Sireletso Protective Group Business Plan — Conclusion

The closing case for the R26.56 million transaction and what the plan asks equity investors and debt providers to underwrite.

Conclusion

Jump to section

Sireletso Protective Group proposes a specialist close protection and executive risk services business in Sandton, requiring R26.56 million at financial close as R11.95 million of equity and R14.61 million of senior term debt, with an invoice discounting facility of up to R12.00 million alongside. Revenue grows from R34.08 million to R107.17 million over five years and EBITDA from a R1.40 million loss to a R14.11 million profit at a 13.2 per cent margin.

R17.47m

Working capital absorbed

44%

Of cumulative EBITDA

R64.42m

Break-even including debt service

23.1%

Project IRR over five years

The finding that shapes the whole transaction is that this is a labour and working capital business rather than a capital-intensive one. Trade debtors absorb R17.47 million of cash against R39.88 million of cumulative EBITDA — 44 per cent of everything the business earns at the operating line — and by Year 5 the debtor book is the largest asset on the balance sheet, exceeding the net book value of the entire fleet, armoury and control room combined. Modelled without the invoice discounting facility the Company is cash-negative from Year 1 to the end of the projection while profitable at the EBITDA line from Year 2. The term loan and the facility are a single financing package; approving one without the other funds a business that cannot pay its people.

Three structural features follow. The fixed establishment — a 24-hour control room, a compliance function, an executive team and an accredited academy — is what corporate procurement is buying and what distinguishes the Company from boutique competitors, but it puts the debt-inclusive break-even at R64.42 million of annual revenue and makes a sub-scale version of this plan unviable. Gross margin compresses structurally at roughly 20 basis points a year because sectoral wage determination escalates above contract rates, which makes the escalation clause the most commercially important term in any client agreement. And officer supply, not demand, is the binding constraint on growth, which is why the academy is built from day one rather than deferred.

Two points deserve a funder’s particular attention. The debtor covenant is set at 75 days while the facility is exhausted at 70, so the covenant would be passed in the quarter the business ran out of funding; either the covenant should be tightened to 68 days or the limit raised to R14.00 million. And the coverage covenant measures EBITDA against term debt service alone, excluding a facility that is in economic substance permanent funding — measured against total finance cost the Year 2 ratio falls from 2.14 times to 1.67 times, which is still comfortable but materially narrower than the headline.

The return is real and it sits close to the hurdle. The project earns 23.1 per cent unlevered with a net present value at 22 per cent of R1.44 million; the equity earns 38.5 per cent because term debt at 13.75 per cent is cheaper than the project return and the distribution lock-up compounds the whole return to exit. At four times rather than five those figures become 18.8 and 31.4 per cent, and the combined downside — revenue 15 per cent light, margin 200 basis points lower, overheads 6 per cent higher and collections at 78 days — produces 2.8 per cent. None of those movements is extreme in isolation. An investor is underwriting an exit multiple for a licensed, staffed and contracted platform, and should form that view independently of the trading forecast.

Previous section20. Key Assumptions

Next sectionA. Appendix A: Consolidated Financial Summary