A defensible base scenario is about $51,000 for a standard U.S. Bahama Buck’s store. This is not a franchisor-reported franchisee profit figure: it applies the 2025 FDD’s company-owned adjusted EBITDA proxy to three disclosed franchised-store sales anchors. An active owner who actually replaces paid management labor could receive a higher owner-operator benefit, but that added amount compensates the owner for work performed. Confidence is Limited because the margin comes from company-owned operations and Item 19 contains conflicting cohort descriptions.
This range is an independent analytical scenario, not an Item 19 financial performance representation of franchisee owner earnings by Bahama Buck’s Franchise Corporation. It combines identified FDD facts with separately identified margin-sensitivity and owner-labor assumptions. Actual results can differ materially by location, store format, sales, seasonality, product mix, labor, occupancy, financing, owner involvement, and execution.
Legal franchisor: Bahama Buck’s Franchise Corporation, an Arizona corporation. FDD: issued July 16, 2025. Item 19 status: official 2024 franchised-store sales plus an adjusted EBITDA analysis based on company-owned stores; no direct franchisee owner-compensation disclosure. Applicable format: the standard U.S. refreshment store, which may be inline or free-standing; mobile or satellite sales require an amendment. Sources used: 2025 FDD Items 5, 6, 7, 15, 19, and 20; the official U.S. Bahama Buck’s website; Federal Trade Commission franchise guidance; and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics manager-pay data. Checked: July 14, 2026.
What does Bahama Buck’s Item 19 actually report?
Officially, Item 19 reports sales—not franchisee owner income. For calendar 2024, the FDD shows median net sales of $534,085 and average net sales of $525,868 for 103 franchised stores in its sales table. It separately reports a 9.59% “Average Net Profit (EBITDA)” after specified franchise adjustments for company-owned operations, making that margin a same-brand proxy rather than a verified franchisee result.
The disclosed “Sales” measure is iced beverage, frozen dessert, and miscellaneous sales net of sales tax. Gross or net sales are revenue before unit-level costs and therefore cannot be treated as owner earnings. The FDD says the financial performance information was not audited and that written substantiation is available to a prospective franchisee upon reasonable request. See 2025 FDD Item 19, pp. 39–43.
Median franchised-store sales
Calendar 2024; all stores in the 103-unit Item 19 sales table.
Average franchised-store sales
Calendar 2024; revenue, not profit or owner compensation.
Adjusted EBITDA margin
Company-owned operating data adjusted for selected franchisee costs.
Stores in sales table
Compared with 112 franchised outlets operating at year-end 2024.
Royalty plus advertising
6% royalty and 2% advertising fee on Gross Sales.
Base manager-run earnings
Median sales multiplied by the 9.59% adjusted EBITDA proxy.
The Item 19 median of $534,085 describes annual store revenue. The scenario base of about $51,200 is a separate calculation after applying an adjusted EBITDA margin. Neither figure is after-tax take-home pay, and neither includes loan principal payments.
How was the $27,000–$80,000 earnings range calculated?
The range uses three disclosed franchised-store sales anchors and a transparent margin band around the FDD’s 9.59% company-owned adjusted EBITDA proxy. Conservative, Base, and Upside are analytical scenarios, not probabilities and not FDD labels.
| Scenario | Revenue anchor | EBITDA margin | Estimated pre-tax owner earnings |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Conservative Lowest sales value in the disclosed Top 75% cohort |
$406,990 | 6.59% | $26,800 |
|
Base All-store median sales |
$534,085 | 9.59% | $51,200 |
|
Upside Lowest sales value in the disclosed Top 25% cohort |
$635,834 | 12.59% | $80,100 |
Scenario assumptions
- Formula: scenario revenue × scenario EBITDA margin.
- Revenue anchors: $406,990, $534,085, and $635,834 are official Item 19 sales observations for the standard franchised-store population; the two boundary values are cohort thresholds, not stated quartiles or probabilities.
