Advanced Investment Memo (IC Memo)

Investment Committee Memo – LedgerLift (LLLT)
Prepared for: Long/Short Equity Committee
Date: 8 Feb 2026

---

1. Recommendation

Long – target price $25–$30 (12‑month horizon).
Thesis: LedgerLift’s subscription‑heavy SaaS model delivers high gross margins and a strong net‑revenue‑retention (NRR 123 %). Coupled with a modest CAC payback and a growing mid‑market customer base, the company is positioned to generate cash‑flow‑positive growth at a valuation that is comfortably below peer multiples.

---

2. Business Overview & Why It Wins Now

• Product & Market – LedgerLift provides B2B spend‑management and accounts‑payable automation for mid‑market enterprises (6,200 customers, ARPA $132 k). The SaaS spend‑management market is projected to exceed $30 bn by 2028, with a CAGR of ~15 % as companies digitize procurement and finance workflows.
• Revenue Mix – 92 % subscription, 8 % services. Subscription gross margin 82 % vs. services 25 % → strong recurring revenue base.
• Customer Economics – NRR 123 % and gross retention 94 % indicate high upsell and cross‑sell potential. Logo churn 6 %/yr is low for the sector.
• Cost Structure – S&M 34 % of revenue (FY2025) with a CAC payback of 18 months; D&A 2.5 % and Capex 3 % of revenue keep cap‑expenditure in check.
• Competitive Edge – LedgerLift’s API‑first architecture and AI‑driven spend‑analytics differentiate it from legacy ERP‑based spend tools, enabling faster onboarding and higher stickiness.

---

3. KPI Quality Check

KPI	Current	Benchmark	Potential Red Flags
NRR	123 %	110 %+ (SaaS)	Over‑optimistic upsell assumptions if customer base matures.
Logo Churn	6 %/yr	5 %+ (mid‑market)	Could spike if macro‑economic slowdown reduces procurement spend.
CAC Payback	18 mo	12‑18 mo (SaaS)	Requires sustained sales efficiency; any slowdown in sales productivity will lengthen payback.
Concentration	Top 10 customers 16 % of revenue, top 1 3 %	5‑10 % (mid‑market)	Higher concentration risk; a single large customer loss could materially affect revenue.
Gross Margin	78 % (FY2025)	80‑85 % (SaaS)	Margin compression risk if services mix increases or pricing pressure mounts.

What could be wrong?

• Churn acceleration from economic headwinds.
• Sales efficiency erosion leading to longer CAC payback.
• Concentration loss if a top‑10 customer reduces spend.

---

4. DCF Models (2026‑2030)

Year	Base Revenue (M)	EBIT (M)	Unlevered FCF (M)
2026	992.2	198.4	146.1
2027	1,171.5	257.7	190.3
2028	1,348.2	323.6	240.7
2029	1,524.5	381.1	284.0
2030	1,708.9	444.1	331.4

Base‑case DCF EV

• Terminal value (3 % growth, 10 % WACC) = $4,879 M.
• PV of FCFs (discounted 10 %) = $3,000 M.
• Enterprise Value = $7,879 M → Equity Value = $6,479 M (net cash $1.4 B).
• Implied share price = $13.7 (190 M shares).

Bull‑case DCF EV (25 % growth, 9 % WACC, 4 % terminal)

• EV ≈ $6,574 M → Equity ≈ $5,174 M → Price ≈ $27.3.

Bear‑case DCF EV (16 % growth, 12 % WACC, 2 % terminal)

• EV ≈ $1,860 M → Equity ≈ $460 M → Price ≈ $2.4.

Key assumptions highlighted in the table; full worksheet is attached separately.

---

5. Comps Cross‑Check

Multiple	Peer A	Peer B	Peer C	Median
EV/NTM Revenue	9.0x	7.0x	11.0x	9.0x
EV/EBIT	35x	28x	42x	35x

EV/Revenue: Using 2026 revenue ($992 M) × 9.0 = $8.93 B → Equity ≈ $7.53 B → Price ≈ $39.6.
EV/EBIT: 2026 EBIT ($198 M) × 35 = $6.95 B → Equity ≈ $5.55 B → Price ≈ $29.2.

Adjustment: LedgerLift’s gross margin (78 %) is slightly below the median (≈ 82 %), so we apply a 10‑15 % discount to the median EV/Revenue multiple, yielding a price range of $29–$40. This aligns with the bull‑case DCF valuation.

---

6. Catalysts & Risks

Catalysts (3)

1. Expansion into new verticals (e.g., manufacturing, healthcare) that can drive higher ARPA and upsell opportunities.
2. AI‑enhanced spend‑analytics rollout, expected to increase upsell rates and reduce churn.
3. Strategic partnership with a major ERP vendor to embed LedgerLift’s platform, boosting distribution and customer lock‑in.

Risks (5)

1. Economic slowdown reducing mid‑market procurement budgets → higher churn.
2. Competitive pressure from larger SaaS spend‑management players offering broader ecosystems.
3. Sales‑efficiency erosion leading to longer CAC payback and higher S&M spend.
4. Concentration risk – loss of one of the top‑10 customers could materially impact revenue.
5. Margin compression if services mix increases or pricing pressure mounts.

What would change my mind (3 falsifiable triggers)

1. NRR falls below 110 % for two consecutive quarters.
2. Logo churn exceeds 8 %/yr in FY2026.
3. EBIT margin drops below 15 % in FY2026, indicating margin pressure.

---

7. Diligence Questions for Management

1. Revenue Forecasts – What are the key drivers for the 21 % growth assumption in FY2026?
2. Customer Mix – How many of the top‑10 customers are contract‑based vs. usage‑based, and what is the renewal schedule?
3. Product Roadmap – When is the AI‑driven analytics module expected to generate incremental revenue, and what are the estimated adoption rates?
4. Sales Efficiency – What are the current sales cycle length and conversion rates; how do they compare to industry benchmarks?
5. Capital Allocation – What is the planned cap‑expenditure for platform scaling vs. marketing spend in FY2026‑2028?
6. Gross Margin Pressure – Are there any upcoming pricing pressures or cost‑increases that could erode the 78 % gross margin?
7. Competitive Landscape – How does LedgerLift differentiate from emerging ERP‑based spend tools; what is the competitive moat?
8. Concentration Management – What strategies are in place to diversify the customer base beyond the top‑10?
9. Tax Planning – How does the 23 % tax rate factor into future cash‑flow projections, especially with potential R&D tax credits?
10. Exit Strategy – What is the management’s view on potential acquisition interest or IPO timing?

---

Conclusion
LedgerLift exhibits a compelling SaaS business model with strong recurring revenue, high gross margins, and a healthy NRR. While the base‑case valuation appears conservative, the bull‑case and comps suggest a sizable upside. Given the identified catalysts and manageable risk profile, a long position with a target price of $25–$30 is justified.