Finance

Controllership is the boring role in finance. I have seen many narratives being played out stating FP&A is better and Controllership is boring. I would like to make a point here. No doubt FP&A is more dynamic and more exciting being in the middle of business decision making, however I would also like to mention that comparing Accounting/Controllership with FP&A is not a right comparison. Its like comparing the foundation of a building with the balcony view. One holds the weight. The other gets the attention. FP&A shines when the data is clean, timely and accurate. But where does that come from? It comes from the teams that close books, reconcile accounts, manage audits and ensure compliance month after month, year after year. Controllership may not always look glamorous, but it’s the function that ensures the numbers actually mean something. So while FP&A builds the future, Controllership protects the present. Both are critical. Let’s not call one boring just because it’s not on stage. #Controllership #Accounting

Everyone wants to do “strategic finance.” Nobody wants to do the boring stuff. When we were hiring recently, almost every junior candidate said the same thing: “I want to do FP&A. I want to work on the strategic side.” But when I asked about their financial experience, P&Ls, journal entries, revenue recognition, the answers were… sparse. Strategy sounds cool. But you don’t earn that seat without the fundamentals. Every successful person I know in finance started in the weeds: • Book entries • Depreciation schedules • Manual reconciliations • Endless Excel sheets It’s not sexy. It’s not fun. But it teaches you how a business actually runs. You spot revenue leaks. You catch inefficiencies. You become the first line of defence when things don’t look right. Ted Sherrington-Boyd (our Group FC) said it best: “Sometimes controllership is about lifting the spirits. A quick feedback loop supports positive reinforcement and empowers those to continue going strong.” And this isn’t just about finance: In HR? Onboarding forms and visa paperwork. In marketing? Resizing posts and tagging channels. In ops? Inventory logs and system updates. If you’re early in your career, especially in finance, take the 3–4 years of boring. It builds the judgment you’ll use for decades. This isn’t a “Gen Z are lazy” rant. It’s a reminder that real experience compounds, but only if you earn it.

We sold our 120 employee $14M top line company 2 years ago. There were many lessons, but here are 5, plus a bonus, that I value the most and share with entrepreneurs regularly. 1️⃣ Everyone told me to get clear on the terms in the LOI up front. It’ll save you a ton of money in legal fees if you can nail the purchase agreement as close to perfectly the first time. This may be the best advice I got thanks to Brian A. Hall and Steve Schaffer. 2️⃣ Many founders get fired or leave shortly after selling. I got fired a year and a half in. I was self conscious until every VC/Investor and entrepreneur I knew called me the week it happened. They all said “congratulations” and “what’s next? How can we help?” That was an awesome feeling. 3️⃣ Operate as though you’re always about to sell. Our deal from LOI to close was 30 days, which is insanely fast. This was only enabled because of great accounting and HR practices. Messy records makes diligence hard and can kill your deal. Don’t be an operational slob. It’s not a good look when people look under the hood. 4️⃣ Earn outs and bonuses are never guaranteed. During negotiations everyone loves one another, but after the ink dries things can go south. I’ve heard it from other founders who’ve experienced it first hand. Targets attached to revenue, EBITDA, etc are easy to manipulate after the fact, so if you’re going to agree to earn outs tied to that or your employment at the company, make sure you consider all of the “what ifs.” What if I’m fired? What if you change company strategy? What if the definitions change? Be wary of earn outs unless you’ve got a rock solid set of attorneys and advisors that craft bullet proof plans. Better yet, just call Brian A. Hall. Best money we spent. 5️⃣ If you want to meet every financial advisor on the internet, just share that you’ve sold your company publicly. They’ll ALL call you. More importantly, have a plan and an advisor well ahead of your liquidity moment. The day wires are sent is a bad day to decide what to do with the money. You’ve worked hard to get there, have a plan for what to do with the fruits of your labor. ➡️ Bonus - selling a company that you’ve built can be an emotional rollercoaster. I describe it as being like a former President the day after the new President is sworn in. You still might get the daily intel briefings, and probably kept your Presidential slippers. But no one cares quite as much what you think, and your powers are limited compared to yesterday. Finding new purpose can be a complex process, and in my case I’ve found a lot of fun ways to stay busy. But it’s not a clear straight line and it can be emotional saying goodbye to control over something you’ve poured your heart into. Anyway, that’s it. Those are the lessons I had top of mind and in discussions with some folks considering exiting soon. Let me know if you want to hear more. #entrepreneurship

