Samuel Mwendwa

I lead strategic finance for high-growth fintech and SaaS companies operating across complex, multi-country environments.

My core work is simple: help leadership teams make better capital decisions under uncertainty — how long the runway is, where cash should go, and what breaks if assumptions change.

I’ve built and led FP&A, treasury, and investor-grade reporting across 12+ markets, partnering directly with CEOs, CFOs, and boards during:

→ Fundraising and diligence cycles
→ Regulatory expansion
→ Efficiency resets
→ M&A readiness

What I’m known for

→ Turning messy operating data into clear, decision-ready financial models

→ Designing treasury and cash-flow structures that hold up under audit and scrutiny

→ Linking GTM, pricing, and unit economics to actual capital outcomes

Recent impact

→ Extended operating runway by 9+ months through forecasting and capital reallocation

→ Supported a $12M M&A transaction with investor-grade reporting and diligence readiness

→ Built global treasury and finance infrastructure spanning the US, UK, and Africa

I’m most effective with companies navigating growth, expansion, or capital events where financial clarity directly affects survival or valuation.

If you’re hiring a senior finance leader or need short-term strategic finance support around fundraising, expansion, or runway — feel free to reach out.

Group Tax and Accounting Manager

Layoffs are often a proxy decision. They feel decisive, visible, and fast. They’re also frequently the wrong first move.

I watched a SaaS company cut 20% of its team to extend runway. Morale dropped. Output slowed. Burn barely changed. The issue wasn’t people—it was the product footprint those people were propping up.

Years of reactive selling had turned the roadmap into a liability. Custom features, marginal integrations, edge-case workflows. Each one small. Together, they consumed engineering time, support capacity, and cash.

Instead of another reduction, we made a harder call: reduce the product surface area.

Every feature was tied to revenue and retention—not in theory, but in practice. Features with vocal internal champions but no measurable impact were sunset. Integrations used by one or two customers triggered uncomfortable conversations. Sales pushed back. Some customers complained. A few left.

What changed was focus. Engineering velocity improved because teams weren’t context-switching. Support load dropped. New deals were easier to explain and sell. Costs finally came down in a durable way.

Cutting headcount treats symptoms. Cutting product scope addresses cause—but it requires accepting near-term pain to avoid structural fragility.

When runway tightens, the first question isn’t who to cut.

It’s what you’re willing to stop supporting—and who might be unhappy when you do.

undefined undefined

Hey [First Name] — appreciate you jumping into the wallet convo!

As mentioned, I pulled together a brief on the latest Dune data + trends shaping how wallets are becoming crypto’s new control layer.

Here’s the link: 

Curious what your take is: are you more bullish on smart accounts, wallet infra, or UX-led plays right now?
Always down to trade thoughts if you're building or tracking in this space.

— Samuel

The hard lesson I’ve seen in web3 is counterintuitive: hype can inflate valuations, but only operational rigor preserves them. Burn multiple and GTM risk aren’t abstract—they are leading signals of whether capital and incentives actually create durable network value. I’ve watched promising protocols command headlines while quietly eroding optionality because adoption and token deployment weren’t sequenced for efficiency. Leadership here isn’t just about raising the next round; it’s structuring capital and go-to-market to compound value predictably under real-world constraints.

If you’re thinking about embedding burn efficiency and GTM risk into web3 valuation, I share actionable frameworks—follow or DM for insights.

nextlify-scale

Advanced Python: Working With Data

Advanced QGIS Analysis with AI and Machine Learning

Corporate Finance Foundations

Excel for Financial Planning and Analysis (FP&A)

Finance Foundations: Risk Management

Financial Modeling and Forecasting Financial Statements

International Business and Finance

Power BI Data Analyst Associate (PL-300) Cert Prep: Advanced Reporting in Power BI

SQL Server Machine Learning Services: Python

SQL for Data Analysis

Six Sigma: Black Belt

Strategic Planning Foundations

Tableau Certified Data Analyst Cert Prep

Business Intelligence & Data Analyst (BIDA®)

Leveraging Generative AI in Finance and Accounting

The Role of the FP&A Professional

Data Visualization & Dashboards - The Basics

Intermediate DAX & Time Intelligence

Power BI  Case Study – CFI Capital Partners

SQL Case Study - WOWI Sales Analysis

The course has eneble me to demonstrate creative & innovative thinking in strategy development.
Understand management and organizational theory, and relate this to strategy development.
Identify strategic issues and design appropriate courses of action. 
Provide a basic understanding of the nature and dynamics of the strategy formulation and implementation processes as they occur in complex organizations. 
Understand the essentials of strategy management in a global economy. 


Women Empowerment Link

members economic empowerment and concern to the economy

STAREX S. H GROUP

Fractional CFO | Strategic Finance Leader for High-Growth Startups | Capital Planning • FP&A • M&A • GTM Enablement

As a strategic finance leader and fractional CFO, I help high-growth startups transform financial complexity into clarity—and clarity into action. My specialty is turning operational data into board-ready decisions that extend runway, increase valuation, and drive smart capital allocation.

I’ve built and led finance functions across VC-backed fintech, SaaS, and Regenerative ventures—from zero-to-one scaling to acquisition readiness. My approach combines lean systems, dynamic FP&A, and investor-grade decision support that aligns finance with product velocity, market expansion, and fundraising.

What I Deliver:

Capital Planning with Precision: Burn modeling, unit economics, multi-scenario forecasting, and capital allocation frameworks that sharpen board and investor decisions.

Finance Systems That Scale: Cloud ERP, dashboarding, automated workflows, and compliance infrastructure tailored for fast-growth startups.

Strategic M&A and Investor Readiness: Scenario modeling, audit-proof reporting, and real-time insights to support funding, exits, and GTM alignment.

Recent Wins:

Cut burn by 25% and extended runway by 9+ months through FP&A transformation

Led finance modeling for $12M M&A scenario resulting in acquisition

Built a tax intelligence engine that reduced audit risk by 18% across 3 continents

I’m most effective in moments of scale, shift, or scrutiny—pre-Series B, pre-acquisition, or prepping for a fundraise—where financial strategy is mission-critical and capital clarity drives velocity.

Let’s connect if you're leading a high-growth startup and want a finance partner who builds for what's next.

Strategic Finance & Capital Allocation Principal | Fintech Growth Accelerator & Runway Protector Unit Economics • High-Conviction Capital Deployment • Pricing & Incentive Optimization • Multi-Market Treasury & Payments

Why most SaaS & fintech forecasts silently sabotage growth

Copying a forecasting template from another SaaS company feels safe. It’s quick, it balances, and it ticks a box.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: generic FP&A models rarely reflect your actual business dynamics.

The consequences aren’t just imperfect numbers—they’re missed opportunities, wasted capital, and slow erosion of strategic advantage.

Common pitfalls I see:

Revenue assumptions and drivers that don’t match your customer lifecycle.

Expense ratios borrowed from unrelated businesses.

Capital planning misaligned with real operational levers.

A few principles for building forecasts that actually work:

Align with your business DNA – every driver should reflect your customers, churn, and cost structure.

Link numbers to action – every line item should map to a lever you can influence.

Stress test, don’t copy – models only add value when they answer the tough “what if” questions.

