Aug
05

Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) M&A Transaction Drivers

Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) M&A Transaction Drivers

Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) transactions within the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) carry specific requirements that sellers, buyers, and advisors must carefully consider when going through the M&A process. This report identifies four key valuation and transaction success drivers in IIoT M&A transactions as tangible or intangible assets. 
Tangible drivers include income statement and balance sheet adjustments as well as working capital calculations. Intangible drivers include supply chain risks and customer contracts, such as pricing models, contract durations, average order quantities, and other contractual arrangements with the IIoT companies’ end customers. Correctly identifying and measuring these factors materially impacts valuation and the likelihood of closing a transaction.

Defining the Scope of IIoT Businesses

Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) companies use physical devices, connect them to the internet, and then provide some enhanced functionality to a customer. This functionality includes but is not limited to automation, remote monitoring, and predictive maintenance. IIoT devices include equipment, machines, sensors, monitors, and devices to collect, analyze, and share data in industrial settings. These devices can be used in logistics, manufacturing, healthcare, oil and gas, and transportation industries. 

IIoT businesses operate under diverse business models. Some IIoT firms sell a comprehensive solution, referred to as Platform as a Service (PaaS). PaaS providers offer infrastructure and tools for device connectivity, data storage, real-time analytics, and integration with other enterprise systems. They allow businesses to create custom IIoT applications tailored to their specific industrial needs without having to build and manage the underlying infrastructure. In return, customers pay based on usage or the number of devices connected to the platform.

Other IIoT firms engage in hardware sales with software and service contracts included in the pricing to maintain the device. Either the PaaS model or the hardware sales model may monetize the data they collect by selling it to other businesses that benefit from the information. And finally, IIoT firms may operate on a software-only model, where they license their technology directly to other OEMs or customers who own the devices themselves. 

The business models of IIoT firms are diverse, but they all rely on hardware to provide their core value to customers.


Tangible Drivers

Tangible drivers for IIoT transactions impact how firms manage the costs of their devices across the value chain. Most IIoT companies do not manufacture their own devices; instead, they resell them with value-added software and ongoing services. As such, the treatment of each IIoT device—from its purchase by the manufacturer to its sale to the end customer— results in various accounting entries affecting both the income statement and balance sheet. 

Income Statement and Balance Adjustments 

To analyze the impact of account methods on investment transactions, let us consider two options for recording the value of an IIoT device through its lifecycle from OEM acquisition to ultimate sales to the customer. Sometime IIoT firms account for the initial acquisition of an IIoT device from a manufacturer (such as GE or Siemens) as a balance sheet accounting entry. Cash is used to purchase the device, reducing the cash balance on the balance sheet while increasing current assets. Once the device is acquired, software engineers and hardware engineers modify the physical device to enhance its capabilities. This investment of time has associated labor costs and sometimes associated physical product costs. In this example, we will refer to this as Option A. Alternatively, the IIoT firm’s expenditure on enhancing the device may result in these costs being recorded in the income statement as expenses, which we will refer to as Option B. 

If a company elects to record these value-added enhancements on their income statement only, they are simply overreporting expenses on the income statement and underreporting the cost of goods sold (COGS) when the device is ultimately sold to the end customer (Option B). If companies account for value-added enhancements by increasing the value of the inventory on the balance sheet, they must also increase the COGS by the same amount when the device is sold and generates revenue on the income statement (Option A). When the device is sold to the end customer, this COGS is deducted from the product’s revenue, thereby reducing net income, which reduces equity by an equivalent amount through retained earnings on the balance sheet. 

Consider the following: A device is acquired for $100. A firm invests $20 in value-added enhancements.

Option A

If the firm chooses to add all the value-added enhancements to inventory, the additional $20 of expenses is listed as a current asset on the balance sheet. Cash is reduced by $20 and inventory increases by $20. It does not impact the income statement. When the device is later sold, the COGS is $120, not $100. This allows the ultimate expenses to appear on the income statement at the time of the device sale. Assume each device sells for $180.

Therefore, the income statement records revenue of $180, and COGS of $120, so $60 is the gross profit.

Option B

Compare this example to one in which a company did not account for these improvements on the balance sheet. The device is sold for $180; COGS is $100, therefore $80 is available for the gross profit. This does not include the $20 paid for services and materials. That was already recorded previously as an expense in the income statement.

The impact for business owners is two-fold:

  1. Different accounting treatments for COGS have material impacts on cash flow.
  2. The choice of how to account for value-added enhancements may have a material impact on an IIoT firm’s working capital. 

At first glance, this appears to be a mundane accounting example. But a closer look indicates how it can affect an M&A transaction.

Choosing Option B over Option A is more common because it’s simpler and more akin to cash accounting, which is commonly used by small and medium-sized businesses. However, Option B will suppress the cash flow of a business while the device is being modified and improved, which can sometimes take several months. If a firm chooses Option B, it will result in a lower cash flow number, and then make the money back in its reported gross margin when the device is sold to a customer later.

The key element of this analysis is time. In Option B, the firm is showing expenses before the revenue from those expenses appear. And it is showing these expenses in a scale multiplied by the number of devices it sells, which can be in the thousands. At scale, these impacts on the cash flow reporting of the business can become material and directly impact EBITDA, which is the most common metric buyers use to determine valuations for private equity companies. As long as the time to make value added enhancements is longer than one reporting period (usually one month), then this over-reporting of expenses will occur.


In this example ignoring the value-added enhancements allowed the firm to increase its gross margin by 11%, which would seem desirable, but reduced EBITDA by 50%. This in turn reduced the total enterprise value of the company by 50%. This is a highly material change for a firm that is operating identically in both options A and B, but reporting financials differently. Said differently, constantly expensing every single cash item on an income statement will naturally suppress EBITDA, and companies should avoid accounting for expenses that suppress EBITDA when they can. IIoT firms have a unique opportunity to do this. 

Working Capital Calculations 

In many purchase agreements, it’s specified that 30 to 90 days after closing there’s an “adjustment” of working capital. This means either party may transfer funds to the other to compensate for any excess or deficiency in the working capital present in the business on the closing day.

Working capital is calculated by deducting current liabilities from current assets. A working capital mismatch happens when the difference between assets and liabilities is greater than expected. In Option B above, we indicated how underreporting assets can suppress EBITDA and lower the enterprise value of a transaction. If a seller performs the accounting laid out in Option B, there is a risk they would have to return a portion of their cash on close proceeds to the buyer 90 days after close. This can become material based on the structure of the deal. Learn more about transaction structures.

