Marula Majesty Business Plan — Financial Plan & Projections

This section presents the full financial plan: the funding structure, key assumptions, the three primary statements (income statement, balance sheet and cash flow), the working-capital and debt analysis, and the valuation and returns. Consistent with the methodology stated at the front of this document, sponsor revenue and EBITDA are preserved exactly, and everything below EBITDA is re-derived independently. The balance sheet ties to zero in every year.

14.1 Funding structure — sources & uses

Marula Majesty seeks R65 million, structured to balance risk between equity, senior debt and concessional capital, supported by a revolving facility for seasonal working capital.

Sources	R m	Uses	R m
Ordinary equity	40.0	Land & orchards	18.0
Senior term debt	20.0	Processing facility	20.0
Grant / concessional	5.0	Oil extraction plant	8.0
		Cosmetics manufacturing	6.0
		Working capital	8.0
		Marketing & export dev.	5.0
Total sources	65.0	Total uses	65.0

The senior term facility of R20.0 million is priced at 12.50% (prime plus 2.0%), amortising over 8 years with a 12-month capital grace period. A revolving working-capital facility of up to R30 million (priced at 13.0%) funds the seasonal fruit purchase and receivables build.

14.2 Key assumptions

Assumption	Basis	Value
Revenue	Sponsor targets (preserved)	R22m → R205m
EBITDA	Sponsor targets (preserved)	R4.8m → R73m
Gross margin	Mix-weighted, rising with branded share	45.0% → 55.0%
Corporate tax	SA statutory	27%
Assessed-loss cap	Post-2022 SA rule	80% of taxable income
Prime rate	SARB, July 2026	10.5%
Term debt rate	Prime + 2.0%	12.5%
Revolver rate	Prime + 2.5%	13.0%
Receivables	% of revenue	15%
Inventory	% of revenue (seasonal)	18%
Payables	% of revenue	10%
WACC (valuation)	Blended equity & debt	16.5%
Exit multiple	EV / EBITDA	7.0×

NoteHow to read these projections

The revenue and EBITDA lines are the sponsor’s commercial case. The value of this plan lies in what sits beneath them: an internally consistent, fully-financed set of statements that a lender or investor can stress-test. Where our re-derivation is more conservative than the sponsor’s illustration, we have kept the conservative figure.

14.2b Capital phasing & first-year ramp

Capital is deployed in phases rather than all at once, which shapes both the depreciation profile and the funding drawdown. Land and initial facility works come first, followed by plant installation and, from Year 2, the cosmetics line and expansion capex funded from operating cash flow.

Figure 10b. *Capital expenditure phasing over the build-out.*

Revenue itself ramps within Year 1, building from a modest first quarter as the sourcing network and first production come online toward a stronger fourth quarter, an intra-year pattern that reinforces the working-capital analysis that follows.

Figure 10c. *Year-1 quarterly revenue ramp.*

14.3 Projected income statement

R millions	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5
Revenue	22.0	42.0	78.0	132.0	205.0
Cost of sales	(12.1)	(21.6)	(37.8)	(61.4)	(92.3)
Gross profit	9.9	20.4	40.2	70.6	112.8
Operating expenses	(5.1)	(9.4)	(16.2)	(27.6)	(39.8)
EBITDA	4.8	11.0	24.0	43.0	73.0
Depreciation	(2.2)	(3.0)	(3.5)	(5.2)	(6.2)
Amortisation	(1.0)	(1.0)	(1.0)	(1.0)	(1.0)
EBIT	1.6	7.0	19.4	36.8	65.8
Term interest	(2.5)	(2.5)	(2.1)	(1.8)	(1.4)
Revolver interest	(0.0)	(0.3)	(0.8)	(0.7)	(0.2)
Profit before tax	(0.9)	4.3	16.5	34.3	64.2
Taxation	(0.0)	(0.9)	(4.5)	(9.3)	(17.3)
Net profit / (loss)	(0.9)	3.4	12.1	25.0	46.9

Figure 11. *Year-5 profit bridge from revenue to net profit.*

Key findingYear 1 is a small loss, not a profit — and that is normal

On a fully-loaded basis, Year 1 produces a net loss of R0.9m against the sponsor’s illustrative R2.5m profit, driven by full depreciation on the newly commissioned asset base and a full year of financing cost during ramp-up. This is entirely typical of a greenfield project in its first operating year and is comfortably absorbed; the business is solidly profitable from Year 2 and re-derived net profit reaches R46.9m by Year 5.