Controller is the hardest job in finance. It's not just process. It’s process lived day after day, month after month. The stakes are enormous. Accurate financials are no joke. And companies evolve. Which means processes break. Whatever you created six months ago won’t survive unchanged. That’s why waiting for problems to appear is so expensive. The best controllers don’t just follow checklists. → They anticipate problems. → They know growth breaks systems. → They assume exceptions will happen. Think about it. A new vendor. A new product. A new billing model. Every one of those changes stresses the system. So a great controller double-checks invoices line by line. Sales tax applied correctly? Duplicate invoices avoided? Vendors billing what you actually use? Behind every “books closed on time” is that invisible work. Here’s the paradox. Controllers are judged on precision—clean books, delivered fast. But the real job is managing ambiguity. The gray areas where growth makes things messy. And anticipation? That comes only from pattern recognition. From having lived through processes breaking again and again. The best controllers combine opposites:
• Comfortable with manual work, yet finding ways to automate • Disciplined in process, yet adaptable to chaos • Strong individual performers, yet strong communicators across teams That combination is rare. A strong controller may be the hardest finance hire. They are essential. Because without them, every other finance team stands on shaky ground.

💥 Biotech M&A Is Booming?: Here’s What YOU need to know. After a quiet 2024, biotech M&A has roared back to life in 2025 and it’s not just about filling pipeline gaps anymore. Big Pharma is making bold moves, and the data tells a compelling story. Looking over 30 recent acquisitions and found that the average premium paid was around 77%. That’s not just a signal of confidence, it’s a bet on innovation. The most active buyers? Sanofi, Novartis, and Roche. Each is playing a different game, but all are chasing the same prize: differentiated science. Sanofi is going big. With deals like Blueprint Medicines and Vigil Neuroscience, they’re leaning into rare diseases, neurology, and immunology. Their average deal size? Over $3.5 billion. And they’re not shy about paying up premiums north of 1.3x show they’re serious about owning the future of specialty medicine. Novartis is taking a more platform-driven approach. Their acquisitions point to a strategy focused on RNA-based therapies and enabling technologies. Regulus Therapeutics and Anthos Therapeutics are examples of this, with premiums that reflect the value of scalable innovation. Roche, meanwhile, is making focused bets. Their acquisition of 89bio signals a strong interest in metabolic diseases, and their deal structure shows discipline targeted investment with strategic upside. Now Pfizer is making a bold move into obesity buying Metsera for $ 4.9 B. Across the board, oncology remains the most active therapeutic area, but we’re seeing a resurgence in CNS, metabolic, and rare disease deals. Asia is also stepping into the spotlight, with companies like Sun Pharma and Taiho making cross-border moves that hint at a more globalized innovation race. This is a signal: early-stage biotechs in these hot areas are acquisition targets. Platform technologies, rare disease assets, and differentiated pipelines are where the action is. The landscape is shifting. Innovation is the currency. And the next wave of biotech winners is already being written one acquisition at a time. 💬 What trends are you seeing in biotech M&A? Drop your thoughts below or DM me if you’d like to dive deeper into the data #Biotech #Pharma #MergersAndAcquisitions #BusinessDevelopment #Investing #RareDiseases #Oncology #GeneticMedicine #Innovation

Have you been wondering (like me) where the budding distress in commercial real estate is translating into discounted transactions? Banks and other lenders are beginning to sell loans tied to commercial property assets in order to minimize their exposure to the real estate sector and raise cash. Recent deals include the sale in January of a $401 million bundle of loans tied to Houston apartment buildings for $370 million (a 7% discount) by Amerant Bank. CIBC has also just hired CBRE to market a $316 million package of office loans in the US. Experts expect more of these transactions as the commercial real estate market faces a huge oncoming wave of debt maturities. JLL says that $2.1 trillion of commercial property debt will expire between now and the end of 2025 in the US and that $265 billion of equity will likely be necessary to refinance those loans. Not every landlord is going to pour in the additional cash to hold onto properties and distress will pick up. Fitch Ratings predicts that office defaults in the securitized debt market, for instance, will rise to 9.9% by the end of 2025 - that's higher than the 8.5% default rate during the great financial crisis. Most lenders don't want to take over property assets, according to Bliss Morris, a loan sale advisor, because of the large costs of operating those properties, including insurance and maintenance. "The bankers that we talk to today would just as soon exit the loan on as high a value note as they can versus getting into a long-term, drawn out foreclosure," she said. By selling loans today, lenders can offload debts before problems materialize and recoup more value. William "David" Tobin, another loan sale advisor, said that his group tracked $15 billion of loan sales in 2023 and expects a similar volume to trade in 2024. Read the full story at Business Insider: https://lnkd.in/dGWcZtPi #commercialrealestate #distresseddebt #banking