Continuing with our examples above, there are two options. One is where the company undergoes a change of control transaction for $400 and the other is where the company sells for $200. In Option A, the seller increased their current assets while value-added enhancements were being added to the IIoT device. Option B did not account for this increase in assets. So Option A will result in a higher working capital calculation than Option B. 

It’s already indicated in this report that Option B can lead to a 50% reduction in TEV to the seller. In addition, Option B also underreports working capital. If a company sells for $200 and 50% of that TEV is provided in cash at closing, the selling shareholders receive $100. If the seller has inadvertently underreported working capital by $20, the buyer will request that $20 as a “adjustment” 30 to 90 days after closing. This means the seller will be at risk of losing 20% of their cash on close due to inaccurate balance sheet accounting.  

There are unique complexities to balance sheet accounting for IIoT devices. This same level of complexity does not exist in IT services, professional services, e-commerce, and many other business models. This is mostly due to the assembly line-type process where IIoT devices act as manufacturers of intangible assets on top of physical goods. 

In many private companies, especially smaller ones, the working capital figures may not be updated regularly or accurately. This can lead to differences between reported and actual figures, impacting the perceived financial health of the business during acquisition negotiations.

Intangible Drivers

Supply Chain Risks

During an IIoT M&A transaction, changes in ownership or strategic direction can disrupt existing supplier relationships. Onboarding new suppliers could lead to delays in procurement, increased costs, or quality issues. Integrating two companies’ supply chains involves aligning procurement processes, inventory management systems, and logistics networks.

Cybersecurity vulnerabilities are also a threat, as IIoT systems are susceptible to data breaches and ransomware attacks during integration if security measures are not robustly implemented. Buyers seek to understand the volatility in a seller’s supply chain. The more steps a seller can take to reduce its supply chain volatility, the less of a negative impact it will have on an M&A transaction. 

Customer Contract Terms and Relationships

Contractual customer relationships are unique in the IIoT business. The basic IIoT firm and customer transaction involves customers paying for hardware, software, services, and support, resulting in complex dynamics that might include multiple purchases. Due to this intricate relationship, there are clear indicators that highlight which contractual relationships create the most value in an M&A transaction.

IIoT Firm – Revenue Models

The initial transaction between an IIoT firm and its customer is the identification and procurement of the hardware device. Whether this device is manufactured in house by the IIoT firm or sourced from another provider, the baseline of costs between the IIoT firm and the customer is defined in this purchase. IIoT devices are complex, and any standard scope of work typically requires numerous IIoT devices. IIoT firm and customer payment models for the hardware devices fall into one of two categories: the complete sale or acquisition of the IIoT device and the leasing or renting of the device. 

In the complete sale of an IIoT device, the IIoT firm sells the device to its customer at the cost to make or acquire, plus a profit margin. The customer bears the entire cost of the device. This results in firms receiving an immediate return on investment (ROI) upon selling the device, but does not generate recurring revenue. 

In the leasing, renting, or lending device model, the IIoT firm maintains ownership of the device on its balance sheet, and charges the customer regular payments, often with interest or a markup. The greatest challenge for the IIoT firm in this example is the delayed recovery of initial device costs. It often takes years for the IIoT firm to fully recoup the costs of the asset, and even longer to make a profit from leasing, renting, or lending the device. As a result, this creates a much higher financial liability for the IIoT firm in the near term, but better unit economics overall, once it reaches a critical mass of devices generating sufficient recurring revenue to fund its growth. 

Leasing, renting, or lending devices is more valuable than selling them. Multiples on recurring revenue consistently drive greater returns for firms in M&A transactions. However, leasing, renting, or lending the devices alone is insufficient to command greater value. Attention should also be given to the minimum order quantities and contract durations associated with either model. 

Selling devices can still create value. Many firms lack the necessary credit or equity capital needed to lease a significant amount of devices to customers. Selling devices also generate revenue from implementation, maintenance, support, and services. These ancillary services are sometimes included in the leasing price and sometimes sold separately.

Average Order Quantities and Contract Length 

Valuations of recurring revenue are measured over years in IIoT M&A transactions. Therefore, if a contract with a customer is leased and annual, it does not carry a premium compared to selling the device outright. Contracts must exceed one year to carry a premium in valuation. The value of a contract increases significantly from two to 10 years, as indicated in the graph below. IIoT firms benefit from structuring contracts with customers as long as possible but should avoid negotiating terms exceeding 10 years, as they diminish in value compared to two to 10 years.

A second component of the contract value is the minimum order quantities (MOQs) for the devices themselves. As already established, IIoT firms’ revenue models revolve around selling or leasing devices and charging recurring fees. IIoT firms are well served to negotiate high minimums with their customers to increase contractual value. This approach allows IIoT firms to offer improved services, software upgrades, and other benefits when customers commit to higher MOQs.

Combining high MOQs with longer contract commitments creates the greatest customer relationship value for an M&A transaction. 

Additional Material Contractual Terms 

Bundled Contracts

When a company orders a significant number of IIoT devices from a vendor, they pay an initial fee per device and commit to an annual fee per device for several years. In addition to shipping the devices, the vendor provides installation services at an extra cost per device. These bundled contracts consolidate the costs of hardware licenses, software licenses, and essential services into a single agreement.

During the due diligence phase of IIoT M&A transactions, acquiring companies evaluate the existing contracts and commitments of the target companies. Bundled contracts for IIoT devices represent ongoing financial obligations and commitments such as annual fees per device over several years. These commitments can impact the financial projections and cash flow of the acquirer post-acquisition. Bundled contracts often come with specific terms and conditions, including SLAs that guarantee performance metrics such as uptime, response times for support issues, and the reliability of data transmission. These contracts may also include penalties or liabilities in the case of non-performance or breaches. Understanding these contractual obligations helps in assessing the overall financial health and sustainability of the target company’s IIoT investments.

Ownership of Intellectual Property 

In M&A transactions, an IIoT company’s intellectual property (IP) constitutes a substantial portion of a company’s overall value. Buyers’ assessments focus on evaluating the strength, scope, and uniqueness of the IIoT company’s IP portfolio to understand how it contributes to market differentiation, potential revenue generation, competitive advantage within the IIoT sector, and financial stability post-acquisition. 

Buyers look for synergies between their existing IP portfolio and the IIoT company’s portfolio to assess how they would enhance their product offerings and expand their market reach. They analyze the revenue potential of IP assets, where licensing agreements, royalties, and joint ventures maximize their return on investment through strategic IP commercialization strategies. 

The assets of IIoT companies may include patents covering technologies like sensors, data analytics algorithms, and cybersecurity measures; design patents for the unique physical designs of their hardware products; and trademarks to safeguard their brand identities. While copyrights protect software, documentation, and user interfaces. Trade secrets play a crucial role in protecting confidential information such as proprietary algorithms, customer lists, and manufacturing processes. 