Figure 12. *Net profit: sponsor illustrative vs independently re-derived.*

14.4 Projected balance sheet

R millions	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5
Cash & equivalents	11.2	3.0	3.0	3.0	27.0
Trade receivables	3.3	6.3	11.7	19.8	30.8
Inventory	4.0	7.6	14.0	23.8	36.9
Fixed assets (net)	43.8	52.9	59.3	64.1	65.9
Intangibles (net)	4.0	3.0	2.0	1.0	0.0
Total assets	66.3	72.7	90.0	111.6	160.5
Trade payables	2.2	4.2	7.8	13.2	20.5
Term debt	20.0	17.1	14.3	11.4	8.6
Revolver drawn	0.0	3.9	8.4	2.5	0.0
Equity & grant	45.0	45.0	45.0	45.0	45.0
Retained earnings	(0.9)	2.5	14.5	39.6	86.4
Total equity & liab.	66.3	72.7	90.0	111.6	160.5

Figure 13. *Total assets composition over the plan.*

StrengthThe balance sheet ties to zero every year

Assets equal equity plus liabilities in each of the five years to within rounding, verified by an automated check in the underlying model. This internal consistency is the hallmark of a bankable financial plan and allows lenders to rely on the statements as an integrated whole rather than three disconnected schedules.

14.5 Projected cash flow

R millions	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5
Net profit / (loss)	(0.9)	3.4	12.1	25.0	46.9
Add: D&A	3.2	4.0	4.5	6.2	7.2
Less: Δ working capital	(5.1)	(4.6)	(8.3)	(12.4)	(16.8)
Operating cash flow	(2.8)	2.7	8.3	18.8	37.3
Investing (capex)	0.0	(12.0)	(10.0)	(10.0)	(8.0)
Financing (debt & revolver)	0.0	1.0	1.7	(8.8)	(5.3)
Net cash flow	(2.8)	(8.2)	0.0	0.0	24.0
Opening cash	14.0	11.2	3.0	3.0	3.0
Closing cash	11.2	3.0	3.0	3.0	27.0

14.6 Working capital & liquidity

Because marula fruits in a single January–March window, the Company must purchase and process a full year’s raw material in one season, while export receivables extend the cash-conversion cycle. Net working capital therefore rises steeply, from R5.1 in Year 1 to R47.1 by Year 5, consuming cash faster than early operations generate it.

Figure 15. *Working-capital build (receivables, inventory, payables).*

Analyst flagWithout a revolving facility, the plan runs out of cash in Years 2–3

Funded only by the R8 million initial working-capital allocation, the model shows cash turning negative, reaching roughly (5.4) million by Year 3, before operating cash flow catches up. This is a genuine structural gap, not a rounding artefact, and it is the single most important financing point in the plan.

The gap is resolved structurally by a committed revolving working-capital facility of up to R30 million, drawn seasonally to fund fruit purchases and repaid as receivables convert. Peak drawing is modest, approximately R8.4 million in Year 3, comfortably within the facility limit, and the revolver is fully repaid by Year 5. The chart below shows the pre-revolver gap (red), the revolver draw (bars) and the resulting maintained minimum cash balance (teal).

Figure 16. *Liquidity: the working-capital gap bridged by the revolving facility.*

14.7 Debt service & coverage

Figure 17. *Senior debt amortisation and interest.*

The senior facility amortises after a 12-month grace period, with interest declining as the balance reduces. Debt-service coverage is healthy from the outset, a DSCR of 1.9× in Year 1, comfortably above a 1.0× floor and rising rapidly thereafter as EBITDA scales.

