Case studies

What the work
actually produced

15 engagements, indexed by service: what the client faced, what we built, and what it produced.

Redacted samples of real work. Client details changed; the engagements are real.

Selected clients across the US, GCC and Europe

The index

Filter by what you need

15 engagements, one line each. Filter to the work closest to your situation, then open a line: what the client faced, what we built, and what it changed.

Odyssey Energy Solutions

Models & FP&A  |  Renewable energy  |  Series B

49%Of the FY4 order book the round paid for

Market and lender names are removed from the sheets, figures scaled and stated in millions, and the equity raise withheld rather than scaled. Ratios, tenors and counts unchanged.

Every lender wants a model for the SPV they are lending into. The equity investors want one model for the group.

Odyssey is a Boulder, Colorado platform putting renewable developers, financiers and manufacturers on one system across Africa and Asia. Its parent, subsidiaries and project SPVs each raise separately. A Series B investor asks whether the platform compounds; a lender asks whether one SPV services its own facility, on its own tenor, in one market. Separate files drift within a month; one file with a country switch cannot be handed to a lender.

What we built
  • One set of drivers, a model per SPVThe group model and every entity and project-SPV model run off the same drivers, so the SPVs roll up rather than sit alongside.
  • Volume solved from capitalCost is advanced now and recovered over a deferred tenor, so the ceiling is deployable capital and how fast it recycles.
  • Each facility on its own terms6 facilities scheduled separately: size, grace period, tenor, rate and advance rate.
  • The raise against a no-raise caseDemand held constant in both columns, so the board saw what the round buys rather than only what it costs.
FY4 order value, with the round
350.1
FY4 order value, no round
177.0
What the round funds, FY4 + 98%
5Markets modeled apart
6Facilities scheduled
2Capital cases
Partner review

Every deliverable on this engagement was reviewed by Omar before it left the building - the group model, each SPV model and both capital cases.

Watch Odyssey on the work
2 sheets from the fileClick either to open the live file - every tab works
01 | Funding dashboardWhat has to be funded, where the funding comes from, and the 3 ratios the round turns on.
02 | The round, and no roundDemand identical in both columns. What moves is how much of the book can be funded.

Disport

Models & FP&A  |  Athlete subscription  |  Pre-seed

3 of 1Revenue events inside a single payment

Aggregate figures are scaled and stated in millions and the round size withheld. Package prices, tier mechanics, churn and acquisition cost are shown as modeled.

A user paid us $10. Why is that not $10 of revenue?

Disport puts an in-app wallet currency between the card payment and the subscription, so one payment earns 3 times. Part at conversion, on the spread. Part when the user spends the currency and the athlete becomes entitled to their share. Part sits unspent for months - a liability against cash already banked.

What we built
  • 3 revenue events, kept apartEarned at conversion, when currency is spent, and on the balance carried over. Added together, every margin below is flattered.
  • The wallet balance rolled forward monthlyUnspent currency stays a visible liability rather than being assumed away, which is the first thing an investor asks about.
  • User growth built from athlete signings7 audience tiers, each with its own intake curve and decay, churn applied on top.
  • Athlete share against currency spentPayment lag held separately, so the earned cost and the cash cost never collapse into one line.
  • Unit economics on the face of the modelChurn, blended acquisition cost and implied user life stated on the face of the model.
Paid on the card
$9.99
Earned at conversion, straight away
$3.00
Still a liability until spent
$6.99
Of what is spent goes to the athlete 70%
3Points revenue is earned
7Athlete tiers
5 yrForecast, with a DCF
5.0

Omar was brilliant from start to end. We are extremely happy with our financial model. It is incredibly thorough and Omar was able to efficiently make any updates and changes that we deemed necessary across the length of the contract. 10/10.

Disport Client review, endorsed
2 sheets from the fileClick either to open the live file - every tab works
01 | Revenue split 3 waysEarned at conversion, earned when the wallet is spent, and earned on the balance carried over.
02 | Users arrive because an athlete arrivesIntake and decay by audience tier, with churn and acquisition cost on the face of the model.

Wellness Equity Alliance

Fractional CFO  |  Clinical services  |  Multi-region

$1.5MWorking capital facility closed

The 2 sheets below are illustrative rather than client data. The structure is the one used on the engagement; every figure in them is constructed.

