Finance models built to make the decision, not just report the number.
I'm Kevin, a CPA working in FP&A in Dallas, with eight years across Big 4 audit, PE due diligence, corporate planning, and hospitality finance. These are models I build on my own time with illustrative data, so you can see how I think through a problem without any employer's numbers.
Portfolio
A weekly hiring-approvals model for a 500-person corporate team.
A common gap at fast-growing, multi-site companies: headcount is a monthly employee count, the budget applies a blanket raise, and nobody tracks vacancy. Payroll looks under budget year to date, but mostly because seats are sitting open. Leadership approves hires one at a time without seeing what a yes costs next year.
This model gives the weekly approvals meeting one page. Every request gets sorted into fast-track, approve, review, or challenge, priced into next year's payroll, and tested against what the department and the company can actually afford.
I'd approve the ten requests that clear the checks and send back both Challenge requests. The Data Engineer and Sales Coordinator are unbudgeted adds, and each one puts a department that's already over budget further over; Sales Support alone is $310K over before the hire. Holding them keeps $406K of FY27 room instead of $159K.
The bigger fix is the benchmark. "Under budget" is a weak test when the budget itself is a blanket raise on last year. I'd work with the head of HR and the CFO to set headcount KPIs by department, built from historicals: headcount and payroll per $1M of revenue, cost per FTE vs. plan, vacancy rate and time to fill, and backfill vs. net-new mix. That gives every hiring decision a trend line to be judged against, not just a budget line.
How it works
Three checks, four decisions
Each request runs three checks: is the offer more than 5% above its reference pay (the last person's pay for a backfill, budget pay for a budgeted seat, market midpoint otherwise); is it a new seat outside the budget; and, counting the easier requests ahead of it, does it push the department over budget. Backfills only get the pay check, since the seat is already budgeted.
The tool does the math; people still make the call. The meeting spends its time on the Review and Challenge rows instead of re-deriving the same numbers for every request.
Temporary vs. ongoing savings
The year-to-date number hides the real story. Open-seat savings stop the day those seats fill, while pay above budget and unbudgeted hires keep going and grow to a full year. Splitting the two is what turns "$526K under budget" into "$542K over on a run-rate basis."
A 20-property portfolio, modeled the way a sponsor's CFO would need it.
12 equity co-investment assets, 8 fee-only assets, pooled cash-flow IRR/MOIC at the deal and corporate level. Every asset built on validated, asset-class-specific cap-rate assumptions. Figures are illustrative, built to demonstrate methodology rather than disclose any employer's or client's actual data.
What the model does
Pooled cash flows, not averaged returns
IRR cannot be averaged across assets without distortion, each property has its own timing and magnitude of cash flow. The model pools cash flows across the portfolio before computing IRR at the corporate level, and separately at the per-deal level, so the headline return is mathematically defensible rather than a shortcut.
Power BI's DAX has no native XIRR function, so the iterative IRR calculation is verified independently in Python before being trusted in the dashboard.
Corporate model assumptions
The corporate layer is built bottom-up. Corporate compensation runs at 24% of fee revenue, and direct operating costs (field staff and regional operations) at 52% of fee revenue. Together they drive a total corporate EBITDA margin of roughly 12%.
Audit discipline, deal diligence, and capital planning. One continuous thread.
The work, by chapter
Audit gave me the financial backbone. Diligence taught me buy- and sell-side M&A adjustments. Long-range planning at Kosmos put me across a $750M capital program. At Highgate I built the reporting structure from scratch, integrating IBM Planning Analytics (TM1) with Oracle and automating the workflows with Claude AI. Pick a chapter to see what I produced.
Finance capabilities
Always glad to compare notes on FP&A, finance systems, and AI in finance.
Whether it's a model you're building, a reporting process you want to automate, or just an introduction, grab 15 minutes below or email kevin@kevinblouse.com.
Book a time
Pick a time that works and we'll take it from there.