One notable M&A example of this is General Electric’s (GE) acquisition of Grid Solutions, a subsidiary of Alstom, in 2015. Through this acquisition, GE gained access to Alstom’s extensive IP portfolio related to electrical grid technologies, including patents, trademarks, and proprietary technologies. The acquired IP enabled GE to enhance its product offerings as it included innovations in smart grid solutions, digital monitoring systems, grid automation technologies, and advanced analytics for power networks.

IIoT companies should maintain ownership of their intellectual property and clearly define their portfolio. 

Data Ownership

IIoT firms generate vast amounts of data that can be analyzed to gain actionable insights. This data enables real-time monitoring and control of machinery, predicting when maintenance is needed before a breakdown occurs, therefore cutting costs and minimizing downtime. IIoT data also enhances workplace safety by monitoring environmental conditions and employee health, enabling timely interventions to prevent accidents. 

Data is a strategic asset in IIoT. Companies with ownership of valuable data can explore various monetization strategies, such as selling data insights, licensing data access, or using data-driven services to generate additional revenue streams. For M&A transactions, acquiring ownership of valuable data assets can strengthen a company’s market position and expand its capabilities. Owning data facilitates smoother integration of systems and technologies post-acquisition. It enables the combining of data sets, integration of analytics platforms, and development of new data-driven innovations that capitalize on synergies between the acquiring and acquired companies.

A relevant M&A example involves Siemens acquiring Mendix in 2018. Siemens not only acquired Mendix’s technology but also gained access to valuable data generated by IIoT applications built on the Mendix platform. Siemens utilized this data to enhance its digitalization offerings, improve operational efficiency for its industrial customers, and accelerate innovation in IIoT solutions.

IIoT firms should own or have the ability to use their customer’s data, even if it is obfuscated. 

The Material Impact of Unique Industrial Internet of Things M&A Drivers 

It is crucial for business owners considering the sale of their Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) business to understand the four M&A drivers identified in this report: income statement and balance sheet adjustments, working capital calculations, supply chain risks, and customer relationship measures. Each driver plays a pivotal role in shaping the strategy of an M&A transaction for IIoT firms.

By strategically addressing these drivers, owners can position their company to attract higher valuations and unlock greater value for shareholders in the sale process.
Download PDF

SOURCES

DIGI – Discusses IIoT basics, use cases, and applications ↗

Jahani and Associates – Discusses transaction structures and its impact on seller liquidity in M&A ↗


Acquisition of Grid Solutions by General Electric ↗

Acquisition of Mendix by Siemens  ↗

Defining the Battlegrounds of the Internet of Things ↗

DELOITTE – Intelligent IoT ↗

Aug
03

Mobile Robotics

Mobile Robotics

Over $200 billion was deployed by investors in the mobile robotics sector between Q1 2020 and Q2 2024. Mobile robotics include advanced robotics and drones used in logistics, military and defense, agriculture, manufacturing, and various other industries. The sector has become critical as businesses seek advanced technologies to improve efficiencies and reduce costs while remaining at the forefront of innovation. 
The majority of capital deployment in the sector was conducted by US-based investors. Chinese investors also contributed a significant amount of capital. This could be due to the military applications of the technology and the need for the world’s two largest economies to remain globally competitive. Venture capital transactions accounted for significant deal count and capital invested in mobile robotics, highlighting the growth potential in the sector, demand for early stage transactions, and the investments made in innovation.  
An increase in government funding and zero-interest-rate policy caused by the pandemic resulted in an increase in deal count and capital invested in the sector in 2020 and 2021. In 2023 and the first half of 2024, lower capital deployment and deal count were observed, as markets adjusted to increasing interest rates. Since Q3 2023, capital deployment has increased, indicating a strengthening of the mobile robotics capital market. Shareholders in the sector should be aware of the upward trend in capital market activity and the investment opportunities this presents. 
  • Between Q1 2020 and Q2 2024, $218 billion was deployed across 17,723 transactions in the mobile robotics sector. The average transaction value was $12 million, highlighting the volume of transactions conducted in the lower and lower-middle markets.  
  • The most significant deployment of capital, $23 billion, occurred in Q1 and Q3 of 2021 with the largest deal count occurring in Q1 of 2022—1,288 announced transactions. This period coincided with low interest rates and loose monetary policies to combat the economic effects of the pandemic. 
  • There is a negative trend in the number of transactions conducted per quarter. However, capital investment has increased steadily since Q3 2023 with significant capital deployed in Q1 and Q2 of 2024.     
  • While the deal count shows variability, it generally remains above 600 transactions per quarter. This consistency indicates a stable interest in deal-making, even as the investment amounts fluctuate.
  • Venture capital investors accounted for 63% of the deal count in the mobile robotics sector and contributed $46 billion of investments, with an average deal size of $3 million. The deal count and average deal size indicated the appetite to invest in early stage transactions and the growth potential of the sector. Additionally, they demonstrate high demand for innovation and development within the mobile robotics sector. 
  • Private equity firms and other financial acquirers conducted 40% of mobile robotics transactions and contributed 25% of capital deployed in the sector. This could indicate high demand for roll-ups and acquisitions of key technologies in the sector as well as the abundance of established companies.
  • Mergers and acquisitions conducted by strategic acquirers account for $45 billion of the capital invested in the sector but just 5% of the total deal count. The average deal size of $70 million could indicate the desire for larger mobile robotics M&A transactions with established technologies and customer relationships. 
  • US-based mobile robotics investors led the deployment of capital into the sector, with over $87 billion, and 40% of the capital development. This could be due to a variety of factors, including a large number of early stage companies in the US and demand for onshoring technology with military and defense potential.   
  • China, while significantly less than the US, holds a notable portion of the capital deployment of approximately $59 billion. The deal count for China is also relatively high, suggesting a healthy level of capital market activity. 
  • Other countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, and Israel made significant investments in the mobile robotics sector, all contributing 4% of capital deployed over the period. 
  • The rest of the world exhibits a noticeable spike in deal count, but a small share of the capital invested of under 20%. This implies a wide distribution of smaller deals across various countries not individually listed. These smaller markets collectively engage in a significant number of mobile robotics transactions, but each deal tends to be small, reflecting diverse capital market activities.

Deal Spotlight:

NIMBLE

The Company

Nimble is a US-based designer and creator of robotic systems. The technology automates piece-picking, sorting, and packing systems for the e-commerce industry. The company’s system integrates warehouse infrastructure and uses AI, computer vision, and remote human-in-the-loop supervision to create smart robots. Nimble enables clients to reduce costs and staffing churn while boosting efficiency in fulfillment workflows.

