Samuel Mwendwa

I lead strategic finance for high-growth fintech and SaaS companies operating across complex, multi-country environments.

My core work is simple: help leadership teams make better capital decisions under uncertainty — how long the runway is, where cash should go, and what breaks if assumptions change.

I’ve built and led FP&A, treasury, and investor-grade reporting across 12+ markets, partnering directly with CEOs, CFOs, and boards during:

→ Fundraising and diligence cycles
→ Regulatory expansion
→ Efficiency resets
→ M&A readiness

What I’m known for

→ Turning messy operating data into clear, decision-ready financial models

→ Designing treasury and cash-flow structures that hold up under audit and scrutiny

→ Linking GTM, pricing, and unit economics to actual capital outcomes

Recent impact

→ Extended operating runway by 9+ months through forecasting and capital reallocation

→ Supported a $12M M&A transaction with investor-grade reporting and diligence readiness

→ Built global treasury and finance infrastructure spanning the US, UK, and Africa

I’m most effective with companies navigating growth, expansion, or capital events where financial clarity directly affects survival or valuation.

If you’re hiring a senior finance leader or need short-term strategic finance support around fundraising, expansion, or runway — feel free to reach out.

Group Tax and Accounting Manager

Why subtraction beats growth in capital-constrained startups

In today’s fundraising environment, chasing growth alone is rarely rewarded. More hires, more features, more markets—without discipline—become liabilities when capital tightens.

I’ve seen boards push relentless expansion, only for valuation multiples to stall while burn rates spiral and teams exhaust themselves.

The startups that outperform are those that prune relentlessly: stripping processes, discretionary spend, and initiatives that don’t move the valuation needle.

A framework I apply as a Fractional COO or Strategic Finance Advisor:

Identify activities that generate measurable value—revenue impact, customer retention, or margin improvement.

Map recurring costs and processes, then evaluate what could be paused or removed without harming delivery.

Institutionalize periodic review sessions and link incentives to operational efficiency, not just growth metrics.

The outcome is simple:

Leaner operations → higher margins

Simpler products → faster adoption

Smaller, focused teams → tighter accountability

Subtraction isn’t about survival. It’s strategic amplification. When markets tighten, disciplined simplification is what sustains runway, protects optionality, and unlocks higher valuations.

undefined undefined

Hey [First Name] — appreciate you jumping into the wallet convo!

As mentioned, I pulled together a brief on the latest Dune data + trends shaping how wallets are becoming crypto’s new control layer.

Here’s the link: 

Curious what your take is: are you more bullish on smart accounts, wallet infra, or UX-led plays right now?
Always down to trade thoughts if you're building or tracking in this space.

— Samuel

The hard lesson I’ve seen in web3 is counterintuitive: hype can inflate valuations, but only operational rigor preserves them. Burn multiple and GTM risk aren’t abstract—they are leading signals of whether capital and incentives actually create durable network value. I’ve watched promising protocols command headlines while quietly eroding optionality because adoption and token deployment weren’t sequenced for efficiency. Leadership here isn’t just about raising the next round; it’s structuring capital and go-to-market to compound value predictably under real-world constraints.

If you’re thinking about embedding burn efficiency and GTM risk into web3 valuation, I share actionable frameworks—follow or DM for insights.

nextlify-scale

Advanced Python: Working With Data

Advanced QGIS Analysis with AI and Machine Learning

Corporate Finance Foundations

Excel for Financial Planning and Analysis (FP&A)

Finance Foundations: Risk Management

Financial Modeling and Forecasting Financial Statements

International Business and Finance

Power BI Data Analyst Associate (PL-300) Cert Prep: Advanced Reporting in Power BI

SQL Server Machine Learning Services: Python

SQL for Data Analysis

Six Sigma: Black Belt

Strategic Planning Foundations

Tableau Certified Data Analyst Cert Prep

Business Intelligence & Data Analyst (BIDA®)

Leveraging Generative AI in Finance and Accounting

The Role of the FP&A Professional

Data Visualization & Dashboards - The Basics

Intermediate DAX & Time Intelligence

Power BI  Case Study – CFI Capital Partners

SQL Case Study - WOWI Sales Analysis

The course has eneble me to demonstrate creative & innovative thinking in strategy development.
Understand management and organizational theory, and relate this to strategy development.
Identify strategic issues and design appropriate courses of action. 
Provide a basic understanding of the nature and dynamics of the strategy formulation and implementation processes as they occur in complex organizations. 
Understand the essentials of strategy management in a global economy. 


Women Empowerment Link

members economic empowerment and concern to the economy

STAREX S. H GROUP

Fractional CFO | Strategic Finance Leader for High-Growth Startups | Capital Planning • FP&A • M&A • GTM Enablement

As a strategic finance leader and fractional CFO, I help high-growth startups transform financial complexity into clarity—and clarity into action. My specialty is turning operational data into board-ready decisions that extend runway, increase valuation, and drive smart capital allocation.

I’ve built and led finance functions across VC-backed fintech, SaaS, and Regenerative ventures—from zero-to-one scaling to acquisition readiness. My approach combines lean systems, dynamic FP&A, and investor-grade decision support that aligns finance with product velocity, market expansion, and fundraising.

What I Deliver:

Capital Planning with Precision: Burn modeling, unit economics, multi-scenario forecasting, and capital allocation frameworks that sharpen board and investor decisions.

Finance Systems That Scale: Cloud ERP, dashboarding, automated workflows, and compliance infrastructure tailored for fast-growth startups.

Strategic M&A and Investor Readiness: Scenario modeling, audit-proof reporting, and real-time insights to support funding, exits, and GTM alignment.

Recent Wins:

Cut burn by 25% and extended runway by 9+ months through FP&A transformation

Led finance modeling for $12M M&A scenario resulting in acquisition

Built a tax intelligence engine that reduced audit risk by 18% across 3 continents

I’m most effective in moments of scale, shift, or scrutiny—pre-Series B, pre-acquisition, or prepping for a fundraise—where financial strategy is mission-critical and capital clarity drives velocity.

Let’s connect if you're leading a high-growth startup and want a finance partner who builds for what's next.

Strategic Finance & Capital Allocation Principal | Fintech Growth Accelerator & Runway Protector Unit Economics • High-Conviction Capital Deployment • Pricing & Incentive Optimization • Multi-Market Treasury & Payments

Layoffs are often a proxy decision. They feel decisive, visible, and fast. They’re also frequently the wrong first move.

I watched a SaaS company cut 20% of its team to extend runway. Morale dropped. Output slowed. Burn barely changed. The issue wasn’t people—it was the product footprint those people were propping up.