Custom models take longer, but they pay back in clarity, team alignment, and strategies that work in your market—not someone else’s.

In today’s capital-constrained, high-velocity environment, knowing where you stand—and where you’re going—is the difference between surviving and scaling.

When the bravest move isn’t scaling—it’s hitting pause

I once worked with a founder sprinting toward growth while the runway was shrinking. Revenue was flat, cash reserves were dwindling, and every instinct screamed: “Go faster!”

I told him the opposite: pause.

Across tech, healthcare, fintech, and media, I’ve seen the same pattern: chasing growth with limited capital is like pressing the gas with the fuel light on. It feels bold—but it’s risky.

Here’s how I guide leaders through capital-constrained periods:

→ Survival is a strategy.

Weathering tough markets preserves optionality and separates resilient companies from those that fail.

→ Pause ≠ standstill.

Use the time to prioritize spend, focus on essentials, and cut non-critical initiatives.

→ Get real about runway.

Forecast cash weekly, know your zero-cash date, and stress-test scenarios.

→ Engage customers meaningfully.

Identify what they value, what they’d pay more for, and where your efforts are wasted.

→ Question growth assumptions.

Is a new market a distraction? Is a feature just vanity? If it doesn’t drive retention or revenue, table it.

→ Communicate clearly and honestly.

The team will follow a realistic plan; investors respect pragmatism over bravado.

I’ve seen founders who hit pause return stronger. They didn’t win by scaling faster—they won by surviving strategically and coming back ready to accelerate.

Key takeaway: slowing down to focus is often the most courageous and profitable decision when capital is tight.

I watched a founder give up control of his company long before the Series B closed.

The dilution showed up on the cap table.
The mistake happened months earlier.

He optimized for percentage ownership while letting time run out. Cash tightened. Momentum slowed. Optionality disappeared. By the time he raised, the negotiation was mostly theater.

The uncomfortable truth: in fundraising, dilution is usually an outcome—not the problem. Timing is the variable that determines everything else.

Raising late doesn’t just lower valuation. It changes who has leverage in the room, which terms are non-negotiable, and how much governance you quietly surrender to survive the round.

Most teams say they’re waiting for “one more milestone.”
What they’re really doing is borrowing against future confidence.

Strong operators don’t ask, “How do we minimize dilution?”
They ask, “When do we still have choices?”

They raise when the business is trending up, not when cash dictates the calendar.
They align capital with value inflection points, not quarters.
They track investor appetite as a market signal, not a vanity exercise.

By the time your runway is red, the decision has already been made for you.

The real question isn’t how much ownership you give up.
It’s whether you raised while the clock was still on your side.

A founder once told me, “Our base case gives us 18 months of runway.”

I asked what happens if two assumptions break at the same time.

No one had an answer.

That’s the risk most teams underestimate. Not that the base case is wrong—but that it’s singular. One version of the future, treated as sufficient.

In practice, companies don’t fail because revenue misses by 5%. They fail when timing, customers, and capital all slip together—and there’s no pre-agreed response.

The uncomfortable truth: a base case is not a plan. It’s a reference point.

What separates resilient teams is not optimism or pessimism. It’s preparation for compound failure.

The strongest operators I’ve worked with do something different. They identify the few assumptions that would force irreversible decisions if they broke—liquidity, customer concentration, funding timing. Then they model those breaking fast, not gradually.

Not to predict outcomes, but to pre-decide actions.

What gets cut first.
What must not slow down.
Who communicates, and how.

When downside scenarios are explicit, execution gets calmer. Boards stay aligned. Teams move instead of debate.

You don’t need to be right about the future.
You need to know which version of it you’re not allowed to be surprised by.

Raising money creates a dangerous illusion: that speed is the same as progress.

I almost learned that the hard way.

After a round closed, every team had a “high-confidence” use for capital.
None of them were irrational.
Taken together, they would have quietly destroyed our margin for error.

That’s the trap.
Capital doesn’t disappear in one reckless decision.
It leaks out through reasonable ones.

The real risk wasn’t overspending.
It was committing cash in ways that narrowed future choices before the business had earned that certainty.

Every dollar forced the same question:
If this works, what does it unlock?
If it doesn’t, what have we permanently lost?

Some bets promised growth but locked us into cost structures we couldn’t unwind.
Others created motion with no path to learning.
Saying no slowed us down—and bought us time.

That trade-off is uncomfortable.
Boards want momentum.
Teams want resourcing.
Founders want to capitalize on the moment.

But liquidity isn’t fuel.
It’s leverage.
Used early, it should increase optionality, not consume it.

Most companies don’t run out of cash.
They run out of room to maneuver.

The hardest capital decisions aren’t about ROI.
They’re about which future you’re quietly ruling out when you say yes.

Most fintech expansion plans fail for reasons that never show up in the product roadmap.

FX is one of them.

I’ve seen teams execute flawlessly on market entry—regulatory approval, local partners, strong demand—only to watch margins erode quietly as currencies moved against them.
Nothing “broke.”
The economics just stopped working.

That’s the trap.
FX risk rarely announces itself as a crisis.
It shows up as missed forecasts, confusing variance, and a growing gap between reported growth and actual cash.

Founders tend to treat this as a finance clean-up item.
In reality, it’s a sequencing decision.

Every new currency exposure competes with growth for capital.
Hedging can stabilize outcomes, but it isn’t free.
Ignoring FX preserves speed—until volatility forces an unplanned correction.

The question isn’t whether FX matters.
It’s when it starts to matter enough to change behavior.

Teams that scale well make this explicit early.
They know which exposures are tolerable, which must be controlled, and which markets only make sense if margins can absorb volatility.
They plan for currency movement the same way they plan for churn or pricing pressure.

Product-market fit gets you permission to expand.
Financial control determines whether expansion compounds—or quietly reverses.

If your global model only works when currencies cooperate, you don’t have a scaling problem.
You have an assumptions problem.

Most founders overestimate how far a funding round actually takes them.

I once joined a company two weeks after a $5M raise. The team felt relieved. Hiring plans ballooned. Vendors pitched extras. Meetings began with, “We have time.”

The reality? Their 24 months of runway was closer to 11.

The uncomfortable truth: runway isn’t cash in the bank. It’s the discipline to turn spend into outcomes. Every hire, every vendor, every initiative is a trade-off. One misstep erodes optionality faster than you expect.

Teams that thrive under pressure link every dollar to learning, not comfort. They ask: Will this spend accelerate our next milestone—or just postpone hard decisions? They kill bad bets early, spot “runway leaks” before they metastasize, and focus on high-impact priorities.

I run a “Runway Reality Check” quarterly: list new spend, expected outcomes, actual outcomes, and whether it’s still the fastest path to your next milestone. The exercise forces clarity, speed, and accountability in a way no bank balance can.

The hardest question founders must ask themselves: Are you buying time—or buying comfort? The answer separates teams that survive from teams that thrive.

I’ve seen founders pitch with flawless slides, high-energy narratives, and stratospheric projections—yet they ignore the most important story: the downside.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: if your fundraising deck doesn’t model what can go wrong, you’re not raising capital—you’re selling fantasy.

