Highveld Detailing Business Plan — Appendix C: Model Integrity Verification

The checks performed to verify that the financial model ties and behaves as described.

Section 38 of 38

Appendix C: Model Integrity Verification

Jump to section

The financial model underlying this document is a monthly, three-statement integrated model running sixty periods across four scenarios. The verification checks below were performed on every period of every scenario.

Table 72. Integrity checks performed

Check	Result	Method
Balance sheet balances	Pass	Total assets less total equity and liabilities computed in all 60 months of all 4 scenarios; maximum absolute difference is nil
Cash flow reconciles to the balance sheet	Pass	Closing cash from the cash flow statement equals the balance sheet cash balance in every period
Retained earnings roll forward	Pass	Opening retained earnings plus profit after tax equals closing retained earnings in every period
Debt balances roll forward	Pass	Opening balance plus drawings less repayments equals closing balance for each facility separately
Interest reflects debt balances	Pass	Interest expense computed on opening balances at facility rates, with iterative convergence on the revolving facility
Depreciation reflects the asset base	Pass	Computed from the capital expenditure schedule by category and life, from the month following commissioning
Tax is internally consistent	Pass	Assessed losses carried forward with an 80% utilisation cap applied against taxable income
Working capital reflects operating assumptions	Pass	Receivables, inventory, payables and accruals each derived from their respective day assumptions against the relevant revenue or cost driver
Sources equal uses	Pass	Both total R41.5m exactly
Returns reconcile to valuation and ownership	Pass	Equity value at exit equals exit enterprise value less net debt; money multiple equals equity value divided by equity subscribed
Prose figures reconcile to the model	Pass	Every figure quoted in the text of this document is read programmatically from the model output rather than transcribed manually

Known limitations of the model

The model assumes no management mitigating action in the downside and stress cases. Realistic management behaviour would improve both outcomes materially.
Dealer contract terms are assumed rather than negotiated. Actual rate cards, rebate levels, volume commitments and escalation clauses will differ.
Market sizing is constructed from published parc and transaction statistics combined with stated penetration assumptions. It is not derived from primary research.
Exit multiples are assumptions, not market evidence. No comparable transaction data specific to this sector in this market has been used.
The model does not incorporate the impact of a corporate acquisition, a second geographic corridor, or academy revenue, each of which would be upside not reflected in these projections.

End of document.