Add Financial model review checklist for founders: three gaps

Financial-model-review-checklist-for-founders%3A-three-gaps.md

@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
+<br>A financial model review checklist for founders does one job before anything else: it tests whether the numbers in the model can survive a stranger's questions. Growth, margin, and cash assumptions matter, but the review earns its keep when it exposes where the model disagrees with the books, hides the timing of cash, or answers a question it was never built to answer.<br>
+
+<br>That is a narrow promise, and it is worth keeping narrow. A spreadsheet can look tidy on one screen and still rest on a ledger nobody has closed, a revenue line that books a sale the day the invoice goes out, and a cash plan that assumes every customer pays on the due date. None of those problems announce themselves. They sit quietly until someone outside the business starts reading.<br>
+
+<br>The review matters most when someone else is about to look at your numbers. That includes a lender, a buyer, an auditor, or an investor. It also matters when the decisions in front of you are large enough that being wrong once would be expensive, such as a new facility, a major hire, or a change in how you bill customers. When the business is stable, prepaid, and debt-free, a lighter check may be all the situation calls for.<br>
+
+Testing the model against the business, not against a template
+
+<br>A model review starts with the decision the model is meant to inform, not with the formulas. Before checking a single cell, write down who will read the file and what they need from it. A lender wants to see coverage and repayment. A buyer wants sustainable earnings. You want to know whether next quarter's cash covers next quarter's obligations. Those are three different requests.<br>
+
+<br>Templates push in the other direction. They arrive with rows for accounts your business may not have, and they invite you to fill every line because the space is there. The habit produces a file with heavy detail on the wrong things and no clear answer at the top. A model that cannot state its main conclusion in one sentence is usually a model that has not decided what it is for.<br>
+
+<br>Who runs the review matters less than whether the questions were written down first. An owner can work through the checks alone, though a second reader catches assumptions the builder stopped seeing. A bookkeeper can run the tie-outs, a part-time [Cfo Part Time](https://Venturegrowthpartners.com/services/part-time-cfo/) or fractional finance lead can challenge the logic, and a colleague who knows the operation can point out where the plan contradicts what the team actually does.<br>
+
+<br>Look at both sides of the effort question. A serious review costs time and attention that a small company may need elsewhere, and a thin review costs credibility at exactly the moment credibility is scarce. The deciding factor is who is coming to read the file and how soon. If the answer is "nobody, and not for a while," a short quarterly check is proportionate. If a term sheet or a commitment letter is on the horizon, the work is overdue.<br>
+
+<br>One practical rule keeps the exercise honest. Set a time limit for each stage and stop when the limit passes. A review that continues indefinitely ends up rebuilding the model rather than testing it, and a rebuilt model introduces new errors at the same rate as the old one. The goal is a defensible file, not a perfect one.<br>
+
+Gap one: the forecast does not agree with the books
+
+<br>The first gap is drift. The model and the accounting records no longer describe the same business, because the file was built once, saved, and updated by hand while the ledger moved on. Reclassifications, corrected invoices, a new payroll provider, and a change in how deposits are recorded all happened somewhere, and none of them made it back into the model.<br>
+
+<br>Revenue timing is where this shows up most often. A model tends to count a sale when the invoice is issued, while the books recognize it when the work is delivered or the customer takes control of the product. Under ASC 606, revenue follows the transfer of control, so a project that runs across several months can land in different periods in the two documents. Neither number looks wrong on its own. Together they tell two different stories.<br>
+
+<br>Payroll and owner compensation produce the same split. An owner's draw, a distribution, and a salary are three different things with three different effects on the model. When one is entered where another belongs, gross margin shifts without anyone noticing, and the tax picture changes along with it. The same confusion shows up with contractor payments recorded as payroll or the reverse.<br>
+
+<br>The test is simple and unglamorous. Take the most recently closed month, open the trial balance, and tie each line to the model's version of that month. Where the numbers differ, write the reason beside them. Differences you can explain are manageable. Differences you cannot explain are the ones a buyer will eventually find, usually at the worst moment.<br>
+
+<br>A model cannot be cleaner than the records behind it. If the monthly close takes weeks, or if transactions land in a catch-all account, the model inherits that uncertainty from gross margin down to the tax line. Continuity matters too. Bookkeepers change, and each one names accounts a little differently, so a year-over-year comparison can quietly compare two different things.<br>
+