- Margin band: 6.59%, 9.59%, and 12.59% uses the FDD proxy minus three percentage points, the proxy itself, and the proxy plus three percentage points. The ±3-point spread is an editorial sensitivity assumption because Item 19 does not publish a franchised-store profit distribution.
- Rounding: calculations use full-precision inputs and are displayed to the nearest $100; the opening range is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
Estimated annual manager-run pre-tax owner earnings
The scenarios combine official Item 19 sales anchors with a company-owned adjusted EBITDA proxy and an explicit margin sensitivity.
Interpretation: revenue level and operating margin compound each other; the scenario range should not be read as a guaranteed minimum or maximum. Source: 2025 Bahama Buck’s FDD, Item 19, pp. 40–43; calculations shown above.
What does the 9.59% adjusted EBITDA proxy include?
The FDD’s proxy is store-level EBITDA after adjusted cost of goods sold and a broad operating-expense category, including selected franchisee-specific adjustments. It is based on company-owned operations, not a reported average for franchised stores, and therefore should be treated as directional evidence rather than a franchisee earnings promise.
How the FDD allocates each $100 of company-owned net sales
Exact FDD dollar amounts reconcile to $544,614.04 of average net sales; displayed percentages total 100.01% because of source rounding.
Interpretation: most sales dollars are absorbed by product costs and operating expenses before the EBITDA residual reaches the owner. Source: 2025 Bahama Buck’s FDD, Item 19, pp. 42–43.
Measure treatment
- Included in the FDD proxy
- Adjusted cost of goods sold; advertising; bank and credit-card charges; rent; licenses; payroll including three store managers; repairs and maintenance; office supplies; property taxes; equipment costs; utilities; a 6% royalty adjustment; additional shipping; and accounting expense.
- Advertising fee treatment
- The company stores already participated at a 2% advertising-fund allocation, so the scenario does not subtract the 2% fee a second time. The 6% royalty was added as a franchisee adjustment.
- Interest and financing
- The FDD explicitly excludes interest expense. This article also excludes loan principal and presents no debt-service deduction because Item 10 states that the franchisor offers no direct or indirect financing and guarantees no obligation.
- Depreciation, taxes, and capital spending
- The EBITDA label places depreciation, amortization, and income taxes outside the measure. Personal income taxes are not calculated. No separate ongoing replacement-capital reserve is added because Item 19 does not identify one.
- Owner compensation
- Item 19 does not disclose an owner salary, draw, distribution, or per-owner result. The manager-run scenarios therefore treat EBITDA as residual pre-tax operating earnings before debt principal, not as after-tax take-home pay.
How does active owner involvement change potential earnings?
An owner who serves as the designated representative and genuinely replaces paid management hours may create an owner-operator benefit above the manager-run EBITDA residual. The FDD requires the designated representative to participate at least 20 hours per week, recommends an on-premises manager, and says a salaried manager is not required. The added labor value is compensation for work, not passive business profit.
For an illustrative national benchmark, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Food Service Managers profile reports 2024 median pay of $65,310 per year. Using half of that amount—$32,655—as a 20-hour-per-week labor-value proxy produces the sensitivity below. It should be added only when the owner’s work actually reduces payroll by a comparable amount; local market wages, benefits, scheduling, and the owner’s duties may differ.
| Scenario | Manager-run residual | Illustrative owner labor value | Estimated owner-operator benefit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | $26,800 | +$32,700 | $59,500 |
| Base | $51,200 | +$32,700 | $83,900 |
| Upside | $80,100 | +$32,700 | $112,700 |
The base owner-operator benefit is about $83,900, but only about $51,200 is modeled residual operating earnings. The other $32,700 is the estimated market value of 20 hours per week of management labor. If the store keeps the same manager payroll despite the owner’s involvement, that labor-value addition is not available.
Why is the evidence-confidence rating Limited?