Nimble raised $65 million of Series B venture funding in a deal led by Cedar Pine on March 1, 2022. The pre-money valuation for the round was $730 million. GSR Ventures China, DNS Capital, Breyer Capital, and other undisclosed investors also participated in the round. 

Investors based in the US and China have deployed significant capital into the mobile robotics sector, particularly in early stage companies. This may be due to the military applications of robotics and drones and the range of applications in logistics, manufacturing, agriculture, and a variety of other sectors. The sector will continue to grow in prominence as well-funded early stage companies mature and conduct further capital market activity. 
Founders and shareholders in the mobile robotics sector should be mindful of the rising trends in deal count and capital invested in the sector and the opportunities to raise capital and conduct M&A transactions. 
Download PDF

Sources: Pitchbook Data, Mordor Intelligence, McKinsey & Company, Future Marketing Insights.

Aug
01

Minerals and Mining Transactions and Valuations

Minerals and Mining Transactions and Valuations

Between Q1 2020 and Q2 2024, over $380 billion was deployed across 3,799 M&A transactions in the minerals and mining sector, with an average deal size of $103 million. Companies in the mineral and mining sector typically trade at an enterprise value to revenue multiple range between 1x and 4x and an enterprise value to EBITDA multiple between 4x and 10x.
The majority of investments in minerals and mining were made by western economies like the US, Canada, and Australia to secure resources for technology, renewable energy, and security. These investments aim to ensure supply chain stability, economic growth, job creation, and innovation, and reduce foreign dependence.
The minerals and mining industry encompasses the exploration, extraction, processing, and distribution of mineral resources.
This industry is critical for providing raw materials used in a wide range of products including electronics, machinery, construction materials, and energy solutions. Key minerals include precious metals like gold and silver, base metals such as copper and aluminum, and industrial minerals like coal and phosphate. The sector is heavily regulated to ensure environmental sustainability and worker safety.
  • The valuation multiples are based on a sample set of private M&A transactions and publicly listed minerals and mining companies in the sector. The data was collected on July 19, 2024.
  • The sample set typically trades at an enterprise value to revenue multiple range between 1x and 4x, staying consistent in this range as the enterprise value of the business increases.
  • Enterprise value to EBITDA multiples varied substantially, typically ranging between 4x and 10x. The average enterprise value to EBITDA multiple increased significantly as the enterprise value of the company surpassed $100 million.
  • Achieving positive EBITDA in the minerals and mining industry is challenging due to its capital-intensive nature, requiring significant capital expenditure and long-term investment. The sector faces high operational costs, fluctuating commodity prices, regulatory compliance, geopolitical risks, and ongoing exploration and development needs, all of which impact profitability and operational efficiency. Consequently, significantly higher multiples are often placed on larger companies, having shown resilience and growth.
  • Between Q1 2020 and Q2 2024, over $380 billion was deployed across 3,799 M&A transactions in the minerals and mining sector by global firms, with an average deal size of $103 million.
  • Q2 2024 reflects the period with the most significant deployment of capital, $56 billion, while Q4 2021 experienced the highest deal count, 236.
  • The average deal count has remained at approximately 200 transactions per quarter. Notable exceptions were seen in Q2 2020 and Q3 2020 in the early phases of the pandemic. 
  • The largest completed transaction was the full acquisition of Newcrest Mining by Newmont, for $26.6 billion, which was completed on November 6, 2023.
  • Australia, the United States, and Canada were the top three countries for capital investment in minerals and mining M&A transactions, receiving 22% ($86 billion), 21% ($84 billion), and 20% ($78 billion) of the total capital invested, respectively.
  • Canada, the United States, and Australia lead in the number of deals conducted, with Canada having the highest percentage at 22% (852 deals), followed by the United States at 21% (777 deals), and Australia at 15% (574 deals).
  • Western markets such as Australia, the United States, and Canada have significantly invested in the minerals and mining sector, highlighting the strategic importance of securing natural resources. This trend shows their efforts to reduce dependence on other regions amid geopolitical instability, trade conflicts, and global resource competition. By investing heavily, they aim to ensure a stable supply chain for critical materials, essential for economic stability and technological advancement. 
  • The United Kingdom ranks fourth in both capital invested and deal count, with 13% ($50 billion) of capital investment and 8% (190 deals) of the total deal count.
  • M&A transactions were the most significant type of transaction, leading in both capital invested ($341 billion) and deal count (2949 deals). M&A transactions were also the largest on average, with an average transaction size of $115 million.
  • In the minerals and mining industry, M&A is favored likely for rapid resource acquisition, achieving economies of scale, and geographical diversification. These benefits enable quick access to valuable deposits, cost reduction through efficiency, and risk mitigation by operating across multiple regions, ensuring long-term sustainability and profitability.
  • Buyout and leveraged buyout transactions recorded the second-highest capital invested at $48 billion across 616 deals with an average deal size of $77 million. This was followed by corporate divestiture at $39.48 billion capital invested across 587 deals with an average transaction size of $67 million.
  • Secondary buyouts had a relatively low amount of capital invested at $7 billion but carried the second-largest average transaction size at $111 million. 

Deal Spotlight:

BLACKROCK METALS

The Company

BlackRock Metals engages in mining iron, titanium, vanadium, and other commodities in North America. The firm was founded in 2008 and is based in Montreal, Canada.

Strategic Resources completed a reverse takeover of BlackRock Metals on March 31, 2023. As part of the deal, Strategic Resources acquired all of BlackRock Metals’ issued and outstanding shares. Consequently, BlackRock Metals has become a wholly owned subsidiary of Strategic Resources. 

At the time of the deal, BlackRock Metals had an implied enterprise value of $102 million. The revenue of BlackRock Metals at the time of the acquisition was undisclosed but the EBITDA of the business was $29 million, resulting in an enterprise value to EBITDA multiple of around 3.5x.

