Data room · How Bear, Bear+, Base & Stretch are built

Four scenarios. Same model.

The Sophisticated brief shows four return scenarios in the IPO Math calculator. This page shows exactly which levers change to produce each one — starting from the baseline standalone model, applied to Asset Co and Marketing Co cash flow streams. Every scenario is a named lever pull, not a black-box number.

Bearworst-case, honest Bear+bear + AC re-tenants BaseRM 200m IPO Y8 StretchRM 300m IPO Y8

Start here — the reference case

Base is the standalone model + a listing exit.

Every other scenario is a delta on top of Base. Base itself is the standalone financial model at its default slider settings (see the live baseline), with two exit assumptions layered in: Asset Co exits Y5 at the LEAP consolidation, and Marketing Co exits Y8 at the Main Market IPO.

Base

RM 200m IPO Y8

The reference scenario. Standalone model at defaults, 3 centres operational by Y8, LEAP consolidation at Y5, Main Market IPO at Y8. This is the number PlayTown is fundraising against.

Lever recipe from standalone baseline

Same

Centre 1 operating cash flow — all default sliders (OpFee 200→400→700→1000, events start Y2 50%/yr ramp, F&B/retail/gerais as modelled)Source: Financial Model P2A 11-May-2026

Same

Multi-site royalty stream intact — Site 2 Y5, Site 3 Y7, 8% of gross revenue at eachStandalone default assumption preserved

Change

AC exit: Y5 LEAP consolidation buyout RM 6.59m — replaces the standalone's 12-year hold + RM 1m residualNPV of Y6–Y12 AC distributions + terminal at 8% discount × 1.2 fair-value premium

Change

MC exit: Y8 IPO at RM 200m market cap — replaces the standalone's Y12 EBITDA × 10× multiple exitY8 PAT RM 13m × 15× P/E · see IPO Valuation Basis

Change

Dilution stack applied to MC — ESOP 10% × ACE 25% × IPO 30% float = 47.25% retention for original MC investorsStandard growth-company dilution schedule

Asset CoYield

13.4%

1.79× MOIC · Y5 payback

RM 5m equity → Y1–Y5 distributions + RM 6.59m LEAP buyout at Y5.

ExitY5 LEAP consolidation

Marketing CoGrowth

~38%

~14.7× MOIC · Y5 payback

Stake at RM 6.8m post-money → dilution stack → Y8 stake × RM 200m mcap.

ExitY8 Main Market IPO

Upside — if the roll-out compounds

Stretch is Base + faster deployment.

Stretch keeps the entire Base cash flow logic intact, but assumes the multi-site roll-out lands faster: 6–8 operating centres by Y8, producing ~RM 20m PAT instead of RM 13m. At the same 15× multiple, the IPO market cap lands at RM 300m instead of RM 200m.

Stretch

RM 300m IPO Y8

The execution-priced case. Base + faster centre deployment + higher IPO PAT. Not the pitch's default — this is the outcome if things go right, not the outcome we ask investors to underwrite.

Deltas from Base

Same

Centre 1 baseline cash flow unchanged — Rawang runs on the same operating assumptions as BaseNo lever changes to Centre 1

Change

Faster centre roll-out — Sites 4–7 operational by Y8 instead of Y10+ under BaseRequires ACE round (Y4–5) to execute on schedule + deployment velocity holds

Change

Y8 consolidated PAT ≈ RM 20m instead of RM 13m6–8 centres contributing at mature or near-mature run-rate

Change

MC exit: RM 300m Y8 IPO at the same 15× P/E multipleRM 20m PAT × 15× = RM 300m mcap

Same

AC exit unchanged — Y5 LEAP buyout at RM 6.59mAC investors are already off the cap table by Y8 IPO

Asset CoYield

13.4%

1.79× MOIC · Y5 payback

Same as Base — AC exits at LEAP Y5, unaffected by later IPO valuation.

ExitY5 LEAP consolidation

Marketing CoGrowth

~45%

~22× MOIC · Y5 payback

Same dilution stack, exit at RM 300m mcap instead of RM 200m.

ExitY8 Main Market IPO · RM 300m

Downside — the honest Premortem-grade rebuild

Bear removes the growth story — and the listing.

Bear is not a percentage haircut applied to Base. It is a bottom-up recompute of what happens if Centre 1 misses its ramp by 30% permanently, AND — because Centres 2–3 depend on Centre 1 proving out — no multi-site royalty stream ever materialises. The listing doesn't happen. AC and MC both revert to 12-year hold with terminal residuals.

Bear

−30% Centre 1 · no re-tenant · no listing

The floor. Not what we're pitching for — what we're prepared to survive on if execution fails.

