LBO Screening in Practice: Is MILES Car-Sharing a Good Investment?

Variant of What Makes a Good LBO Target? — Real Interview Variant — MILES Mobility (Car-Sharing)

LBO

The prompt

“In a real interview, you're asked: "Would MILES — the German kilometer-based car-sharing service — be a good investment?" Walk me through your assessment, purely qualitatively, without needing any specific financial figures.”

📋 What you're given

In a real interview, you're asked: "Would MILES — the German kilometer-based car-sharing service — be a good investment?" Walk me through your assessment, purely qualitatively, without needing any specific financial figures.

1. Task Overview

Task: apply the LBO screening framework — stable cash flow, low capital intensity, pricing power, and value creation optionality — to MILES car-sharing, and reach a qualitative view on how attractive it looks as a leveraged buyout candidate.

Step 1: Given Data — MILES, Qualitatively

No financial figures are given or needed here — just a qualitative profile of the business to screen against the framework.

AttributeDescription
Business ModelFree-floating, kilometer-based car-sharing (pay per km, day, week, or month), plus a car subscription ("Auto-Abo") product
FootprintA large fleet operating across a dozen-plus German cities and several Belgian cities
Market PositionThe largest free-floating car-sharing provider in Europe
Fleet & CapEx ProfileOwns and operates a large physical vehicle fleet, including a large-scale order of electric vehicles from the Volkswagen Group, requiring continuous fleet renewal and charging infrastructure investment
DistributionAvailable directly via its own app and through partner mobility platforms

Step 2: Screening Criterion 1 — Stable, Predictable Cash Flow

Before applying the framework, it's worth asking how "sticky" MILES's usage revenue really is compared with a contracted B2B revenue base.

Show Cash Flow Predictability Framework

Debt Serviceability requires: Cash Flow Predictability > Cash Flow Growth

Using this lens, assess how predictable MILES's cash flow is likely to be.

Step 3: Screening Criterion 2 — Low Capital Intensity

Unlike a labor-based service business, MILES's entire proposition is built around owning and operating a large, depreciating vehicle fleet.

Show Capital Intensity Framework

Free Cash Flow for Debt Paydown = Operating Cash Flow − Maintenance CapEx − Working Capital Needs

Using this framework, assess MILES's capital intensity.

Step 4: Screening Criterion 3 — Pricing Power and a Defensible Market Position

MILES is the largest player in its category, but car-sharing users can typically compare and switch between apps, or other mobility options, trip by trip.

Show Pricing Power Framework

Pricing Power ≈ Switching Costs + Contractual Lock-in + Fragmented Competition

Using this framework, assess MILES's pricing power and competitive moat.

Step 5: Screening Criterion 4 — Room for Additional Value Creation

Show Value Creation Framework

Value Creation Levers = EBITDA Growth + Multiple Expansion + Deleveraging (+ Buy-and-Build)

Assume:

  • No specific financial figures are available or required — this assessment is qualitative only, as the interview question asked
  • MILES's actual current ownership and financing structure are not part of this assessment
  • The broader car-sharing competitive landscape stays broadly similar to today over the analysis horizon

Using this framework, assess whether MILES has multiple credible levers for value creation.

💡 Model answer

Try answering out loud first — then reveal the model answer and compare.

⚠️ Common mistakes

  • Assuming "market leader" automatically means "good LBO target" — scale and cash flow predictability are different things.
  • Overlooking capital intensity because the company looks asset-light on headcount, when the vehicle fleet itself is the dominant capital cost.
  • Confusing brand recognition and scale with pricing power in a category where users compare apps trip by trip.
  • Trying to force a numeric answer when the question was explicitly asked — and should be answered — qualitatively.
  • Forgetting that "good business" and "good LBO target" are two different questions — a strong, well-run company can still be a poor fit for a highly levered capital structure.

🔁 Follow-up questions

➡️ Related cases

⭐ Rate this case

0 ratings

💬 Comments (0)

No comments yet — be the first to ask a question.

Create free account