Paul Barnhurst and Giles review a financial model that got most things right but missed critical details. The model fixed a capex sign error and balance-sheet number, yet left an unexplained negative figure that should have been caught. Getting 80% correct isn't enough when the remaining 20% breaks the whole thing.
Is already better than 80% of modelists or whatever.
So that might be the case if 80% of your modelers are terrible. But if you imagine you were an investment manager and your junior analyst came to you and said, there you go, they'd be out the door.
Yeah, maybe if they were brand new first time, you'd train them, but it wouldn't be long before they'd be out the door. We asked it to fix two things. Giles asked to fix the capex, which showed the wrong sign and we'll explain what was going on there. And we asked to fix the balance sheet. It got the number closer. But there are two very concerning things here that I would call red flags. Whole great job. But let's talk through the first one. Help us understand this negative number.
Trust and Leadership Lessons for FP&A From 100+ Top Leaders with CFO Jon Laudie