Investors reward realism, not optimism. A missed downside case signals either inexperience or unwillingness to face reality. Both cost credibility, influence, and capital.

The cost of ignoring risk is real:
→ Blind growth decisions.
→ Misallocated resources.
→ Strategic missteps that compound before anyone notices.

The leaders who succeed don’t just inspire—they demonstrate discipline under uncertainty. They know: capital is limited, time is scarce, and every decision carries trade-offs. They quantify the worst case first, model levers to respond, and align the team around what survival—and acceleration—looks like.

The point isn’t pessimism. It’s credibility under pressure. Investors, boards, and teams bet on founders who can navigate adversity, not just celebrate upside.

Next time you raise capital, ask yourself: are you showing your business can survive reality, or just sell a dream? Because the difference between a good raise and a wasted one isn’t your valuation—it’s your judgment.

Most companies don’t fail because of dilution. They fail because they run out of time.

I’ve seen founders reject unattractive term sheets while telling themselves they were being disciplined. In reality, they were protecting an idea of ownership that only mattered if the company survived.

One boardroom still sticks with me. The offer on the table wasn’t good. Down valuation, heavy preferences, real control concessions. Walking away felt principled. Waiting felt optional.

It wasn’t.

Three months later, cash was gone. The option to choose disappeared. Employees left. Customers followed. The dilution he feared became irrelevant.

The uncomfortable part is this: dilution is a cost, but so is delay. And delay compounds quietly. Leverage erodes before panic shows up in the numbers.

That doesn’t mean you take any deal. Bad capital can cripple a company just as surely as no capital. Terms matter. Partners matter. Control matters.

But refusing to engage because a deal feels “ugly” is often just another way of betting that circumstances will improve in time.

Sometimes the real trade-off isn’t dilution versus control.

It’s dilution versus probability of survival.

And probability is what boards and operators are paid to protect, even when the optics are unpleasant.

Underpricing rarely feels dangerous. That’s what makes it expensive.

I watched a fintech CEO avoid a price increase for years because churn felt like the existential risk. Costs rose. Competitors repriced. He stayed “customer-friendly.” Revenue quietly capped itself.

The board didn’t panic at first. Then margins compressed. Then hiring slowed. Then the questions shifted from growth to durability.

Pricing isn’t a one-time decision—it’s a compounding one. Every quarter you delay, you train customers on what your product is worth and lock yourself into an operating model that assumes restraint forever.

When we revisited pricing, the hardest part wasn’t math. It was confronting which customers actually valued the product versus those simply enjoying a discount.

We didn’t reprice everyone. We started with new contracts and a narrow segment where the product was embedded in core workflows. Sales pushed back. A few deals slowed. That was the cost of information.

Churn didn’t spike. What changed was unit economics—and credibility. Suddenly the business could fund itself longer. The board conversation shifted from defense to choice.

Raising prices is risky. Not raising them is a slow commitment to subsidizing your customers with your future.

The real pricing question isn’t “Will we lose customers?”

It’s “Which customers are we implicitly choosing to keep at this price—and what does that choice cost us over time?”

The first time I watched a startup hemorrhage cash because of foreign exchange risk, it nearly made me quit coffee. Let me paint the scene. We were celebrating a big contract win. Five countries. Ten currencies. Big plans. Everyone was toasting the international expansion, but the finance team was quietly sweating. I asked the founders if they’d modeled FX exposure. They shrugged. We invoice in dollars. FX risk is for the IBMs, right? Wrong. Fast forward two quarters. Revenue looked great on paper. But each payout landed a little lighter than expected. The CFO blamed the payments processor. The CEO blamed the bank. But the real culprit? Currency swings. Every GBP or INR collected had quietly slipped through their fingers, chewed up by market moves. By the time they spotted it, six figures had evaporated—before the first invoice even cleared. Here’s the dirty little secret: You don’t need to be a global giant to bleed out from FX risk.

↳ Even a fivecountry fintech can see margins shredded. Most founders underestimate three things: → The lag between revenue recognition and cash collection.

→ Just how quickly currencies can shift—sometimes overnight.

→ The compounding effect of small misses, quarter after quarter. It’s not just about volatility—it’s about visibility. If you’re scaling across borders, you can’t afford to treat FX as an afterthought. Waiting until your controller flags a variance is too late. Here’s the approach I now swear by—one I wish I’d known back then: 1. Build FX exposure directly into your forecast models.

↳ Not just a line item, but a core scenario. 2. Set up realtime tracking dashboards.

↳ Use API feeds from your banks and payment providers. 3. Run monthly stress tests.

↳ Simulate 2%5% swings and watch the impact on gross margin. 4. Talk to your banking partner about locking in rates.

↳ Forward contracts aren’t just for the Fortune 500. 5. Assign an owner.

↳ If everyone owns FX, no one owns FX. The day we embedded this playbook, something changed. Founders stopped seeing FX as a footnote. They started treating it like any other business risk—one you measure, manage, and review. Suddenly, that sixfigure loss turned into a line of defense. Margins held steady. Planning finally felt real. If you’re scaling internationally, don’t wait for the first invoice to realize what’s at stake. Start treating FX risk as a strategic threat—and a growth lever. The best operators already do. Curious how fractional leaders approach FX for leaner, faster teams? Drop a comment if you want the full playbook.

You don’t lose marketplaces because revenue slows.
You lose them because you scale the wrong transactions.

Most founders know contribution margin matters.
What they underestimate is how long negative unit economics can stay hidden while everything looks fine.

GMV grows.
Revenue grows.
The board relaxes.

Meanwhile, every incremental transaction deepens dependence on subsidies, incentives, and service costs that don’t come back down. What started as “temporary investment” hardens into the business model.

The uncomfortable truth:
If contribution margin is negative at scale, growth is not optionality—it’s commitment. You’re locking in future cash burn and reducing your ability to change pricing, segments, or incentives without breaking the marketplace.

This is where decisions get hard.

Do you slow a high-visibility category because it never clears contribution margin?
Do you retrain demand away from subsidized supply even if GMV drops?
Do you accept flatter topline numbers to regain control of cash?

Strong marketplaces answer these questions early, when they still have degrees of freedom. Weak ones defer them until the math forces a reset—usually on someone else’s terms.

Revenue tells you how busy you are.
Contribution margin tells you whether that activity compounds or compounds the problem.

Most boards can tell which one you’re optimizing for within five minutes.

Most crisis responses fail because they optimize for visibility, not survival.

Boards panic about headlines.
Founders panic about morale.
Finance teams panic about burn.

None of those are the constraint.

Under pressure, leaders reach for actions that look decisive: layoffs, PR cleanups, revised forecasts.
They reduce noise.
They rarely change outcomes.

The uncomfortable reality is this:
In a real downturn, you don’t get to fix everything.
You choose which weakness gets to kill you.

I’ve seen companies cut deeply and still die because churn was accelerating.
I’ve seen others preserve teams and lose credibility because liquidity was ignored for one quarter too long.
Both were “rational” in isolation.
Neither confronted the binding constraint.

The hardest work in a crisis isn’t planning.
It’s sequencing.

What must be true six months from now for the company to exist?
What decision today makes that more likely—and what does it break in exchange?