We know the money is coming. We cannot tell a lender when.

Wellness Equity Alliance delivers integrated healthcare under county government contracts across several regions. Contract funding lands when the payer decides, and on cash-basis books that timing is invisible: income shows in the month the cash arrives rather than the month the work was done. Nobody could see which regions earned, which lost, or how close payroll came to the edge - and a company that cannot answer that borrows on worse terms.

What we did
  • Moved the books from cash to accrualIncome landed in the period it was earned, which is the only basis on which a forward view means anything.
  • Rebuilt reporting by regionSeparating the contracts that made money from the ones that did not, for the first time.
  • A 13-week forecast, rebuilt weekly against budgetPayroll risk weeks named 8 weeks early rather than discovered in the week they arrive.
  • Sat in the lender conversationsCDFIs and banks, with the forecast open on the call rather than sent ahead and defended by email.
  • Read the facility terms against the forecastCovenants tested before signature rather than after, and hiring for a larger contract planned against cash rather than contract value.
Lowest projected closing cash
162,000
When it lands
Week 7
Same week, without the facility
(428,000)
Facility closed, CDFIs and banks $1.5M
13Week forecast, rebuilt weekly
WeeklyReporting through the raise
AccrualBasis, converted from cash
Who held the seat

Omar was the fractional financial controller on this engagement and remains Wellness Equity Alliance's senior financial advisor today.

2 sheets from the engagementClick either to open the live file - every tab works
01 | 13 weeks, with and without the facility2 closing cash lines on one grid. The lower one is the number the lender was underwriting.
02 | Forecast against budget13 weeks back and 13 forward on the same lines, so a variance is caught in the week it opens.

California Support Services

Fractional CFO  |  Enhanced care  |  Revenue-stage

0Cost lines over budget, margin still gone

The 2 sheets below are illustrative rather than client data. The shape and mechanics are from the engagement; the values are constructed and carry no currency.

Revenue is up every month and we are still short. Where is it going?

Nowhere, which was the difficulty. California Support Services is paid a fixed fee per enrolled member per month, and every expense line sat inside budget. When the payer sets the fee, margin is decided by how many members each care manager carries. Referrals arrive on the health plan’s timetable, so a team hired against a forecast outgrows its caseload. No variance report built on spending will show it, because nobody overspent.

What we did
  • Rebuilt the model on caseloadThe governing number became members per lead care manager and per community health worker.
  • Separated care delivery cost from overheadCost per member sits apart from the fixed cost above it, so each can be read on its own terms.
  • Derived the break-even caseloadAnd showed how it falls as the team grows, because fixed cost spreads across more members.
  • Turned it into a hiring triggerA role is added when the enrolled members are there to pay for it, rather than when the referrals are forecast.
  • Reported budget against actual on volume tooA shortfall now shows as members missing rather than as a cost overrun that never happens.
Total operating spend to budget
−2%
Enrolled members against plan
−22%
Where the margin actually went Volume
0Cost lines over budget
FixedRate per member, set by the payer
M8Caseload back above break-even
Who holds the seat

Omar is California Support Services' fractional CFO, in post now. The engagement is still running.

2 sheets from the engagementClick either to open the live file - every tab works
01 | Caseload against the rateNo currency anywhere: cost sits as a share of the fee the payer sets, and the hiring trigger falls out of it.
02 | Budget against actual, 2 waysEvery cost line inside budget on the left, and the margin missing on the right.

D2C Subscription Commerce Startup

Investor materials  |  Series A  |  Deck, teaser and model

$16.5MClient outcome, raised in total

The client is not named. The 3 pages below are rebuilt from the deck we delivered: every figure on them is constructed and indexed.

The deck looks great. Why would we rebuild the model before touching it?

Because a deck is a view of a model, and built separately the deck is the version that gets checked. A first-year direct-to-consumer subscription business, growing genuinely, with a designed deck already circulating. The headline projection stepped up 17-fold in a year, justified by a chart of a competitor’s trajectory - nothing in it moved when a driver moved. Lifetime value to acquisition cost was stated as a percentage rather than a multiple, and the numbers underneath were strong.

