KarooPrime Capretto — Financial Plan

The key assumptions, the projected income statement, balance sheet and cash-flow statement, the debt-service-cover schedule, the term-debt amortisation, the working-capital build, the returns and the sensitivity analysis.

KarooPrime Capretto Business PlanSection 13 › Financial Plan

Section 13 · Business Plan

Financial Plan

The key assumptions, the projected income statement, balance sheet and cash-flow statement, the debt-service-cover schedule, the term-debt amortisation, the working-capital build, the returns and the sensitivity analysis.

This financial plan is generated from a single, internally consistent
financial model in which the income statement, balance sheet and
cash-flow statement fully reconcile and the balance sheet ties to zero
in every year. All figures are in ZAR million unless otherwise stated
and are presented on a base-case basis; sensitivities and scenarios
follow. Negative values are shown in parentheses in accounting
convention.

13.1 Key assumptions register

The model is driven by a transparent set of operating and financial
assumptions. The most commercially sensitive — blended realisation per
head and EBITDA margin — are deliberately set toward the conservative
end of management’s expectations.

Assumption Basis Value / range
Planning horizon Years 7 years
Throughput ramp Goats processed p.a. 40k → 400k head
Blended realisation ZAR per head R2,375 → R2,875
EBITDA margin % of revenue 12% → 20% (conservative)
Corporate tax rate SA statutory 27%
Senior debt rate Approx. prime 11.5%
Revolving facility rate RCF 12.5%
Discount rate (WACC) Valuation 15.5%
Working capital DSO / DIO / DPO 35 / 28 / 30 days
Exit multiple EV / EBITDA 5.0x
Dividend policy Payout from Yr4 30% of NPAT, cash-buffered

Table 13.1 — Key assumptions register.

13.2 Projected income statement (P&L)

ZAR million Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Revenue 95 185 310 488 720 933 1,150
Cost of goods sold (61) (118) (193) (299) (431) (552) (672)
Gross profit 34 68 117 189 289 381 478
Operating expenses (23) (44) (72) (111) (159) (204) (248)
EBITDA 11 24 45 78 130 177 230
Depreciation (13) (14) (19) (20) (27) (29) (33)
EBIT (2) 11 26 58 102 149 197
Net interest (11) (11) (16) (14) (18) (12) (7)
Profit before tax (12) (0) 10 43 85 136 190
Taxation -0 -0 -0 (11) (23) (37) (51)
Net profit after tax (12) (0) 10 32 62 99 139

Table 13.2 — Projected income statement (base case). Year 1–2
reflect commissioning losses; the business turns profitable in Year
3.

Figure 13.1
Figure 13.1 — EBITDA and net profit after tax.
Figure 13.2
Figure 13.2 — Year-5 profit bridge from revenue to NPAT.

13.3 Projected balance sheet

ZAR million Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Net property, plant & equipment 152 144 180 174 219 218 219
Receivables 9 18 30 47 69 89 110
Inventory 5 9 15 23 33 42 52
Cash & equivalents 12 6 6 6 7 42 71
Total assets 178 177 230 250 328 391 452
Payables 5 10 16 25 35 45 55
Revolving credit facility 0 10 8 15 0 0 0
Term debt 93 77 117 88 108 63 17
Share capital 80 80 90 122 184 284 381
Retained earnings (12) (12) (2) 30 92 191 288
Total equity & liabilities 178 177 230 250 328 391 452
Balance check 0.0 0.0 (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)

Table 13.3 — Projected balance sheet. The balance check ties to
zero in every year, confirming model integrity.

Figure 13.3
Figure 13.3 — Asset-base composition over time.

13.4 Projected cash-flow statement

ZAR million Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Operating cash flow (8) 5 17 36 67 108 151
Investing cash flow (165) (6) (54) (15) (72) (28) (35)
Financing cash flow 185 (6) 37 (21) 5 (46) (87)
Net cash flow 12 (6) 0 0 1 34 30
Closing cash 12 6 6 6 7 42 71
(memo) Dividends paid -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 (42)
(memo) RCF drawn (year-end) 0 10 8 15 0 0 0

Table 13.4 — Projected cash-flow statement. A R30m revolving
credit facility supports the working-capital trough during ramp, keeping
closing cash above the R6m minimum in every year.

Figure 13.4
Figure 13.4 — Cash-flow summary and closing cash position.

13.5 Ratio analysis

The ratio suite below tracks profitability, leverage, liquidity and
coverage — the metrics lenders and investors scrutinise most closely.
Leverage declines steadily as term debt amortises and retained earnings
build; coverage strengthens as EBITDA scales.

