📬 Exponential growth in a 3% market...

So, here’s my problem with most AI-in-finance spiels: the tool might produce an answer, but it’s like a black box… it doesn’t show it’s work.

That doesn’t work in accounting, where every balance has to survive an eagle-eyed audit partner (who might have had a very long afternoon). 

Ledge built for that sign off rather than the demo. Their accounting agents prepare the actual work, schedules, entries, the whole bag, with every number linked back to its system of record, with the agent’s reasoning visible and a stop-and-ask when it’s not sure. 

PS - Nothing posts until you approve it, of course. 

👉🏼 Got a problem and want some advice? Send me your questions, and you might just see yourself in next week’s Mailbag. Submit anonymously using the button below:

Here’s what’s on today:

Now, let’s get into it.

Joel from California, US 

PE-backed CFO. A huge part of the sponsor’s value creation expectations includes exponential sales growth in a highly competitive, low-margin industry where modest 3-4% growth is normal.

I can meaningfully contribute to all other value creation levers but I feel helpless when it comes to sales volume. Nothing else matters if we can’t deliver the sales growth. How do I approach these discussions?

Any advice?

Joel,

What you are describing is PE at its worst: plugging a hole in the value creation plan with a heroic sales assumption.

Good PE sponsors understand value is not created in spreadsheets. It is created through differentiated ideas and execution.

There was a time when cheap capital, multiple expansion, and financial engineering could bail out a lazy PE deal. That time is largely gone. Unfortunately, plenty of finance people grew up in an era where they did not have to fully internalize that.

If the market normally grows at 3% to 4%, is highly competitive, and has low margins, then even growing at 6% or 7% (without crushing margin) requires an exceptional plan and execution.

If your sponsor has assumed exponential sales growth in that kind of market, either they know something specific that you have not yet seen, or they are confusing ambition with strategy.

Maybe they have a silver bullet. A relationship. A product angle. A channel opportunity. A competitor weakness. A pricing architecture. Some real insight that explains why you can grow materially faster than the market.

But if the answer is basically “everyone else is stupid and we will execute harder,” I would be very nervous. In competitive industries, the management teams are rarely as dumb as you think.

So it’s not your job to personally solve sales volume, as it’s outside your direct control. But you can make the assumption visible, quantified, and unavoidable.

I would run the value creation plan two ways.

First, the sponsor case: all initiatives delivered, including the aggressive sales growth assumption.

Second, a grounded case: all other initiatives delivered, but sales growth at a more realistic market or modest outperformance level.

Then show the difference between those two cases in enterprise value, equity value, MOIC, and IRR at exit.

My guess is the gap will be enormous. And that gap has a name: assumed market outperformance.

Put it on one simple board slide:

“80% of the value creation plan depends on sales growth above market.”

Then show the workings and put the punchline underneath:

“We need a specific plan for how this growth will be delivered NOW.”

That is where you CAN contribute. You can force the commercial plan to become specific enough to test.

The politics will be sensitive, because nobody enjoys being told their value creation plan has a giant hole in the middle. But if this growth assumption is as material as you suggest, I would not be too delicate, as the whole thesis may fall apart… including management’s equity value.

I would make sure it is discussed at every board meeting until there is either a credible growth plan or an honest reset of expectations.

TLDR: You can’t sell the volume yourself. But you can expose just how big an issue this is. Make it un-ignorable.

PulledLikeTaffy from San Francisco, US

I am a first-time CFO with CEO aspirations (one day).

I've joined a smaller company than I've worked at before and quickly built trust with the CEO and other senior leaders. This has resulted in a disruption to my finance priorities, as I find myself getting pulled into RevOps, Packaging, Systems Build-outs, Sales Enablement, Employee Compensation, Recruiting, etc. I don't claim to be an expert in any of these areas, but leadership and I do believe that these items are improved via my involvement.

At the same time, I am very aware of the state of the finance department, including the fact that we need a complete CoA rebuild, improved visibility into costs and cost owners, a new budgeting process, forecasting improvements, a general FP&A build-out, the development of a procurement process, a strengthening of controls, etc.

I know I will be judged by the Board on my ability to execute on the finance items above all else, but it's hard for me to deprioritize items that I feel could improve the trajectory of the business, especially given that I'm interested in these items and enjoying the broad scope.