+<br>There is a limit worth naming. Rebuilding every historical account into a pristine state rarely pays for itself. Group small, immaterial accounts and concentrate on the lines that drive decisions: revenue by stream, cost of delivery, payroll, and the working capital accounts. That is enough for the model to be useful, and it keeps the cleanup from swallowing the quarter.<br>
+
+Gap two: the model shows profit but not the timing of cash
+
+<br>The second gap is time. A model can be right about the year and wrong about the month, because profit and cash arrive on different schedules. Inventory is bought before it is sold, customers pay after delivery, and payroll waits for neither. A plan that shows a solid annual result can still run out of money in the middle of it.<br>
+
+<br>Take a clearly hypothetical example. A distributor with rising sales buys a large stock order in spring, sells it through the summer, and collects from customers in early autumn. The annual profit line looks healthy and the bank balance in the middle of the year is empty. Nothing in the model is false. The model simply never asked when the money moved.<br>
+
+<br>Working capital is where this lives. Receivables, inventory, and payables determine how much cash the business must carry to support a given level of sales. When those three are collapsed into a single line, the model loses the ability to show the peak funding need. It reports an average that no month will ever match.<br>
+
+<br>The practical answer is a second, shorter view. Keep the annual model for planning and add a rolling weekly cash forecast for the next quarter, built from actual due dates: known payroll runs, supplier terms, tax payments, lease payments, and the collection pattern you really observe rather than the one written in the contract. The two views answer different questions and both are worth having.<br>
+
+<br>Look at the other side before adding one. A business that is paid at the point of sale and holds little stock carries very little timing risk, and a weekly forecast can become a ritual with no audience. If customers pay on delivery and suppliers extend terms, the annual model may be sufficient for most decisions. The trigger for the shorter view is a gap between when you spend and when you collect.<br>
+
+Working capital and capital structure assumptions worth testing
+
+<br>Once a cash view exists, its assumptions deserve their own stress test. Days sales outstanding, days payable, and inventory turns are the levers. Move one at a time and watch what happens to the lowest cash point of the year. The pattern usually reveals which assumption the plan is really leaning on, and it is rarely the one the owner expected.<br>
+
+<br>Start with collections. If your largest customer pays a month later than usual, does the plan still hold without new borrowing? If the answer depends on that customer paying exactly on time, the model is describing a hope rather than a plan. The same test applies to a supplier who shortens terms or a key inventory item that takes longer to arrive.<br>
+
+<br>Capital structure is the other half of readiness. Debt carries covenants, a repayment schedule, and interest that arrives whether or not the quarter went well. Equity carries dilution and expectations. A model should show both alongside the operating plan, so the cost of each choice is visible at the moment it is made rather than after the fact.<br>
+
+<br>Leases, deferred revenue, and customer deposits also change the picture. Revenue collected before it is earned is a liability, not profit, and it can make a cash forecast look comfortable while hiding the obligation to deliver. FASB guidance on leases and revenue keeps those items on the balance sheet, where a careful reader expects to find them.<br>
+
+<br>The test of an assumption is whether it can be defended out loud. Write one sentence for each major input explaining where the number comes from: a signed contract, a payment history, an agreed supplier term, or a judgment call. Anything in that last category earns a sensitivity case so the reader can see what changes if the judgment is wrong.<br>
+
+Gap three: one model is asked to serve three different decisions
+
+<br>The third gap is purpose. A single file often carries the operating plan, the financing case, and the tax or audit view at once, and each of those wants something different. The operating plan needs drivers and detail. A financing case needs a clean cash story. A tax or audit discussion needs history that ties to what was filed.<br>
+
+
+
+DecisionReaderWhat they check first
+
+
+Running the businessOwners and managersVariance to plan and the cash position
+Borrowing or raising capitalLenders and investorsCoverage, repayment, and the low point of cash
+Selling the businessBuyers and their advisorsSustainable earnings and support for adjustments
+
+
+
+<br>One engine with separate outputs usually works better than one file trying to do everything. Keep a single assumptions sheet that everyone edits, then build views on top of it: a monthly management view, a lender view, and a diligence view. When an assumption changes, all three move together instead of drifting apart.<br>
+
+<br>A model that tries to be all things becomes fragile. Every added tab raises the odds of a broken link or a formula pointing at the wrong row, and the failure is quiet. The summary keeps looking plausible while the detail underneath has already lost its footing. Nobody notices until a reader asks where one number came from.<br>
+
+<br>The decision rule is short. Ask who will read this file and which decision it supports. If the answer is more than one reader with genuinely different needs, build separate outputs from shared assumptions rather than stretching a single view across all of them. That keeps the detail deep where it matters and the summary clean where it is read.<br>
+
+Matching scope and deliverables to the stage of the business