Liquidity buys time, but can destroy momentum.
Product focus restores fit, but delays relief.
Optics calm stakeholders, but can mask decay.

Second-order effects matter more than the first move.

Most companies don’t collapse from a single mistake.
They make a series of reasonable decisions that all assume the same thing is wrong.

The question isn’t “What’s urgent?”
It’s: What, if left unaddressed, makes every other decision irrelevant?

Incremental fixes feel responsible in a crisis.
They’re usually a way to postpone the decision that actually determines survival.

I saw this clearly with a SaaS company that lost two major customers in a week.
The board defaulted to the usual responses: freeze hiring, trim spend, delay launches.
Each move was sensible.
Together, they bought days—not a future.

The real problem wasn’t cost discipline.
It was that the existing plan no longer worked, and everyone was trying to preserve it anyway.

That’s the mistake.
In a true cash crisis, incrementalism doesn’t reduce risk—it compounds it.
You keep funding a structure that may already be broken.

The harder path is narrowing early.
Choosing what the company will not be.
Accepting irreversible damage in exchange for time and clarity.

Those decisions carry real downside.
You lose people you value.
You concentrate bets before certainty arrives.
You risk being wrong in public.

But delay has a cost too: it quietly removes optionality.

The companies that survive crises don’t optimize for comfort or consensus.
They align quickly on what must be protected, what can be sacrificed, and what future they’re willing to abandon.

The question isn’t whether the cuts are painful.
It’s whether they meaningfully change the company’s odds—or just slow the countdown.

I’ve sat in boardrooms where a record valuation was treated like proof of safety.

It usually meant the opposite.

The celebration focused on the number.
No one wanted to talk about burn, sequencing, or what had to be true twelve months later for the company to exist on acceptable terms.

That’s the mistake.
Valuation is an outcome.
It doesn’t tell you *when* you can spend, *where* you can spend, or *what happens if the next round doesn’t show up on schedule*.

I’ve seen companies raise strong Series As, hire aggressively, and assume momentum would carry them.
Revenue grew.
So did fixed costs.
When the market tightened, the valuation didn’t protect them—it boxed them in.

The real work after a raise isn’t scaling.
It’s sequencing.

Which investments unlock the next credible milestone?
Which ones only make sense if the following round is guaranteed?
What must be preserved if conditions turn before you expect?

Capital deployed too early doesn’t just shorten runway.
It removes options.
It forces future rounds to solve yesterday’s optimism.

The teams that survive treat cash like a dependency chain, not a pile of fuel.
Every dollar either earns the right to deploy the next one—or it doesn’t get spent.

The uncomfortable question isn’t how impressive your valuation looks.
It’s whether your current spend still makes sense if the market doesn’t cooperate.

I used to believe headcount scaled output.
Then I watched a company spend $11M in under two years and end up with less clarity than it started with.

Demand was real.
The product worked.
What broke was the cost structure.

Under board pressure to “build ahead,” the team hired aggressively.
Burn doubled.
Execution slowed.
Every forecast—no matter how generous—ended with the same conclusion: the business had less room to maneuver each month.

That’s the part founders miss.
Hiring doesn’t just add capacity.
It hardens assumptions.

Once payroll expands, every plan has to justify the org chart.
Forecasts bend.
Rigor slips.
Hope fills the gap.

The mistake isn’t growth ambition.
It’s treating hiring as reversible.

In capital-constrained environments, headcount is the least flexible decision you make.
It locks in burn.
It amplifies coordination costs.
And it narrows your options if conditions change.

The teams that survive pressure don’t hire “carefully.”
They hire conditionally.

What outcome does this role unlock?
What happens if that outcome arrives late—or not at all?
What breaks if we wait?

Saying no to a hire rarely feels strategic in the moment.
Six months later, it often turns out to be the decision that kept the company alive.

The real question isn’t how fast you can staff up.
It’s how much certainty you actually have when you do.

I once met a founder who looked haunted.
Their startup had just raised a healthy seed round. The runway chart looked perfect—24 months of breathing room. Every line item triple-checked. Every assumption conservative.

And yet, the company was frozen.

Hiring slowed. Product experiments paused. Critical investments deferred. The logic was “survive longer.” The reality?

→ Competitors shipped features the team had only dreamed of.
→ Revenue stalled while expenses quietly climbed.
→ Talent grew restless and started looking elsewhere.

Obsessing over runway can backfire. Every month “saved” in cash is a month lost in market opportunity. Windows close. Momentum slips. The longer you hesitate, the harder it becomes to catch up.

Capital isn’t just a lifeline—it’s leverage.

The companies I advise don’t hoard runway; they deploy it strategically. They:

→ Identify inflection points where spending accelerates growth.
→ Burn faster on proven product-market fit signals.
→ Double down on what works—even if it shortens runway.

Survival isn’t measured in months of runway. It’s measured in whether you acted when the market allowed you to.

The startups that get remembered? They bet decisively, at the right time, with purpose—not cautiously, for comfort.

Ask yourself: is your runway a leash—or a weapon?

The first time I watched a founder panic over dilution, I was stunned.

Months spent obsessing over 2% equity... while the company’s runway was bleeding.

I get it. Your cap table is your scoreboard. But here’s the brutal truth: you can’t split zero.

I remember a founder agonizing over a bridge round. The market shifted. Competitors were cutting staff or shutting down. Customers asked hard questions. Key hires left. And yet he chased the “perfect” Series B scenario.

The result? Momentum slowed. Opportunity slipped away.

Here’s what I tell founders now:

→ Dilution paranoia is overrated — especially in a crisis.
100% of nothing is still nothing. Delaying capital for perfect terms can kill momentum faster than dilution ever will.

I call this the “Survival Over Slice” mindset.

The founders who win:
↳ Move fast when the window is open.
↳ Prioritize cash in the bank over paper ownership.
↳ Remember: a smaller piece of a growing pie beats 100% of a shrinking one.

My advice: run the doomsday scenario.
What happens if you wait for better terms? What if the market worsens?

Sometimes the right move isn’t the perfect deal. It’s the deal that keeps the company alive.

Cash beats paranoia. Every time.

If this stings a little, good. That discomfort is the pivot point between surviving and being a statistic.

Who’s been here? Share your story below.

One of the most counterintuitive moves I ever made saved a company from disaster.

Growth was strong—but runway was vanishing. Investors asked tough questions. Teams were nervous. The board wanted answers.

What did we do? We froze hiring.

Not because we were failing. Because it was time for a reset.

Most leaders hate the word “freeze.” It sounds like defeat. But in high-growth environments, pausing headcount is often the smartest move you can make.

Here’s what most people miss:
→ It’s not just about saving payroll.
→ It’s not defensive.
→ It doesn’t signal trouble to the market.

It’s about clarity.

When you stop adding people, you force your org to look inward:

Where processes leak time and money.

Which roles actually drive growth—and which are noise.

How teams collaborate when the safety net of endless resources vanishes.

We mapped workflows, cut legacy tools costing $200k/year, reallocated talent, and shuttered a product line bringing in 3% of revenue but requiring 7 hires.

The result?
→ Operating margins improved.
→ We exited the freeze leaner, sharper, more profitable.
→ The board’s confidence returned.