M&A activity in the minerals and mining sector is increasing, with strong market fundamentals and strategic opportunities driving growth. High demand for critical minerals essential for green technologies and infrastructure projects has created significant investment interest.
Companies are leveraging acquisitions to enhance their resource base, optimize operations, and achieve scale efficiencies. Additionally, favorable commodity prices and a focus on sustainability are incentivizing deals. 
Western countries like the US, Canada, and Australia are significantly investing in the minerals and mining sector to secure essential resources for technological advancements, renewable energy, and national security. These investments ensure the stability of supply chains, promote economic growth, and support the transition to sustainable and green energy solutions. By securing reserves, these nations aim to reduce dependence on foreign imports, create jobs, and foster innovation in emerging technologies. Additionally, these investments align with strategic goals to combat climate change and enhance resilience against global market fluctuations.
Download PDF

SOURCES

Strategic Resources Financial Information ↗

PR Newswire – Strategic Resources Closes Reverse Takeover of BlackRock Metals ↗


MINING.COM ↗

Deloitte – Mining M&A in an altered world ↗

EY – Top 10 business risks and opportunities for mining and metals in 2024 ↗

PITCHBOOK DATA ↗

Nov
29

Latin American Agtech Deals from 2010 to 2020

Latin American Agtech Deals from 2010 to 2020

The agriculture technology (agtech) industry encompasses all companies that apply technology to farming activities. Technology-assisted farming, from complex water management solutions to modern genomics, has been around since the early ages of civilization. Advancements in agtech drove the food industry, and the management systems developed for farms and crops can be applied to other industries, like resource management and big data. The agtech industry can be segmented into inputs, production, selection, processing, distribution, and marketing. The inputs segment accounts for over 80% of the capital invested in Latin American companies.

With agriculture pivoting toward relying more on technological advancements and their applications, venture capitalists and investors have increased cross-border operations with Latin American companies in agtech.

This report outlines the announced investments made in Latin American agtech companies between 2010 and 2020. The focus is placed on deal count, volume, and industry with spotlights on the most active investors, such as SP Ventures, NXTP Ventures, and The Yield Lab, as well as the deals closed by Produquimica Industria e Comercio.

Segments Overview

A Closer Look into the Agtech Value Chain

 

Inputs

Inputs is the sector’s largest and broadest segment. Companies that deal in agtech inputs work with seeds, agrochemicals, and equipment for farming and irrigation. Working with seeds includes genomics and biotechnology; agrochemicals deal with pesticides, fertilizers, and foliar feeding.

Production

Production and cultivation are arguably the most crowded agtech segments, yet they receive a small share of the total investments. Cultivation companies that include data analysis systems or incorporate machinery into their process have a better chance of securing investments, since traditional farming has not seen a notable growth rate over the last decade. Vertical farming, indoor farming, and hydroponics follow a rising trend in agricultural regions, such as Latin America, rural China, and Egypt.

Selection and Processing

If the raw material management allows for it, the selection and processing segment is usually integrated within the same firm in the value chain This segment includes the storage, manufacturing, or exportation of secondary or end products ready for the consumer. Exportation is the end goal for most producers and processing plants within Latin America, and capital invested into such companies is used for operational expenses. There are many advancements in raw food ingredients processing, yet minimal research and development expenditure occurs in Central and South American agriculture companies.

Distribution and Marketing

Logistics companies in the food and beverage business require cold storage units for most agricultural products. Latin American logistics companies deal with rot, odors, and pests. Distribution companies with an international presence partner with agrochemical companies for food preservation and transportation. Capital sources invested in 150 B2B firms, as opposed to less than 50% of B2C companies.

Marketing companies brand products for different sources. Most Latin American marketing firms promote local produce, while the international community advertises foreign, imported ingredients.

Latin American Market Overview

Agtech Deals from 2010 to 2020

  • Vale (metals and mining) acquired Vale Fertilizantes for $1.2 billion in 2011, making 2011 the year with the largest amount of capital raised for agtech companies in Latin America.
  • Drought issues prevented the closure of agriculture deals between 2010 and 2012, and besides Vale, few other firms were active in financing. The growing trend continued between 2013 and 2018 and is expected to resume in 2021.
  • 2018 was the most active year in the period with over $1.4 billion deployed across 57 deals.

Value Chain Spotlight

Agrochemicals in Inputs

Foreign capital sources actively invest in chemical production companies and research and development activities in Latin America. These investments made agrochemicals the largest segment for Latin American agtech companies in the last decade. Companies researching or implementing agrochemicals in the Latin American region do so with fertilizers, such as early-crop supplements, pesticides, and foliar feeding.

  • A total of 29 agrochemical companies in Latin America were actively involved in a private placement between 2010 and 2020. In 2015, several companies from Argentina, Brazil, and nearby countries were sanctioned for their use of chemicals in their crops. Several cancer cases in these countries were attributed to chemical exposure. This led to a notable drop in the companies actively looking for capital to acquire or produce similar chemicals.
  • Companies that could not withstand this period were forced to declare bankruptcy or sell their assets. This increased the M&A activity over the next four years, with similar companies acquiring businesses like Produquimica Industria e Comercio and Rizoflora Biotechnology due to their strategic value. During this period, eight Brazilian companies and two Argentinean agrochemical companies were purchased.
  • Venture capitalists and private equity firms invested $5 billion in agricultural chemical deals in Latin America, or over 85% of the total capital deployed for agtech deals in the region.
  • Deals with agrochemical companies in Latin America accounted for 64% of the total capital raised. In spite of the 2015 decrease in the number of deals, agrochemicals had more deals than all other verticals combined. Only 38 deals were completed for agrochemical firms, or 11% of the total deal count.

Value Chain Spotlight

Cultivation in Production

Agtech cultivation is a rather broad segment that encompasses early- to late-stage crop management, data analytics, chemical implementation, genomics, and care services. Cultivation is the foundational sector in Latin American agtech, yet it is second to agrochemicals. This is due to the number of companies in the region that do not have enough R&D expenditures to attract external private placements. Cultivation companies in the region tend to grow vertically toward logistics and distribution as opposed to technology and data. As a direct result, cultivation receives a consistent amount of capital and predictable trends in deal count for the Latin American region.

  • Cultivation deals raised 19% of the total capital for Latin American companies between 2010 and 2020. Thirty-nine cultivation companies in this region participated in 55 deals. This showcases the importance of cultivation in Latin American countries, as more than half of them were active in more than one round of investments.
  • Most investment activities halted in 2015 due to the rising health concerns of chemicals and pesticides used on crops. Companies that dealt with cultivation followed the same trend.
  • Agro Amazônia Produtos Agropecuários, a Brazilian company, was forced to sell to Sumitomo Corporation in 2015 with a 0.35 revenue multiple. Another company was marketed in 2016. After 2015, venture capital investment trends normalized until the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, which introduced a 50% decrease in investment activities.

Agtech Deal Investment Forecasts Moving Forward

Latin American agtech startups set a new record for the decade in the first quarter of 2020.

Since the entire sector benefited from the concerns around food security due to the COVID-19 pandemic, new records are expected for this new decade. Jahani and Associates expects financial activities to grow gradually through 2021 and reach record numbers by the first quarters of 2022. Chemicals and early crop care are developing industries in Latin America. Trends show that manufacturing and chemical research and development will have the highest deal counts in the next coming years.

