When Doing Nothing is the Right Answer
How hold periods and "leaving meat on the bone" impact your product roadmap
As we enter the final stretch of 2025, CFOs are under more pressure than ever to deliver forward-looking 2026 forecasts while also providing stakeholders with a clear, data-backed view of how this year has played out. I know how tough this is when fragmented data and error-prone spreadsheets create blind spots and make it hard to stand behind the numbers with confidence.
This white paper captures how 100+ PE-backed CFOs moved beyond spreadsheets, automated their Revenue Cube, and unlocked real-time intelligence that improved forecasting accuracy, delivered financial clarity, and elevated their role as trusted partners.
Here’s what worked for them—and what can work for you as you prepare for 2026.
Get the roadmap to accurate forecasts and financial clarity
I recently joined PE backed CTO
on his podcast, Technocratic, to discuss what makes a great partnership between a CTO and CFO in a PE backed environment.
He asked me:
“How CFOs think about the build vs buy vs partner scenarios, particularly when you are deep into a hold period?”
I surprised him with a fourth option: do nothing.
It sounds counterintuitive. But sometimes, the story you can tell is more valuable than the immediate results you can deliver.
This becomes especially true in the final years of a hold period, when strategic clarity matters more than a half-built feature set or a risky GTM pivot.
Here’s a real-world example.
At a prior company, we were a marketplace with a SaaS layer. Think of it as the Amazon for auto garages. Shops could order parts to fix the vehicles rolling into their bays.
It was classic vertical SaaS. We were deeply embedded in the customer’s workflow and had ecosystem data that made it possible to offer payments in a differentiated way.
Embedded payments are a powerful lever. You’re not just monetizing transactions. You’re increasing stickiness, improving margin, and inserting yourself deeper into the value chain.
This was the logical next step in our layer cake strategy. But the timing wasn’t right.
We were in year five of a PE hold, and the exit window was approaching. Any new investment had to clear a high bar for both ROI and narrative fit.
This is where the Next Buyer’s Theorem comes in.
The next buyer has to believe they can do something you haven’t.
The next buyer needs to see a path from [$100M to $300M], and then believe it can get to [$600M] from there.
Otherwise, they don’t get their return. And you don’t get your exit.
In our case, payments became that lever. But only as a future opportunity, not an active investment.
To build it ourselves, we would have faced several challenges:
Technical risk: we didn’t have the right in-house talent.
Execution risk: even if we built it, we would have needed a new GTM motion.
Ramp risk: attach rates start low. Even with a strong install base, you're not flipping a switch and printing cash.
The better call was to not build it. Just frame it.
We walked buyers through the upside case. We showed the TAM. We modeled the margin potential. All without taking on the risk ourselves.
Buyers saw a solid core business plus a high-upside lever they could activate post-close.
That embedded optionality made the deal easier to underwrite.
We left some meat on the bone, on purpose.
So next time you're debating build vs. buy vs. partner, consider the fourth option:
Do nothing. But do it with intent.
In private equity, the best return sometimes comes from the strategy you could pursue, not the one you actually chase.
Thanks for reading, and make sure to check out our sponsor, Finqore. You ain’t gotta get ready if you stay ready for a fundraise or exit. Download their white paper on the perfect data cube.
Hey CJ, it sounds backwards but doing nothing can feel harder than doing something. Thanks for sharing how you got around this by modeling the scenario, upside, and risk. It’s no longer not taking actions, it’s not taking action because x, y & z. That feels easier to pitch and sell.