Ratio Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Gross margin (%) 35.8 36.5 37.6 38.7 40.1 40.9 41.6
EBITDA margin (%) 12.0 13.0 14.5 16.0 18.0 19.0 20.0
Net margin (%) (12.8) (0.1) 3.2 6.6 8.6 10.6 12.0
Return on equity (%) (15.1) (0.2) 11.1 26.3 33.5 35.0 36.4
Return on assets (%) (6.8) (0.1) 4.3 12.9 18.8 25.4 30.6
Gearing (debt/[debt+eq]) (%) 53.5 52.0 57.9 45.6 37.0 18.1 4.2
Net debt / EBITDA (x) 7.1 3.4 2.6 1.2 0.8 0.1 (0.2)
Interest cover (x) (0.1) 1.0 1.6 4.0 5.8 11.9 27.4
Current ratio (x) 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.9 2.3
DSCR (x) 0.25 0.39 0.79 0.84 1.41 1.59 2.34

Table 13.5 — Ratio analysis (base case). DSCR is below 1.0x
during the ramp and grace period, strengthening to comfortable cover
from Year 5.

Figure 13.5
Figure 13.5 — Gearing trajectory, interest cover and liquidity.
Figure 13.6
Figure 13.6 — Profitability and return ratios.

13.6 Debt service cover (DSCR) schedule

DSCR is the ratio of cash available for debt service (CFADS) to
scheduled debt service. The senior facility carries a Year-1 principal
grace period to accommodate commissioning, so early-year cover is driven
primarily by interest. Cover is below the conventional 1.3x covenant
during the ramp; management proposes a funded Debt Service Reserve
Account (DSRA) and the R30m revolving facility to bridge this period,
with cover rising decisively above 1.3x from Year 5.

ZAR million Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
CFADS 3 10 24 36 64 93 124
Debt service 11 26 31 43 45 58 53
DSCR (x) 0.25 0.39 0.79 0.84 1.41 1.59 2.34

Table 13.6 — DSCR schedule. Sub-1.0x ramp-period cover is a
deliberate, financed feature of the structure, not an unfunded
gap.

Figure 13.7
Figure 13.7 — DSCR schedule against 1.0x floor and 1.3x covenant reference lines.

13.7 Term-debt amortisation

Term debt is structured in three tranches: Tranche A (R92.5m) drawn
at Phase-1 close with a Year-1 grace period; Tranche B (R55m) drawn in
Year 3 to fund Phase-2 expansion; and Tranche C (R50m) drawn in Year 5
for Phase-3. The schedule below shows opening balance, drawdowns,
interest, principal repayment and closing balance.

ZAR million Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Opening balance 93 93 132 117 138 108 63
Drawdowns 93 0 55 0 50 0 0
Interest 11 11 16 14 18 12 7
Principal repaid -0 (15) (15) (29) (29) (46) (46)
Closing balance 93 77 117 88 108 63 17

Table 13.7 — Term-debt amortisation across three
tranches.

Figure 13.8
Figure 13.8 — Term debt outstanding and annual debt service.

13.8 Working-capital build

Working capital is modelled on 35-day receivables, 28-day inventory
and 30-day payables. The net working-capital requirement grows with
revenue; the year-on-year change is a use of cash that the revolving
facility is sized to absorb during peak-build years.

ZAR million Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Receivables 9 18 30 47 69 89 110
Inventory 5 9 15 23 33 42 52
Payables (5) (10) (16) (25) (35) (45) (55)
Net working capital 9 17 29 45 67 86 107
Change in NWC 9 8 12 16 22 20 20

Table 13.8 — Working-capital build. Increases in NWC are a use of
operating cash.

13.9 Break-even analysis

On a Year-5 cost basis, with a contribution margin of 40.1% and fixed
costs of R204m, the business breaks even at approximately R509m of
revenue, equivalent to roughly 176,760 head processed. Modelled Year-5
revenue is well above this threshold, providing a comfortable margin of
safety.

Figure 13.9
Figure 13.9 — Break-even analysis (Year-5 cost basis).

13.10 Sensitivity analysis

The tornado below isolates the impact on Year-7 EBITDA of a ±10%
movement in each key driver, holding others constant. Selling price
(realisation) is by far the most influential variable, followed by
throughput volume — confirming that revenue-side assumptions, not cost
lines, dominate the risk profile.

Figure 13.10
Figure 13.10 — Sensitivity of Year-7 EBITDA to ±10% movements in key drivers.