Years of reactive selling had turned the roadmap into a liability. Custom features, marginal integrations, edge-case workflows. Each one small. Together, they consumed engineering time, support capacity, and cash.

Instead of another reduction, we made a harder call: reduce the product surface area.

Every feature was tied to revenue and retention—not in theory, but in practice. Features with vocal internal champions but no measurable impact were sunset. Integrations used by one or two customers triggered uncomfortable conversations. Sales pushed back. Some customers complained. A few left.

What changed was focus. Engineering velocity improved because teams weren’t context-switching. Support load dropped. New deals were easier to explain and sell. Costs finally came down in a durable way.

Cutting headcount treats symptoms. Cutting product scope addresses cause—but it requires accepting near-term pain to avoid structural fragility.

When runway tightens, the first question isn’t who to cut.

It’s what you’re willing to stop supporting—and who might be unhappy when you do.

Why most SaaS & fintech forecasts silently sabotage growth

Copying a forecasting template from another SaaS company feels safe. It’s quick, it balances, and it ticks a box.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: generic FP&A models rarely reflect your actual business dynamics.

The consequences aren’t just imperfect numbers—they’re missed opportunities, wasted capital, and slow erosion of strategic advantage.

Common pitfalls I see:

Revenue assumptions and drivers that don’t match your customer lifecycle.

Expense ratios borrowed from unrelated businesses.

Capital planning misaligned with real operational levers.

A few principles for building forecasts that actually work:

Align with your business DNA – every driver should reflect your customers, churn, and cost structure.

Link numbers to action – every line item should map to a lever you can influence.

Stress test, don’t copy – models only add value when they answer the tough “what if” questions.

Custom models take longer, but they pay back in clarity, team alignment, and strategies that work in your market—not someone else’s.

In today’s capital-constrained, high-velocity environment, knowing where you stand—and where you’re going—is the difference between surviving and scaling.

When the bravest move isn’t scaling—it’s hitting pause

I once worked with a founder sprinting toward growth while the runway was shrinking. Revenue was flat, cash reserves were dwindling, and every instinct screamed: “Go faster!”

I told him the opposite: pause.

Across tech, healthcare, fintech, and media, I’ve seen the same pattern: chasing growth with limited capital is like pressing the gas with the fuel light on. It feels bold—but it’s risky.

Here’s how I guide leaders through capital-constrained periods:

→ Survival is a strategy.

Weathering tough markets preserves optionality and separates resilient companies from those that fail.

→ Pause ≠ standstill.

Use the time to prioritize spend, focus on essentials, and cut non-critical initiatives.

→ Get real about runway.

Forecast cash weekly, know your zero-cash date, and stress-test scenarios.

→ Engage customers meaningfully.

Identify what they value, what they’d pay more for, and where your efforts are wasted.

→ Question growth assumptions.

Is a new market a distraction? Is a feature just vanity? If it doesn’t drive retention or revenue, table it.

→ Communicate clearly and honestly.

The team will follow a realistic plan; investors respect pragmatism over bravado.

I’ve seen founders who hit pause return stronger. They didn’t win by scaling faster—they won by surviving strategically and coming back ready to accelerate.

Key takeaway: slowing down to focus is often the most courageous and profitable decision when capital is tight.

I watched a founder give up control of his company long before the Series B closed.

The dilution showed up on the cap table.
The mistake happened months earlier.

He optimized for percentage ownership while letting time run out. Cash tightened. Momentum slowed. Optionality disappeared. By the time he raised, the negotiation was mostly theater.

The uncomfortable truth: in fundraising, dilution is usually an outcome—not the problem. Timing is the variable that determines everything else.

Raising late doesn’t just lower valuation. It changes who has leverage in the room, which terms are non-negotiable, and how much governance you quietly surrender to survive the round.

Most teams say they’re waiting for “one more milestone.”
What they’re really doing is borrowing against future confidence.

Strong operators don’t ask, “How do we minimize dilution?”
They ask, “When do we still have choices?”

They raise when the business is trending up, not when cash dictates the calendar.
They align capital with value inflection points, not quarters.
They track investor appetite as a market signal, not a vanity exercise.

By the time your runway is red, the decision has already been made for you.

The real question isn’t how much ownership you give up.
It’s whether you raised while the clock was still on your side.

A founder once told me, “Our base case gives us 18 months of runway.”

I asked what happens if two assumptions break at the same time.

No one had an answer.

That’s the risk most teams underestimate. Not that the base case is wrong—but that it’s singular. One version of the future, treated as sufficient.

In practice, companies don’t fail because revenue misses by 5%. They fail when timing, customers, and capital all slip together—and there’s no pre-agreed response.

The uncomfortable truth: a base case is not a plan. It’s a reference point.

What separates resilient teams is not optimism or pessimism. It’s preparation for compound failure.

The strongest operators I’ve worked with do something different. They identify the few assumptions that would force irreversible decisions if they broke—liquidity, customer concentration, funding timing. Then they model those breaking fast, not gradually.

Not to predict outcomes, but to pre-decide actions.

What gets cut first.
What must not slow down.
Who communicates, and how.

When downside scenarios are explicit, execution gets calmer. Boards stay aligned. Teams move instead of debate.

You don’t need to be right about the future.
You need to know which version of it you’re not allowed to be surprised by.

Raising money creates a dangerous illusion: that speed is the same as progress.

I almost learned that the hard way.

After a round closed, every team had a “high-confidence” use for capital.
None of them were irrational.
Taken together, they would have quietly destroyed our margin for error.

That’s the trap.
Capital doesn’t disappear in one reckless decision.
It leaks out through reasonable ones.

The real risk wasn’t overspending.
It was committing cash in ways that narrowed future choices before the business had earned that certainty.

Every dollar forced the same question:
If this works, what does it unlock?
If it doesn’t, what have we permanently lost?

Some bets promised growth but locked us into cost structures we couldn’t unwind.
Others created motion with no path to learning.
Saying no slowed us down—and bought us time.

That trade-off is uncomfortable.
Boards want momentum.
Teams want resourcing.
Founders want to capitalize on the moment.

But liquidity isn’t fuel.
It’s leverage.
Used early, it should increase optionality, not consume it.

Most companies don’t run out of cash.
They run out of room to maneuver.

The hardest capital decisions aren’t about ROI.
They’re about which future you’re quietly ruling out when you say yes.

Most fintech expansion plans fail for reasons that never show up in the product roadmap.

FX is one of them.

I’ve seen teams execute flawlessly on market entry—regulatory approval, local partners, strong demand—only to watch margins erode quietly as currencies moved against them.
Nothing “broke.”
The economics just stopped working.