Should I deprioritize the non-finance items in the interest of self-preservation? Or should I try to manage the board to allow myself to do it all with a more relaxed timeline around the finance pieces (which I am still progressing, just slower than I would have anticipated if they had my full focus)?

My friend, I think you already know what I’m going to say.

Yes, the CFO role is to support the business. Especially in a smaller company. And if you have CEO aspirations, this broad operating exposure is charming. But it also shouldn’t drive your decision-making on how you spend your time, that should be driven by the demands of the business.

Your board will be assuming that you are doing these things on top of keeping your own house in order, not instead of. If the finance function is a mess six months from now, they will not say: “Fair enough, they were busy helping with product packaging.”

They will say: “Why isn’t your house in order?”

So, I would not frame this as finance versus non-finance. The question is where your marginal impact is highest.

Ask yourself two things.

First, how dangerous are the finance gaps?

If you have bad balance sheets, poor controls, weak cash visibility, overdue debt, unreliable forecasts, or nobody understands cost ownership, then you have to fix that. Those are not nice-to-have finance projects. Those are the foundations of trust.

But if the finance function is basically safe, and the issue is more that you are not progressing the next stage as quickly as you would like, then you have more room to keep playing across the business.

Honestly, some of the things sound to me like you don’t quite have the basics in place.

Second, are you truly adding value in the non-finance work?

Not “is it useful to have me in the room?” That bar is too low. More… “Does your involvement materially improve decision velocity, quality, or execution?”

So, how to move forward?

I would start with a mapping exercise. Put everything on your plate into a simple grid.

Then be honest.

Some of this work will be high impact and worth your time. Some of it will be interesting, flattering, and strategically adjacent, but not actually the best use of you.

In the medium term, the answer is to build a finance team strong enough that the core function keeps moving when you are pulled into wider business issues, rather than forcing the organization to choose.

That may mean hiring stronger people beneath you. It might mean using temporary resources to accelerate the finance build. It might mean saying no to some of your C-Suite colleagues. And most likely it will mean being very explicit with the CEO and Board: “Here are the finance foundations we must fix, here is the wider business work I am supporting, and here are the resources or trade-offs required to do both.”

TLDR: Careful you aren’t too busy auditioning for CEO while your own house is not in order.

Red Devil from the UK 

I have just recently become CFO of a Premier League Football club in England. An independent commission has found the club guilty of 115 charges relating to serious breaches of the Premier League's financial regulations.

How would you approach this? The club has been pretending it is a big club for the last 20 years but, in reality, I feel they are just noisy neighbours to a much better club in the same city (although they have had their financial difficulties as well).

I think downsizing to a few leagues lower would better reflect where we are but the wealthy owners think differently.

OK, so if I had to rank my all-time favorite Mailbag questions, I think we may have a new number one. This made me laugh until my sides split.

In short, I think there is only one answer for you, sir.

You and your club need to accept your inevitable future. And when one day in 2031 you draw the mighty Manchester United in the FA Cup (assuming you get through the qualifying rounds), you can look forward to hearing 70,000 people roll back the years and sing an old classic:

“You’ve got the tallest floodlights in the National League… coz City are a massive club.”

TLDR: No more Barclays for you. The future looks a little more… Vanarama.

A few of the biggest stories that CFOs should pay attention to. This is also the section you might not want to see your name in.

Scandal ridden KPMG Australia goes looking for a bailout

Is there a worse job on the planet than working in PR of a Big 4 audit firm. Every week they get slapped with something new.

Diesel spike is rippling into freight costs

Solidarity with my sisters and brothers in CFO roles dealing with a 2026 full of commodity cost price volatilty. I love you guys.

ICYMI, here are some of my favorite finance/business social media posts from this week.

It was awesome to see my friend behind SportsBall go über-viral this week with this incredible articulation of the Premier League finance scandal:

True story: I got to see Brian Wilson perform his lost masterpiece Smile live at the Royal Festival Hall in 2004. A hero of mine…

Last weekend’s Playbook was the final installment of “Inheriting a Shitshow Finance Function” and it’s all about how to radically improve a weak team.

Disclaimer: I am not your accountant, tax advisor, lawyer, CFO, director, or friend. Well, maybe I’m your friend, but I am not any of those other things. Everything I publish represents my opinions only, not advice. Running the finances for a company is serious business, and you should take the proper advice you need