Lesson: Hiring freezes aren’t villains—they’re strategic reset buttons. Constraints force creativity.

The companies that win aren’t the ones that keep adding headcount—they’re the ones that use constraints to sharpen their edge.

If you’re staring down a hiring freeze: don’t panic. Pause. Get ruthless. Automate, retire, refocus. You’ll discover your team is more resourceful than you imagined.

The smartest growth I’ve seen usually starts when leaders dare to stop.

Ever turned a hiring freeze into an advantage? Drop your story below.

A senior Auditor and Certified Public Accountant (CPA) who is results-oriented and has a work experience of more than 7 years in the field of internal/external audit, financial analysis, and regulatory compliance in various industries. Expert knowledge includes assurance, risk evaluation, and financial reporting. Managing and directing high-stakes audit projects with success, constantly enhancing the efficiency of processes and the quality of reporting, both in virtual and multinational contexts. Flexibility and dedication to the exploitation of data-driven solutions are paramount to making sure that a considerable, beneficial change is made in the operations of the business and its financial soundness.

𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲
My experience ranges from leading audit teams in a remote setting to training sophisticated AI models on complex financial data. This dual perspective allows me to understand not just the "what" behind the numbers, but the "why" and "what's next." I enjoy simplifying complex information and using it to tell a clear story.

𝐒𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐀𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬
1. Drove $2.5 million in cost savings by optimizing audit processes and improving financial reporting accuracy.
2. Reduced reported financial discrepancies by 15% across my client engagements by implementing targeted improvement strategies.
3. Helped increase my previous firm's client retention rate by 25% by building strong relationships and delivering consistent, high-quality insights.
4. Played a key role in enhancing an AI's analytical capabilities by identifying and correcting over 20 critical errors in its financial reasoning.

𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐏𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐆𝐨𝐚𝐥𝐬
Passionate about bridging financial expertise with technological innovation to drive superior business performance and compliance. I aspire to be in a leadership role where I can utilize strategic foresight to enhance risk management and contribute to pioneering, data-driven financial solutions for the industry.

I am always open to connecting with fellow professionals, recruiters, and industry leaders to discuss financial technology, audit best practices, or exciting new opportunities.

CPA Njihia

Profitable on paper. Cash is tight. Then KRA says your expenses lack support.

I keep seeing the same problem.

You file on time.
You pay the taxes due.
Everything looks clean.

Then a demand letter lands.
Back taxes. Penalties. Interest.
The numbers feel suffocating.

This usually starts with documentation.

You did the transaction.
You paid the money.
You did not keep the evidence.

Fuel is a common one.
Ksh 200,000 spent on deliveries.
You have M-Pesa messages.
No invoices.
KRA rejects the expense.

Staff allowances follow the same pattern.
Cash for transport and lunch.
No schedule.
No names.
No purpose.
KRA disallows the full amount.

Supplier payments create another issue.
M-Pesa sent to a personal number.
No invoice.
No delivery note.
No description of what you bought.
The expense fails.

This is not hostility from KRA.
This is weak systems catching up.

Audits go smoothly for businesses with habits.
Every payment links to an invoice.
Every receipt gets saved immediately.
Every approval leaves a trail.

Perfection is irrelevant.
Consistency matters.

If your records live in memory, WhatsApp, and loose papers, risk sits right there.

Start now.
• Keep one folder for receipts.
• Demand invoices before payment.
• Maintain a simple petty cash log with names and reasons.

Learn this lesson early.
Not through penalties.

Have you ever searched for documents during an audit?
What failed first in your system?

#TaxCompliance #KRA #SMEs #Finance

CPA Felistas Njihia

Senior Auditor & Financial Analyst | Driving Financial Performance & Compliance for $1M - $10M+ Firms | CPA (K) | AI Workflow Specialist | Transforming Messy Data into Defensible, Decision-Ready Intelligence

There is one conversation every serious business owner needs to have now that 2026 is already in motion.

Your financial vision is not your revenue target.

Because numbers set without intention do not create growth.

They create pressure.

2026 has already started responding.

And it is not responding to hustle.

It is responding to clarity.

Clarity about where money comes from.

Clarity about where it goes.

Clarity about what it is meant to build.

Here is what too many founders still skip, even in January:
• Revenue goals with no profit plan
• Expansion plans with no cash buffer
• Teams growing faster than systems
• Financial decisions driven by urgency, not data

Money moves fast when vision is unclear.

And faster when no one is actually watching it.

The uncomfortable truth:
A business can look successful in Q1 and still be financially unsafe by Q2.

So this is the work that matters at the start of 2026:
Do not just ask, “How much do I want to make this year?”
 Ask, “What kind of business must exist to support this number?”

Because financial vision is alignment.

Alignment between cash flow and operations.

Alignment between growth and sustainability.

Alignment between ambition and structure.

When that alignment exists, something shifts:
• Decisions get calmer
 • Expenses stop surprising you
 • Growth feels intentional, not chaotic
 • Confidence replaces guesswork

So as 2026 unfolds, let this be the declaration:

May your numbers tell the truth.

May your reports guide your decisions.

May your growth be funded, not forced.

And when the year starts responding differently, remember this moment.

You did not just set goals.

You set direction.

One question before you scroll:

Are your 2026 numbers a hope…

or a vision with structure behind it?

Reuben Gitahi & Associates

Financial Business Analyst- AI Trainer

Audit Associate

Accountant

Executive Director

CPA(K)| Senior Auditor & Financial Analyst | Certified AI Workflow & Automation Specialist | Remote First Professional | Driving Compliance and Financial Performance with Data-Driven Insights

English

swahili

Most audit failures don’t start with fraud.
 They start with values.

Not in extreme cases.
 In ordinary work.
 In ordinary decisions.

January is when many businesses start looking for an auditor.
 Often with urgency.
 Often with pressure to just get it done.

But an audit is not only about checking numbers.
 It is about who you trust with the truth behind them.

Some auditors are technically capable.
 Few are steady in their values.

The difference shows up in how they question.
 How they listen.
 How they handle what is not meant for sharing.
 How carefully they work when no one is watching.
 How they carry the profession when it would be easier not to.

This carousel breaks down the five core values that quietly shape good audits.
 Not as theory.
 But as signals to look for.

You can review technical credentials in minutes. 

Values take longer to see

Always ask the right questions. 
 And listen for specificity, not polish.

Because when the audit is over, you're left with more than a report. 

You're left with what was true, what was missed, and whether the person who signed it can sleep at night.

As you move through this season of reviews,
 What kind of steadiness are you hoping to feel from the person across from you?

#auditing #professionalethics #businesstrust #corporategovernance #CPAFelistasNjihia

5 Core Values When Hiring an Auditor in 2026

Your business can be profitable and still be financially unsafe.

Profit is often treated as the ultimate signal of health.

Boards see it. Executives celebrate it. Teams assume it means stability.

But profit is an accounting outcome.

Financial safety is an operating condition.

Confusing the two is how otherwise successful companies end up fragile.

Profit answers one question: Did revenues exceed expenses on paper?

Financial safety answers different ones:
Can the business absorb volatility?
Can it fund growth without stress?
Can it survive a shock without external rescue?