That’s the trap.
FX risk rarely announces itself as a crisis.
It shows up as missed forecasts, confusing variance, and a growing gap between reported growth and actual cash.

Founders tend to treat this as a finance clean-up item.
In reality, it’s a sequencing decision.

Every new currency exposure competes with growth for capital.
Hedging can stabilize outcomes, but it isn’t free.
Ignoring FX preserves speed—until volatility forces an unplanned correction.

The question isn’t whether FX matters.
It’s when it starts to matter enough to change behavior.

Teams that scale well make this explicit early.
They know which exposures are tolerable, which must be controlled, and which markets only make sense if margins can absorb volatility.
They plan for currency movement the same way they plan for churn or pricing pressure.

Product-market fit gets you permission to expand.
Financial control determines whether expansion compounds—or quietly reverses.

If your global model only works when currencies cooperate, you don’t have a scaling problem.
You have an assumptions problem.

Most founders overestimate how far a funding round actually takes them.

I once joined a company two weeks after a $5M raise. The team felt relieved. Hiring plans ballooned. Vendors pitched extras. Meetings began with, “We have time.”

The reality? Their 24 months of runway was closer to 11.

The uncomfortable truth: runway isn’t cash in the bank. It’s the discipline to turn spend into outcomes. Every hire, every vendor, every initiative is a trade-off. One misstep erodes optionality faster than you expect.

Teams that thrive under pressure link every dollar to learning, not comfort. They ask: Will this spend accelerate our next milestone—or just postpone hard decisions? They kill bad bets early, spot “runway leaks” before they metastasize, and focus on high-impact priorities.

I run a “Runway Reality Check” quarterly: list new spend, expected outcomes, actual outcomes, and whether it’s still the fastest path to your next milestone. The exercise forces clarity, speed, and accountability in a way no bank balance can.

The hardest question founders must ask themselves: Are you buying time—or buying comfort? The answer separates teams that survive from teams that thrive.

I’ve seen founders pitch with flawless slides, high-energy narratives, and stratospheric projections—yet they ignore the most important story: the downside.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: if your fundraising deck doesn’t model what can go wrong, you’re not raising capital—you’re selling fantasy.

Investors reward realism, not optimism. A missed downside case signals either inexperience or unwillingness to face reality. Both cost credibility, influence, and capital.

The cost of ignoring risk is real:
→ Blind growth decisions.
→ Misallocated resources.
→ Strategic missteps that compound before anyone notices.

The leaders who succeed don’t just inspire—they demonstrate discipline under uncertainty. They know: capital is limited, time is scarce, and every decision carries trade-offs. They quantify the worst case first, model levers to respond, and align the team around what survival—and acceleration—looks like.

The point isn’t pessimism. It’s credibility under pressure. Investors, boards, and teams bet on founders who can navigate adversity, not just celebrate upside.

Next time you raise capital, ask yourself: are you showing your business can survive reality, or just sell a dream? Because the difference between a good raise and a wasted one isn’t your valuation—it’s your judgment.

Most companies don’t fail because of dilution. They fail because they run out of time.

I’ve seen founders reject unattractive term sheets while telling themselves they were being disciplined. In reality, they were protecting an idea of ownership that only mattered if the company survived.

One boardroom still sticks with me. The offer on the table wasn’t good. Down valuation, heavy preferences, real control concessions. Walking away felt principled. Waiting felt optional.

It wasn’t.

Three months later, cash was gone. The option to choose disappeared. Employees left. Customers followed. The dilution he feared became irrelevant.

The uncomfortable part is this: dilution is a cost, but so is delay. And delay compounds quietly. Leverage erodes before panic shows up in the numbers.

That doesn’t mean you take any deal. Bad capital can cripple a company just as surely as no capital. Terms matter. Partners matter. Control matters.

But refusing to engage because a deal feels “ugly” is often just another way of betting that circumstances will improve in time.

Sometimes the real trade-off isn’t dilution versus control.

It’s dilution versus probability of survival.

And probability is what boards and operators are paid to protect, even when the optics are unpleasant.

Underpricing rarely feels dangerous. That’s what makes it expensive.

I watched a fintech CEO avoid a price increase for years because churn felt like the existential risk. Costs rose. Competitors repriced. He stayed “customer-friendly.” Revenue quietly capped itself.

The board didn’t panic at first. Then margins compressed. Then hiring slowed. Then the questions shifted from growth to durability.

Pricing isn’t a one-time decision—it’s a compounding one. Every quarter you delay, you train customers on what your product is worth and lock yourself into an operating model that assumes restraint forever.

When we revisited pricing, the hardest part wasn’t math. It was confronting which customers actually valued the product versus those simply enjoying a discount.

We didn’t reprice everyone. We started with new contracts and a narrow segment where the product was embedded in core workflows. Sales pushed back. A few deals slowed. That was the cost of information.

Churn didn’t spike. What changed was unit economics—and credibility. Suddenly the business could fund itself longer. The board conversation shifted from defense to choice.

Raising prices is risky. Not raising them is a slow commitment to subsidizing your customers with your future.

The real pricing question isn’t “Will we lose customers?”

It’s “Which customers are we implicitly choosing to keep at this price—and what does that choice cost us over time?”

The most dangerous finance teams aren’t sloppy. They’re punctual and irrelevant.

I watched a $100M SaaS company drift toward a cash crisis not because finance failed at reporting—but because it was structurally excluded from decision-making. The books were clean. The insights were late.

The business was expanding aggressively: new geographies, multiple currencies, overlapping bets. The board asked reasonable questions—downside scenarios, capital exposure, FX sensitivity. Finance could explain what had already happened. Not what was likely to happen next.

So strategy filled the gap. Optimism substituted for analysis. Europe scaled faster than demand. Currency exposure compounded losses. Forecasts assumed best-case execution because no one was incentivized to challenge them.

By the time finance raised concerns, reversing course meant layoffs and damaged credibility.

The lesson wasn’t “finance should move faster.” It was that finance has to accept discomfort earlier—pushing back on plans that look good in isolation but break under stress.

At scale, finance isn’t a control function. It’s a constraint engine. Its value is in narrowing choices before capital commits, not explaining variance after.

Accuracy keeps you compliant. Judgment keeps you solvent.

The real question for leadership isn’t whether finance has a seat at the table—but whether anyone is empowered to say, “If we do this, here’s what we’re betting the company on.”

