What We Turn Down (2026)
The engagements a 90-Day Number does not fit, and where we send them instead. Under $2M, over $25M, empty seats, compliance work and rescue crises.
The fastest way to understand what a service is good for is to hear what it turns down. A firm that takes every engagement is either lying about its fit or bad at its job, because no single deliverable suits every business. We turn down a good number of enquiries, not out of fussiness but because the 90-Day Number simply does not fit them, and taking work it does not fit would break the one promise the model rests on. Here is what we say no to, and where those enquiries should go instead.
Published: July 2026
The first turn-down is businesses under about $2M in revenue. At that stage a full CFO deliverable, a rigorous model, a formal board pack, is usually more machinery than the business can use, and the $17,850 the engagement costs is better spent elsewhere in a business that small. The deliverable would be well built and largely wasted, because the decisions it informs are not yet complex enough to need it.
Where these businesses should go instead: at under $2M, the finance need is usually good bookkeeping, clean management accounts, and a simple cash discipline the founder can run themselves, which is bookkeeper and small-practice-accountant territory, not virtual CFO territory. When the business grows into the decisions a CFO deliverable serves, the fit changes. Until then, the honest answer is that the money is better spent on the finance basics, and we say so.
The second turn-down is at the other end: businesses whose complexity has grown past what a project-based engagement can serve, often around $25M in revenue and above. When a business is making daily capital decisions, actively managing debt facilities, or running a finance team that needs a leader, it needs a full-time CFO in the seat, not a periodically delivered artefact. Taking the engagement would be selling a project where the business needs a permanent executive.
Where these businesses should go: they should hire a full-time CFO, and the signals that the time has come are set out plainly in when you have outgrown a virtual CFO. We lose the work by saying this, which is exactly why it is worth saying: the project model has a ceiling, and above it the honest recommendation is a hire we do not provide.
The third turn-down is the empty-seat problem. When a finance leader has left and the need is continuity, someone to hold the seat and keep things running while a permanent replacement is found, that is an interim problem, and it is a different shape from ours. The interim need is presence and continuity over a period; ours is a defined artefact by a date. Trying to solve an empty seat with a project deliverable leaves the day-to-day gap unfilled.
Where these should go: an interim CFO, which is a legitimate and specific category for exactly this situation, as set out in interim CFO versus virtual CFO. The interim category exists because the empty-seat problem is real and distinct, and it is the right answer when continuity, not an artefact, is the job.
Two more turn-downs, briefly. Compliance-shaped problems, a BAS backlog, a tax question, a bookkeeping cleanup, are not CFO work; they are bookkeeper and accountant work, and a founder who needs their compliance sorted needs a bookkeeper or a registered agent, named generically, not a virtual CFO building a model on top of unreconciled books. We would be the wrong tool, and the right tool is cheaper and better suited.
Rescue-shaped crises, where the business is in acute distress and the constraint is not the absence of an artefact but an immediate operational or solvency emergency, are also usually not a fit, because a 90-day deliverable does not address a this-week crisis. Where the artefact is not the binding constraint, building one does not help, and the honest response is to point the founder toward the specific crisis help they need rather than sell them a project. Saying no to these protects the day-90 promise: we only take work where a named deliverable by day 90 truly solves the problem, and turning down the work it does not fit is how that promise stays true. Where a business sits right at a boundary, the warning signs guidance helps sort it.
Why turn down work at all?
Because no single deliverable fits every business, and taking work the 90-Day Number does not suit would break the promise the model rests on: that a named deliverable by day 90 truly solves the problem. A firm that takes every engagement is either misrepresenting its fit or willing to sell a deliverable that will not help. Turning down poor-fit work is how the promise stays true.
Why not take businesses under $2M?
Because at that stage a full CFO deliverable is usually more machinery than the business can use, and the money is better spent on finance basics: good bookkeeping, clean management accounts, and a simple cash discipline the founder runs themselves. That is bookkeeper and small-practice-accountant territory. When the business grows into the decisions a CFO deliverable serves, the fit changes.
What if my business is over $25M?
Then you likely need a full-time CFO rather than a project engagement, especially if you are making daily capital decisions, actively managing debt, or leading a finance team. A periodically delivered artefact cannot serve that; a permanent executive can. The signals that the time has come are set out separately, and the honest recommendation at that scale is a hire we do not provide.
I have an empty finance seat. Can you fill it?
Not really, because that is an interim problem, presence and continuity over a period, and ours is a defined artefact by a date. Trying to solve an empty seat with a project deliverable leaves the day-to-day gap unfilled. An interim CFO is the right category for exactly this situation, and it exists because the empty-seat problem is real and distinct from what a virtual CFO does.
What about a BAS backlog or a bookkeeping cleanup?
That is compliance work, which is bookkeeper and registered-agent territory, not CFO work. A founder who needs their compliance sorted needs a bookkeeper or accountant, not a virtual CFO building a model on top of unreconciled books. We would be the wrong tool, and the right tool is cheaper and better suited to the job.
What if I am in an acute crisis right now?
A 90-day deliverable does not address a this-week emergency, so if the business is in acute distress and the constraint is an immediate operational or solvency crisis rather than the absence of an artefact, we are usually not the fit. Where the artefact is not the binding constraint, building one does not help, and the honest response is to point you toward the specific crisis help you actually need.
Sydney Virtual CFO is a Sydney-based virtual CFO service for founders running $2M to $15M businesses across SaaS, ecommerce, professional services, construction, and other low-volume, high-value industries. We deliver fixed-scope CFO engagements with a named deliverable on day 90: a 13-week cashflow forecast, a fundraise-ready financial model, a unit economics build, or a board reporting pack you can run on your own.
Our front-door product, the 90-Day Number, is fixed scope at $17,850 plus GST. We are one of the few project-based virtual CFOs in Australia, in a market built almost entirely on monthly retainers. No retainers without a deliverable. No 80-page reports. No theatre.
Visit Sydney Virtual CFO | The 90-Day Number | Book a Call
This content is general information only, written for Australian founders running businesses in the $2M to $15M revenue range. It does not constitute tax, financial product, investment, or legal advice and should not be relied on as such. The work referenced is led by a Chartered Accountant (CA ANZ), but Sydney Virtual CFO is not a licensed tax agent, not a licensed financial adviser, and not authorised to provide personal financial advice. Tax obligations, accounting treatments, fundraise terms, and statutory requirements depend on your individual circumstances. For advice specific to your business, contact the team directly or consult a registered tax agent, licensed financial adviser, or qualified lawyer. Information was current at the time of publication and may change without notice. We review and update guides periodically.
