SA Fried Chicken Co. Business Plan — Scenario & Sensitivity Analysis

The base case is one point in a distribution. The downside and upside scenarios below bound the range a financier should hold in mind, and the sensitivity grid isolates the two variables that matter most.

Scenario analysis

The downside applies a 15% revenue haircut and margin compression (slower ramp, higher input cost); the upside applies a 10% revenue uplift and modest margin expansion (faster recall, better mix). Both are plausible; neither is extreme.

Figure 24. *Revenue and EBITDA under base, downside and upside scenarios.*

FY2030 outcome	Downside	Base	Upside
Revenue (R’m)	391	460	506
EBITDA (R’m)	41.9	65.4	84.6
EBITDA margin %	10.7%	14.2%	16.7%

Two-way sensitivity — AUV × food cost

Mature EBITDA margin is most sensitive to average unit volume (the ramp and the strength of the brand) and to food cost (poultry). The grid below shows mature EBITDA margin across a realistic range of both.

Figure 25. *Mature EBITDA-margin sensitivity to unit volume and food cost.*

NoteThe margin is robust to volume but thin to food cost

The sensitivity grid shows the model tolerates a volume miss reasonably well — the operating leverage cuts both ways but is not cliff-edged — while a sustained rise in food cost of even 1–2 points of revenue meaningfully compresses margin. This asymmetry reinforces the earlier conclusion: procurement discipline protects more value than aggressive expansion does.