A company can post strong margins while:
Cash is trapped in working capital
Debt maturities are poorly sequenced
Forecasts are backward-looking
Decisions are optimized for earnings, not liquidity

When leadership equates profit with safety:
Cash discipline erodes
Risk is discovered too late
Strategic options narrow under pressure

When safety is managed deliberately:
Profit becomes durable, not fragile
Growth decisions improve
The organization gains time as a strategic asset

This is the difference between reporting performance and governing it.

What signals of financial safety do you monitor beyond profit?

You are not broke.
You are just funding your clients.

I see this during audits and bookkeeping cleanups.

Vendors get paid early because the relationship feels urgent.
Client invoices go out late because delivery took priority, and the admin waited.

Then the bank reconciliation hits.
Stress shows up.
Overdrafts follow.
Collections turn reactive.

Cash flow pressure often traces back to timing, documentation, and follow-up.

What works in practice:

• Invoice on the day work is delivered.
If delivery runs in phases, bill by milestone.

• Set payment terms you enforce.
Clear due dates.
Defined late fees.
A firm stop-work trigger.

• Run a weekly cash view.
Bank balance.
Expected receipts.
Committed payables.
Expenses you delay.

• Schedule vendor payments with approval.
Early payment needs a recorded reason.

• Build a collection routine without emotion.
Remind.
Call.
Escalate.
Act.

• Protect money already earned.
Move tax and reserve funds when cash hits the account.

Where is the greatest gap in your cycle right now: invoicing, collections, or vendor timing?

#CashFlow #AccountsReceivable #Bookkeeping #FinancialControls #AuditReadiness

Most small businesses don’t fail because of one big mistake.

They fail because of decisions that feel reasonable in the moment.

Lowering a price to keep a client.
Pulling from the business to cover a short-term gap.
Delaying proper records because things seem “under control.”
Spending to look established before becoming stable.
Starting partnerships on trust and postponing structure.

None of these feel reckless.
That’s why they repeat.

Over time, they quietly erode margins, clarity, and control until the business is busy, stretched, and stuck.

The attached carousel breaks down five of these everyday decisions.

Not as advice.
Just as recognition.

If you work with or run a small business, one of these will probably feel familiar.

#SmallBusinessKenya #Entrepreneurship #BusinessReality #Cashflow #Founders #BusinessDiscipline #GrowthChallenges

5 Decisions That Quietly Kill Small Businesses in Kenya

Stop guessing and start growing. 

For most SMEs, a forecast is just a "best guess." But guesswork leads to surprises your cash flow can’t afford. 

True growth requires a roadmap built on data, not hope. 

Inside this carousel, I break down how to:

Build on Truth: Use past sales and expenses to find your real direction. 
Stay Grounded: Set goals that stretch your business without breaking it. 
Expect the Unexpected: Factor in seasonality and market signals. 
Pivot Fast: Monitor real numbers and adjust early to avoid big problems. 

When you master your numbers, you unlock your growth. 

👇 What’s your #1 tip for staying on top of your business numbers?

#SMEGrowth #FinancialForecasting #SmallBusinessTips #BusinessStrategy #CashFlowManagement #Entrepreneurship #DataDriven

Forecasting for SME Growth 

KRA has temporarily disabled the filing of nil tax returns on iTax.
And it’s sparked a much bigger conversation about tax compliance in Kenya.

Over the past few days, this decision has dominated discussions online, raising questions around fairness, transparency, and the future of digital tax administration.

This is what’s happening.

KRA has paused the submission of nil returns for the 2025 year of income.
The option is expected to return later, with full restoration planned by May 1, 2026.

During this period, the authority is verifying taxpayer data across multiple systems.
eTIMS electronic invoicing.
Withholding tax records.
Income declarations.
Customs and related data sources.

The intention is straightforward.
To confirm that nil filers genuinely have no taxable income before allowing a submission.

Why this matters.

According to KRA, the move is aimed at expanding the tax base by identifying long-term nil filers and non-filers who may actually be economically active.
It is also meant to reduce underreporting.

The authority has also indicated that penalties will not be applied during the suspension period.

What this signals is larger than nil returns.

It reflects how tax authorities are increasingly relying on data integration and digital systems to strengthen compliance and reduce leakage.

For taxpayers, especially individuals and small businesses with irregular income, this shift raises the stakes around record-keeping and transparency.

Digital tax platforms are no longer passive filing tools.
They are active verification systems.

And as they become more sophisticated, trust and clarity will matter just as much as compliance.

Would love to hear thoughts from tax professionals, accountants, and policy enthusiasts on how this shift might shape compliance behavior going forward.

#tax #KRA #Kenya #compliance #iTax #digitalgovernment

Open article: "Temporarily unavailable": KRA suspends nil tax filings, to review Kenyans' data by tuko.co.ke

"Temporarily unavailable": KRA suspends nil tax filings, to review Kenyans' data

I believe every business owner should understand their finances without needing a dictionary

Because your numbers are not just numbers

They tell the story of your business
They show what is working
They reveal where decisions need to be made

But here’s the thing

Spreadsheets, reports, and ratios can be confusing

Even the most capable founders sometimes feel lost when they look at their own financials

And that’s normal

The important part is not knowing everything yourself

It’s having someone who understands both the language of finance and the language of business

Someone who can take those numbers and explain them in plain, simple terms

Someone who makes sure you understand the story your numbers are telling
So you can act with confidence

That’s why I’ve made it my mission to help business owners and founders see their financials clearly

So they can plan ahead
Make informed decisions
Use their numbers to drive intentional growth

When we work together, you don’t just get reports
You get understanding
You get clarity
You get confidence

Every metric, every line, every report explained in a way that actually makes sense for you and your business

If you want to finally feel in control of your numbers and make decisions with confidence before the year moves any further, reach me at fwanjikunjihia@gmail.com, and let’s make your financials work for your vision

Everyone wants AI speed

Until compliance asks one quiet question

“Can you walk me through how this decision was made?”

That’s where a lot of automation stories fall apart.

On the surface, everything looks efficient.
Reports close faster.
Transactions process automatically.
Dashboards light up green.

But underneath, many SME founders are unknowingly building black boxes.

You feel the win on Monday.
Then audit season arrives.
Or a regulator asks for support.
Or a tax position needs to be explained.

And suddenly you’re staring at clean outputs with no clear story behind them.

Moving fast works for product features.
It’s risky in finance.

Because when an automated system flags a transaction or calculates something incorrectly, the question isn’t whether the system worked.

It’s whether you can defend the result.

If there’s no clear trail showing what data was used, who approved it, and how the outcome was reached, efficiency turns into exposure.

That’s where fines come from.
That’s where trust erodes.
That’s where teams spend weeks manually untangling what was meant to save time.

The fix isn’t less automation.
It’s better design.

Smart automation is traceable automation.

A few principles make all the difference:
• High-impact decisions should never be fully hands-off. Automation can recommend. A human should confirm.
 • Every action needs evidence. Time-stamped logs. Inputs. Outputs. Clear ownership.
 • Exceptions shouldn’t wait for month-end. If something falls outside your rules, you should know immediately.

When compliance is built in from day one, speed doesn’t disappear.