The first time I watched a startup hemorrhage cash because of foreign exchange risk, it nearly made me quit coffee. Let me paint the scene. We were celebrating a big contract win. Five countries. Ten currencies. Big plans. Everyone was toasting the international expansion, but the finance team was quietly sweating. I asked the founders if they’d modeled FX exposure. They shrugged. We invoice in dollars. FX risk is for the IBMs, right? Wrong. Fast forward two quarters. Revenue looked great on paper. But each payout landed a little lighter than expected. The CFO blamed the payments processor. The CEO blamed the bank. But the real culprit? Currency swings. Every GBP or INR collected had quietly slipped through their fingers, chewed up by market moves. By the time they spotted it, six figures had evaporated—before the first invoice even cleared. Here’s the dirty little secret: You don’t need to be a global giant to bleed out from FX risk.

↳ Even a fivecountry fintech can see margins shredded. Most founders underestimate three things: → The lag between revenue recognition and cash collection.

→ Just how quickly currencies can shift—sometimes overnight.

→ The compounding effect of small misses, quarter after quarter. It’s not just about volatility—it’s about visibility. If you’re scaling across borders, you can’t afford to treat FX as an afterthought. Waiting until your controller flags a variance is too late. Here’s the approach I now swear by—one I wish I’d known back then: 1. Build FX exposure directly into your forecast models.

↳ Not just a line item, but a core scenario. 2. Set up realtime tracking dashboards.

↳ Use API feeds from your banks and payment providers. 3. Run monthly stress tests.

↳ Simulate 2%5% swings and watch the impact on gross margin. 4. Talk to your banking partner about locking in rates.

↳ Forward contracts aren’t just for the Fortune 500. 5. Assign an owner.

↳ If everyone owns FX, no one owns FX. The day we embedded this playbook, something changed. Founders stopped seeing FX as a footnote. They started treating it like any other business risk—one you measure, manage, and review. Suddenly, that sixfigure loss turned into a line of defense. Margins held steady. Planning finally felt real. If you’re scaling internationally, don’t wait for the first invoice to realize what’s at stake. Start treating FX risk as a strategic threat—and a growth lever. The best operators already do. Curious how fractional leaders approach FX for leaner, faster teams? Drop a comment if you want the full playbook.

You don’t lose marketplaces because revenue slows.
You lose them because you scale the wrong transactions.

Most founders know contribution margin matters.
What they underestimate is how long negative unit economics can stay hidden while everything looks fine.

GMV grows.
Revenue grows.
The board relaxes.

Meanwhile, every incremental transaction deepens dependence on subsidies, incentives, and service costs that don’t come back down. What started as “temporary investment” hardens into the business model.

The uncomfortable truth:
If contribution margin is negative at scale, growth is not optionality—it’s commitment. You’re locking in future cash burn and reducing your ability to change pricing, segments, or incentives without breaking the marketplace.

This is where decisions get hard.

Do you slow a high-visibility category because it never clears contribution margin?
Do you retrain demand away from subsidized supply even if GMV drops?
Do you accept flatter topline numbers to regain control of cash?

Strong marketplaces answer these questions early, when they still have degrees of freedom. Weak ones defer them until the math forces a reset—usually on someone else’s terms.

Revenue tells you how busy you are.
Contribution margin tells you whether that activity compounds or compounds the problem.

Most boards can tell which one you’re optimizing for within five minutes.

Most crisis responses fail because they optimize for visibility, not survival.

Boards panic about headlines.
Founders panic about morale.
Finance teams panic about burn.

None of those are the constraint.

Under pressure, leaders reach for actions that look decisive: layoffs, PR cleanups, revised forecasts.
They reduce noise.
They rarely change outcomes.

The uncomfortable reality is this:
In a real downturn, you don’t get to fix everything.
You choose which weakness gets to kill you.

I’ve seen companies cut deeply and still die because churn was accelerating.
I’ve seen others preserve teams and lose credibility because liquidity was ignored for one quarter too long.
Both were “rational” in isolation.
Neither confronted the binding constraint.

The hardest work in a crisis isn’t planning.
It’s sequencing.

What must be true six months from now for the company to exist?
What decision today makes that more likely—and what does it break in exchange?

Liquidity buys time, but can destroy momentum.
Product focus restores fit, but delays relief.
Optics calm stakeholders, but can mask decay.

Second-order effects matter more than the first move.

Most companies don’t collapse from a single mistake.
They make a series of reasonable decisions that all assume the same thing is wrong.

The question isn’t “What’s urgent?”
It’s: What, if left unaddressed, makes every other decision irrelevant?

Incremental fixes feel responsible in a crisis.
They’re usually a way to postpone the decision that actually determines survival.

I saw this clearly with a SaaS company that lost two major customers in a week.
The board defaulted to the usual responses: freeze hiring, trim spend, delay launches.
Each move was sensible.
Together, they bought days—not a future.

The real problem wasn’t cost discipline.
It was that the existing plan no longer worked, and everyone was trying to preserve it anyway.

That’s the mistake.
In a true cash crisis, incrementalism doesn’t reduce risk—it compounds it.
You keep funding a structure that may already be broken.

The harder path is narrowing early.
Choosing what the company will not be.
Accepting irreversible damage in exchange for time and clarity.

Those decisions carry real downside.
You lose people you value.
You concentrate bets before certainty arrives.
You risk being wrong in public.

But delay has a cost too: it quietly removes optionality.

The companies that survive crises don’t optimize for comfort or consensus.
They align quickly on what must be protected, what can be sacrificed, and what future they’re willing to abandon.

The question isn’t whether the cuts are painful.
It’s whether they meaningfully change the company’s odds—or just slow the countdown.

I’ve sat in boardrooms where a record valuation was treated like proof of safety.

It usually meant the opposite.

The celebration focused on the number.
No one wanted to talk about burn, sequencing, or what had to be true twelve months later for the company to exist on acceptable terms.

That’s the mistake.
Valuation is an outcome.
It doesn’t tell you *when* you can spend, *where* you can spend, or *what happens if the next round doesn’t show up on schedule*.

I’ve seen companies raise strong Series As, hire aggressively, and assume momentum would carry them.
Revenue grew.
So did fixed costs.
When the market tightened, the valuation didn’t protect them—it boxed them in.

The real work after a raise isn’t scaling.
It’s sequencing.

Which investments unlock the next credible milestone?
Which ones only make sense if the following round is guaranteed?
What must be preserved if conditions turn before you expect?

Capital deployed too early doesn’t just shorten runway.
It removes options.
It forces future rounds to solve yesterday’s optimism.

The teams that survive treat cash like a dependency chain, not a pile of fuel.
Every dollar either earns the right to deploy the next one—or it doesn’t get spent.

