Kasi Kicks Business Plan

Investor-ready multi-brand sneaker retail business plan: R16.13m funding, four stores, 49,239 pairs a year and R75.23m Year 5 revenue.

Business Plan & Investment Proposal · South Africa

Sneaker & Footwear Store Business Plan — South Africa

Kasi Kicks (Pty) Ltd · You Do Not Choose What You Sell, Or What Size It Arrives In.

A multi-brand sneaker and footwear retail group in Gauteng — two stores at launch building
to four by Year 4 at about 185 m² each, supported by a central warehouse, a merchandise planning
function and an online channel, selling 49 239 pairs a year at maturity of which 18 per cent online. Total
funding of R16 130 000: R10.30 million equity at 63.9 per cent and R5.83 million of debt and
asset finance, plus a R6.50 million stock facility.

R16.13mTotal funding

49 239Pairs a year

R75.23mYear 5 revenue

13.7%Year 5 EBITDA margin

Read the executive summary →

The plan opens with a constraint rather than an opportunity, and puts it in
Section 2 ahead of the market and the store format: a multi-brand sneaker retailer does not choose what it
sells. Brands allocate product to retailers, so demand for a style does not produce supply of it, and no amount of
capital changes that. The second half of the cover line is the subtler point — stock arrives in a size mix the
buyer did not choose either, and sizes that do not match the local foot end up marked down. That is where footwear
retail margin actually goes, which the numbers bear out: gross margin barely moves across five years, from
46.8 to 46.0 per cent, while EBITDA margin climbs to 13.7. The improvement is absorption, not pricing
— head office, warehouse and merchandise planning spread across four stores instead of one.

The plan at a glance

Six measures that determine whether this retail group and its funding stand up.

R16.13mTotal funding requirementR10.30m equity at 63.9% and R5.83m of debt and asset finance, plus a R6.50m stock facility.

AllocationWhat the brands decideA multi-brand retailer sells what it is allocated. Demand does not create supply, which is why the plan opens with it rather than with the market.

46.0%Gross margin, near flat46.8% in Year 1 and 46.0% in Year 5. Margin is not the lever — markdown control and head-office absorption are.

49 239Pairs a year at maturityAcross four stores of about 185 m², with 18% sold online through a central warehouse.

R83 358Revenue per square metre at Year 5From R47,797. Stores stop at four in Year 4, so the last year is trading density rather than footprint.

5 067Store break-even in pairsAgainst 9,800 at maturity — roughly half. That headroom is what makes a four-store rollout financeable.

The two things the retailer does not control

What the brands decide, and what turns up in the box — the two constraints the plan names on its own cover.

AllocationWhat you may sellBrands decide which retailers receive which product and in what quantity. A sneaker store cannot buy its way to the styles customers are asking for.

and

The size curveWhat arrives in the boxPairs come in a size mix the buyer did not choose. What does not fit the local foot gets marked down — and markdown is where footwear retail margin actually disappears.

Five years of trading

Revenue and EBITDA on the base case. Pairs sold and the markdown rate are the two assumptions that matter most, and both are stressed in Section 10.

Revenue build — stores and pairs sold

Stores go from one to four by Year 4 and stop. Pairs rise from 7,252 a year to 49,239, and revenue per square metre from R47,797 to R83,358 — the last year is density, not footprint.

Year 1

R8.84m · 1 store · 7 252 pairs

Year 2

R23.67m · 2 · 18 349

Year 3

R43.28m · 3 · 31 712

Year 4

R66.59m · 4 · 46 118

Year 5

R75.23m · 4 · 49 239

EBITDA and margin, Year 2 onward

Year 1 runs an EBITDA deficit of R1.14m on a single store. Gross margin holds near 46% throughout — the improvement to 13.7% EBITDA comes from spreading head office across four stores, not from pricing.

Year 2

R1.05m · 4.4%

Year 3

R4.42m · 10.2%

Year 4

R8.50m · 12.8%

Year 5

R10.31m · 13.7%

Why this plan works the way it does

You sell what you are allocatedSection 2 comes before the market and the store format, and correctly so. A multi-brand retailer cannot buy its way to the styles customers want — brands decide who receives what, and that ceiling sits above every other assumption.

Margin is lost in the size curve, not on the price tagPairs arrive in a size mix the buyer did not choose. Sizes that do not match the local foot get marked down, which is why gross margin barely moves while markdown discipline decides the outcome.

Gross margin is flat; the improvement is absorption46.8% in Year 1 and 46.0% in Year 5. EBITDA margin still climbs to 13.7%, entirely by spreading head office, warehouse and planning across four stores instead of one.

The rollout stops at four storesStores reach four in Year 4 and stay there. Year 5 adds R8.63 million of revenue through trading density — revenue per square metre rising to R83,358 — rather than new floor space.

Stock is the funding requirementA R6.50 million stock facility sits alongside R16.13 million of capital. Footwear retail funds inventory long before it sells it, and the facility is sized against that rather than against the fit-out.

Financial snapshot

Four charts from the plan. The full set of twenty-four appears throughout the sections below.

Figure 3. Gross profit per pair by allocation tier.

Figure 9. One store, break-even against mature volume.

Figure 14. Stock held at cost against the facility.

Figure 22. EBITDA sensitivity at maturity.

Fifteen sections and five appendices. Every page carries full navigation, a section outline and links to the sections either side of it.

!
Important Notice and Basis of PreparationBasis of preparation, data sources and forward-looking statement caveats. Please read first.

Appendices

Confidential. This document is provided for the purpose of evaluating an
investment in Kasi Kicks (Pty) Ltd and may not be reproduced or distributed without written consent. Projections are
forward-looking statements based on the assumptions registered in Section 16 and are not guarantees of future
performance.