Deltas from Base

Change

PT_REV × 0.70 across all Centre 1 revenue streams — Wet, Dry, Indoor, Sports, F&B, sub-lets all haircut 30%Failure mode = family cadence is monthly not weekly · demand shortfall, not operating failure

Same

Costs held CONSTANT — Lowyat rent, AC overhead, depreciation, capex Y5/Y8/Y10 all unchangedFixed costs don't shrink with revenue · this is what makes bear bite

Change

OpFee variable share recomputes — 20% above RM 2,500k threshold on the lower revenue baseAC's variable OpFee shrinks · fixed floor preserved

Remove

Multi-site royalty stream deleted — [0,0,0,0,80,160,320,400,480,480,480,480] RM'000 removed entirelyNo Centres 2–3 built · no royalties to compound · consistent with the sequential-conditionality banner in sophisticated brief

Change

AC exit: 12-year hold + RM 1m residual — no LEAP buyout because no consolidation event happensStandalone model's default exit assumption returns

Change

MC terminal: RM 8m at Y12 — Y12 EBITDA × 6× multiple compression (no growth story, no multi-site premium)Replaces Base RM 25.54m default terminal

Remove

ESOP dilution: none applied — under Bear, option grants aren't valuable for talent recruitment, so no ESOP carve-out happensEquity holders retain 100% of original stake

Asset CoYield

5.2%

1.47× MOIC · Y10 payback

Bear AC stream: [23, 223, 509, 521, 426, 992, 946, 374, 823, 470, 546, 500] RM'000 + RM 1m Y12 residual. Aggregate 72.7% of baseline.

Exit12-year hold · RM 1m residual

Marketing CoGrowth

10.7%

2.52× MOIC · Y10 payback

Bear MC stream: (baseline − multi-site) × 0.55 haircut + RM 8m Y12 terminal.

Exit12-year hold · Y12 EBITDA × 6×

Bear + Asset Co exercises its call option

Bear+ is Bear plus a re-tenant trade-off.

If Centre 1 underperforms as operator-led venue, Asset Co has the option to re-tenant the Sports zone and F&B Food Plaza to specialist operators. The trade-off: AC gains specialist royalty income, MC loses Sports + F&B revenue. This is a partial hedge against operator-side failure, not against demand failure — if families don't come, specialists won't take a dead campus either.

Bear+

Bear + AC re-tenants Sports & F&B

Asymmetric hedge. AC investors prefer Bear+ (+0.23× MOIC). MC investors prefer Bear (+0.38× MOIC on original Bear MC). Combined is a wash. The option exists for AC subscribers who want a hedge against operator underperformance.

Deltas from Bear

Same

PT_REV × 0.70 baseline haircut retained — same demand-side stressBear+ hedges HOW you operate, not whether families come

Same

Multi-site royalty stream still deleted — no Centres 2–3 in either bear scenarioSequential conditionality unchanged

Add

AC gains specialist royalty income from Y6+ — +25% uplift on bottom-up Bear AC streamSports operator + F&B specialist pay AC a royalty share

Remove

MC loses Sports + F&B revenue lines — additional 0.85× haircut on the already-stressed Bear MC cash flowSpecialists take the Sports + F&B slots · MC no longer earns from them

Change

MC terminal: RM 6.8m at Y12 (worse than Bear's RM 8m)MC operates less of the campus · lower Y12 EBITDA base

Asset CoYield

7.2%

1.70× MOIC · Y9 payback

+0.23× MOIC vs Bear · +2.0 pp IRR from specialist royalty stream on top of bottom-up AC bear.

Exit12-year hold + specialist royalties Y6+

Marketing CoGrowth

8.6%

2.14× MOIC · Y11 payback

−0.38× MOIC vs Bear · MC loses Sports + F&B on already-stressed cash flows. RM 6.8m terminal instead of RM 8m.

Exit12-year hold · Y12 EBITDA × 6×

Side-by-side · the full matrix

All four scenarios, one view.

Every lever from every scenario mapped in a single table. This is the transparency the calculator on the Sophisticated Brief runs on.

Attribute	Bear	Bear+	Base	Stretch
Centre 1 revenue	× 0.70	× 0.70	baseline	baseline
Multi-site royalty	removed	removed	intact (Sites 2–3)	intact + faster
Sports + F&B operator	MC operates	specialists	MC operates	MC operates
Number of centres by Y8	1 (Rawang only)	1 (Rawang only)	3	6–8
Y8 PAT (MC)	RM ~1m	RM ~1m	RM 13m	RM 20m
AC exit	12-yr hold + RM 1m	12-yr hold + specialist royalties	Y5 LEAP RM 6.59m	Y5 LEAP RM 6.59m
MC exit	Y12 × 6× compression	Y12 × 6× compression	Y8 IPO RM 200m	Y8 IPO RM 300m
ESOP dilution	none	none	10%	10%
AC IRR / MOIC	5.2%1.47× · Y10	7.2%1.70× · Y9	13.4%1.79× · Y5	13.4%1.79× · Y5
MC IRR / MOIC	10.7%2.52× · Y10	8.6%2.14× · Y11	~38%~14.7× · Y5	~45%~22× · Y5

The reading order of the four scenarios

Bear is the floor — worst-case, honest, bottom-up bear stream derived from the locked P&L, no listing, no multi-site royalties. Investor recovers principal + low-single-digit IRR on AC, mid-single on combined portfolio. This is what we're prepared to survive on.

Bear+ is the operator-failure hedge — asymmetric between AC (better off, +0.23× MOIC) and MC (worse off, −0.38× MOIC). Useful for AC subscribers who want to hedge against operator underperformance. Does not hedge catchment failure.

Base is what we're pitching for — 3 centres by Y8, LEAP at Y5, RM 200m IPO at Y8, comp-median-anchored. This is the number that anchors the fundraise.

Stretch is the upside — 6–8 centres by Y8, RM 300m IPO. Not our commitment, our headroom.

Every scenario above is auditable end-to-end. Take the standalone model, apply the named lever changes, run the year-by-year cash flow, and you land at the IRR/MOIC shown in the IPO Math calculator on the Sophisticated brief. No black-box math.