What we built
  • Rebuilt the model on cohortsMonthly, quarterly and repeat buyers given their own retention curves rather than one blended line.
  • Put the acquisition cost back togetherAgency, creative and platform fees returned to the spend line, which moved it by a fifth against the stated figure.
  • Decomposed the 17-fold step into 6 movementsA quarter of it is arithmetic: the business launched partway through the prior year. Separating that out made the rest defendable.
  • Sized inventory off the order plan and the lead timeNot off a percentage of the raise, which is the line that runs out first in a physical subscription business.
  • Generated the deck and the teaser from model outputsThen reconciled all 3 line by line. 4 figures did not agree before that pass. None did after it.
Figures typed into the deck by hand
31
Of those, traceable to a model
9
After the rebuild
31
Disagreements across the 3 documents at release 0
3Documents, one driver set
6Movements in the revenue bridge
15Days to deliver
"Nobody asked us to explain a number again."
Co-founder D2C subscription commerce, Series A Illustrative wording. We name a person and a company here only with written consent, so this stays unattributed until we have it.
3 pages from the deckClick to open the rebuilt pages - all 3 are live
Unit economics, the revenue bridge and the metrics page3 pages rebuilt from the deck we delivered, with the client mark removed. Open the first and page through all 3.
  1. 012 errors that canceledAcquisition cost understated, lifetime value understated, and a ratio printed as a percentage instead of a multiple.
  2. 02The 17-fold stepBroken into 6 movements, a quarter of which turns out to be the arithmetic of a part-year launch.
  3. 03Every figure has a driverThe metrics page as rebuilt, with retention shown as 3 cohort curves rather than one blend.

Capital Equipment and Software Startup

Investor materials  |  Series A  |  Deck and model

$13MClient outcome, round closed

The client is confidential and is not named. The 3 pages below are rebuilt pages from the deck we delivered, with the client mark removed. They carry no currency: units, indices and shares only.

How many units does year 5 assume?
Year 5 is a number the curve passes through.

A business selling a high-ticket capital unit with a per-site subscription attached, raising a Series A on founder-built materials. A 5-year revenue curve rising 60-fold with nothing underneath it. A 40%-margin capital sale and an 80%-margin subscription added together as one blended figure. A market shown as 3 widening rectangles. And a pipeline stated as one headline value, drawn from letters that committed nobody.

What we built
  • Derived the revenue line from units and the installed baseEquipment revenue from units sold, subscription from the installed base. It lags a year then compounds, which a smooth curve cannot show.
  • Separated the 2 revenue streams and their marginsThe recurring share rising from 7% to 20% is the argument the round is making. It was invisible while the streams were combined.
  • Graded the pipeline rather than deleting itContracted, letter of intent, qualified, unqualified, named but not engaged. 14% of the headline survived - a figure the company can be held to.
  • Rebuilt the market from countable sitesSites in scope, less those below the payback threshold, less those outside current clearance, times what the year-5 sales capacity can actually reach.
  • Refused to carry the 6-month customer paybackIt left the subscription cost out of the customer’s outlay. 25 months is still a good sale, and it survives being checked.
Headline pipeline as presented
100.0
Contractually binding
4.1
Carried into the model after grading 14.0
2Revenue streams separated
5Pipeline grades
25 moCustomer payback, as rebuilt
What we would not sign off

The 6-month payback and the blended margin both had to go before the deck was built. A figure that fails when an investor runs it themselves costs the round.

3 pages from the deckClick to open the rebuilt pages - all 3 are live
Unit economics, the graded pipeline and the derived revenue line3 pages rebuilt from the deck we delivered, with the client mark removed. No currency appears on any of them.
  1. 01One blended margin hid the argumentA capital sale at 40% and a subscription at 80%, added together, and a customer payback that omitted the subscription.
  2. 02Pipeline, graded by commitment5 grades against 5 tests. The status column answers the question the headline number invites.
  3. 03Derived from listingsUnits sold drive one line, the installed base drives the other, and the recurring share becomes visible for the first time.