13.11 Scenario analysis

Three integrated scenarios stress the model end to end. The downside
applies an import-parity maize squeeze (higher feed cost, softer
realisation); the upside reflects stronger export-premium capture. The
project remains NPV-positive and returns ~19.8% even in the downside
case.

Scenario Rev Yr7 EBITDA Yr7 Margin Yr7 Proj. IRR
Downside (import-parity maize squeeze) 931 127 13.6% 19.8%
Base case 1,150 230 20.0% 35.5%
Upside (export premium capture) 1,317 305 23.2% 43.7%

Table 13.9 — Scenario analysis (ZAR million; base case
highlighted).

Figure 13.11
Figure 13.11 — Project IRR and NPV by scenario; shaded band shows the 18–26% feasibility reference range.

13.12 Monthly Year-1 cash flow

Because Year 1 is the commissioning and ramp period, a monthly
cash-flow view is provided to demonstrate that the funding structure —
equity, senior debt drawdown, grant and the revolving facility — keeps
the business cash-positive throughout the build, with the trough
occurring mid-year as capital deployment peaks ahead of the revenue
ramp.

Month Revenue Op. cash Capex Funding Cash bal.
M1 0.0 (1.9) (29.7) 92.5 60.9
M2 0.0 (1.9) (26.4) 46.3 78.9
M3 1.9 (1.2) (23.1) 0.0 54.6
M4 3.8 (0.5) (19.8) 46.3 80.5
M5 5.7 0.2 (16.5) 0.0 64.2
M6 7.6 0.8 (13.2) 0.0 51.8
M7 9.5 1.5 (9.9) 0.0 43.4
M8 11.4 2.2 (8.3) 0.0 37.4
M9 12.4 2.5 (6.6) 0.0 33.3
M10 13.3 2.9 (5.0) 0.0 31.2
M11 14.3 3.2 (3.3) 0.0 31.1
M12 15.2 3.6 (3.3) 0.0 31.4

Table 13.10 — Indicative monthly Year-1 cash flow (ZAR million).
Funding inflows and phased capex keep the cash balance positive through
the commissioning trough.

13.13 Two-way sensitivity — price × volume

The single-variable tornado is complemented by the two-way grid
below, which shows base-case project IRR across simultaneous movements
in realised price and throughput volume (operating cost held at base).
It demonstrates that the investment remains attractive across a wide
combination of revenue-side outcomes; IRR stays above 30% even with both
price and volume down 10%.

IRR (%) Price 90% Price 95% Price 100% Price 105% Price 110%
Vol 90% 30.1% 31.4% 32.8% 34.0% 35.2%
Vol 95% 31.4% 32.8% 34.2% 35.4% 36.7%
Vol 100% 32.8% 34.2% 35.5% 36.8% 38.0%
Vol 105% 34.0% 35.4% 36.8% 38.1% 39.3%
Vol 110% 35.2% 36.7% 38.0% 39.4% 40.6%

Table 13.11 — Base-case project IRR (%) across price and volume
multipliers; centre cell is the base case (35.5%). Operating cost held
at base; the combined cost-and-price downside is captured separately in
scenario analysis.

13.14 Lender covenant & KPI dashboard

The dashboard below summarises the covenant-relevant metrics a senior
lender would monitor, together with indicative covenant thresholds and
the year from which each is met. The structure is deliberately
conservative: covenants are calibrated to bind only once the business
has passed its commissioning ramp, with the revolving facility and
proposed Debt Service Reserve Account bridging the interim.

Metric Indicative covenant Worst (ramp) Met from
DSCR ≥ 1.30x 0.25x Year 5
Net debt / EBITDA ≤ 3.0x 7.1x Year 4
Gearing (D/[D+E]) ≤ 60% 57.9% Year 1
Interest cover ≥ 2.0x 1.0x Year 3
Current ratio ≥ 1.0x 1.1x Year 1
Minimum cash ≥ R6m R6.0m All years

Table 13.12 — Covenant and KPI dashboard. Ramp-period DSCR below
the threshold is a financed, disclosed feature; lenders would size a
DSRA and structure step-in covenants accordingly.

Structuring recommendation

Senior facility: Year-1 principal grace; cash-sweep above the
minimum-cash and DSRA thresholds from Year 4. Fund a Debt Service Reserve Account (one to two periods’ debt
service) at financial close to cover the ramp-period DSCR shortfall. Covenants tested from Year 3, with equity-cure rights, to align
lender protection with the realistic ramp profile.

Confidential — this business plan is provided to prospective investors and lenders for evaluation purposes only and may not be reproduced or distributed without the written consent of KarooPrime Capretto (Pty) Ltd.