About beverlyhower85

How CFO support helps with transaction planning: three checks

How CFO support helps with transaction planning depends on one criterion: whether you are buying a defined set of decisions with an end date, or permanent ownership of a finance function. A transaction is the first kind. That distinction decides the shape of the help you need, not the size of your company or its revenue.

Founders usually frame it as a binary: hire a full-time chief financial officer now, or keep handling finance yourself until a deal forces the issue. There is a third path, and it is the one many owners of growing businesses take. Bring in senior financial leadership for a defined scope, keep your accounting team, and decide later whether the function needs a permanent executive.

A full-time hire earns their keep when finance needs continuous ownership: building a team, running the annual budget cycle, managing banking relationships year after year, and sitting in operating decisions. That is a real job, and it starts before anyone knows what the business will need from it.

Defined-scope work fits when the decisions are already visible. You want to raise a loan, bring in an investor, refinance existing debt, or prepare for a sale. Each of those has a question attached, numbers behind it, and a date by which it must be answered. The trade-off is simple: senior judgment applied to a specific problem, without the continuity of someone who stays.

In practice, founders often run senior support through the transaction and revisit the full-time question after closing. The criterion holds as long as the work ends. When the honest answer is that finance needs an owner in every month of the year, a permanent hire is right, and interim help only delays the decision.

The criterion breaks down when the real problem is your records

The test above assumes the business can produce numbers someone would trust. If the books are months behind or the accounting runs on a spreadsheet only one person understands, the transaction is not the immediate problem. Cleanup is.

That distinction matters because founders sometimes buy strategic advice when what they need is reliable bookkeeping, and the advice has nothing solid to work from. A forecast built on accounts that are still moving will be rebuilt entirely once the records settle, which wastes the effort twice.

Telling the two apart is not difficult. Ask whether you can answer basic questions today: how much revenue each service line produced last quarter, what the business owed at the end of last month, and how long customers take to pay. If those answers require a week of digging, records come first.

There is also a middle stage worth naming. Some businesses have decent records and no reporting layer on top of them. The ledger is clean, but nobody turns it into a monthly view that supports a decision. That gap is where senior financial help earns its keep soonest.

Sort out which stage you are in before scoping anything. The three checks that follow assume records you can stand behind. Applied to a business whose accounts are behind, they mostly show you where the cleanup has to start.

Check one: can you name the decisions the transaction depends on?

If you cannot put the decisions on one page, the work is not ready for senior financial help, or the first weeks of that help will go into building the page with you. Start by naming what the money is supposed to do: open a second location, replace equipment, buy out a partner, or let the owners take money off the table without hurting operations.

A useful line on that page carries three things: the decision, the person who owns it, and the date by which it has to be made. ”Choose between a bank term loan and a smaller equity round” is a decision. ”Improve financial reporting” is not. It reads as responsible and gives nobody anything to do.

Most growing businesses end up with a list that looks roughly like this:

• How much capital the business needs, and what the money buys
• Whether the funding comes from a lender, an investor, or internal cash
• What the balance sheet looks like the month after the money arrives
• Which contracts, leases, or customer agreements could block the process
• What the owners need personally, and how that fits the structure

Order matters more than completeness. Decisions that change the others come first, and the size and type of capital usually reshape everything below it. Settle the money question, then the structure, then the terms you are willing to accept. Working down the list in the wrong order means rewriting the lower half twice.

Senior financial support is useful here because someone has to argue with the plan before a lender or buyer does. That means testing the numbers against how the business actually runs, asking what happens if a large customer leaves, and comparing two structures side by side instead of defending the first one proposed.

Revisit the list monthly and before any meeting where money is discussed. Expect it to stay incomplete. Some decisions only surface once a lender asks about a lease or a buyer asks who owns a customer relationship, and adding a line later is normal.

Check two: do your reports answer what a lender or buyer will ask?

The second check asks whether your reports answer the questions a lender, investor, or buyer brings, rather than the questions you happen to have today. Most businesses have a clean enough profit and loss statement for tax purposes and a muddled one for decisions. Diligence exposes that gap quickly.