Digital Assets Marketplace Startup

Investor materials  |  Seed  |  Deck and model

$2.3MClient outcome, seed raised

The client is confidential and is not named. The 3 pages below are rebuilt pages from the deck we delivered, with the client mark removed. They carry no currency: shares, indices and conditions only.

A category moving this fast makes an undated number a liability inside a quarter.

A seed-stage marketplace in a category re-pricing every month, coming to market with a long deck that spent most of its pages proving the category existed. The right instinct, and it left 3 problems: a market drawn as 3 nested circles with a claim to a fifth of it by year 4; half the raise funding a second product presented as a certainty; and no date or source on the figures carrying the argument.

What we built
  • Dated and sourced every market figure on the face of the pageSourced to a third party where one existed, marked a management estimate where none did. In this category, an undated number is not a number.
  • Derived the obtainable share instead of claiming it3 circles became 6 lines, each arguable on its own, and a fifth of the market became 7.4% - out of listings the team could actually onboard.
  • Put a gate between the 2 phases3 conditions tested against actuals rather than a date. 23% of the raise sits behind it and is released only when they are met.
  • Carried the second product at nil in the base caseSo the round can be underwritten on one revenue line without taking any view on the second product at all.
  • Budget split by phaseA departmental split says how founders think about org charts. A phase split says what the money buys, in what order.
Share of the market originally claimed
20%
Share derived from listing capacity
7.4%
Of the raise released only on the gate 23%
6Lines replacing 3 circles
3Gate conditions, tested on actuals
0Undated figures left on a page
What we would not carry forward

A fifth of the market by year 4, and a second product carried at a forecast. The smaller claim raised the money.

3 pages from the deckClick to open the rebuilt pages - all 3 are live
Market opportunity, the phase gate and the budget3 pages rebuilt from the deck we delivered, with the client mark removed. Shares, indices and conditions only.
  1. 016 arguable linesEach step arguable on its own, and the obtainable share falling out of listing capacity rather than being claimed.
  2. 02The gate between the phases3 conditions tested against actuals. Writing them down is what kept the second half of the raise in the plan.
  3. 03Budget by phaseWhat the money buys, in what order, and what is not spent at all unless the gate opens.

Regulated Market Infrastructure Company

Investor materials  |  Private placement  |  Business plan

0Revenue forecasts, and that was the point

The client is not named. The 3 pages below are rebuilt from the plan we delivered: shares, indices and status only, no currency.

Give us the 5-year profit and loss and we will take it from there.

Not from this position. The company’s proposition is to own regulated market infrastructure it has not yet acquired, under an authorization it does not yet hold, filled with mandates not yet signed. Every pound of revenue sits behind sequential dependencies, one of them timed by a regulator. A 5-year projection would have implied a precision the company does not have, so the plan does not contain one.

What we wrote
  • An architecture instead of a forecastThe take rate at each of 4 layers, the costs underneath, and the sequence before any of it is earned. 2 steps carry no date, and the plan says so.
  • A status column on every pipeline lineExecuted, non-binding, subject to documentation, under evaluation, no contact yet. 6.2% of the headline is contractually binding, stated on the table.
  • A de-scope waterfall inside the use of proceedsWhat gets funded first if the placement is half subscribed. The first check in asks that anyway.
  • A de-scoping order the reader can hold us toFunded first, funded second, funded to signed documentation only, then phased. Stated as policy rather than left as a private worry.
  • Every concession disclosed where it arises, then again at the backA risk section that contradicts the body is a legal document stapled to a sales document.
Headline pipeline
100.0
Non-binding or not engaged
93.8
Carried as revenue in the plan 6.2
4Take-rate layers, no forecast
EveryRisk stated in the body
0Revenue forecasts
The line we argued hardest for

Writing not engaged beside a recognizable name under Growth Initiatives is uncomfortable. A reader who works it out alone stops reading the plan and starts checking it.

3 pages from the planClick to open the rebuilt pages - all 3 are live
The pipeline, the use of proceeds and the revenue architecture3 pages rebuilt from the plan we delivered, with the client mark removed. No section or page reference from the client's document appears.
  1. 01Status before value, every lineNone of it is a completed transaction unless expressly stated, and the table says which.
  2. 02What happens if it is half subscribedThe order of de-scoping, stated as policy rather than left as a private worry.
  3. 03An architecture, where a forecast would have been4 take-rate layers and the sequence of dependencies, two of which carry no date.