Download PDF
Aug
02

J&A Report: Regional Focus: Why Single-Origin Coffee Matters

J&A Report: Regional Focus: Why Single-Origin Coffee Matters

Specialty coffees have been on the rise for coffee connoisseurs. This trend has boosted general knowledge and enthusiasm for single-origin coffees. In this report, J&A briefly provides an introduction of single-origin coffee, outlines the differences in flavor profiles by region, compares single-origin with blended or mixed coffees, and lays out overall trends.

What Is Single-Origin Coffee?

Single-origin coffee comes from a single producer, crop, or region in one country. Single-origin coffee is often called single-farm, single-estate, single-malt, or single-vineyard coffee. Coffees that are not single-origin are blends, which include more than one single-origin coffee. Due to the one-time harvest in the year, single-origins are only available during specific times throughout the year.

Because tracing single-origin coffee leads to a single place, they have a distinct flavor based on the process from growth to processing of the region. Many factors influence flavors including botanical variety, soil, climate, altitude, and shade. Processing methods also vary by region and influence the final taste.

FIGURE 1: Coffee Flavor Profiles Along the Coffee Bean Belt

Single-Origins Versus Blends

Blends are a mix of two or more single-origin coffees from different regions. As such, the tastes vary, and the origin is not as distinguishable. Blends are more flexible in the market but cannot be sold at the same price or compete against single-origin coffees in niche markets. Blends are usually cheaper and found most commonly.

Single-Origins Coffee Taste

Single-origin coffees taste different than blends in the market. Light roasting single-origin coffee develops subtle aromas and distinct tasting notes. The body is more tea-like, and the flavors are fruity and citric rather than nutty or chocolaty.

Single-Origin Coffee Popularity

  • In the first half of 2019, the single-origin coffee market resulted in $182 million in grocery sales.
  • In 2020, these sales grew by 4%, outpacing the total premium coffee segment.
  • Among coffee drinkers between the ages of 25 and 49, 81% are willing to pay 10% more for single-origin coffees, incurring financial rewards for the many smallholder farmers who provide 80% of the world’s coffee beans.

The rising amount of cafés offering alternative brew methods has influenced the current interest in single-origin coffee. Single-origins are particularly popular because of their traceability. The impact of single-origins affects farming methods, and specialty farmers are developing and improving high-quality crops in response to demand. Some farms and processing plants experiment with their varietals or cultivars selection, control over the growth stage, harvesting time and technique, and the milling and processing method.

Outlook for Single-Origin Coffee Moving Forward

This report outlined what specialty single-origin coffee is and what specifics categorize a coffee as such. The difference in atmosphere and preferred processing methods within regions produce many flavors, making single-origin coffees a niche market for coffee connoisseurs. Blends are a mixture of various single-origin coffees that are indistinct from a specific region’s flavor profile. The rising sales and marketing trends for specialty coffees boosted the market for single-origins by 4% in 2020. J&A expects this trend to maintain as the coffee industry raises awareness for farm owners and consciousness towards processing methods.

Source: Counter Culture Coffee, MyRecipes, Perfect Daily Grind, Tripe Pundit, and Forbes

Aug
01

Jahani and Associates Industry Report: Specialty Coffee Testing

Jahani and Associates Industry Report: Specialty Coffee Testing

The global specialty coffee market grew by 11.8% in 2020 despite drastic contractions in the restaurant and hospitality sector1. 

The market is set to expand with a compound annual growth rate of 13% between 2021 and 2024. Specialty coffee is an artisan industry with unique scoring methods and flavor profiling designed to test the quality of each cup. This article will provide insights into the industry-standard coffee testing process and the rules and regulations regarding specialty coffee.

Coffee Testing: The Official Process

The Speciality Coffee Association2 has set specific guidelines for coffee sampling to ensure uniformity in testing standards. Beans are roasted, sampled, and then assigned a grade (out of 100) based on numerous characteristics and criteria.

Samples are roasted for between eight and 12 minutes and allowed to rest for at least eight hours2. The beans must be consumed within 24 hours of roasting. The Speciality Coffee Association makes recommendations for the size of the cup, the pouring method, and the measurements used when testing beans. At least five cups of coffee are prepared from the samples to evaluate the beans’ flavor profile and unique qualities.

Sample Testing Criteria

Scoring is based on 10 defined categories2. The fragrance of the beans when pouring, roasting, and tasting is the first noted quality. The sweetness, body, balance, acidity, and the beans’ flavor profile contribute to the majority of the total score.

Homogeneity of the coffee cups, a lack of defects, and the brightness of the coffee are the remaining categories. The overall perception of samples is what grants additional points.

The points in each category are assigned as follows: six points for satisfactory, seven for very good, eight for excellent, nine for outstanding, and 10, being the top score, for perfect.

To be classified as specialty coffee, coffee beans must score 80 or higher 2. Beans with a score of 80 – 84.99 are considered very good; between 85 – 89.99 are considered excellent. The top 1% of all specialty coffee beans hold outstanding scores of 90 or above.

Coffee Testing: Flavor Profile

Coffee sampling and tasting notes are subjective, but the coffee tasters’ flavor wheel denotes the standard categories of flavors commonly experienced by coffee drinkers.

The coffee tasters flavor wheel was designed by World Coffee Research in 1995.

Simplified Coffee Tasters’ Flavor Wheel

The wheel outlines nine flavor categories with numerous sub-categories. Desired flavor profiles include fruity, sweet, nutty, and cocoa, and various spices. Unwanted flavors such as chemical or sour notes will lead to lower testing scores. Coffee flavors are uniquely perceived, and individuals with different tasting pallets may pick up specific notes over others. Generally, specialty coffee is roasted in a manner to highlight the natural flavor profile of the beans.

For the accurate comparison of beans, the testing of specialty coffee is a standardized and repeatable system.The quality of specialty-grade coffee beans is verified to ensure consumer confidence. The rise of specialty coffee will continue as global coffee drinkers gain access to new varieties, regions, and flavor profiles.

Sources:
  1. finance.yahoo.com/news/research-report-specialty-coffee-shops
  2. sca.coffee/research/protocols-best-practices
  3. worldcoffeeresearch.org/work/sensory-lexicon/
Aug
01

J&A Report: Coffee Processing: How Washing Affects Taste

J&A Report: Coffee Processing: How Washing Affects Taste

The process of washing coffee consists of removing its fruit layers before drying. Coffee is washed with water to remove the mucilage after the beans have been fermented. Mucilage is the soft, sticky layer that is responsible for sweetness.

