Levubu Root Business Plan — Sensitivity and Scenario Analysis

What moves FY2031 EBITDA: yield, fresh price, seed cost and rotation length, with downside and upside scenarios.

Sensitivity and Scenario Analysis

Jump to section

On this page

24.1 Single-variable sensitivities
24.2 Yield and price together
24.3 Scenarios

24.1 Single-variable sensitivities

Variable	FY2031 EBITDA	Change	MOIC	Peak facility
Fresh price -10%	19.29	(6.06)	1.60x	36.08
Fresh price +10%	31.40	6.06	3.30x	15.68
Yield -10%	14.84	(10.50)	0.95x	36.08
Yield +10%	35.84	10.50	3.89x	9.94
Seed price -20%	21.23	(4.11)	1.88x	33.37
Seed price +20%	29.46	4.11	3.03x	18.96
Field cost +10%	22.47	(2.87)	2.00x	35.44
Field cost -10%	28.21	2.87	2.90x	16.96
Disease loss 15%	17.35	(7.99)	1.38x	36.08
Disease loss 5%	28.77	3.42	3.05x	14.08
Interest +300bp	25.34	0.00	2.38x	29.22
Base case	25.34	—	2.45x	26.11

Table 59. Single-variable sensitivities, R million unless stated. Each variable is moved in isolation with all others held at base.

The ranking is the point. Yield dominates, at R10.5m for a ten per cent move, followed by disease loss at R8.0m and fresh price at R6.1m. Field cost, the variable management controls most directly, is the least consequential at R2.9m. An interest rate rise of 300 basis points has no EBITDA effect at all; it flows entirely to profit after tax.

There is a strategic conclusion in that ranking. Management attention and capital should be allocated to tonnes, not to cost control. A ten per cent improvement in yield is worth three and a half times a ten per cent reduction in field cost, and cutting field cost is one of the more reliable ways to reduce yield.

24.2 Yield and price together

Figure 30. FY2031 EBITDA across combined movements in yield and fresh price.

The grid shows the two variables moving together, which is how they behave in practice: a regional yield failure typically coincides with a firmer price, and a bumper local crop with a softer one. The diagonal from bottom-left to top-right is therefore less likely than the grid implies, and the realistic outcome space is the anti-diagonal, which is materially narrower than the full range.

24.3 Scenarios

Figure 31. EBITDA path under each of the four scenarios.

Scenario	Definition
Base	The plan as presented in Sections 19 to 23.
Downside	Fresh and seed prices 6% below plan, yield 6% below plan, disease loss at 12% to 14% rather than 12% falling to 8%, field cost 4% above plan, seed price 8% below plan, and interest rates 100 basis points higher. A plausible bad run, not a catastrophe.
Stress	Prices 15% below plan, yield 15% below plan, disease loss at 18% to 20%, field cost 10% above plan, seed price 20% below plan, and interest rates 300 basis points higher. A severe but not impossible combination.
Upside	Prices, yield and disease control all better than plan, with the seed market clearing at a premium.

Table 60. Scenario definitions. Each scenario moves several variables together rather than one at a time.

FY2031 outcome	Stress	Downside	Base	Upside
Revenue (R million)	47.23	67.55	83.70	103.10
EBITDA (R million)	(11.44)	9.11	25.34	43.63
EBITDA margin	-24%	13%	30%	42%
Profit after tax (R million)	(27.41)	(0.54)	18.28	30.49
Net debt (R million)	106.77	37.94	(10.27)	(55.25)
DSCR	-0.95x	0.85x	3.89x	7.27x
Peak seasonal facility (R million)	71.39	36.90	26.11	0.00
Facility limit (R million)	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00
Enterprise value, DCF (R million)	(103.97)	(23.39)	38.30	103.93
Investor MOIC at base exit multiple	-2.86x	0.17x	2.45x	4.87x

Table 61. Scenario outcomes at FY2031. Negative MOIC values indicate that equity value is fully eroded.

In the stress case the business does not survive. EBITDA never turns positive, the facility requirement of R71.4m exceeds the R40.0m limit from FY2030, and the company runs out of cash rather than out of equity. Recovery in that case is to the infrastructure and the leases, not to the enterprise.

Previous section23. Investment Case and Valuation

Next section25. Key Performance Indicators and Management Dashboard