← Orbicul for Portfolio Companies
Aligning Management and Shareholder on One Model
Putting management and shareholder on the same model, with the same definitions, shifts the quarterly conversation from explaining numbers to deciding what to change, instead of every meeting starting with a debate over whose version of the numbers is correct. Once both sides look at the same live model, the disagreement that remains is usually a genuine strategic one, which is a far more productive place to spend a quarterly conversation than reconciling competing spreadsheets.
Why the "whose numbers are right" fight happens at all
Management typically builds internal reporting around operational metrics that make sense day-to-day; shareholders typically want reporting aligned to the value creation thesis from the deal. Without a shared model, these two views drift apart naturally, and every quarterly meeting spends real time just reconciling them before any actual decision gets discussed.
Also relevant, on realtime-valuation.com: What the same shared model reveals at fund level, across a whole portfolio →
What actually changes once both sides share a model
The reconciliation work disappears from the meeting itself, because it happens continuously in the live model rather than being redone from scratch each quarter. What's left is a conversation about which domain needs attention and what to do about it, the conversation the meeting was supposed to be having all along.
What this doesn't solve
A shared model doesn't eliminate disagreement between management and shareholders, it removes the manufactured disagreement caused by looking at different numbers, leaving the genuine strategic disagreements, which are worth having, more visible and easier to actually resolve.
You Track Over 100 KPIs. Maybe 15 of Them Actually Matter to Your Valuation.
Orbicul gives management and shareholders the same model, the same definitions, so the quarterly conversation shifts from justifying the numbers to deciding what to change.