Case Studies
Every engagement begins by identifying where operational risk is accumulating, and addressing that constraint first.
Case Study 1
Restored liquidity for a $50M multi-brand consumer business by bounding inventory risk and enforcing forecasting and purchasing discipline. Reduced inventory by 50%, eliminated ~$2M in annual storage costs, and accelerated cash recovery by 535 days.
​
Case Study 2
Redesigned the sourcing model for a newly acquired brand to expand margins without sacrificing quality or scale. Delivered 30%+ unit cost reductions on key products and rolled the framework across the portfolio, generating $2M+ in annualized savings.​
​
Case Study 3
Aligned management, buyers, and lenders around a defensible go-forward portfolio structure. Built a dynamic model separating scale and exit decisions, revealing a path to 20%+ brand EBITDA and unlocking $5M in incremental cash.
​
Case Study: Working Capital Stabilization in a Multi-Brand Portfolio
Primary Phase: Stability
Secondary Phase: Align
Client Snapshot
​
-
Business: $50M portfolio company operating 15 consumer brands
-
Complexity: ~3,000 SKUs across multiple channels
-
Constraint: Severe working-capital pressure driven by excess and misallocated inventory
​
At the start of the engagement, the business had $12M tied up in inventory, with $6M unproductive, limiting liquidity and constraining reinvestment in profitable growth.
​
​
The Constraint
The company’s cash position had deteriorated due to chronic overbuying and weak decision discipline between demand planning and purchasing.
Key indicators of instability:
-
Days Inventory Outstanding (DIO): ~730 days
-
Payment terms: 30% deposit upfront, 70% pre-shipment
-
Production + transit: ~75 days
-
Effective DPO: ~30 days
-
DSO: ~15 days
This resulted in a cash conversion cycle of ~715 days, meaning capital was locked up for nearly two years before returning to the business.
Underlying drivers included:
-
Unrealistic demand forecasts
-
Overly aggressive safety stock assumptions
-
Erratic lead times
-
Weak supplier terms
-
Growth initiatives that exceeded operational capacity
-
Unreliable feedback loops
Forecast ownership sat with brand teams rather than purchasing, enabling overordering with no enforced accountability for cash or inventory outcomes.
​
​​​
What We Did
Stability: Bounding Capital and Inventory Risk
The first objective was not optimization, but preventing irreversible commitments from quietly compounding risk.
Actions taken:
-
Quantified productive vs. unproductive inventory at the SKU level
-
Modeled inventory exit scenarios to balance cash recovery vs. margin preservation
-
Designed a phased recovery plan rather than indiscriminate liquidation
-
Established clear guardrails around purchase timing and inventory exposure
This created immediate visibility into where capital was trapped and which decisions were driving instability.
​
​​​
Case Study: Margin Expansion Through Scalable Global Sourcing
Primary Phase: Scale
Secondary Phase: Align
Client Snapshot
​​
-
Business: Newly acquired consumer brand within a multi-brand portfolio
-
Category Position: Revenue leader with strong market share
-
Constraint: Product margins averaging ~68%, below the 72%+ threshold required for sustainable profitability
Despite strong top-line performance, the brand lacked sufficient margin headroom to support ongoing marketing spend and portfolio-level return targets.
​​
​
The Constraint
The business had limited degrees of freedom.
-
Marketing investment was required to maintain category leadership
-
Operating costs outside of product cost were largely fixed
-
Pricing increases risked demand and competitive position
This made product cost the primary lever for improving profitability. Leadership needed a sourcing approach that could deliver material margin expansion without sacrificing quality or scale, and one that could be replicated across the broader portfolio.
​
Absent meaningful cost reduction, the alternatives were unattractive: raise prices, accept subscale profitability, or exit categories altogether.
​
​
What We Did
​
Align: Establishing Margin Discipline Before Expansion
​
Before executing at scale, we aligned the organization around explicit economic constraints.
​
Actions taken:
-
Set clear margin targets at both the business and category level
-
Translated margin targets into non-negotiable unit cost thresholds
-
Used thresholds as a forcing mechanism
-
Categories that could not meet targets through resourcing would be repriced or exited
​
This alignment enabled fast, objective decision-making and removed ambiguity from supplier negotiations.
​
Scale: Redesigning the Sourcing Model
​
With constraints clearly defined, we built a sourcing engine designed for speed, leverage, and repeatability.