Washing coffee beans results in a clean flavor profile. It is an ideal processing method for mild and bright brews. Removing as much mucilage as possible produces coffees with a light body and a bright, clean cup. The result is a fruiter, acidic flavor, while unwashed methods yield a heavy, smoother, and sweeter bean.

Washing Coffee Process

Before starting the process, weighing raw coffee cherries is necessary to calculate the yield in volume and weight. Then the pulp is removed using mechanical pulping machines. Inside the machinery, a blade cuts the cherry open, extracts the seeds, and discards the empty cherries. The coffee beans are set aside for mucilage removal.

The mucilage is composed of different sugars and alcohols that affect the flavor of the bean. Leaving this layer entirely or partially intact produces sweeter flavors. After the removal of the mucilage layer, coffee dries to prepare for the roasting process.

FIGURE 1: Coffee Washing Process

Washed Versus Unwashed Coffee Taste

Washed Coffee

Washed coffee has a cleaner taste than unwashed coffee. After the removal of the mucilage layer, the focus is drawn to the actual bean’s flavor. The result is a fruity-tasting coffee with a slight, fresh acidity. Specialty coffee experts prefer clean coffee because its flavor reflects that of the real bean. Properly washed coffee develops fundamental flavors, which vary based on the origin of the coffee bean.

Unwashed Coffee

In unwashed coffee, processing methods alter the taste of the bean. Unwashed coffee has a heavier body; it produces complex and smooth-tasting coffee. Due to its dense body and sweet characteristics, the taste often has hints of berries or tropical fruit.

Other Processing Methods

Honey Process

Central America is known for the use of the honey process. Beans are left with some mucilage when drying. Honeyed coffees taste naturally sweet and bright—a combination of unwashed and washed coffees.

FIGURE 2: Classification of Honey-Processed Coffee

Unwashed Coffee

In unwashed coffee, processing methods alter the taste of the bean. Unwashed coffee has a heavier body; it produces complex and smooth-tasting coffee. Due to its dense body and sweet characteristics, the taste has hints of berries or tropical fruit.

Anaerobic

Anaerobic means without oxygen. Anaerobic coffees are renowned high-end coffees that undergo a process similar to the washed process, but the fermentation happens in sealed tanks. Anaerobic-processed coffees have wild, unexpected, and complex flavor profiles.

Carbonic Maceration

This is similar to the wine-making process; the fermentation of the cherries happens during the harvest in carbonic maceration. The process breaks down the cell walls of the fruit flesh from inside out. Beans get soaked in all the flavors from the mucilage during the fermentation. Carbonic maceration yields varying flavor profiles and aromas like red wine, whisky, banana, and bubblegum.

Giling Basah

The Giling Basah method is typical of Indonesia. Giling Basah is a similar process to the washed process, but the beans are dried partially only. After 35 – 40% drying and elimination of the mucilage, the coffee beans need to be dried again. Giling Basah yields earthy flavors like wood, mustiness, spice, and tobacco.

Washing Coffee Beans to Improve Taste

A variety of flavors result from minor alterations in the duration of each step. Sorting and pulping remain the same for the various methods of the washing process. It is during the fermentation phase when flavor profiles develop, depending on the amount of mucilage left to react on the bean and the duration of fermentation, and form new flavor compounds. After being washed, the coffee beans now have distinct tastes based on these stages, their origin, and their variety.

Sources: Coffee Cartel, Coffee Wiki, Paulig

Jun
28

J&A Report – Coffee Processing: How Roasting Affects Taste

J&A Report – Coffee Processing: How Roasting Affects Taste

Coffee roasting is an industry forecasted to generate $320 billion in revenue in 2021. The market will grow with a compound annual growth rate of 8% in the forecast period of 2021 to 2025. Coffee roasting is the process of preparing green coffee beans for grinding and consumption. Different roasting methods affect the overall flavor. J&A has outlined the most relevant considerations for coffee roasters and the impact on the final product.

  • The United State is the world’s largest coffee roasting nation and is forecasted to generate $67 billion in 2021.
  • The volume of roasted coffee is forecasted to increase by 4% in 2022 and is set to total over 6 billion tons by 2025.
  • There are three main phases in coffee roasting: drying, browning, and development. The type of roast (light, medium, and dark) affects the color, flavor, and caffeine content of a coffee bean.

FIGURE 1: Coffee Roasting Process

Common Roast Coffee Types and Their Flavors

Roasting beans converts flavorless green beans into a tasty cup of coffee. The accomplishment of these profiles comes through the various roast types. Light roast styles result in a sweet, fruity, acidic cup of coffee. Aggressive roasts yield dark, bitter, and strong cups of coffee.

The total roast period and duration of each stage are relevant factors for the final taste. Faster roasts yield more aroma compounds, but the beans are more prone to burn this way. Shorter roasts produce more aroma compounds.

Light Roast: Half-City Roasts
Light roast coffees do not reach their first crack, which usually happens in the development stage. Lightly roasted beans typically hold fruity, floral, and acidic flavor.

Medium Roast: City Roasts

Medium-roast coffees have been roasted between the first crack, at a temperature of approximately 400°F, and before the second crack at 428°F. Medium-roast coffee has a smoother, more-balanced flavor with a slight bitterness when compared to a light roast.

Medium-Dark Roast: Full-City Roasts

During and after the second crack, medium-dark roasted beans reach an internal temperature of 437 – 446°F. This temperature brings out the oils on the beans’ surface. These roasts have a richer, fuller flavor, more body, and less acidity.

Dark Roast: French or Italian Roasts

Dark-roast coffees are roasted past the second crack to an internal temperature of 464°F, which is the highest possible without ruining the bean’s flavor. The temperature and time on the roasting process pulls oils from inside the coffee bean to the outside, giving them an oily shine. Dark-roast coffees taste smoky, bitter, and burnt.

FIGURE 2: Roast Types

Roast Coffee Segment Overview and Forecasts

Many factors contribute to the flavor experienced with a cup, and roasting is one of the most important elements. Roasting can produce varying bean color and taste, oil or not surfaces, and different amounts of caffeine depending on the roast time or temperature reached during any of its stages. The process to achieve certain flavors in a cup of coffee is specific. Expert roasters achieve natural flavor profiles through the production process. Light roasts present zesty and acidic flavors. On the other hand, dark roasts present bitter and smoky flavors. J&A expects the USA will keep on leading the roasting market share for the coming years. Strong growth in coffee consumption and volume produced ensure that income generated from roasting will increase in the coming years.