3 major MASH acquisitions in under a year. Roche, GSK, now Novo. Combined value over $9B. The market's sending a clear signal: MASH has moved from speculative to strategic necessity. Here's the competitive dynamic playing out: Novo owns GLP-1s. Wegovy and Ozempic generate tens of billions annually. MASH frequently stems from obesity. Acquiring Akero Therapeutics efruxifermin gives them both ends of the treatment spectrum. They can address the obesity AND the downstream liver damage. No one else has that combination. Roche paid $3.5B for 89Bio's pegozafermin last month. Similar mechanism to efruxifermin (FGF21 analog). They're betting on a parallel path to the same market. The clinical data showed comparable efficacy, so Roche bought its way into the race rather than starting 5 years behind. GSK grabbed Boston Pharmaceuticals experimental MASH drug for $1.2B upfront earlier this year. Different mechanism (THR-β agonist), potentially complementary to FGF21 approaches. They're hedging on mechanism diversity. What this tells us: The big pharma companies with deep metabolic disease franchises have decided MASH can't be ignored anymore. The patient population is massive (6-8% globally), growing with obesity rates, and there's almost no effective treatment currently available. The companies that waited are now paying premiums to catch up. Novo Nordisk's 16% premium looks reasonable until you factor in the 42% run-up from acquisition speculation. Roche paid a 127% premium for 89bio. GSK went straight to a $1.2B upfront payment before the asset even hit meaningful clinical milestones. Early movers got better deals. Late movers are paying for speed. The next 3-5 years will determine which mechanisms actually work in MASH. Multiple programs have failed spectacularly. The ones that succeed will define a $10B+ market. The ones that fail will write off billions in acquisition costs. But here's what's interesting: None of these companies could afford NOT to play. If MASH programs succeed and you're not in the game, you've ceded an entire treatment category to competitors. The cost of missing this market is higher than the cost of buying in. We're watching portfolio strategy play out in real time. Companies aren't just buying drugs. They're buying optionality on a market that might explode or might collapse, and they've decided the risk of missing it is worse than the cost of entry. What do you think drives the better ROI here - mechanism diversity or doubling down on proven approaches like FGF21? #Biotech #Pharma #Strategy #MASH #M&A

Just how are payment solutions offering working capital to B2B buyers and suppliers? As a follow up to my post last week, let’s dig in on the various offerings in the market today. There has been an explosion of fintech lending because large banks and community banks often underserve SMBs due to high onboarding friction and risk adverse underwriting (See data in the comments). 💳 Payment Processors (e.g., Stripe, Square, PayPal) Target: Mostly sellers, especially SMBs and micro-merchants Products Offered: ☑️ Instant Payouts (within minutes) ☑️ Merchant Cash Advances (MCAs) ☑️ Working Capital Loans (via partners or balance sheet) Typical Loan Size: ☑️ $500 to $250,000 ☑️ Repayment often tied to % of daily sales Cost Structure: ☑️ Flat fees or fixed % (6%–15%++) ☑️ Instant payouts: 1.5%–1.75% per transaction Risk Profile: ☑️ Medium-high—based on sales volatility and limited financial history. ☑️ Automated underwriting minimizes cost but increases exposure. Market Growth: ☑️ High—massive growth driven by embedded finance and cash flow demand from digital SMBs. 🧾 AP Automation / Procurement Platforms (e.g., Coupa, Tipalti, Ariba/Taulia) Target: Primarily buyers, with optional supplier participation Products Offered: ☑️ Dynamic Discounting (self-funded) ☑️ Supply Chain Finance (bank/fintech-funded) ☑️ Invoice approval + embedded lending Typical Loan Size: ☑️ Buyer-funded discounting: unlimited (cash on balance sheet) ☑️ Supply Chain Financing via partner: $250K–$5M+ depending on buyer size Cost Structure: ☑️ Discount rate on early payment (1%–3% typical) ☑️ Often rev share with funding partners Risk Profile: ☑️ Low for platforms (not balance sheet lenders) ☑️ Buyer risk if self-funded; financier risk otherwise Market Growth: ☑️ Accelerating, especially as treasury teams get pressure to optimize cash yield and procurement teams seek smoother, more reliable supplier relationships 🧩 Vertical SaaS & Marketplaces (e.g., Shopify Capital, Toast Capital, Faire, Mindbody) Target: Generally sellers, though some also extend buyer credit. Products Offered: ☑️ Embedded BNPL for B2B ☑️ Invoice Factoring ☑️ Revenue-Based Financing Typical Loan Size: ☑️ $5K–$500K ☑️ Often underwritten using real-time platform activity Cost: ☑️ Flat fees, take rates, or tiered rates (~8%–20%+ depending on model and term) Risk Profile: ☑️ High volatility but offset by strong real-time data signals ☑️ Tends to outperform traditional SMB lending in default predictability Market Growth: ☑️ Explosive—driven by embedded finance in vertical SaaS. ☑️ Lower CAC due to captive customer base. Software platforms don’t have to build these capabilities themselves, nor do they need to extend funding from their own balance sheet. As with embedding payments, there are partners that SaaS can rely on to get started, such as Pipe, Kanmon, OatFi and, of course, Stripe Embedded Finance and Adyen Capital. Shout out to Michael Barbosa, Luke Voiles, and Jon Lear

