SaaS Blogs and Articles
  • All Technology
  • AI
  • Autonomy
  • B2B Growth
  • Big Data
  • BioTech
  • ClimateTech
  • Consumer Tech
  • Crypto
  • Cybersecurity
  • DevOps
  • Digital Marketing
  • Ecommerce
  • EdTech
  • Enterprise
  • FinTech
  • GovTech
  • Hardware
  • HealthTech
  • HRTech
  • LegalTech
  • Nanotech
  • PropTech
  • Quantum
  • Robotics
  • SaaS
  • SpaceTech
AllNewsDealsSocialBlogsVideosPodcastsDigests

SaaS Pulse

EMAIL DIGESTS

Daily

Every morning

Weekly

Sunday recap

NewsDealsSocialBlogsVideosPodcasts
SaaSBlogsStop Building Financial Plans on Hope and Prayer: Why Your C-60/C-90/C-10 Planning Is Backwards
Stop Building Financial Plans on Hope and Prayer: Why Your C-60/C-90/C-10 Planning Is Backwards
SaaS

Stop Building Financial Plans on Hope and Prayer: Why Your C-60/C-90/C-10 Planning Is Backwards

•November 17, 2025
0
SaaStr
SaaStr•Nov 17, 2025

Why It Matters

Misaligned planning inflates growth expectations and jeopardizes runway, increasing the risk of premature failure. A proper confidence‑based model protects investors and keeps founders focused on sustainable scaling.

Key Takeaways

  • •Revenue plan should be 60% confidence, not optimistic
  • •Cash plan must be 90% confidence, highly conservative
  • •Cut C‑60 revenue by 20% for C‑90 scenario
  • •Avoid Q4 hockey‑stick; use linear growth assumptions

Pulse Analysis

The C‑60/C‑90/C‑10 framework is a confidence matrix that separates realistic operating goals from worst‑case cash scenarios. Many founders mistakenly reverse this logic, projecting aggressive Q4 revenue while assuming cash will hold, which creates a fragile financial house of cards. By anchoring the base revenue plan at 60 % confidence—derived from the last three to four months of actual performance—companies set a target that is challenging yet attainable, while the C‑90 cash plan forces a conservative view of cash inflows, highlighting runway gaps before they become crises.

Implementing Lemkin’s method starts with a simple L4M (last‑four‑months) model: average month‑over‑month growth, adjust for known hires or product launches, and project a near‑linear trajectory. The C‑90 cash scenario then takes that revenue forecast and reduces it by roughly 20 %, keeping expense assumptions unchanged. This reveals the true zero‑cash date, which should comfortably exceed 16 months. If it does not, the startup must either trim burn or secure additional capital now, rather than scrambling in Q3. Crucially, the approach eliminates the seductive Q4 “hockey‑stick” that rarely materializes, replacing it with disciplined, seasonality‑aware growth assumptions.

Investors value transparency over hype. A plan that openly distinguishes base, stretch, and downside outcomes demonstrates managerial rigor and reduces the likelihood of a cash crunch that can derail the business. By communicating a realistic C‑60 revenue path, a conservative C‑90 cash outlook, and a high‑upside C‑10 stretch, founders build credibility, preserve runway, and position themselves for strategic fundraising when needed, rather than reacting to emergency financing under duress.

Stop Building Financial Plans on Hope and Prayer: Why Your C-60/C-90/C-10 Planning is Backwards

Read Original Article
0

Comments

Want to join the conversation?

Loading comments...