The uncomfortable question isn’t how impressive your valuation looks.
It’s whether your current spend still makes sense if the market doesn’t cooperate.

I used to believe headcount scaled output.
Then I watched a company spend $11M in under two years and end up with less clarity than it started with.

Demand was real.
The product worked.
What broke was the cost structure.

Under board pressure to “build ahead,” the team hired aggressively.
Burn doubled.
Execution slowed.
Every forecast—no matter how generous—ended with the same conclusion: the business had less room to maneuver each month.

That’s the part founders miss.
Hiring doesn’t just add capacity.
It hardens assumptions.

Once payroll expands, every plan has to justify the org chart.
Forecasts bend.
Rigor slips.
Hope fills the gap.

The mistake isn’t growth ambition.
It’s treating hiring as reversible.

In capital-constrained environments, headcount is the least flexible decision you make.
It locks in burn.
It amplifies coordination costs.
And it narrows your options if conditions change.

The teams that survive pressure don’t hire “carefully.”
They hire conditionally.

What outcome does this role unlock?
What happens if that outcome arrives late—or not at all?
What breaks if we wait?

Saying no to a hire rarely feels strategic in the moment.
Six months later, it often turns out to be the decision that kept the company alive.

The real question isn’t how fast you can staff up.
It’s how much certainty you actually have when you do.

I once met a founder who looked haunted.
Their startup had just raised a healthy seed round. The runway chart looked perfect—24 months of breathing room. Every line item triple-checked. Every assumption conservative.

And yet, the company was frozen.

Hiring slowed. Product experiments paused. Critical investments deferred. The logic was “survive longer.” The reality?

→ Competitors shipped features the team had only dreamed of.
→ Revenue stalled while expenses quietly climbed.
→ Talent grew restless and started looking elsewhere.

Obsessing over runway can backfire. Every month “saved” in cash is a month lost in market opportunity. Windows close. Momentum slips. The longer you hesitate, the harder it becomes to catch up.

Capital isn’t just a lifeline—it’s leverage.

The companies I advise don’t hoard runway; they deploy it strategically. They:

→ Identify inflection points where spending accelerates growth.
→ Burn faster on proven product-market fit signals.
→ Double down on what works—even if it shortens runway.

Survival isn’t measured in months of runway. It’s measured in whether you acted when the market allowed you to.

The startups that get remembered? They bet decisively, at the right time, with purpose—not cautiously, for comfort.

Ask yourself: is your runway a leash—or a weapon?

Finance shouldn’t sit on the sidelines of the business.
It should shape how decisions are made from the center.

I focus on Finance Operations & Strategy for mid-market companies, helping leadership teams turn financial complexity into clarity, and alignment.

With 15+ years of experience across industries, I’ve helped 50+ companies stabilize finance operations, simplify workflows, and build decision-ready financial structure that scales with growth.

I typically partner with CEOs and finance leaders when:
    • Reporting exists, but confidence doesn’t
    • Data is available, but decisions are slow or reactive
    • Finance teams are busy, but strategic clarity is missing

What I Work On

(Finance Operations & Strategic Alignment)
    • Aligning finance operations to growth goals and leadership priorities
    • Translating financial data into insight leaders can act on
    • Reducing friction between finance, operations, and strategy

 (Finance Function Optimization)
    • Streamlining systems, processes, and workflows
    • Designing cadence, structure, and operating rhythm
    • Building habits and structure to improve efficiency and decision quality

How I Work

Hands-on. Strategic. Collaborative.

I work fractionally with leadership teams to identify root causes, simplify what’s overbuilt, and implement practical solutions that hold up as the business grows.

The goal isn’t more reporting.
It’s better decisions, made earlier, with confidence.

If finance feels busy but not strategic, DM me. Let’s talk.

Beverly Davis

The CEO decides direction.
The COO decides execution.
The CFO decides financial truth and tradeoffs.

Most leadership teams don’t have a strategy problem.
They have a decision rights problem.

I see this constantly inside mid-market companies:

  ↳ The CEO is pulled into execution
  ↳ The COO is stuck refereeing priorities
  ↳ The CFO is asked to make the numbers work

Here’s the reframe that actually creates momentum:

The CEO decides direction.
    → Vision. Where the company is going.

The COO decides execution.
    → Operating model. Process design. Turning strategy into reality.

The CFO decides financial truth and tradeoffs.
    → Capital allocation. Risk. Scenarios. The economic reality behind ideas.

When this isn’t explicit, three things happen:
   • Decisions slow down
   • Accountability blurs
   • Finance becomes reactive

And the most dangerous part is everyone thinks they’re aligned.

High-performing leadership teams don’t debate who is responsible.
They align on who decides.

The most effective CEOs aren’t making more decisions. 
They’re designing who decides before execution begins.

-----
Please share your thoughts in the comments
♻ If this is helpful, Like and Repost to your network to help others 
Follow Beverly Davis for more finance strategy insights.

Finance Operations Consultant for Mid-Market Companies | Alignment Strategist | Helped 50+ Companies Align Finance Strategy with Goals | Founder, Davis Financial Services

Most Executive Teams think they have one strategy. 
 
They actually have three that they need to run as one.

Business Strategy
Finance Strategy
Operations Strategy
 
Most companies assume they’re the same thing.
They’re not.

And when they don’t match, growth stalls, margins erode, 
and execution fractures.

Here’s why.

Business Strategy defines direction and ambition.
 • Where to compete
 • How to win
 • What promise is made to the market

Finance Strategy defines economic reality.
 • What investments make sense
 • What margins must hold
 • What risk is acceptable

Operations Strategy defines execution capacity.
 • How work gets done
 • What systems enable scale
 • What delivery actually looks like

Each strategy is rational on its own.
The problem is the space between them.

 ↳  Business sets ambition.
 ↳  Finance sets constraints.
 ↳  Operations sets feasibility.

When ambition, constraints, and feasibility are designed separately,
you don’t have strategy, You have isolated departments.

The highest-performing executive teams don’t “optimize” these functions.
They translate between them.

That’s where real strategy lives.
Alignment is the real strategy.

I have a few spots open for my Executive Alignment Sprint. 
Align growth, finance, and operations — fast. https://shorturl.at/6cMF2

------

Please share your thoughts in the comments
♻️If this is helpful, Like and Repost to your network to help others
Follow Beverly Davis for strategic finance insights.

Most companies believe Cash Flow is Finance’s job.

It’s not.

Finance measures cash.
Treasury manages liquidity.
But every department either accelerates cash in, 
reduces cash out, 
or protects future cash flows.