Are mergers the future of institutional sustainability......or a limited solution to a much larger set of challenges? This has been on my mind lately.... This morning on my way to campus, I was struck by a College Viability, LLC special edition podcast with Gary Stocker and guests Jonathan Nichols (author of Requiem for a College with a recent 2nd edition release), and publisher Kate Colbert. Nichols’ central warning landed hard: no institution is too loved or too good to fail. Closures, he emphasized, are rarely sudden (check out some fantastic writing by Unity Environmental President and innovation guru Dr. Melik Peter Khoury, who has said the same); they are decades in the making. Colbert added that the shame and secrecy surrounding struggling colleges often keep leaders from even acknowledging what’s happening and being remotely transparent, much less planning for it. Their conversation underscored that transparency, proactive governance, and student-centered decision-making are not optional.......they are survival tools. Which brings me to mergers. They are not a panacea, but they are an option worth serious consideration in today’s climate of declining demographics, rising costs, and fragile tuition models. Some recent examples stand out: - Mission-driven coalitions. Otterbein and Antioch formed the Coalition for the Common Good, keeping distinct undergraduate brands while collaborating on graduate programs and shared services. - System-level diversification. Lindenwood Education System brought Dorsey and Ancora into a nonprofit parent structure to expand workforce-aligned offerings. - Sector-wide adaptations. Catholic colleges and others have turned to mergers, acquisitions, and partnerships to confront demographic pressures and overcapacity. The benefits are real (at least on paper): broader programs, shared resources, expanded reach, and stronger competitiveness. But the challenges are equally daunting: cultural clashes, integration headaches, identity loss, and legal hurdles. As Ricardo Azziz and others note, success depends on clear vision, supportive boards, strong project management, agile and respected leadership, and above all, a student-first focus. The takeaway: Mergers should be on the table, not as desperation plays, but as part of strategic planning. Institutions that start these conversations early, with transparency and courage, may protect their missions and create new opportunities for students. Those who don’t risk becoming case studies in future editions of Requiem for a College.

Investment Banking M&A: EPS Accretion and Dilution Explained (Merger Models) 🏆💰 EPS (Earnings Per Share) is a financial metric that allows analysts to compare the profitability of businesses of different sizes on a per-share basis, making it easier to assess relative performance. An EPS accretion / dilution analysis allows shareholders of an acquirer company to see whether an acquisition of a target will lead to an increase in their EPS. A crucial metric in deciding whether an acquisition should go ahead or not. Full Breakdown👇 1) EPS Formula The EPS formula takes the earnings of a business and divides it by the number of shares outstanding. Pro forma EPS = Pro forma NI / Shares outstanding 2) Calculating Earnings: Pro Forma NI When calculating the impact of a transaction on EPS, we need to use the combined or pro forma NI of the acquirer and target businesses post deal. This can be summarized using the formula: Pro forma NI = Investor (acquirer) NI + Investee (target) NI +/- Transaction effects 3) Calculating Earnings — Transaction Effects Any expected synergies due to the transaction will have to be included in the forecast income statement of the combined business and will need to be captured in the appropriate line item, most commonly SG&A expenses. The impact of synergies is to decrease SG&A costs, and therefore increase net income and EPS. The company may also have issued additional debt or used balance sheet cash to fund the deal. These impact the interest expense/income lines of the income statement, thus affecting NI and EPS. 4) Calculating Number of Shares The next item to be added to the EPS formula is the number of shares. This is the number of the acquirer’s shares just after the acquisition is completed. It is assumed to be the same as weighted average shares outstanding. A deal may cause the number of shares of the acquirer to increase if new shares are issued. This often happens where the target company’s shareholders exchange their old shares for new shares in the combined business, effectively becoming shareholders in the acquirer. The shares outstanding post deal can be calculated as: Shares outstanding = Acquirer shares (diluted) + New shares issued 5) Accretion / Dilution calculation Once the pro forma EPS is calculated it can be compared to the acquirer’s standalone EPS as follows: EPS accretion / (dilution) = Pro forma EPS / Acquirer standalone EPS – 1 The deal will be accretive when pro forma EPS is higher than standalone EPS and will be dilutive when pro forma EPS is lower than standalone EPS. 6) M&A Models A simple M&A model provides a quick and simplified view of a deal. They are quick to construct and provide a range of outputs including: • EPS accretion / dilution • Ownership analysis • Per share consideration • Sensitivity tables • Synergies vs premium analysis • WACC vs ROIC analysis Apply this theory to practical financial modeling with Financial Edge Training👇