Precision Coachworks Business Plan — Investment Analysis

The project and equity returns, the exit assumption behind them, and what the numbers do and do not support.

Investment Analysis

Jump to section
On this page

  • 11.1 Returns
  • 11.2 Sensitivity of the return to the exit assumption
  • 11.3 What would improve the return

11.1 Returns

Measure

Base case

Comment

Capital deployed over five years

R17 300 000

Equipment, fit-out, accreditation and working capital

Promoter and investor equity

R12 100 000

70% of capital deployed

Asset finance

R5 200 000

Drawn against equipment at 13.25% over seven years per tranche, three-year moratorium

Project internal rate of return

11.2%

Five years plus a terminal value at 5 times Year 5 EBITDA

Return to equity

11.0%

No distributions in the projection period; value realised on the terminal position

Money multiple on equity

1.68x

Terminal equity of R20 349 162 against R12 100 000 subscribed

Terminal value

R20 505 000

5x Year 5 EBITDA of R4 101 000

Net present value at 12%

R-451 910

Marginally negative at the cost of capital most investors would apply

Cumulative profit after tax, Years 1 to 5

(R3 474 450)

Start-up losses are not recovered inside the plan period

Cumulative project cash flow before terminal value

(R12 317 301)

The return sits in the accredited asset, not in five-year cash

Assessed loss carried forward at Year 5

R3 789 041

A real shelter against future profits, not reflected in the terminal value

Cumulative project cash flow before terminal value
Figure 20. Cumulative project cash flow before terminal value.

11.2 Sensitivity of the return to the exit assumption

Returns against the exit assumption
Figure 21. Returns against the exit assumption.

Exit multiple of Year 5 EBITDA

Terminal value (R)

Project IRR

Terminal equity (R)

Equity IRR

4x

16 404 000

6.0%

16 248 162

6.1%

5x

20 505 000

11.2%

20 349 162

11.0%

6x

24 606 000

15.7%

24 450 162

15.1%

7x

28 707 000

19.8%

28 551 162

18.7%

The base case applies five times Year 5 EBITDA. Motor body repairers are valued on a multiple of sustainable earnings, with the multiple driven by accreditation standing, the breadth of panel listings and manufacturer approvals, and the durability of the production team rather than by bay count or booth count. At four times the project returns 8.7 per cent; at seven times it returns 15.7 per cent. Readers should substitute their own multiple, and should form a view on the panel listings before they do.

11.3 What would improve the return

Lever

Effect on Year 5 EBITDA

Assessment

Cycle time at 8.5 days rather than 9.0

+R676 734

The last productive half-day. Below 8.5 the booth binds and further gains stop paying

Average repair value 12% higher

+R1 388 677

Through the structural mix and the share of manufacturer-approved warranty work

Utilisation at 87% rather than 81%

+R856 239

A panel-listing and allocation outcome. More listings, more consistent flow

Parts margin at 27% rather than 23%

+R609 780

The variable management controls least. A plan that assumes this is optimistic

A third manufacturer approval

Included in Years 4 to 5

Higher average repair values and access to a further warranty pool

Holding beyond Year 5

Removes the terminal value dependency

R3.79m of assessed loss remains as shelter, and the accreditation stack is already paid for