If your teams don’t understand their role in cash flow,
you don't have a cash flow strategy.

I created the Departmental Cash Flow KPI Tree for a client
as a leadership communication map.

A practical mid-market map showing how every department impacts
cash velocity, cash efficiency, and revenue durability.

This is how you change behavior.
  
Here’s how it breaks down:

↳ Finance & Treasury
Orchestrate liquidity, working capital, and capital structure.  

↳ Sales (Field, Inside, Account Management)
Create cash inflows by winning, expanding, and retaining customers.

↳ Marketing
Generate qualified demand that converts to revenue with 
disciplined CAC and payback periods.

↳ Operations / Supply Chain
Convert demand into delivery with minimal working capital and waste.

↳ Manufacturing / Production
Produce at the lowest cost and WIP investment, while protecting revenue.

↳ Customer Success / Service
Protect and expand recurring cash flows by reducing churn, accelerating renewals, and driving expansion.

↳ Accounts Receivable / Credit & Collections
Accelerate cash inflows and minimize leakage through risk control, 
and efficient collections.

↳ Procurement / Accounts Payable
Optimize cash outflows through pricing, terms, and demand control.

↳ HR / People
Shape salary, benefits, and productivity economics.

↳ IT / Digital
Reduce cost-to-serve, cycle times, and protect future cash by reducing downtime and risk.

↳ Legal / Compliance / Risk
Protect downside cash by avoiding fines, disputes, and contract leakage.

↳ Executive Team (CEO, COO, CFO)
Allocate capital, set cash discipline, and align every department to value creation and cash velocity.

When leaders use a map like this, 
cash flow become an operating system.

Departments stop optimizing their own KPIs in isolation.
They understand how their  work impacts liquidity, working capital, and 
revenue durability.

This is a shared cash language across the company.

That’s when alignment happens.
That’s when execution tightens.
That’s when growth stops outpacing cash.

Does every department in your company know whether they 
accelerate cash in, reduce cash out, or protect future cash flows?

If not, that’s your next alignment opportunity.

----
♻️ Like, Comment, and Repost if this is helpful.
Follow Beverly Davis for strategic finance insights.

Finance isn’t just a function.

It’s the shared language of the business.

Every department speaks a different language.

  ↳ Marketing speaks demand.
  ↳ Sales speaks pipeline.
  ↳ Operations speaks efficiency.
  ↳ Tech speaks systems.
  ↳ HR speaks talent.

Without translation, alignment fails.

Modern finance has a translation layer.
Effective finance is interpreter, integrator, and the alignment engine.

Every cross-functional conversation anchors on five questions:
   • What value are we creating?
   • How does it make money?
   • What are we investing in?
   • What return must we get?
   • What risks must we respect?

Alignment isn't the result of meetings.
It’s a shared language across the company.

When finance is the translator in the middle,
strategy moves as one system, and compounds.

Here's examples of how finance uses the five base questions to 
develop a language with sales, ops, HR, product, and tech.

----------
Please share your thoughts in the comments.
♻️ If this is helpful, Like and Repost to your network to help others.
Follow Beverly Davis for strategic finance insights.

Finance in 2026 will not be about better reporting.

It will be about who sees reality faster and acts first.

Finance isn’t becoming more technical.
It’s becoming more decisive.

And finance is controlling how decisions are produced.

Here’s what's already shifting in most leadership teams.

What Modern Finance Teams Are Doing Differently

Most budgets lack impact because they measure activity.

Strategic budgets allocate funds, and enforce alignment.

A budget becomes strategic when major spend areas are tied to clear, outcome-driven KPIs.

Budgets aren’t static plans. 
They’re strategic bets.

KPIs tell you whether those bets paid off.

High-performing leadership teams fund outcomes, not activity.

Here's my 7 steps to build a strategic budget

  1.  Start with the outcome, not the line item.
  2. Translate outcomes into measurable KPIs.
  3. Identify the value drivers behind each KPI.
  4. Fund the drivers, not the departments.
  5. Assign ownership and decision rights.
  6. Establish KPI-to-spend reviews.
  7. Clarify who decides, what, when, and how.

Below are 6 alignment KPI categories that show whether your budget, 
priorities, and execution are tied to business outcomes.

Need help aligning your budget with business goals? https://shorturl.at/yH1ed

------
Please share your thoughts in the comments.
♻️ Like, and Repost if this is helpful.
Follow Beverly Davis for strategic finance insights

Most profitability problems aren’t cost problems.
They’re alignment problems.


When C-suite executives aren’t aligned, the business doesn't just slow down.
It leaks cash, margin, and momentum.

I’ve seen companies with a great product, strong demand, and capable teams still miss targets. Not because everyone wasn't working hard.
But because strategy, finance, and execution were moving in different directions.

Here’s what alignment (or the lack of it) does to your financial performance:
1. C-Suite Misalignment vs Alignment
    ↳ Misalignment is slow decisions, silos, mixed  priorities and messaging.
    ↳ Alignment is shared priorities, cross-functional execution, real trust.
 One drains energy. The other multiplies it.

2. Measuring Executive Alignment
     ↳ Misalignment is executives have mixed vision, priorities, and metrics.
     ↳ Alignment is shared vision, priorities and metrics focused on goals.

3. Finance Strategy Misalignment vs Alignment
    ↳ With misalignment you get pet projects funded, margin vs growth battles.
    ↳ With alignment disciplined capital allocation, and shared risk appetite.

4. Misalignment Damages Cash Flow and Capital
     ↳ Growth vs margin tug-of-wars create erratic cash outflows.
       • Silos hoard working capital.
       • Pet projects dilute ROIC.
       • Bad forecasts force mid-year borrowing.
 These are alignment costs, and they compound.

5. Alignment Drives Profitability Metrics
 Aligned leadership teams show:
     • Higher EBITDA stability
     • Stronger forecast accuracy
     • Better capital efficiency
     • Faster execution on strategic priorities
Profitability follows alignment. Not the other way around.

6. Alignment Predicts ROIC
     ↳ When capital is allocated to clearly agreed priorities, ROIC rises.
     ↳ When alignment is measured and managed, performance becomes predictable.

The takeaway for CEOs and executive teams:
If you want better financial results, don’t start with budgets.

Start with alignment.
Because strategy without alignment is just movement without execution.

And finance without alignment is just numbers without ownership.

------
Please share your thoughts in the comments.
♻️If this is helpful, Like and Repost to your network to help others.
Follow Beverly Davis for strategic finance insights

Strategic misalignment doesn’t announce itself.
It quietly drains cash flow until it’s too late.
Here's misalignment red flags by company stage.

