What we advise on
Pricing and margin
Most companies price relative to costs, not market value. Pricing becomes legacy. Discount structures reward negotiation. We measure realised price versus list price across customers, channels, and transactions — then identify where pricing architecture destroys margin and test what the market will actually bear.
A 2-3 point pricing gap on a 15 point margin business wipes out 15-20 percent of profit. Most companies are blind to this because they look at average realized price, not the distribution. The problem is not in the average. It is in the tail.
We analyse discount approval patterns, identify customer segments buying on price rather than value, test whether price architecture reflects cost-to-serve differences, and model what a coherent pricing structure would recover in margin terms.
Portfolio economics and contribution
Contribution by product, channel, and customer segment is often invisible in standard management accounts. Overhead absorption methods mask which products and customers are genuinely profitable. Volume growth hides unit contribution collapse. Channel cost structures are opaque. Mix shift destroys margin without appearing in revenue lines.
We rebuild contribution by segment, strip shared overhead allocations that obscure the picture, identify which parts of the portfolio are genuinely earning their capital, and test whether reported profitability survives scrutiny when the full cost structure is visible. This analysis regularly reveals that a substantial minority of revenue is consuming capital rather than creating it.
Growth expansion economics
Growth plans are built on assumptions about revenue ramps, cost structures, and market adoption that are frequently untested. Cash burn is disconnected from revenue scaling timelines. CAC and payback assumptions are loose. Unit economics at scale are assumed rather than modelled.
We test real unit economics at current and projected scale, stress test cost structure and adoption assumptions against comparable expansions, and model cash requirements under scenarios where revenue takes longer to arrive than the base case assumes. A business that looks cash positive in the base case can destroy significant shareholder value if the upside scenario is 18 months late.
Fixed cost structure and revenue vulnerability
Fixed costs compound quietly. Cost structures reflect decisions made when the business was in a different competitive position, at a different scale, or under different revenue assumptions. Many companies do not model what happens if revenue slows 15-20 percent.
We model cost behaviour under multiple revenue scenarios, identify which cost lines are genuinely variable and which are effectively fixed regardless of management classification, and establish the revenue level at which the business enters structural loss. A business with 35-40 percent genuinely fixed costs has a much narrower downside cushion than its P&L suggests at current revenues.
Acquisition assumptions and commercial due diligence
Deal teams are motivated to make the transaction work. Strategic synergies are assumed rather than proven. Integration costs are underestimated. Revenue assumptions are optimistic. Competitive responses are discounted. Downside scenarios are treated as unlikely rather than modelled seriously.
We interrogate target revenue and margin assumptions against market evidence, test whether synergies depend on factors within the acquirer's control, model integration cost ranges and timelines, and construct credible downside scenarios from the target's competitive position. Many acquisitions destroy acquirer value. The economics are usually visible before completion if the analysis is honest.
Capital allocation and return discipline
Capital allocation reflects organisational momentum more than forward return expectations. Competing investments are evaluated inconsistently — against different assumptions, different time horizons, and different definitions of return. Hurdle rates exist but are rarely enforced. Sunk cost logic perpetuates capital flows to underperforming programmes.
We establish consistent return frameworks, apply them retrospectively to understand where capital has been earning below its cost, identify where reinvestment is compounding poor historic decisions, and model the compounding effect of redeploying trapped capital. A business allocating at 8 percent return when its cost of capital is 10-11 percent destroys value every year. The gap is invisible until it isn't.