Mainstreet Brick Business Plan — Sensitivity and Scenario Analysis

How the plan responds to cement price, volume, selling price and energy cost moving against it, with downside and upside cases.

Sensitivity and Scenario Analysis

Jump to section
On this page

  • 15.1 Single-variable sensitivity
  • 15.2 Scenarios

15.1 Single-variable sensitivity

Project IRR sensitivity to single-variable movements
Figure 19. Project IRR sensitivity to single-variable movements.

Variable moved

Favourable

Adverse

Swing

Adverse case clears the 16.5% hurdle?

Selling prices ±7.5%

38.5%

-27.3%

65.8 points

No

Sales volume ±15%

31.3%

-1.8%

33.1 points

No

Cement price +15% / −10%

27.0%

-1.8%

28.8 points

No

Operating costs ∓10%

25.8%

9.3%

16.5 points

No

Capital cost ∓15%

21.9%

13.9%

8.0 points

No

  • Price is the existential variable. A 7.5 per cent fall in achieved prices takes the return from 15.5 per cent to minus 27.3 per cent — a swing of nearly 43 points. In a commodity market with a local competitor holding depreciated plant, this is not a tail risk; it is a standard competitive response to a new entrant taking share, and it is the reason Section 3.2 states plainly that a plan assuming it will win on price is a plan to lose money.
  • Cement is the second existential variable, and it is outside management’s control. A 15 per cent cement price increase takes the return to minus 1.8 per cent. Cement is 29 per cent of revenue, bought from a concentrated supplier group, and subject to energy and carbon cost pressures that have historically been passed through faster than masonry producers can recover them.
  • Volume matters, but less than price. A 15 per cent shortfall gives minus 1.8 per cent; a 15 per cent overshoot gives 31.3 per cent. The asymmetry is instructive: because the plant is already close to break-even, losing volume hurts far more than gaining it helps.
  • Cost and capital discipline are secondary but not trivial. A 10 per cent operating cost overrun costs roughly six points of return and a 15 per cent capital overrun roughly two, because operating costs recur while capital does not.
Year 3 EBITDA across utilisation and selling price
Figure 20. Year 3 EBITDA across utilisation and selling price.

The grid shows the interaction. At planned prices the plant needs roughly 82 per cent utilisation to hold Year 3 EBITDA above R4 million; at prices 7.5 per cent below plan it does not reach that figure at any utilisation shown, including 100 per cent. Utilisation buys tolerance on price only up to a point, because price affects every unit sold while volume affects only the marginal ones.

15.2 Scenarios

Project IRR across scenarios, with Year 5 EBITDA
Figure 21. Project IRR across scenarios, with Year 5 EBITDA.

Scenario

Definition

Year 5 EBITDA

Project IRR

Clears the hurdle?

Base

The plan as presented: 96% utilisation by Year 5 at modelled prices and input costs.

R5.32m

15.5%

No

Cement shock

Cement price 15% above plan, passed through from energy and carbon costs.

R3.42m

-1.8%

No

Volume shortfall

Sales volume 15% below plan — a slow ramp or a lost anchor customer.

R3.29m

-1.8%

No

Price war

Achieved selling prices 7.5% below plan — a competitor discounting into a new entrant.

R0.55m

-27.3%

No

Price and cement

Prices 7.5% down and cement 15% up in the same year: the plant does not service its debt.

(R1.33m)

-42.0%

No