Portfolio / Expertise / Financial Modeling
Financial Modeling
A financial model should forecast, not guess. I build driver-based models grounded in variance history — units, price, and mix move the P&L, not optimistic assumptions — then stress-test the plan before anyone commits to it.
The Workflow — How I Approach It
Start from the P&L
Build the model on the actual statement and its historical trends — not on a blank sheet of assumptions.
Build drivers, not assumptions
Units, price, mix, and cost behavior drive the forecast — every line is traceable to a driver.
Pressure-test scenarios
Base, downside, and upside each get a full model — not a single “hope case.”
Tie back to accounting
Connect the model to cash flow and the balance sheet — a plan without a cash view isn’t a plan.
Stress the plan
Ask the hard question: what breaks at −15%? Where is the buffer, and what consumes it?
Package the decision
The model ends in a clear recommendation and an explicit ask — not a spreadsheet handoff.
My Operating View — The 2 Cents
Assumptions are a choice, and most forecasts are optimistic by default. My 2 cents: let history set the baseline and make the upside a separate scenario. A model you can’t break is a model you can’t trust — and a forecast that ignores cash is fiction.
What Worked & What Didn’t
What Worked
- Driver-based models grounded in variance history held up against actuals.
- Scenario stress-testing forced honest conversations before commitment, not after.
What Didn’t
- Optimistic single-line assumptions that looked fine in the deck and failed in the quarter.
- Models that ignored cash — “profitable” plans that didn’t survive the cash view.