+
+<br>Scope should follow the stage, not the ambition. A young business with a handful of customers gets the most value from a driver-based plan: what drives revenue, what each sale costs to deliver, and how much volume is needed to cover fixed costs. That is a small model with a short list of assumptions, and it stays useful because it can be updated in an afternoon.<br>
+
+<br>A growing business usually needs a monthly reporting rhythm on top of the plan. That means a close that lands on a predictable date, a management summary someone actually reads, and a rolling forecast updated with real results. Cash forecasting and working capital tracking belong at this stage, because growth consumes cash before it produces any.<br>
+
+<br>A business preparing for financing, a transaction, or an audit needs a heavier layer: reliable history, support for every adjustment, and a model a stranger can follow without a walkthrough. That work depends far more on the state of the records than on the choice of software. A clean ledger in a simple tool beats a sophisticated model built on unclear books.<br>
+
+<br>Useful deliverables at these stages look like this:<br>
+
+
+A one-page assumption summary, with a named source for each major input
+A monthly close checklist with an owner and a target date for each step
+A rolling cash forecast that shows the lowest point of the period
+A variance report that explains differences instead of just listing them
+A scenario set with a base case, a downside, and a stretch case
+
+
+<br>Not every business needs all of it, and not every business should hire for it. A full-time finance executive can be more than a small company can absorb, while a [cfo part time](https://Venturegrowthpartners.com/services/part-time-cfo/)-time or fractional arrangement covers similar ground at a scale that matches the workload. The honest test is whether the decisions in front of you need the work, and whether anyone will act on the output.<br>
+
+Reviewing the model the way a buyer or lender will
+
+<br>A buyer or lender rarely accepts your model as the final answer. They treat it as a starting point, rebuild the parts that matter to them, and compare the result against the records. Your task in a review is to remove the surprises before they arrive, so the conversation is about the business rather than about the file.<br>
+
+<br>Expect questions about earnings quality. Which costs recur, which revenue is one-time, which expenses belong to the owner rather than the company, and whether every add-back has documentation behind it. Each adjustment needs a paper trail. A verbal explanation works once; a schedule that reconciles to the ledger works every time it is asked for.<br>
+
+<br>Lenders look at a narrower set. They want coverage, leverage,  [cfo Part time](http://prithviproperties.in/author/rbgcelinda3141/) and evidence that the cash forecast holds in a slow month. A model that shows the lowest point of cash and explains how that gap is funded answers most of what will be asked. When that schedule is missing, the questions move to the forecast's credibility instead of the business itself.<br>
+
+<br>Positioning belongs in the review, not in a later conversation. A clear account of what the business sells, who pays for it, and why the pattern repeats is more persuasive than a strong year presented without context. Inflated projections invite harder questions and rarely survive the first pass, which makes them a liability rather than an asset.<br>
+
+<br>On the closing side, preparation means knowing which documents exist, which are missing, and who can produce each one quickly. That is administrative work with a direct effect on how negotiations feel. None of it guarantees an outcome, and no honest preparation can promise one. What it changes is how much of the process stays under your control.<br>
+
+The costliest mistake: starting the review after the data room opens
+
+<br>The most expensive mistake in this whole exercise is timing. Treating the review as something to do once a buyer or lender is already engaged means every finding has an audience, every delay has a cost, and each correction made under pressure looks like a problem rather than routine housekeeping.<br>
+
+<br>The second cost is credibility. A number that changes twice during diligence turns every other number into a question, and the reader starts testing the rest of the file for the same weakness. A number corrected quietly, with a short note explaining why, reads as control over the process. Same adjustment, different timing, different impression.<br>
+
+<br>Avoiding that outcome is a matter of sequence. Work backwards from the conversation you expect and finish the review before the first meeting, not during it. If a financing round is a year away, the review can be gradual. If it is close, the scope narrows to the lines a lender or buyer will actually read, and the rest waits.<br>
+
+<br>Use a short set of criteria to decide when you are ready:<br>
+
+
+The last closed month ties to the model, and you can explain every difference
+Major assumptions are written down with a source beside each one
+The cash forecast shows its lowest point and how that point is funded
+Each add-back or adjustment has supporting documentation
+You can describe the business, its customers, and the revenue pattern in a few sentences
+
+
+<br>If one of those is missing, that is the next task rather than a reason to postpone the conversation indefinitely. The purpose of a financial model review checklist for founders is not a flawless file that never needs revision. It is knowing which answers you already have and which you still owe, well before someone else asks for them.<br>