Start with revenue. Under ASC 606, revenue is recognized when control of a good or service passes to the customer, which is not always the moment cash arrives or a contract is signed. If your records treat a signed annual contract as revenue on day one, matching the statements to the delivery schedule becomes work later.

Then separate the numbers that will be questioned most, and put a refresh date on each one.

Senior financial support works alongside your Outsourced accounting and CFO support from Venture Growth Partners rather than replacing it. Your bookkeeper keeps recording transactions; the reporting layer is designed so an outsider can follow a number from the ledger to a sentence in a memo. In practice, that means a short written note beside anything unusual: a transaction fee, a personal expense that ran through the business, a one-time repair.

Refresh the pack monthly even when no deal is live, because a file assembled under pressure always has holes. Every business has a messy month somewhere, and that is not the problem. What a reader looks for is whether the story behind the numbers stays consistent when they ask about it.

Check three: can you defend your cash and your working capital?

The third check is cash. Transactions rarely fall apart over profit alone; they fall apart over whether the business can fund the gap between paying suppliers and collecting from customers. That gap is working capital, and it is where deals quietly change price.

Build two views of it. The first is historical: how long customers take to pay, how long you take to pay suppliers, and what inventory or work in progress looks like at the slowest point of the year. The second is forward, and it should exist in two versions, a base case and a worse one.

Take a hypothetical company that bills $40,000 a month, collects after 45 days, and pays $30,000 a month of costs within 15 days. By the end of the second month it has paid out about $60,000 and collected about $40,000, so it is covering close to $20,000 from its own cash before the cycle catches up. Winning a larger contract widens that gap before the cash arrives.

Review the forecast weekly during preparation and daily once a process is live. The weekly version asks a simple question: does the cash balance cover the next four weeks of committed costs? The daily version checks whether a document request or a payment moved the answer.

What a lender or buyer actually reads is the assumption list, not the total at the bottom. Write down what you assume about collection timing, hiring, capital spending, and seasonality, then note which assumptions would hurt most if they slipped. A forecast with named assumptions survives a hard question; a single number does not.

How senior finance work sits alongside the accounting you already have

Senior financial work does not require replacing the accountant who keeps your books. The split is straightforward. The accounting team records what happened and closes the month. The senior finance lead decides what the numbers mean, which questions to answer next, and how to present them to a lender or buyer.

Set the routines in the first week, because they are what makes the arrangement work.

• A weekly thirty-minute call with the founder on open decisions
• A monthly close review that walks the last month against the forecast
• A shared assumption log, so a change in payment terms or a new hire is written down once
• A running request list for documents a lender or buyer will ask for
• A written decision list kept in the same place as the reports

Internal controls belong in the same conversation, since a buyer will ask about them. Who approves payments, who reconciles the bank account, and whether one person can both create a supplier and pay it. You do not need an elaborate system. You need clear and honest answers, especially in a business small enough that people wear several hats.

The founder’s own job does not shrink. Someone still makes the judgment calls: which offer to accept, which customer contract to renegotiate, how much ownership dilution is acceptable. The value of outside support is that those calls arrive with numbers attached and a written record of why one path was chosen over another.

Work in order: records first, then reports, then forecast, then decisions. Skipping a step shows up later, usually in a meeting where someone asks how a figure was built and nobody can trace it. If the books are far behind, the honest first phase is cleanup, and no strategic conversation fixes records that do not exist.

What changes when preparation turns into diligence

Preparation and diligence feel like different jobs because they are. Before a process starts, the work is internal: clean the numbers, test the plan, decide what you want. The second half of how CFO support helps with transaction planning begins once a lender or buyer engages, when requests arrive on their schedule rather than yours.

The core artifact is the data room: one organized index of financial statements, tax returns, contracts, leases, employment agreements, and supporting schedules. Consistency matters more than volume. If the same figure appears in three files, it should be the same figure in all three, and each file should carry a date.