​
Actions taken:
-
Deployed a lean resourcing model using contractors to:
-
Document detailed product specifications
-
Define target manufacturing costs
-
Collect competitive quotes across multiple geographies
-
-
Freed the internal sourcing team to focus on:
-
Supplier strategy
-
Negotiation
-
Execution
-
This separation of data collection from strategic negotiation allowed the company to move quickly without overwhelming internal teams.
​
Application at Scale: Hero SKU Optimization
​​
One priority category was hair shears and men’s grooming tools, anchored by the brand’s top-selling SKU generating approximately $10M in annual revenue.
-
Category EBITDA: ~10%
-
Target: 30% unit cost reduction to lift brand EBITDA toward ~20%
Initial sourcing identified Pakistan and China as the most competitive regions. While the incumbent supplier was based in Pakistan, a China-based manufacturer ultimately met both cost and quality requirements.
Because the new supplier was located near other portfolio factories, the company also consolidated freight, reducing transportation costs by ~25%. Combined manufacturing and logistics savings exceeded the original cost-reduction target.
​
Results
​​
-
30% unit cost reduction on the top-selling SKU
-
Brand EBITDA doubled, from ~10% to approximately 20%
-
>$2M in annualized cost savings delivered across the broader portfolio
More importantly, the company established a repeatable sourcing framework anchored in margin targets, documented specifications, rapid market testing, and disciplined negotiation, creating a durable engine for ongoing profitability improvement.
Why This Worked
​
By aligning the organization around explicit margin constraints before executing at scale, sourcing decisions became objective, fast, and repeatable. Growth was pursued only where the cost structure could support it, protecting both profitability and market position.
​
​​​
Case Study: Portfolio Alignment for Transaction Readiness
Primary Phase: Align
Secondary Effect: Stability (liquidity clarity)
Secondary Effect: Scale (transaction execution)
Client Snapshot
​​
-
Business: E-commerce portfolio company preparing for a sale and debt financing
-
Performance: ~15% brand EBITDA with uneven profitability across the portfolio
-
Constraint: Profitable and unprofitable SKUs blended together, obscuring true earnings power and cash generation
Leadership needed a defensible, shared view of what the business should look like going forward—one that would withstand buyer and lender scrutiny.
The Constraint
​
Negotiations stalled because the organization lacked alignment on reality.
-
Reporting blended strong and weak SKUs, masking sustainable EBITDA
-
The liquidity value embedded in underperforming inventory was unclear
-
Portfolio tradeoffs (what to scale vs. exit) were implicit, not explicit
-
Buyers and lenders required a pro forma that could support valuation, risk assessment, and financing terms
Without a single, coherent plan, decision-making was fragmented and external confidence was limited.
What We Did
​
​
Align: Forcing Tradeoffs Into the Open
The objective was not better reporting—it was decision alignment.
Actions taken:
-
Built a three-year, item-level financial model forecasting revenue, costs, and brand EBITDA by SKU and by month
-
Categorized each item dynamically as either:
-
Go-forward items (to be purchased and scaled), or
-
Exit items (no longer reordered, but monetized through sell-down)
-
-
Enabled leadership to flip items between categories to test multiple portfolio configurations and make tradeoffs explicit
This created a single source of truth for decisions about growth, exit, and capital allocation.
Clarifying the Go-Forward Business
For go-forward items, the model incorporated:
-
Purchase cadence and working-capital requirements for ongoing POs
-
A right-sized SG&A structure for a leaner, more profitable operation
-
A pro forma P&L rolled forward from the last three months of actuals
The resulting view showed brand EBITDA exceeding 20%, providing a clear picture of the core business’s sustainable earnings power.
Quantifying the Exit Path
In parallel, we modeled the exit scenario for underperforming SKUs.
Actions taken:
-
Estimated realistic sell-down timelines and pricing over a six-month period
-
Quantified the cash flow potential embedded in existing inventory
-
Made liquidity tradeoffs explicit alongside EBITDA implications
This reframed “unprofitable SKUs” as a source of near-term liquidity, not just drag on performance.
Results
​​
-
~$5M of incremental cash identified from exiting underperforming SKUs
-
Clear separation between scalable, profitable brands and those to exit
-
A defensible pro forma aligning management, buyer, and lender around:
-
Sustainable EBITDA
-
Cash flow timing
-
Portfolio risk
-
With alignment established, negotiations progressed on a shared understanding of value and structure, enabling execution of a cleaner, higher-margin business with stronger liquidity.
Why This Worked
By forcing portfolio tradeoffs into the open before transaction execution, the business aligned all stakeholders around the same economic reality. Once alignment was achieved, stability followed—unlocking liquidity and enabling a transaction structure grounded in durable performance.