Most leadership teams chase universal KPIs.
But misalignment signals look completely different depending 
on company stage.

By the time revenue stalls or margins collapse, the damage is done.

The real advantage is detecting drift early.  

I built this misalignment metric map to show where executives should actually be looking based on the stage of their business.

 ↳ Track these in a unified dashboard.
 ↳ Trigger intervention at ~15% deviation.
 ↳ Course-correct before performance breaks.

Startups (Seed–Series A): Survival Mode
Early misalignment = running out of oxygen
  • Burn rate outpacing runway
  • CAC/LTV slipping below sustainable ratios
  • Revenue predictability hiding churn
  • Stalled pipeline velocity
  • Declining gross margin despite hiring
Fix: Cash forecasting rigor, unit-economics audits, milestone-based funding

Mid-Size ($10M–$100M): Scale Traps
Misalignment here = growth without coordination
  • Cash conversion cycle bloating
  • EBITDA drifting off budget
  • Rule of 40 imbalance
  • Departmental ROI silos
  • “Customer love” masking retention risk
Fix: Cross-functional OKRs, zero-based budgeting, shared KPI cascades

Enterprise ($100M+): Governance Failures
Late-stage misalignment = capital misallocation
  • ROIC failing to clear WACC
  • Capex bloat
  • Segment margin wars
  • Working capital inefficiency
  • EVA turning negative
Fix: Portfolio rationalization, capital governance, incentive realignment

Same problem.
Different cause.
Different solution.

Misalignment isn’t a finance problem.
It’s a strategy execution problem that shows up in the numbers.

I have a few spots open for my Executive Alignment Sprint. 
Align growth, finance, and operations — fast. https://shorturl.at/6cMF2

------
Please share your thoughts in the comments.
♻️If this is helpful, Like and Repost to your network to help others.
Follow Beverly Davis for strategic finance insights.

10 signs your finance team is operating as a business partner.

1. They translate numbers into decisions.
    ↳ They don’t stop at what happened, they explain why and what’s next.

2. They are embedded in the business, not adjacent to it.
    ↳ They deeply understand the operating model, customers, pricing, 
      margins, and growth levers, not just the P&L.

3. They proactively challenge assumptions.
     ↳  They respectfully push back using data and logic.

4. They influence outcomes without formal authority.
     ↳ Leaders seek their input because their perspective improves decisions,  
          not because policy requires it.

5. They focus on forward-looking insights.
    ↳ Forecasts, scenarios, and trade-offs matter as much to them as variances. 

6. They align financials to strategy.
   ↳ They ensure KPIs, budgets, and allocation support strategic priorities.

7. They are comfortable in ambiguity.
   ↳ They don’t wait for perfect data. They make recommendations with 
        incomplete information and evolving inputs.

8. They communicate differently with different stakeholders.
    ↳ They tailor messages for CEOs, operators, sales leaders, and boards.
         Same insight, different language.

9. They help leaders see second- and third-order impacts.
    ↳ They surface downstream consequences: cash, capacity, talent, risk, 
         and scalability implications.

10. They are measured by business impact, not reports delivered.
     ↳ Success is reflected in better decisions, improved performance, and 
          avoiding mistakes.

Here’s a hard truth:
Most finance teams believe they are business partners.
Very few have redesigned their mindset, habits, and systems to support it.
_______
Please share your thoughts in the comments
♻️ Like and Repost if this is helpful.
Follow Beverly Davis, for strategic finance insights.

80% of companies say they have a risk strategy.

But all of the departments define risk differently.

 → Finance protects cash.
 → Sales says pushes volume.
 → Operations protects service.
 → Marketing chases growth.

All reasonable.
All misaligned.

The breakthrough isn’t tighter controls.
It’s shared risk language.

So I built something simpler:

A Unified Departmental Risk Framework for mid-market companies.

Why a shared language matters:
 ↳ Risk appetite is how much uncertainty you accept.
 ↳ Risk tolerance is how much variation you allow.
 ↳ Thresholds & limits are when you review vs. when we stop.

How to use this framework:
 • Review quarterly against actuals
 • Escalate breaches to the executive team
 • Re-align trade-offs before problems compound

Most companies don’t fail from lack of a risk strategy.
They fail from misaligned risk decisions made in silos.

----
Please share your thoughts in the comments.
♻️ If you find this is helpful, Like and Repost to your network to help others.
Follow Beverly Davis for Strategic Finance Insights

Budgets that drive performance don't start with line items.

They starts with scorecards that tie spend to outcomes.

 • SaaS → Tie S&M dollars to CAC payback and retention efficiency
 • Services → Tie delivery capacity to billable economics
 • Manufacturing → Tie plant and supply chain spend to throughput and inventory speed. 

Now every budget conversation becomes:
“If we invest here… what metric moves?”

  - No guessing.
  - No politics.
  - No pet projects.

Just capital flowing to measurable value creation.

Strategy isn’t choosing where to spend.
Strategy is choosing what outcomes you’re buying.

Finance should make that visible.
That’s how mid-market companies scale without burning cash or slowing momentum.

------
Please share your thoughts in the comments
♻️If this is helpful, Like and Repost to your network to help others
Follow Beverly Davis for strategic finance insights.

Your most expensive line item isn’t on the P&L

The High Cost of Misalignment.

It’s not your AWS bill.
It’s not your office rent.
It’s not even payroll.

It’s the Misalignment Tax.

The one no one budgets for.
But everyone pays.

Here’s what the data says:

• 40% of productivity erodes when strategy and execution aren’t aligned. Nearly half the engine running with nowhere to go.

• $1 trillion lost every year in the U.S. from sales + marketing misalignment.

• 72% of better aligned companies are more profitable than misaligned ones.

And yet…
Most leadership teams think they’re aligned.

Reality check:
 • 76% of executives say values and strategy are clear.
 • Only 31% of employees agree.
 • Just 22% of employees believe leadership has a clear, consistent strategy.

When people don’t know the North Star, they don’t slow down.
They are busy working around it.

How misalignment shows up hidden on the P&L
– Sales reps spending ~33% of their time actually selling
– 60% of marketing content never used
– Teams debating priorities instead of executing them
– $15k–$26k per employee per year lost to poor communication

This is why most companies only realize 50–60% of the financial performance their strategy promised.

Not because the strategy was wrong.
Because alignment was never operationalized.

Most finance problems are not capability problems.
They’re alignment problems..

It’s a systems, clarity, and execution issue.
And until it’s treated like one, it will remain your most expensive line item.

