Financial models that hold up when someone tests them

A fixed fee, priced to what's being built, with handover included. You get a written proposal before you commit, and the first conversation is free. What moves the number is structural complexity rather than hours. A single entity with clean records and a straightforward revenue model sits at one end. Multiple entities, more than one currency, acquisition or leveraged structures, covenant tests calculated to a specific credit agreement, or historicals that need consolidating before anything can be forecast all sit at the other. If it turns into running a debt financing process, that becomes a mandate, which is a work fee plus a fee payable on closing. Equity preparation and diligence support remain fixed-fee work.

Most run four to eight weeks from the point I have the historical data. The variable is rarely the modelling, it's how quickly the underlying records can be assembled and reconciled. If your recent year ends are clean and your trial balances export properly, it's the short end of that range.

Usually not. Most forecasts project revenue and expenses, so they tell you what profit might look like. A model links the income statement, balance sheet and cash flow together, so it also tells you what cash, receivables, inventory and debt are doing at the same time. That matters because lenders and investors underwrite cash and leverage, not profit. A forecast showing healthy margins and a model showing you breach a covenant in month nine can both be accurate. Only one of them is useful in the conversation you're about to have. If you're budgeting internally and not borrowing against it, a profit forecast may be all you need. If someone outside the business is going to test it, it isn't.

I'd start fresh. Patching a model whose logic is broken costs more than building a new one, and what you get back is a repaired version of something that was wrong to begin with. A new build gives you a model that holds together, built the way it should have been from the start. There's still value in what you have. It shows me what you already assume about the business, how revenue has been thought about, and which drivers you think matter. That's a real starting point, even if none of it survives into the new build.

That's the point. Everything is formula driven, the inputs are the only cells anyone types into, and I train whoever will be running it. A model that only works while I'm attached to it isn't finished.

Yes. Your lender, your accountant and your board all open Excel, and a model nobody else can audit is worth less than one they can. If you're moving to a different reporting system I'll work alongside it, but the model itself stays somewhere your counterparties can read it.

No. A formal valuation report is a defined engagement carried out by a qualified business valuator, usually for tax, litigation or a dispute. What I build is a supportable value range for a decision you're making, which is a different thing and shouldn't be confused with it. If you need the formal version I'll tell you and point you to someone who does them.