Secondly, other members of the Board believe that there should be a greater degree of accountability on the part of geologists. The incorrect classification of a well’s potential could be treated as a disciplinary matter. Please provide a detailed analysis of EACH of those suggestions.”

The following email has been forwarded to you by William Seaton, Director of Finance:
From: William Seaton, Director of Finance
To: Finance Manager
Subject: Email from CFO of Fouce Oil
Hi
This email arrived last night. I need you to help me to think through the various implications of doing what it suggests before I present it to the Board.
I need you to focus on the following issues:
Would this proposal make sense from a strategic point of view?
If we did decide to go ahead, what would be the issues that we would have to consider with respect to informing the stock market?
Could you please email me your thoughts within the next hour? I have to brief the Board later today.
Thanks
William
The email referred to can be found by clicking on the Reference Materials button.

The formal merger with Darrell has been negotiated and the legal formalities have been completed.
The two company management teams are working on the integration of the two businesses.
You receive an email from Peter Sorchi, the Chief Executive of the merged company:
From: Peter Sorchi, Chief Executive Officer
To: Senior Finance Manager
Subject: Integration of IT and treasury
Hi,
I need you to advise me on a couple of matters. The attached press clipping shows how sensitive this is.
We need to integrate the IT and treasury functions of the former Wodd and Darrell. I thought that it would be a simple matter of identifying the common ground and slimming down both companies’ departments to cover the new entity, but I have the heads of both IT and treasury from each company arguing that their approaches are better for the merged group and that they should take the lead.
Wodd’s Treasurer claims to be an expert in natural hedging of currency risks and Darrell’s argues that her department was highly successful because it makes excellent use of derivatives for hedging. Both agree only on the fact that they cannot work together. I am afraid that I have to agree with them on that and the Board will have the difficult decision of choosing between them.
I have the opposite problem with the IT function. The two Heads of IT are excited to be able to combine their databases and to develop their respective interests in Big Dat
a. They claim that we should retain all of the professional staff in both departments and possibly even expand the merged IT Department beyond that. Given the rationalisation in all of our other functions, I do not think that we can agree to that, but I would hate to throw away a worthwhile opportunity.
Please give me your thoughts on the following:
What approach to hedging is more likely to meet our needs: natural hedging or heavy use of derivatives?
Ignoring hedging, what other factors should we consider in deciding between the two treasurers?
Are the two heads of IT likely to be correct in arguing that we need to retain all existing IT staff in order to exploit synergies in data, particularly opportunities to leverage Big Data?
What would the challenges be in motivating them to reduce their joint staffing levels and how might we deal with these?
Peter