In this trading comparable sheet, we have comparables for our case company, which is Red Bull. Red Bull is a private company so it doesn't have a share price. And we have been given some information in a confidential information memorandum about Red Bull including some management forecasts and some historical numbers out of that, we have produced a financial model and we've also been able to pull the historical margins here, the LTM EBITDA margins, which is just the historical year in the case of Red Bull because we don't have quarterly accounts. And then we've also got a calendar year one growth rate of 9.3%. That's revenue growth and we've got CY2 revenue growth as well. So what this allows us to do is try and put Red Bull in the context of its peer groups. Now Red Bull makes energy drinks and the other company in this list, which is a very, very close comparable in terms of its actual product is Monster and Celsius. So the two companies which are probably most comparable to Red Bull is Monster in Row 25 and Celsius in row 33.

However, it's still useful to put it in the broader context of the industry. So that's why we've got some of the other drink brands that make soft drinks. Fever Tree, which is UK brand, National Beverage, which is another US brand. We've also got some beer companies in here. They're probably a lot less comparable. Danone less comparable because it's got Food Suntory, again that's beer less comparable. PepsiCo partly comparable because of the soft drinks, but it's also got a lot of restaurants in. So less comparable Monster, very comparable. A global brand like Red Bull Energy drinks like Red Bull too, Keurig, Dr. Pepper, mostly soft drinks. Coca-Cola mostly soft drinks. So comparable but not as directly comparable as Monster Beverage. So if I was trying to value Red Bull, the two companies I'd probably look at most closely is Celsius and Monster Beverage. But I'd also have some influence about where people like Coca-Cola, Dr. Pepper, Pepsi, National Beverage Fever Tree or Trading. So with that view what we then need to do is look at the fundamentals and the two key fundamental numbers that we've got for Red Bull is the margins. And you can see that the Red Bull margins are 29.7% and the growth rate is 9.3% for calendar year one and 8.9% for calendar year two. So now what we can do is we can put Red Bull in the context of its peer group. What I probably would do if I was an analyst is I I would reduce some of these peer groups so I can just remove some of the items. I'm gonna keep Coca-Cola, keep Dr. Pepper, definitely keep Monster, keep PepsiCo Suntory I would remove Danone, I would remove food, National Beverage, I'll probably keep Fevertree I'm gonna keep Asahi is beer and San Miguel is beer. So I'll remove that and I'm definitely going to keep Celsius. So now we've got a much tighter comps set and the reason we've got those other comps in is just to make the case study a bit more interesting with some other non-US companies. But I'm going to insert a couple of rows here and I'm gonna put a median down here because I want to see whether industry is trading and an average because I want to calculate some of the average stats here. So I'm going to do the median for the margins and I'm going to do the average for the margins as well.

And you can see that actually Red Bull is significantly ahead of both the average margin and the median margin. In fact the two or three companies which have similar margins are Monster and Keurig Dr. Pepper. Now in an ideal world we wouldn't use the margins, we'd use return on capital, but particularly for companies with large amounts of intangible assets like brands, the accounting model is not very good at calculating return on equity and giving a reasonable number because a lot of the asset value is not on the balance sheet in terms of the intangibles. But in this case I'm going to look towards these three companies in terms of margins which broadly reflect things like competitive advantage and brand power more than the other peer group. Now growth rates are at least if not more important than margins. So I'm going to do the same thing for the growth rates. And you can see here that Red Bull from a CY1 basis, this is CY1 revenue growth rate, you can see that it's certainly the top end towards the top end of the median range, slightly below the average. But that average is being pulled up by Celsius there and that's one of the reasons why people often prefer medians rather than averages because averages get distorted by outliers and Celsius is an outlier. You've also gotta put Celsius in the context of its size and if you look at the market capitalization you can see that Celsius, Fevertree, and National Beverage are pretty small companies here actually a lot smaller than most Of these other peer groups and Red Bull as well. So actually these three companies at the bottom which are very, very small are probably less relevant to somebody like Red Bull. I'm going to ignore Celsius partly because of its size and partly because its growth rate is really extraordinarily high and therefore its multiples are can be very, very high as well. And that will kind of distort our analysis. It's not irrelevant to include it because often when you're talking to a client they will expect to see that included. So once we've got looked at the revenue growth rates, the closest to Red Bull in terms of its business model and its growth rate you can see here is Monster Beverage. They're growing at 10% which is actually double Coca-Cola, double Keurig Dr Pepper higher than PepsiCo National Beverage Fever tree drinks and also lower than Celsius. But again, Celsius is quite small and growing very, very fast. So in terms of looking at where I would expect Red Bull to trade, it would be very much in the monster beverage wheelhouse because the growth rates are so similar, maybe a slightly under Monster because its growth rates are less and we are seeing its margins are pretty similar in fact Red Bull have got similar margins but actually greater margin. And Monster margins are important to put in a context of growth because each dollar of Growth Monster beverage get and revenue, it will add 27.70 cents in EBITDA. Whereas Red Bull for each dollar of growth it gets, it will add 29.7% in EBITDA assuming margins stay constant in the new growth, which is not always true but it does is something that the market will look at. So this really helps triangulate where I'm going to place my valuation. Now in this case we are doing, this analysis was done in March and that's partway through 2024. So if I was doing a valuation for Red Bull, what I would do, I would probably focus on the next full projected year, which is 2025. And you can see here that we've got Monster Beverage trading at about 20 times significantly ahead of Keurig Dr Pepper and Coca-Cola below Celsius because Celsius is growing so much faster. Fevertree actually seems really high in comparison to its growth rate. But again, Fevertree is a pretty small company so I would definitely value Red Bull around the Monster Beverage multiple. So the question is, which two companies should I use as my shortlist? So I obviously want to include Monster Beverage because it's got such a good business model match and its margins and growth rates are very, very similar to Red Bull. So this is gonna be a key metric for us. But we do want to have a range. And if we look at the other metrics here, you can can see that Coca-Cola has got similar margins but much lower growth rates. Its growth rates are half Red Bull. The only other company with similar growth rates is Monster Beverage. You can see Monster Beverage have 11% and 10% and there's no other companies which really have anything like the growth rates other than Fevertree and Celsius. And you can see that Fevertree is low growth rates, but they're trend on really high multiples and the same with Celsius. And these are very, very small companies much, much smaller than Red Bull. If you look at the market capitalization to th left here, Celsius actually is probably reasonably large but it's still significantly smaller than Red Bull and I'm worried about including such a enormous range there because the growth rate's so large. So what I'm going to do, because growth is my overrunning factor, I'm gonna take Coca-Cola, it's well-known brand. It's something that certainly will be in the discussion. And I'm gonna include the range of Coca-Cola being at the low end of the range, and Monster being at the he end of the range. But when I would be discussing it in a presentation, I would talk about Red Bull being at the top end of that range. So it's much more likely if we did an IPO of Red Bull that it'll be trading post IPO at a similar multiple, maybe slightly below Red Bull's multiple because in terms of its growth rate it's slightly below monster. So I'd put that range on my summary chart but then explain, I would expect Red Bull to be trading at the top end of that range. The key multiple that we would use for valuation would be the enterprise value to EBITDA multiple.