Acquiring Technology Group

Valuation  |  Purchase price allocation  |  Post-deal

75.5%Of consideration in goodwill, and correct

The client is not named. The 2 sheets below are illustrative: every figure is a share of the consideration transferred.

3 quarters of what we paid for that one lands in goodwill. That will never get past the auditor.

It did, because it was right. The group bought 3 companies on the same date and needed each purchase price allocated before the consolidated accounts could close. One target sold most of its output to the acquirer, and revenue that eliminates on consolidation cannot support a customer relationship intangible. Take it out and little identifiable intangible remains, so the excess falls where the standard says. The work was never to shrink the goodwill, but to explain it well enough for an auditor to sign.

What we did
  • One date, one set of conventions, 3 targetsAllocated separately but on the same framework, so the 3 compare to each other and the group total ties.
  • Split revenue by counterparty firstExternal customers against sales to the acquiring group, established before anything was valued.
  • Tested every candidate intangibleOn separability and contractual rights rather than on convenience, and recorded what was rejected.
  • Recognized deferred tax on intangibles taken upSo the residual is arrived at after tax rather than before it.
  • Documented the residual as a residualWith the reason each target's differs from the other 2, which is what the auditor actually reads.
Target B revenue sold to the acquirer
82%
Customer relationship recognized
3.8%
Goodwill, share of consideration 75.5%
3Targets, one date
1Set of conventions
0Intangibles on intercompany revenue
2 sheets from the reportClick either to open the live file - every tab works
01 | Allocation, 3 targets side by sideEvery line as a share of consideration, which is the only way 3 allocations compare.
02 | Revenue base testWho each target actually sells to, established before any customer relationship was valued.

Boopin

Valuation  |  Performance marketing  |  Growth stage

11.7%Cost of capital, built not borrowed

The 2 sheets below are illustrative rather than client data, and contain no currency: rates, betas and weights only, with the sensitivity shown as movement against the concluded value.

Every valuation template we have seen opens with a US treasury yield. We are not a US company.

Boopin is a Gulf-headquartered media and performance marketing group with 10 offices across the Middle East, Europe, Asia and North Africa, preparing to raise and needing a valuation investors could take apart. Comparable multiples for media and adtech come off listed US and European companies, and a group earning across 9 countries carries risks those comparables do not. Most of the value sits beyond the forecast period, so the discount rate does more work than any revenue assumption.

What we did
  • Built the forecast office by office9 countries modeled separately, then consolidated, so the group number has visible parts.
  • Constructed the risk-free rate from the countryThe local sovereign yield adjusted for its default spread, rather than a US treasury.
  • Unlevered and relevered a sector betaOnto this group's own capital structure, with the equity risk premium set against the markets it earns in.
  • Cross-checked against exit multiplesOn revenue and on EBITDA, each indexed to the weighted conclusion.
  • Published the weighting and the sensitivityIncluding what the 3 methods have in common, because methods that share an assumption agree more than methods that do not.
Risk-free rate, built from the country
5.35%
Cost of equity
12.20%
Weighted average cost of capital 11.7%
10Offices consolidated
3Methods, weighted and stated
60%Weight on the cash flow method
2 sheets from the reportClick either to open the live file - every tab works
01 | Cost of capital, built not borrowedRates and weights only, with the sensitivity shown as movement against the concluded value.
02 | 3 methods, cross-checkedEach method indexed to the weighted conclusion, with what the methods share stated openly.

Healthcare Staffing Business

Quality of earnings  |  Staffing firm  |  Sell-side

12Findings, 4 rated critical

The client is confidential and is not named. The 2 sheets below are illustrative rather than client data.

The buyer wants a number. Can you not just tell us what the EBITDA is?

Not from what was on the page. A permanent-placement staffing firm recruiting nurses, collecting placement fees over a 6 to twenty-4 month cycle, going to market with a buyer already at the table and 3 years of books kept without a line between owner and company spending. Contract labor sat in operating costs rather than cost of sales, so gross margin read as 100 percent. The largest revenue entry in the latest period was a single journal with an equal and opposite cost against it.