It becomes sustainable.

Instead of dreading audits or filings, you hand over reports that tell a clear, defensible story.

You get modern efficiency
Without sacrificing professional discipline.

If someone asked you today to show the logic behind your automated financial reports, would you be confident doing it?

#AIinFinance #Compliance #SMEs #Automation #Audit #RiskManagement #FinancialLeadership #FinTech #CFO #BusinessStrategy

Tax season is here. Are your books ready?

Swipe through this carousel to see how to close your books, prepare your taxes, and avoid costly mistakes.

#TaxPreparation #YearEndClosing #BusinessFinance #AccountingTips #TaxSeason #BusinessGrowth

How to prepare for tax season!

After sitting in hundreds of remote meetings, one thing is clear: we have a time-respect problem.

As a remote worker, meetings are a big part of my day. And over time, a pattern keeps repeating:

Some people show up late.
Some don’t show up at all.
Some don’t inform you they won’t make it.
Some join, ignore the agenda, and lead with long stretches of small talk.
Others schedule meetings that could have been a short email.

Individually, these seem small. Collectively, they add up to lost focus, wasted hours, and quiet frustration.

This isn’t about being rigid or anti-human.
Connection matters. Flexibility matters.

But so does structure.

When there’s an agenda, it should guide the conversation.
When a meeting has a start time, it should mean something.
When someone can’t attend, a simple message goes a long way.
And when small talk starts to overshadow the purpose, someone needs to read the room.

Remote work depends heavily on trust and intentional communication. Without those, meetings become performative instead of productive.

Maybe the bigger question is this:
Have we normalized poor meeting habits under the banner of “remote culture”?

Because respecting time isn’t about control.
It’s about respect for the people who showed up prepared.

Curious to hear how others experience this.

💡 You aren’t avoiding your numbers because you’re busy. 

You’re avoiding them because you’re tired.

It’s Friday. You’ve had a long week of meetings, fires, and "hustle." The last thing you want to do is open the dashboard and see the truth.

So you tell yourself: "I’ll look at the reports on Monday when I’m fresh."

That is the most expensive lie in business.

You think you are protecting your weekend. You aren't. You are just trading clarity for anxiety.

You’ll be at dinner, but you’ll be thinking about that one unpaid invoice. You’ll be with your family, but you’ll be wondering if the payroll tax is covered. You’ll try to sleep, but the "missing" numbers will be running loops in your head.

The numbers don't judge you. Your avoidance does.

An audit is a mirror. And right now, you are choosing to walk past the mirror with your eyes closed because you’re afraid of what you’ll see.

You’re afraid the margin is thinner than you told the board.

You’re afraid the "growth" was just expensive noise.

You’re afraid you’ve been busy, but not profitable.

But here is the reality: The mess doesn't disappear just because you aren't looking at it. It just gets more expensive to fix.

Ignorance compounds faster than interest.

If you review your numbers today, you might find a problem. But at least you’ll have a target. And a target is something you can solve. A mystery is just something that keeps you awake.

Don't let next week review your numbers for you. It won't be gentle.

Take 15 minutes. Open the report. Face the truth. Then, and only then, can you actually rest.

If you want a finance system that gives you peace of mind instead of weekend anxiety, reach out at fwanjikunjihia@gmail.com.

#Finance #Leadership #Audit #SMEs #BusinessGrowth #CFO #Accountability #Kenya #Founders #WeekendVibes

If you think payroll errors are just 'clerical mistakes,' wait until you see the lawsuits they trigger.

Payroll errors do not start as lawsuits.

They start as assumptions.

Someone misses overtime.

Finance fixes it.

Everyone moves on.

Until they do not.

Kroger changed payroll systems in 2022.
Paychecks went missing.
Deductions were wrong.
The system still ran.

Three years later, it ended in a $21 million settlement.

Oregon launched Workday.
No crashes.
Clean reports.
Except employees with complex pay structures were paid wrong.

That pattern cost $15 million.

Disney faces $233 million.
FedEx already paid $466 million.

Same root cause every time.

One small error.
Applied consistently.
Across thousands of people.
Over many pay cycles.

That is how clerical mistakes turn into class actions.

The dangerous part is invisibility.

Payroll systems rarely fail loudly.

They fail quietly.

Controls pass.

Dashboards look fine.

The errors live in edge cases.

Night shifts with multiple rates.
Mid-month contract changes.
Role switches.
Layered overtime rules.

These are not rare scenarios.

They sit in roughly 20 percent of most workforces.

When systems get them wrong, they get them wrong every single payroll run.

What reduces exposure:

Before any payroll change:
• Test the messiest scenarios you have.
• If it feels uncommon, test it anyway.

After go-live:
• Stop checking if payroll ran.
• Start checking if it paid correctly.
• Recalculate complex payslips manually each quarter.

Governance:
• Give one person permission to be skeptical.
• Let them question payroll logic without being rushed.

Regulators now reward early detection.

Catch issues internally.

Penalties get waived.

Let lawyers find them.

Costs double.

Payroll risk is not technical.

It is structural.

If you run a business and want payroll systems that scale without creating legal risk, now is the time to act.

I help businesses identify payroll blind spots before they turn into litigation.
You can reach me at fwanjikunjihia@gmail.com

https://lnkd.in/d-B_YF3S

lexology.com

Class Action Review - 2025/2026: Mid-Year Class Action Settlement Report & Analysis

AI is not your decision maker.
It is your mirror.
And it will reflect your chaos.

I have watched too many finance teams rush into AI, thinking it will solve their problems.
They feed it messy data.
They skip the cleanup.
They expect magic.

What they get instead is faster wrong answers.

More confident mistakes.

And risk they can't see until it's too late.

AI doesn't fix broken processes.
It accelerates them.

If your chart of accounts is inconsistent, AI will learn the inconsistency.
If your expense categories overlap, AI will guess which one to use.
If your reconciliation process has gaps, AI will work around them instead of closing them.

The result looks impressive on the surface.

Reports generate faster.

Dashboards update automatically.

But the foundation is still cracked.

I've seen businesses automate their way into bigger messes.

They think they're moving forward because the software is running.
In reality, they're just producing fraudulent data at scale.

AI doesn't replace judgment.

It doesn't understand context the way your team does.
It can't tell you when a number feels wrong or when a pattern doesn't match the business reality.

That's still your job.

The teams that win with AI are the ones who cleaned house first.
They standardized their processes.
They documented their workflows.
They made sure humans understood the logic before they handed it to the machine.

Only then did AI become useful.

If you're considering AI for your finance function, start here.

Map your current process.

Identify where the breakdowns happen.

Fix those first.

AI won't save a broken system.

But it will absolutely expose one.

If you want to build finance workflows that are clean, structured, and truly ready for AI, reach out at fwanjikunjihia@gmail.com.

#AIinFinance #Finance #Automation #CFO #Leadership

AI is revealing that most businesses never defined “good.”

Not good revenue.
Not good profit.
Not good cash flow.

Just… good enough.

When AI gets introduced, leaders expect clarity.
Instead, they get discomfort.

Because AI doesn’t just surface numbers.
It asks implicit questions the business never answered:

• What margin is actually acceptable?
• When does a cost become a problem?
• What level of variance requires action?
• What does “healthy” look like in cash, not vibes?

