Attractive in the base and upside; marginal in the downside; a full loss in the stress case. The return is real but earned, and the valuation gap between methods is disclosed, not hidden.

Returns and valuation — base case

Table 33. Two valuation lenses. The gap is real and material.

Valuation cross-checks — market reference points

Two market lenses, applied to Year-5 EBITDA of R41m. The multiples below are illustrative sector reference ranges for IT hardware distribution and value-added resale, a segment that characteristically trades on modest EV/EBITDA multiples because of its thin margins and working-capital intensity, not specific named-company data. They are shown to triangulate the exit assumption, not to replace it.

Table 34. Illustrative market-reference valuation. The 6.5× exit assumption sits inside both reference ranges rather than at their top.

So what? The exit multiple the returns depend on is not aggressive, it sits mid-range against how comparable distribution businesses are valued and below the top of the precedent-transaction range. The return case therefore does not rely on a heroic exit; it relies on delivering the EBITDA the multiple is applied to.

Returns across scenarios

Table 35. Investor returns across the four scenarios. The downside is survivable but marginal; the stress case impairs equity entirely.

Payback and distributions. No interim dividends are assumed: cash is reinvested to fund the working-capital book and to repay the facility. The investor’s return is therefore realised at exit rather than through the hold, which is typical for a growth-stage distribution platform.