Need help aligning your budget with business goals? https://shorturl.at/yH1ed
Need help aligning your Executive Team? https://shorturl.at/6cMF2

-----
♻ If this is helpful, Repost to your network to help others with alignment.
Follow Beverly Davis for more finance strategy insights.

Finance alignment almost always breaks in four places.

Rarely all at once.

That’s why most companies don’t experience a dramatic financial collapse.
They experience mysterious misses.

The plan looks solid.
Teams are “hitting KPIs.”
But results keep drifting off course.

What’s actually happening is quieter, and more structural.
Finance alignment tends to fracture along four recurring fault lines.

Finance alignment isn’t about tighter controls or louder reporting.

It’s about designing the connection points before things drift.

Most companies don’t need a finance overhaul.
They need alignment in the places where it quietly breaks first.

That’s where real leverage is.

-----
♻ If this is helpful, Repost to your network to help other CEOs with alignment.
Follow Beverly Davis for more finance strategy insights.

The 4 Areas Alignment Breaks In Most Companies

When finance uses one variance lens, it explains the past.

When it uses these three lens, it drives performance

Most finance teams treat budget-to-actual as the master scorecard.

But it’s only one of three lenses.

And each lens answers a different strategic question.

1. Budget vs. Actual
 Did we deliver against the original plan?
 → Drives accountability

2. Forecast vs. Actual
 Did we execute against our latest reality?
 → Drives real-time course correction

3. Version vs. Version
 Are our assumptions improving over time?
 → Drives organizational learning

Because explanations don’t change outcomes. Decisions do.

When everything gets forced into budget vs. actual,
you mix execution problems with learning problems.

I developed a framework to help finance teams separate the lenses.
Then, tie each variance to a specific decision path.
Moving from just a variance report to a performance system.

The value of variance analysis isn’t in explaining the past.
It’s in directing the next move.

When finance sits at the center of decision-making, 
variance becomes value.
-------
Please share your thoughts in the comments.
♻️If this is helpful, Like and Repost.
Follow Beverly Davis for strategic finance insights

Stop trying to roll out finance alignment.

Alignment starts at the top, or not at all.

Alignment doesn’t require force.
It requires attention.

Here's a 5-step alignment framework starter:

What This Framework Does (and Doesn’t) Do
It Does:
   ↳ Create immediate leadership clarity
   ↳ Surface the right conversations
   ↳ Reduce friction without restructuring
   ↳ Give finance direction without micromanagement
It Doesn’t:
   ↳ Replace finance expertise
   ↳ Eliminate uncertainty
   ↳ Turn finance into a tactical function
   ↳ Solve everything at once
That’s intentional.

The CEO Finance Alignment Starter 
Step 1: Name the Strategic Intent (One Conversation)
Before anything changes in finance, leadership clarity has to come first.
Ask your executive team:
    ↳ What are we optimizing right now?
    ↳ Where are we intentionally taking risk?
    ↳ What matters less than it used to?

This is not a planning exercise.
It’s a clarity exercise.

Alignment is understanding intent, not just targets.

Step 2: Identify the One Decision That Matters Most
Every business has decisions that drive outsized impact.
Ask:
    ↳ Which decisions feel slower than they should?
    ↳ Where do we debate the numbers most?
    ↳ Where does finance feel least helpful?
Choose one.

Alignment accelerates when finance is designed around real decisions.
Not abstract reporting.

Step 3: Remove One Source of Friction
Resist the urge to improve everything.
Instead, ask:
    ↳ What process, approval, or report create friction right now?
    ↳ What would happen if they disappeared, or became lighter?

Small removals often create more momentum than large initiatives.

Step 4: Reset How Numbers Are Used in Leadership Conversations
Behavior changes alignment faster than systems.
Commit as a leadership team to:
    ↳ Use numbers to learn before judging
    ↳ Surface assumptions openly
    ↳ Discuss tradeoffs explicitly
    ↳ Explain overrides, not hide them

Trust grows when numbers feel safe to engage with.

Step 5: Revisit Alignment Quarterly  
Alignment is not a one-time fix.
Schedule a simple quarterly check:
    ↳ Are finance priorities still aligned to strategy?
    ↳ Are decisions getting easier or harder?
    ↳ Is execution flowing—or stalling?
If friction is increasing, alignment, not optimization, is usually the next move.

-----
Please share your thoughts in the comments
♻ If this is helpful, Like and Repost to your network to help others  
Follow Beverly Davis for more finance strategy insights.

Most CEOs don’t misunderstand finance.

They misuse it.

Not because they lack financial intelligence.
Because they were taught to us finance as an audit tool,
not forward navigation.

The fastest way to stall a great company
is to optimize short-term metrics, and quietly 
undermine long-term strategy.

It usually starts with good discipline:
  → ROI
  → NPV
  → Payback periods

But without strategic alignment,
those numbers can become dangerous.

Here’s an uncomfortable truth:

Disciplined finance without strategic alignment
does more damage than undisciplined finance ever could.
Because it gives the illusion of control, 
but quietly steering the company off course.

Here’s where it breaks.
1. Metrics without strategy
 Chasing ROI in isolation funds projects that look smart this quarter,
 and block the 3-year plan.

2. Capital decisions made in silos
  → Finance decides.
  → Operations adapts.
  → Marketing works around it.
  → R&D gets squeezed.

Capital gets deployed efficiently,  just not in the right places.

Efficiency is not the same as direction.
Most companies don’t fail from lack of capital.
They fail from capital deployed in the wrong sequence.

3. Optimism replaces risk discipline
Returns get overstated.
Downside scenarios get skipped.
Volatility gets ignored.

That’s how strategic investments become write-offs.

The irony is most CEOs think they’re using finance to drive strategy.
In reality, they’re using finance to defend past decisions.

What the best-performing CEOs do differently:
They don’t use finance to measure the business.
They use finance to shape the business.

What actually works:
 ↳ Finance anchored to a clear 3-year growth plan
 ↳ KPIs that measure performance and strategic fit
 ↳ A true CEO–CFO partnership (not handoffs)
 ↳ Stress-testing capital before deployment
 ↳ Real-time cash visibility while scaling

CEOs who understand finance measure the business.
CEOs who master finance shape the business.

----
Please share your thoughts in the comments.
♻️ Like and repost to share with CEOs who might find this helpful.
Follow Beverly Davis for strategic finance insights.

taplio

The Battle

Samuel Mwendwa

Beverly Davis

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreSamuel Mwendwa's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreBeverly Davis's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Samuel Mwendwa

Beverly Davis

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Samuel Mwendwa's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreBeverly Davis's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreSamuel Mwendwa's LinkedIn Performance