A P&L export with last month beside it is not a board pack. Our Chartered Accountants produce packs with variance commentary, KPIs, cash and funding position, and the decisions being asked of the board, each with the financial consequence set out.
Board reporting sits inside a fractional CFO engagement from $3,000 a month, or within a complete finance function at $2,500 to $6,000. Rolling monthly, no lock-in, and we attend the meeting where it is scoped.
Management reporting tells an operator what happened so they can act this week. A board pack tells a director what happened, why, what it does to the plan and what decision follows. A CA-qualified senior writes it, answering the obvious questions before they are asked and saying so where a number is an estimate.
The first time someone asks where a number comes from and the answer takes a week, the pack loses authority and every figure after it is treated with suspicion. Packs come out of a completed month-end close on a reconciled ledger, with supporting schedules available, so a follow-up question is a conversation rather than a project.
The value of a pack is highest when whoever wrote the commentary can answer the follow-up live. Where the engagement includes fractional CFO involvement, that is the same person rather than a handover, and they have been inside the operating detail all month rather than reading the pack on the way in.
A fixed structure, agreed with the board or chair at the outset and then held constant, because a pack that changes shape each month cannot be read comparatively. Numbers come from a completed close, so they are final rather than indicative.
Length is not the measure. A pack a director can read properly in thirty minutes beats one they skim in ten, and the ordering matters: result, cause, consequence, decision.
Clients typically move from a pack circulated the night before to one that lands with real notice on the same date every cycle.
P&L, balance sheet and cashflow with variance against budget and prior period, and written commentary explaining what drove the difference. Timing differences that will reverse are separated from structural changes that will not, and volume effects are separated from price effects.
That separation is the whole point. A variance without a cause is a number that changed, which leaves the interpretation to the person least equipped to do it quickly.
Clients typically stop spending the first half of the meeting working out what happened.
A short set of measures agreed with the board, reported consistently with a target and a trend. Tracking too many produces a dashboard nobody reads, and tracking activity rather than outcome produces one nobody can act on.
Segment reporting is usually where the useful information is, because a consolidated result averages a strong part of the business with a weak one and shows you neither. Setting it up may require changes to how transactions are coded, which we handle.
Clients typically get performance by site, entity or service line for the first time, which changes the conversation.
Cash and funding position with headroom shown against each facility, not only at the test date. Discovering a covenant breach on the test date removes every option you would have had a quarter earlier.
Capital expenditure and investment analysis sits here too, with the cash consequence modelled alongside the profit consequence, because those are usually different answers.
Clients typically get covenant headroom tracked monthly and a funding requirement identified ahead of need rather than at the point of need.
Reporting in the format an investor or lender requires, including the reporting expected after a raise, which is often more demanding than what was asked for during it. Lender packs are built to the covenant schedule rather than to a generic template.
Where a raise or a sale is in view, the pack starts answering the questions that process will ask: revenue quality and recognition, margin consistency, working capital, customer concentration and whether the numbers tie to source.
Clients typically enter a process with reporting the other side accepts rather than rebuilds.
Where it is scoped, a CA-qualified senior attends the meeting. It is usually worth it, because the pack's value is highest when the person who wrote the commentary can answer the follow-up in the room rather than in an email three days later.
Where a decision is required, the pack and the discussion set out the options with the financial consequence of each rather than presenting one recommendation as fact. Directors are there to decide, and a pack that hides the alternatives is not helping them.
Clients typically move from a reporting relationship to a governance one within a quarter.
Our experts will discuss your business, your finance pain points, and the services we can offer
We take your requirements and send a fixed proposal with pricing options within 24 hours. Free, no obligation
We will schedule a kick off meeting, give access to our online communication and project management tools
Deliverables start in week one and we take the function off your plate, so you get time back to run your business the way you want
30 minutes with our team.
We'll review your current finance setup, compare the full cost of an internal hire against our embedded team, and show you exactly what your finance function should cost at your stage of growth.
You'll leave with a clear view of what's working, what's missing, and where you'd save.
No lock-in contracts. 30-day money-back guarantee.
Prefer to book directly? Grab a time here.
Inside a fractional CFO engagement it starts from $3,000 per month. Inside a complete finance function it sits in the $2,500 to $6,000 range, depending on entity count, segmentation depth and whether meeting attendance is included.
The variable that moves it most is not pack length, it is segmentation and entity count, because reporting by site or entity means the coding and the close have to support it. Where a board pack is all you need and your books are already current and reconciled by someone else, say so and we will price the layer alone.
Financial performance with commentary, the cash and funding position, KPIs against plan, segment performance, and the decisions being asked of the board with the financial consequence of each option set out.
What should not be in it is forty pages of exported reports. A director reading a pack properly in thirty minutes is more useful than one skimming it in ten, so the ordering matters more than the volume: result, cause, consequence, decision. Where a number is an estimate or a judgement, the pack says so rather than presenting it with false precision.
Same underlying numbers, different audience and different job. Management reporting supports operating decisions during the month, and it goes to people who already know what happened. A board pack supports governance decisions and answers what the result means for the plan.
Most businesses need the first. Some also need the second. If your audience is you and your business partner, management accounts inside a monthly finance function is the right product and costs less. Buying board reporting for an audience of two is paying for a format nobody needs.
Yes, where it is scoped into the engagement. A CA-qualified senior attends, which is usually the version worth having, because the pack's value peaks when the person who wrote the commentary can answer the follow-up question live.
It also changes how the pack gets written. Someone who knows they will be in the room answering questions writes differently from someone sending a PDF, and the difference shows up in what gets flagged before the meeting rather than raised in it.
Yes, monthly, with headroom shown against each covenant rather than only at the test date. That lead time is the whole point: the options available a quarter before a breach are considerably better than the options available on the day.
Where a breach looks likely, we model the paths and put them to you and the board with numbers, so the conversation with the lender is one you initiate rather than one they open. Reporting formats for lenders are usually specified in the facility agreement rather than left to you, and we build to that schedule.
Yes, including the reporting an investor will expect after the raise, which is often more demanding than what they asked for during it. Monthly packs, agreed KPIs and a revenue recognition position that holds up are all part of it.
The work that matters most usually happens before the raise: revenue quality, margin consistency, working capital and whether the numbers tie to source. Our guides to what investors and buyers look at and what changes after a funding round set out both sides.
With the reporting, before the first meeting. A board formed around a pack that already works spends its first year governing. A board formed before the reporting exists spends its first year requesting information, which is expensive and frustrating for everyone.
Getting the pack structure agreed with an incoming chair before the first meeting is the cheapest thing you can do at that stage. Background on the wider question is in business governance for Australian SMEs.
Probably not, and we will say so. Without a board, an investor or a lender with covenants, board-format reporting is a cost without an audience, and standard monthly management reporting inside a finance function does the job for less.
We are also not the right provider if what you need is corporate advisory work requiring an AFS licence, or a transaction adviser to run a sale. We support those processes with the numbers, we do not run them, and we will tell you who should.
