Ascend Strength & Conditioning 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

R7 700 000

Fit-out, equipment, launch and working capital

Promoter and investor equity

R5 300 000

69% of capital deployed

Term debt

R2 400 000

Five years at 13.5% with a twelve-month moratorium; fully repaid by Year 5

Project internal rate of return

44.5%

Five years plus a terminal value at 4.0 times Year 5 EBITDA

Return to equity

30.1%

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

Money multiple on equity

3.73x

Terminal equity of R19 784 414 against R5 300 000 subscribed

Terminal value

R14 772 000

4.0x Year 5 EBITDA of R3 693 000

Net present value at 20%

R5 344 336

Positive

Cumulative profit after tax, Years 1 to 5

R1 608 508

Start-up losses recovered during Year 5

Cumulative project cash flow before terminal value

R1 197 510

Turns positive on a cumulative basis during Year 5

Revenue per member, Year 5

R21 013

The benchmark for a second site, alongside the retention curve

Cumulative project cash flow before terminal value
Figure 21. Cumulative project cash flow before terminal value.

11.2 Sensitivity of the return to the exit assumption

Returns against the exit assumption
Figure 22. Returns against the exit assumption.

Exit multiple of Year 5 EBITDA

Terminal value (R)

Project IRR

Terminal equity (R)

Equity IRR

3.0x

11 079 000

37.9%

16 091 414

24.9%

3.5x

12 925 500

41.3%

17 937 914

27.6%

4.0x

14 772 000

44.5%

19 784 414

30.1%

5.0x

18 465 000

50.4%

23 477 414

34.7%

6.0x

22 158 000

55.5%

27 170 414

38.7%

The base case applies four times Year 5 EBITDA. A coached studio is valued on the durability of its recurring revenue, and the multiple is driven by the retention curve and the transferability of the coaching relationship rather than by the fit-out. At three times the project returns 37.4 per cent; at six times it returns 56.1 per cent. Readers should substitute their own multiple, and should do so only after examining cohort retention — because a studio with 22-month tenure and one with 14-month tenure look identical on a photograph and quite different on a valuation.

11.3 What would improve the return

Lever

Effect on Year 5 EBITDA

Assessment

Churn at 3.5% rather than 4.5%

+R82 438

The largest lever by a wide margin, and the most directly influenced by daily operating behaviour

Price 8% higher

+R778 800

The chains are pricing upward, which creates room. But it must be earned through results

Overhead 10% lower

+R468 000

Rent is the largest line and is fixed by lease. Real but limited

Corporate wellness 35% above plan

+R392 000

Counter-cyclical and requires no additional class place. The best growth line after capacity

Acquisition cost 40% lower

+R226 800

Among the weakest levers tested. With payback inside two months the business should be spending more, not less

A second site once retention is proven

Not modelled

Where the real value is. The plan gates it on churn at or below 4.5% sustained over a full year