When Doing Nothing is the Right Answer
How hold periods and "leaving meat on the bone" impact your product roadmap
What if you could ask AI any question about your revenue—and trust the answer?
Forward-thinking CFOs already are: segmenting cohorts, forecasting weekly, and testing the impact of strategic decisions in real time. What feels rare today is rapidly becoming the new norm.
The reason most CFOs aren’t there yet isn’t AI—it’s the data foundation. Without a real-time, deeply segmented revenue cube, even the smartest AI can’t deliver answers you can trust.
This white paper shows exactly how CFOs are creating that foundation, turning raw data into actionable insights, and getting AI-ready for confident, real-time decision-making.
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.