Most accounting systems were built for reporting, not standards.
So the numbers exist, but the thresholds don’t.

Humans have been filling that gap quietly for years.
With judgment. With context. With “we’ll watch it.”

AI can’t do that.

It doesn’t know what “fine for now” means.
It doesn’t know when something is “close enough.”
It needs definitions.

So when AI feels unhelpful, it’s often because it’s waiting on clarity the business never created.

This is the part most conversations skip:
AI doesn’t struggle with data.
It struggles with undefined expectations.

Until “good” is clearly defined in financial terms,
AI will keep exposing uncertainty instead of delivering insight.

And that discomfort?
That’s not a technology problem.
That’s a leadership one.

#BusinessLeadership #FinancialClarity #AIinBusiness #FinanceStrategy
#DecisionMaking

Sometimes the hardest walls in business aren’t the big ones.
They’re the small gaps you don’t notice while you’re busy building.

I met a founder who had just finished three huge projects.
Revenue was flowing.
Teams were thriving.
Clients were happy.

On the surface, it looked like momentum.
Underneath, it was fragile.

When they tried to scale and secure funding, the gaps showed.
The bank asked for proof: costs, expenses, and results.
And suddenly, the wins weren’t enough.

Expenses hadn’t been tracked.
Results weren’t documented.
Decisions lived only in people’s heads.
Contracts were incomplete.
Receipts scattered.

Months of effort, energy, and progress were stuck.
Not because the work wasn’t real.
But because the financial story couldn’t be told.

That is the quiet trap: success without systems.
You can build something remarkable, but if you can’t show where the money went, how results were achieved, or claim the right deductions, growth stalls.

Structure is not a luxury.
It is the bridge between effort and opportunity.

Track the costs so you can prove profitability.
Document the results so investors see value.
Record the decisions so operations are defensible.
Keep the contracts and receipts so taxes are accurate and claims are valid.

Big work gets applause.
Structure turns applause into funding, tax advantages, and long-term stability.

👉 How are you making sure your business is ready not just to grow, but to prove it?

#Entrepreneurship #BusinessGrowth #Finance #TaxStrategy #Funding #Startups #Operations #Accounting #Structure #BusinessStrategy

𝐀𝐈 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 "𝐓𝐨𝐩 𝐓𝐢𝐞𝐫" 𝐨𝐟 𝐠𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐬. 🤖

The 2026 risk reports dropped yesterday, and for the first time in history, Artificial Intelligence is far more than a "tech trend."

It is a top-three systemic risk for the global economy.

According to the latest data from WEF and Allianz, we are moving past the "Efficiency Phase" and straight into the "𝙇𝒊𝙖𝒃𝙞𝒍𝙞𝒕𝙮 𝙋𝒉𝙖𝒔𝙚." 

Here is the 2026 Risk Snapshot you need to know:

● 𝑻𝙝𝒆 𝑭𝙖𝒔𝙩𝒆𝙨𝒕 𝑹𝙞𝒔𝙚𝒓: AI surged from #10 to #2 in global business concerns over the last 12 months. This is the largest jump ever recorded by the Allianz Risk Barometer.

● 𝑻𝙝𝒆 𝑮𝙤𝒗𝙚𝒓𝙣𝒂𝙣𝒄𝙚 𝙂𝒂𝙥: Despite 82% of firms scaling AI, only 33% have a robust process to validate AI outcomes before they go live. Adoption is officially outstripping oversight.

● 𝘼𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙘 𝙇𝙞𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮: As we move toward "Agentic AI" (systems that make autonomous decisions in finance and supply chains), the risk of "Black Box" errors is creating a massive insurance and legal vacuum.

● 𝑪𝙮𝒃𝙚𝒓 𝑺𝙪𝒑𝙚𝒓𝙘𝒉𝙖𝒓𝙜𝒊𝙣𝒈: 94% of experts now identify AI-driven misinformation and automated "synthetic" fraud as the #1 driver of cyber incidents this year.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐦 𝐋𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔: 
The "Infrastructure Gap" is real. 
If your firm is buying the AI engine but has not reinforced the digital "chassis" (data cleaning, security protocols, and human-in-the-loop governance), you are not innovating; you are over-leveraging.

We have spent three years asking, "What can AI do for us?" 2026 is the year we must answer for what AI might do to our organizations if it remains ungoverned.

𝙏𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤 𝙡𝙤𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙧 𝙖 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙄𝙏 𝙙𝙚𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙖𝙡𝙤𝙣𝙚. 
𝙏𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙖 𝙛𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙡 𝙛𝙞𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘽𝙤𝙖𝙧𝙙.

As we face this shift from productivity to liability, what is the single biggest "blind spot" you see in how leadership is currently overseeing AI implementation?

📊 Read the full rankings and deep dive here: Allianz Risk Barometer 2026: https://lnkd.in/ds83kHHq

#Finance #AI #RiskManagement #WEF26 #AllianzRiskBarometer #CorporateGovernance

Open article: Allianz Risk Barometer | Allianz Commercial by commercial.allianz.com

Allianz Risk Barometer | Allianz Commercial

If you wait a week to invoice, you already lost control of your cash.

Let’s be honest.

Cash flow problems don’t always come from slow-paying clients.

They often come from slow invoicing.

I see owners treat invoicing like admin work.

Something that can wait until “later.”

But every day you delay, cash moves further out of reach.

Here’s what happens:
→ Work is delivered, but the invoice sits unsent
→ Payments arrive weeks late because the clock started late
→ Payroll stress builds even though revenue looks healthy
→ Owners blame clients when the real issue is their own process

This is not a client problem.

It is a systems problem.

Everything changes when invoicing is treated as part of delivery.
Send it the same day.
Automate reminders.
Track receivables weekly, not monthly.
Build thresholds so overdue payments trigger action immediately.

When invoicing is disciplined:
→ Cash arrives faster
→ Stress drops
→ Forecasts become reliable
→ Growth stops being a gamble

Automation doesn’t replace discipline.
It enforces it.

And discipline is what keeps cash under control.

If you are a CEO or founder, choose one painful finance process.

Just one.

Commit to tightening it this quarter.

Your team will feel the difference.

So will your cash flow.

#Finance #CashFlow #Accounting #Automation #BusinessGrowth #Founders #Leadership #SMEs

Cash flow issues don’t automatically mean your business is failing.

Most times, they mean one part of the system is under strain and asking for attention.

This week I’m running a short poll to help founders pinpoint where cash is actually getting stuck.

So you fix the right thing instead of guessing or reacting blindly.

Which one feels most true for your business right now?
A) Clients take too long to pay
B) Cash is locked up in inventory
C) Fixed monthly costs feel heavy
D) Sales rise and fall with the season

Vote below.

I’ll share practical breakdowns and clear fixes after.

What is currently your biggest 'Cash Flow' bottleneck?

taplio

The Battle

Samuel Mwendwa

CPA Njihia

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreSamuel Mwendwa's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreCPA Njihia's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Samuel Mwendwa

CPA Njihia

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Samuel Mwendwa's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreCPA Njihia's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreSamuel Mwendwa's LinkedIn Performance