Diligence runs on a request log. Every question gets an owner, a due date, and a written answer with the document attached. Keeping that log current is dull work with a real payoff: the other side sees a business that knows its own numbers, which shortens the questions and reduces the room for speculation.

Negotiation support is where financial judgment pays for itself. Working capital pegs, earn-out structures, indemnities, and the treatment of one large customer contract all translate into price. Someone has to put a number on each term and say which ones are worth trading against the headline amount.

The pace compresses here. Check the request log daily, turn documents around quickly, and answer every question in writing so the record stays clean. A process can still end for reasons outside your control, which is why the operating business needs to keep running normally throughout.

The monthly and quarterly routine that keeps the file current

A transaction does not need constant motion, but it does need a rhythm. Put the calendar in place and keep it, because sporadic attention is what leaves a file stale between a first conversation and a formal request.

Monthly, in this order:

1. Close the books and compare actuals with the forecast, writing down the reason for each large variance
2. Refresh the cash forecast and the working capital position
3. Update the decision list and remove anything already settled
4. Review the document index and add what was signed during the month
5. Send the founder a short written summary of open questions

Quarterly, add the slower work: rebuilding the base and downside forecasts, reviewing debt covenants and lease obligations, and checking that the reporting pack still matches how the business earns money. A service line that has grown or shrunk changes how the numbers should be grouped, and stale groupings mislead everyone who reads them.

Before any meeting with a lender, investor, or buyer, run the three checks again as a short exercise. Can you name the open decisions? Do the reports answer the obvious questions? Is the cash forecast current? That review takes hours when the routine is running and days when it is not.

The cadence should also be honest about effort. A business between processes can hold the monthly rhythm with a few hours of work. A business inside a live process moves to daily. Running the monthly version when nothing is happening is what makes the compressed version survivable later.

Adjusting the scope as the deal and the business change

Scope should change with the stage, and the common mistake is spending on the wrong one. A company exploring a loan needs a cash forecast and a debt schedule. A company talking to investors needs a defensible revenue story and a clean reporting pack. A company preparing for a sale needs all of that plus a quality of earnings exercise that the buyer’s accountant will run anyway.

Ask what the next six months actually require. If the answer is that you might raise money at some point, the honest scope is smaller: fix the monthly close, build the reporting pack, keep the document index current. Deal preparation can wait until a process is real.

Three signs tell you the scope is wrong:

• The forecast is rebuilt every month from different assumptions
• Documents are being requested that nobody has seen before
• Reports are produced that nobody outside finance ever reads

Adjust the scope at defined checkpoints: after a first lender conversation, after a term sheet, after a first diligence round. Each one tells you what the other side cares about, and that should change what you prepare next. A term sheet, for example, usually shifts attention from growth plans to the mechanics of the structure.

Over-scoping early spends money on questions that may never be asked. Under-scoping shows up as a frantic week when they are. The middle ground is a small core file that stays current, expanded once a process starts and the questions become specific.

Three checks applied to one hypothetical company

Take a hypothetical business with a small founding team, a handful of long-term customers, and a plan to borrow money for a second location. Assume the books close late, one customer accounts for about half of revenue, and the founder has never borrowed before. The figures here illustrate the method, not typical results.

Check one produces three decisions: the amount to borrow, which lender, and what happens if the second location opens slower than planned. Each gets an owner and a date, with the amount decided first because it changes the other two. The founder owns the choice; the finance lead owns the numbers behind it.

Check two exposes the concentration problem. The reporting pack needs revenue by customer, because one customer carrying half of revenue is the first thing a lender will question. The answer is not to hide it but to show the contract length, outsourced cfo the renewal history, and what happens to the plan without it.

Check three shows the cash gap. If the second location hypothetically takes four months to reach steady revenue while rent and payroll start immediately, the business carries that cost from existing cash. The gap belongs in the borrowing request, not in a surprise three months later.

What comes out of the exercise is not an impressive binder. It is a decision list, a monthly reporting pack, a cash forecast with a downside case, and an index of documents. The first step is the decision list, because everything else is built to serve it, and the scope of help can be sized once that page is written.