Resources·for portfolio companies
What your PE fund actually looks at in your numbers (and why)
A guide for CFOs new to institutional investors: what your GP is actually reviewing in your monthly reporting, and why, so you can anticipate the questions before they're asked.
If your previous reporting relationship was a bank, this feels different from the first month. A bank mostly wants confirmation that its loan is safe. A PE fund is a part-owner of your business, reports your numbers upward to its own investors, and is actively deciding, every quarter, whether the investment case it made is still playing out.
That changes what gets scrutinised and why. None of it is adversarial. Understanding the underlying reason for each thing your GP checks makes it much easier to send reporting that builds confidence, rather than reporting that happens to answer the question they end up asking anyway.
The four things your GP is actually checking
Budget variance: is management doing what it said it would?
Your fund invested based on a business plan. Every month you trade close to that plan is evidence the team can forecast and execute. Variance itself isn't the problem. Unexplained variance is. A miss you flagged and explained in advance reads very differently to your GP than the same miss discovered for the first time in the board pack.
Cash and covenant headroom: is the downside protected?
Funds size positions assuming some scenarios don't play out as planned. What they're checking monthly is whether the company still has runway and covenant room if growth is slower than expected, not just whether the upside case is on track.
KPI trends: is the investment thesis still true?
The specific KPIs your fund tracks, such as customer growth, margin, unit economics, or whatever underpinned the original decision to invest, are the ongoing test of whether the thesis holds. A steady KPI trend, even a modest one, is usually more reassuring to a GP than a single strong month against a backdrop of noise. See KPI frameworks for PE-backed SMEs for the fuller set by segment.
Data consistency: can this go straight into the LP report?
Your fund reports to its own investors on a fixed schedule, using your numbers as an input. Data that arrives late, in a different format each time, or needing rework before it can be used, creates real work on the fund's side. That friction shapes how much they trust your team more generally.
What "good" looks like from the fund's side
None of this requires perfect numbers. It requires numbers your GP can trust and act on.
reads as risk
A miss discovered in the pack
A budget variance, a covenant close to its threshold, or a KPI heading the wrong way, shown up for the first time in the monthly numbers, with no prior warning and no explanation attached.
reads as control
The same miss, flagged early
A short note ahead of the pack, "revenue will land 4% under budget this month, here's why, here's what we're doing about it," turns the identical number into evidence that management has a handle on the business.
A concrete version: revenue lands 4% below budget for the month, driven by a contract signing that slipped two weeks. Flagged to the GP a week before the board pack, with the new expected signing date attached, this reads as controlled execution. Discovered for the first time in the pack itself, with no explanation, the identical 4% miss reads as a forecasting problem: same number, opposite conclusion.
Building trust in the first two quarters
The first two reporting cycles after an investment set the tone for the rest of the hold. A GP forms an early view of how much independent oversight a management team needs based almost entirely on how the first two quarters of numbers arrive: on time, in a consistent format, and with variances explained before they're asked about. That impression is disproportionately hard to shift later, in either direction.
For a sense of exactly what a GP scans for in the fifteen minutes before a board meeting, seereading a portco's numbers before the board meeting. It's written from the other side of the table, but it maps directly onto what to get ahead of in your own reporting.
That same window is what your fund is trying to standardize on its own side, too. Seethe 100-day reporting planfor what a GP is doing during onboarding, so you know what to expect from them, not just what they expect from you.
Report the way your fund already expects
AHQ Financials gives you budget vs actuals, covenant headroom, and KPI tracking in the same structure your fund is already looking for. If they use AHQ Insights, it reaches them automatically, with nothing extra to prepare each month.