The largest limitation is that the profit proxy comes from company-owned operations and Item 19 contains internal population and percentage inconsistencies. Same-brand evidence is stronger than a generic restaurant margin, but it does not establish what a typical franchised owner earned.
The franchised sales narrative first says five partial-year locations were included, while the following population table refers to 103 stores open at least one year plus 10 stores open less than 12 months, yet still displays a total of 103. The company-owned EBITDA narrative says the analysis uses two of three locations, while the table is labeled “3 units” and reports two stores above average. Buyers should not guess which wording controls; they should request the written Item 19 substantiation and a reconciled unit list.
The exact company-owned dollar bridge does reconcile: $163,703.59 of adjusted cost of goods sold plus $328,704.13 of adjusted expenses plus $52,206.32 of EBITDA equals $544,614.04 of average net sales. However, the printed accounting percentage appears inconsistent with its dollar amount, and one footnote sentence concerning the royalty and corporate profit does not reconcile to the table. This article therefore uses the exact dollar lines and the stated 9.59% EBITDA result, not the conflicting footnote arithmetic.
What should a buyer verify before relying on the range?
Verify the candidate store’s actual unit economics, not only the system-level sales table. The following checks are the minimum evidence needed to turn this scenario into a location-specific underwriting case.
- Request Item 19 written substantiation and reconcile the 103-store population, partial-year stores, and the two-versus-three company-store EBITDA description.
- Ask existing franchisees for 2024 and 2025 profit-and-loss statements or line-item ranges covering product costs, hourly labor, manager payroll, rent, utilities, credit-card fees, repairs, insurance, and local advertising.
- Confirm whether the candidate market requires an area advertising cooperative, whether a technology fee is being assessed, and how freight or required-product pricing differs from the company-owned proxy.
- Model owner labor separately from business profit. Identify the exact weekly management hours the owner will replace and the payroll savings that would actually result.
- Calculate debt service from the buyer’s real financed amount, interest rate, amortization, and fees. The FDD’s EBITDA proxy excludes interest, and this article excludes both interest and principal payments.
- Use Item 20 contacts to interview current and former franchisees. At year-end 2024 the FDD reported 112 franchised outlets; during 2024 it reported 13 transfers, four openings, and four outlets that ceased for “other reasons.” Those figures do not prove profitability, but they identify due-diligence conversations.
The Federal Trade Commission Franchise Rule requires the FDD’s 23 disclosure items, and the FTC Franchise Rule Compliance Guide explains the disclosure framework. Those resources do not validate a particular earnings estimate; they clarify what representations belong in Item 19 and why written substantiation matters.
What is the strongest defensible earnings conclusion?
A reasonable evidence-led range is approximately $27,000 to $80,000in annual manager-run pre-tax owner earnings per standard U.S. store, with a base scenario near $51,000. The range is scenario-based, not an official franchisee profit disclosure. The dominant earnings driver is the combination of store sales and operating margin; owner involvement matters only to the extent that it replaces real payroll rather than adding unpaid work on top of existing staffing.
The largest unresolved uncertainty is the comparability and population definition of the company-owned adjusted EBITDA proxy. Before treating any point in the range as investable, a buyer should obtain the Item 19 substantiation, reconcile the FDD’s internal population differences, test local labor and occupancy costs, calculate actual debt service, and compare the model with current and former franchisee interviews. Personal income taxes remain outside the estimate because they depend on entity structure, jurisdiction, deductions, and individual circumstances.
Related Blogs
- What Are Some Alternatives to Bahama Buck's Original Shaved Ice Company Franchise?
- How Does Bahama Buck's Original Shaved Ice Company Franchise Work?
- How to Start a Bahama Buck's Original Shaved Ice Company Franchise in 7 Steps: Checklist
- How Does Bahama Buck's Original Shaved Ice Company Franchise Work?
- What are the Pros and Cons of Owning a Bahama Buck's Original Shaved Ice Company Franchise?