What we did
  • Got into the accounting systemPushed for access rather than accepting summary statements, and pulled 3 years of ledgers and schedules.
  • Rebuilt earnings one adjustment at a timeReported profit through to normalized, each adjustment carrying its reason and its source beside it.
  • Split non-recurring from recurringLegal and recruitment spend separated line by line rather than the whole category added back.
  • Deducted the costs a buyer will carryMarket owner compensation, proper insurance, real accounting fees. Leaving them out inflates the number the seller quotes.
  • One register, ranked by severityWorking capital set to sustain those earnings, revenue quality tested, and every finding in one place ranked rather than buried.
Unadjusted EBITDA, year 1
−30.1%
Owner benefit through the accounts
67.1%
Adjusted EBITDA, stated against revenue 22.4%
12Findings registered
4Rated critical
3Years of ledgers rebuilt
What we changed afterward

We raised the contract-labor classification and were overruled. The buyer’s side raised it weeks later and the model was rebuilt. A classification finding now goes in writing before a model starts.

2 sheets from the reportClick either to open the live file - every tab works
01 | Findings register, ranked by severity12 findings in one place, written to be checked rather than to reassure. A buyer's advisor gets the same list.
02 | EBITDA normalization, against revenueEvery adjustment stated as a share of revenue, so the reader sees which single line the whole number rests on.

Dawson and Dawson Home Care LLC

Bookkeeping  |  Home care provider  |  20+ years

$312,797.62True revenue, agreed 3 ways

Names, invoice numbers and payer names inside the sheets are removed and currency figures scaled. Variances, aging and counts unchanged.

3 systems, 3 revenue numbers.
Which one do you report?

Dawson and Dawson billed in one platform, collected card and ACH payments in a second, and kept the ledger in a third. Invoices pushed straight from billing into the ledger, which proves the systems were wired together and says nothing about whether the money arrived.

What we changed
  • Followed every dollar to a bank statementInvoice to processor authorization to bank settlement to ledger, rather than trusting the sync.
  • Cleared undeposited funds, emptied the holding accountEvery transaction in it given a real account and a reason.
  • Took insurer money owed back to clients out of revenueReclassified as a pass-through liability, where it belongs.
  • Aged what was left by payerSo the chase list is a list of names rather than a number.
Billed by the billing system
$322,051.22
Recorded in the ledger
$322,051.22
Less: owed back to clients
($9,253.60)
True revenue, agreed 3 ways $312,797.62
166Traced end to end
141Fully matched
20Outstanding
The 2 sheets this producedClick either to open the live file - every tab works
01 | Reconciled across 3 systemsPrivate pay and insurance kept apart. Variance stated at 0.00 rather than assumed.
02 | Receivables aged by payerEvery unpaid invoice traced back to the payer that owes it.

Caliber Vantage

Bookkeeping  |  Owner-managed  |  Established

4 of 12Months that change sign on the correct basis

Both sheets below are illustrative: the shape and mechanics as used on the engagement, with no client data on them. The status board carries no figures at all.

"We know what is in the bank.
We cannot tell you what anything costs."

Caliber Vantage kept its books in a manual spreadsheet on a cash basis. A spreadsheet holds only the totals somebody once decided to calculate, with no trail from a number back to the document behind it. On a cash basis a month also looks good when a customer happens to pay and bad when a supplier does. The bank balance was the only figure anyone could trust.

What we changed
  • Refused to import the spreadsheetLoading its totals would move the same summary into a better-looking system. Transactions were rebuilt from the documents that caused them.
  • Built the chart of accounts firstAround how the business is actually run, before a single transaction was entered.
  • Reconstructed every period from sourceAccount by account and statement by statement, with each bank and card reconciled back to the statement.
  • Restated the basis from cash to accrualRevenue sits in the period it was earned, cost in the period it was incurred.
  • Moved onto a monthly closeSo the picture stays current instead of being rebuilt next year.
Books kept in
QuickBooks Online
Basis
Cash to accrual
Close
Monthly
Months that change sign on the correct basis 4 of 12

What used to be a bank balance is now a profit and loss by category, a balance sheet that ties, and a close every month.

