Naledi Threads Business Plan — Returns

What the owner actually earns, why the salary rather than the profit is the real return, and the exit assumptions behind the plan.

Returns

Jump to section
On this page

  • 14.1 Returns summary
  • 14.2 Owner economics — the return that actually matters
  • 14.3 What would have to be true
Returns against the terminal value assumption
Figure 20. Returns against the terminal value assumption.

14.1 Returns summary

Measure

Value

Basis

Total funding requirement

R1 036 030

Fit-out, inventory, deposits, launch and working capital

Founder equity

R600 000

Fully at risk, subordinated

Year 5 EBITDA after owner remuneration

R202 071

At a 7.0% margin

Terminal value multiple applied

3.5x

A realistic multiple for a single-site independent boutique

Terminal enterprise value

R707 248

Terminal equity value

R1 010 144

After the loan is fully repaid, plus closing cash

Project internal rate of return

6.3%

On free cash flow with the terminal value

Net present value at a 15% hurdle

(R300 784)

The project does not clear a market hurdle

Return to equity

3.8%

On the R600 000 contribution

Owner remuneration drawn over five years

R1 244 700

Charged as a cost, so it does not appear in the return

Owner remuneration plus terminal equity

R2 254 844

What the founder actually receives

Payback on invested capital

Not within five years

Invested capital is not recovered within the window

Terminal multiple

Terminal value

Project IRR

NPV at 15%

Return to equity

2.0x

R404 142

0.5%

(R451 482)

-5.3%

2.5x

R505 178

2.6%

(R401 249)

-1.9%

3.0x

R606 213

4.6%

(R351 017)

1.2%

3.5x

R707 248

6.3%

(R300 784)

3.8%

4.0x

R808 284

8.0%

(R250 552)

6.3%

4.5x

R909 320

9.6%

(R200 319)

8.5%

5.0x

R1 010 355

11.1%

(R150 087)

10.6%

14.2 Owner economics — the return that actually matters

What the owner actually receives
Figure 21. What the owner actually receives.

What the founder puts in and takes out

R

Equity contributed at inception

(600 000)

Owner remuneration, Year 1

168 000

Owner remuneration, Year 2

204 000

Owner remuneration, Year 3

253 914

Owner remuneration, Year 4

290 880

Owner remuneration, Year 5

327 906

Total remuneration drawn

1 244 700

Terminal equity value at 3.5x Year 5 EBITDA

1 010 144

Total received against R600 000 at risk

2 254 844

14.3 What would have to be true

For the project to clear a 15% hurdle

Required

Plan

Comment

Revenue uplift across all five years

+7.4%

The single most efficient lever; operating leverage does the rest

Or gross margin improvement

+2.6 points

52.2% at Year 5

Requires markdown to 2.0% and shrinkage to 0.5%, both aggressive

Or occupancy reduction

–18%

9.7% of sales at Year 5

Requires a rent that community-centre landlords do not offer

Or terminal multiple

Above 8.0x

3.5x assumed

Not achievable for a single-site independent

Or units per transaction

+0.19 units

1.62

Entirely within management control and the cheapest of the five

The most instructive line is the last. Moving units per transaction from 1.62 to 1.81 — one additional accessory on roughly one transaction in five — would deliver most of the required revenue uplift at no additional rent, staff or marketing cost. It is not a certainty, but it is the only lever on this list that a well-run store can move by decision rather than by circumstance, and it is why Section 5.2 gives accessories attention out of proportion to their revenue share.