Sources: TeaCoffeeCup

Jun
28

J&A Industry Report: Coffee Value Chain: From Crop to Cup

Jahani and Associates Industry Report

Coffee Value Chain: From Crop to Cup

The coffee production process can be broken into three key phases: farming, processing, and retailing. Within these phases, the coffee product is harvested in its original form (a cherry-like fruit), then processed, dried, roasted, ground, and finally turned into the final product we drink every day. This article breaks down the coffee value chain within these phases from crop to cup. Lastly, we review the price of a coffee bean from its original cherry form to the final cup, analyzing its evolution, and the justification for a 10,000% price increase across the chain.

FIGURE 1

Farming

Cherries: coffee is grown in trees approximately two to four meters in height. The trees flower two to three years after being planted. After the tree flowers, green fruits appear on the branches. The green fruits ripen to a deep red color after four to eight months and are then ready to harvest.

Processing

Green beans to roasted beans: After the fruit is harvested and taken to a processing plant, the fruit undergoes refining and drying steps to turn it into a green bean. These green beans are then roasted to become the beans consumers are familiar with from stores and coffee shops. This roasting step is what creates a light or dark roasted coffee. Prior to roasting, there is no difference between light and dark roasts. Additional steps in this process include wet processes such as pulping, demuxing, washing, sorting, coffee parchment drying, storage, threshing, sorting, cupping, and packing. Dry processes include storage, threshing, and sorting.

Retailing

Once the coffee is harvested, dried, processed, and roasted, it is distributed to the end consumer or retail store where it is then ground and brewed. Roasted coffee can be modified into a variety of products such as soluble coffee, decaffeinated coffee, coffee liqueur, extracts and essences, or pure caffeine.

Opportunities to Increase Quality

Each step in the process brings opportunities to increase quality, and are summarized below.

Farming: Altitude and Shade 
  • Shade-grown coffee and coffee grown at high altitudes create higher quality beans compared to those grown in direct sunlight.
  • Fertilization techniques can also affect quality by impacting the soil.
Processing: Wetness, Temperature, and Fermentation
  • The wet process produces higher quality coffee with a cleaner and more consistent flavor than other methods.
  • The fermentation process within the wet phase makes flavor profiles more intense or sweet.
  • The best way to store green beans during the dry phase is in a contamination-free warehouse with average relative humidity of 10.5-12% and a temperature of 26°C.
  • Roasting green beans at a lower heat produces coffee that releases more distinct scents, aroma, and volatile oils. These roasting differences are mostly appreciated by specialty coffee consumers.

Pricing: Increasing Value by Over 10,000%

FIGURE 2

Farming ($2 – $3 per kilogram)

Farming raw fruits is the least expensive step in the coffee value chain. This is driven by many factors, including a high amount of supply, low labor costs, some unfair practices against farmers to maximize profits, and pricing wars among farmers themselves. It is not within the scope of this report to analyze the political and economic dynamics the coffee industry has on less wealthy nations.

Processing ($3 – $30 per kilogram)

Processing to generate the green bean is usually done near the farm. Green beans have a stable shelf life of nearly a year. Roasting green beans can be done anywhere in the world, and usually takes place nearer to the end consumer. Throughout the world local roasteries order green bean coffee from a variety of international locations and then sell that coffee to regional shops, stores, and consumers.

Retailing ($150 – $200 per kilogram)

Retailing is the phase of the coffee value chain that is most sensitive to marketing and consumer behavior. Companies like Blue Bottle Coffee have built large enterprises on high-quality coffee, careful marketing, and premium retail locations to command a price premium in the market. Blue Bottle Coffee was purchased by Nespresso in 2017.

FIGURE 3: Differentiators by Region

From Crop to Cup: An Evolution of Price and Product

The coffee value chain can be broken into three steps to promote high-quality products across the world. America and Asia use the wet processing method, compared to Africa, which uses the natural drying method. The use of different processing techniques determines coffee’s quality, aroma, and flavor. These characteristics add value and set the final cost in the global market. Coffee pricing increases dramatically as it moves away from the raw product and into the consumer’s cup.

Sources: 

  • https://cafesabora.com/es/proceso-del-caf%C3%A9-c%C3%B3mo-se-procesa-el-caf%C3%A9-que-llega-tu-taza
  • https://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/10-Steps-from-Seed-to-Cup
  • https://patriotcraftcoffee.com/processing-methods/#:~:text=In%20the%20wet%20process%2C%20water,is%20still%20on%20the%20bean.
  • http://www.fao.org/3/X6939E/X6939e03.htm#:~:text=In%20most%20of%20the%20African,to%20a%20better%20quality%20coffee.
  • https://theexoticbean.com/blog/how-is-se-asian-coffee-grown-and-processed/
  • https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/robusta-cherry-coffee-price.html
  • https://www.statista.com/statistics/675807/average-prices-arabica-and-robusta-coffee-worldwide/
  • https://perfectdailygrind.com/es/2018/08/08/esto-es-lo-que-cuesta-producir-cafe-en-latino-america/
  • https://es.dailyforex.com/forex-articles/2017/12/precio-del-caf%C3%A9-invierta-en-caf%C3%A9-3-de-diciembre-2017/87665
  • https://mycoffeebox.com/taza-de-cafe-el-costo-y-su-impacto-en-la-economia/
  • https://www.ico.org/prices/pr-prices.pdf
  • https://es.investing.com/commodities/us-coffee-c-historical-data
  • https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/09/29/americans-pay-an-average-270-for-coffee-while-tipping-20-percent#:~:text=A%20cafe%20mocha%20is%20the,an%20average%20price%20of%20%242.62.
  • https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Lavazza-Super-Crema-Espresso-embalaje/dp/B000SDKDM4/ref=sr_1_1?_encoding=UTF8&c=ts&dchild=1&keywords=roasted+coffee+beans&qid=1621020490&s=grocery&sr=1-1&ts_id=2251592011
  • https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Ethiopian-Yirgacheffe-Oromia-entero-tostado/dp/B07ZJRW57X/ref=sr_1_13?_encoding=UTF8&c=ts&dchild=1&keywords=roasted+coffee+beans&qid=1621020490&s=grocery&sr=1-13&ts_id=2251592011
Privacy Settings
We use cookies to enhance your experience while using our website. If you are using our Services via a browser you can restrict, block or remove cookies through your web browser settings. We also use content and scripts from third parties that may use tracking technologies. You can selectively provide your consent below to allow such third party embeds. For complete information about the cookies we use, data we collect and how we process them, please check our Privacy Policy
Youtube
Consent to display content from - Youtube
Vimeo
Consent to display content from - Vimeo
Google Maps
Consent to display content from - Google
Save
We use cookies to enhance your experience while using our website. To learn more about the cookies we use and the data we collect, please check our Privacy Settings.
I Accept