The 2 sheets this producedClick either to open the live file - every tab works
01 | Catch-up status, period by periodNothing is marked closed until the bank ties and a second pair of eyes has been over it.
02 | Cash against accrualThe same 12 months on each basis, with the months that change sign marked.

Multi-Entity Group, US and EU

Bookkeeping  |  5 entities, 2 currencies  |  Ongoing

5 → 1Ledgers to a single weekly cash number

The client is confidential and is not named. The sheets below are illustrative: the shape and mechanics as used on the engagement, with no client data on them.

"Nobody has ever told us what the group holds in cash."

This was not a consolidation that failed to tie. There was no consolidation. 5 entities, 2 currencies, 5 separate desktop ledger files, each adequate for filing its own accounts and none able to see the others. Adding the balances together would have produced a number in no currency, counted intercompany funding twice, and said nothing about the weeks ahead.

What we changed
  • Refused to migrate all 5 entities2 lacked the volume to justify moving, and migrating them would have delayed the first group consolidation by weeks. The consolidation was built to take both ledgers instead.
  • Moved 3 entities to a cloud ledgerWhere the volume justified it, and left 2 on desktop.
  • Put all 5 on the same close timetableWhichever ledger each one sits in.
  • Reconciled and eliminated intercompany firstBefore anything was added together.
  • Set the translation conventionEuro entities at the closing rate on the balance sheet, the average rate through the profit and loss.
  • Rolled the group cash position weeklyActuals to date, budgeted receipts and payments ahead, one currency, and the runway that falls out of it.
Entities consolidated
5
Currencies translated
2
Group cash position
Weekly
Ledgers to a single weekly cash number 5 → 1

Consolidated 3 statements every month with intercompany eliminated and the euro entities translated, and a group cash position every week with the runway it implies.

The 2 sheets this producedClick either to open the live file - every tab works
01 | Group cash, one currency5 ledgers rolled into a single position each week, with the runway that falls out of it.
02 | Consolidated income statementAll 5 entities, intercompany eliminated, euro entities at the average rate for the period.

US CPA Firm

White label  |  Bookkeeping and models  |  Since 2023

0New hires to add either line

The firm is confidential and is not named. The sheets below are illustrative: the shape and mechanics as used on the engagement, with no client data on them.

"Our clients keep asking for things we do not staff for."

The firm had the tax and advisory relationships and no intention of handing them over. What it lacked was a bookkeeping bench and modeling capacity. Its startup clients wanted books that closed on time and a model an investor would accept, so every month the firm said no or watched the work go elsewhere.

What we changed
  • Took the books behind their brandWe work inside each client's own ledger. Their manager reviews and issues every close, and nothing we produce carries our name.
  • Cleared the catch-up files firstNeglected periods were rebuilt from source documents before any monthly cadence started, so the first clean close was actually clean.
  • One set of conventions across the bookSame chart structure, same close checklist, same working paper format on every client, so any of their staff can pick up any file.
  • Built the models their startups neededDriver-based and 3-statement, issued under the firm's cover, so an advisory conversation no longer stops at the spreadsheet.
  • Year-end prepared to their tax team's formatSchedules arrive the way their preparers want them, which removes the annual argument between the books and the return.
Engaged since
2023
Models built
30+
Our name on it
Nowhere
New hires the firm made to add either line 0

The firm now answers yes to monthly books and yes to a model, keeps the client relationship and the margin, and the client never learns that we exist.

2 sheets from the engagement fileClick either to open the live file - every tab works
01 | The book of clientsEvery file reports the same way, so the firm’s manager reviews one format rather than one per client.
02 | Model libraryDriver-based and 3-statement, issued under the firm’s cover with the assumptions on one tab.

Sheets shown are redacted samples - details changed, figures scaled where stated - but the engagements are real.

Clients

What our clients say

Founders and finance leads on what changed after we came in.

Caren Robb
Caren RobbVP of FinanceOdyssey Energy Solutions
Daniel Cannon
Daniel CannonCEO & FounderArtillery One
Next step

Ask what we did on a case like yours

30 minutes with a partner. Bring the situation you are in and we will tell you what the comparable engagement looked like, what it cost, and how long it took.

Talk to a finance partner See pricing