Figure 18. *Debt-service coverage ratio by year.*

NoteThe constraint is liquidity, not solvency

It is worth distinguishing the two. Debt-service coverage is strong throughout, so the business can comfortably service its term debt. The financing risk is seasonal liquidity, the timing mismatch between paying for fruit and collecting from customers, which the revolving facility, not additional term debt, is designed to solve.

14.8 Returns & valuation

On the re-derived cash flows, discounted at a 16.5% weighted average cost of capital with a 7.0× EV/EBITDA exit at the end of Year 5, the enterprise generates a net present value of approximately R187 million, a project (unlevered) IRR of about 52%, and a levered equity IRR of roughly 65%.

R187m

Enterprise NPV @ 16.5%

52%

Project IRR

65%

Equity IRR

R511m

Exit EV (7.0×)

Figure 19. *Enterprise valuation bridge.*

Figure 20. *Return on equity and invested capital.*

Key findingReturns are strong — but materially dependent on the terminal value

The five-year NPV and IRRs are attractive, yet a large share of enterprise value sits in the Year-5 terminal value, which depends on the 7.0× exit multiple and on the business achieving its scaled EBITDA. Investors should treat the exit assumption as a key sensitivity (see the tornado below) and note that the operating free cash flows alone, before terminal value, are consumed by growth and working capital during the forecast, so returns are realised on exit or through the post-Year-5 cash harvest, not from interim distributions.

14.9 Scenario & sensitivity analysis

The plan’s outcomes were stress-tested under a downside case (revenue 20% below plan and EBITDA margin 3 percentage points lower) and an upside case (revenue 15% above plan and margin 2 points higher).

Figure 21. *Net profit under downside, base and upside scenarios.*

Net profit (R m)	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5
Downside	(2.4)	1.0	7.6	16.4	32.6
Base	(0.9)	3.4	12.1	25.0	46.9
Upside	0.2	5.0	16.0	32.0	58.3

Figure 22. *NPV sensitivity to key value drivers.*

NoteEven the downside remains viable

In the downside case the business still reaches profitability, later and at lower levels, and continues to service its debt. Revenue and EBITDA margin are, unsurprisingly, the dominant value drivers, followed by the exit multiple. Fruit cost, while operationally important, has a comparatively contained effect on NPV.

14.10 Financial ratios & covenant headroom

The plan maintains comfortable headroom against the covenants a lender would typically impose. Leverage falls rapidly as EBITDA scales and term debt amortises, interest cover expands, and the current ratio strengthens once the working-capital cycle matures.

Ratio	Y1	Y2	Y3	Y4	Y5
Net debt / EBITDA	~2.9×	~1.7×	~0.9×	~0.4×	(0.4×)
EBITDA / interest	1.9×	4.0×	8.2×	17.2×	46×
DSCR	1.9×	1.8×	3.4×	6.3×	12.5×
Gross margin	45.0%	48.5%	51.5%	53.5%	55.0%
Net margin	(4.1%)	8.1%	15.5%	19.0%	22.9%

StrengthCovenant headroom widens over time

Leverage below 3× at the outset falls to net cash by Year 5, and interest cover moves from a still-comfortable 1.9× to well into double digits. A lender can set conventional covenants, for example net debt/EBITDA below 3.5× and DSCR above 1.2×, with confidence that the plan clears them throughout, with the seasonal liquidity swing managed inside the revolver rather than against these covenants.

14.11 Exit strategy & investor returns

Equity investors have several credible exit routes at or beyond Year 5: a trade sale to a strategic acquirer in the beauty, ingredients or beverage sectors seeking authentic African botanical assets; a secondary sale to a growth-equity or impact fund; or a recapitalisation once the business is cash-generative and de-risked. At a 7.0× EV/EBITDA exit on Year-5 EBITDA of R73 million, enterprise value approaches R511 million; net of debt and adding accumulated cash, this supports the equity return set out above. The premium natural-ingredients and clean-beauty sectors have historically attracted exit multiples in the mid-to-high single digits and above for integrated, brand-owning assets with genuine ESG credentials, so the 7.0× assumption is reasonable rather than aggressive.