Forecast Commentary
Definition
Executive narrative on what the latest forecast says and how it has changed since prior reporting — which scenarios were considered, which was picked as "most likely" and why, what changed since last quarter, and what would push the forecast into a different scenario. Pairs with `finance.burn_rate_scenarios` (the numeric scenarios) to provide the qualitative "why" beside the quantitative "what". Common pitfall: this becomes a restatement of the numbers rather than commentary — every paragraph should add interpretation the numbers do not by themselves convey (drivers, decisions taken, decisions deferred).
Why it matters
Gives the board the interpretation layer that raw scenario numbers lack — without it, the burn-rate-scenarios table is data without meaning. Disciplined commentary also creates a record of management's rationale that can be re-examined when reality plays out.
How it's calculated
No calculation — narrative commentary. Convention: cover (1) selected scenario and rationale, (2) deltas vs. prior forecast with reasons, (3) trigger conditions that would move the forecast. How to interpret it
Compare commentary across periods — if the rationale shifts without the underlying numbers shifting, the team is rationalizing rather than analyzing. If numbers shift without the rationale acknowledging it, controls maturity is the concern. Length is not a quality signal; concrete drivers and named triggers are.
Source
imboard Editorial
Stage relevance
Typically owned by
Related KPIs
Narrative listing of the key inputs the forecast rests on — growth-rate assumptions, churn assumptions, hiring plan, FX rates, expected timing of large bookings, planned price changes, capitalized-vs-expensed R&D treatment, etc. Without this field, the board cannot tell whether a forecast change reflects a real-world update or a quietly changed assumption. Common pitfall: assumptions are written once at planning and never updated when the underlying reality shifts — track explicitly which assumption changed each quarter and why. Best practice (per "Venture Deals" by Feld & Mendelson, and standard board-pack guidance): every material variance vs. forecast should be traceable to either an executed plan or a changed assumption.
Forecast burn-rate matrix across three scenarios — conservative (defensive cost plan, slow revenue), mostLikely (current best-estimate), bestCase (aggressive investment with strong revenue) — with gross + net burn for each. Bound to the ScenarioBurnRateMatrix widget alongside the historical `finance.burn_rate_actual` anchor. The board reads this to understand what range of cash trajectories the company is planning for and which one management has chosen as the base case. Common pitfall: the three scenarios cluster tightly (all within ±10% of each other) — that's not three scenarios, it's one scenario with rounding error. Real scenarios should reflect meaningfully different operating decisions and produce visibly different runways.
The single past-period observed burn — gross and net — that anchors the forecast-scenario matrix. The "we just lived through this" baseline against which conservative / most-likely / best-case forecasts are projected. Differs from `finance.gross_burn_rate` and `finance.net_burn_rate` in being explicitly a point-in-time historical anchor with both components paired in one object, rather than the standalone monthly KPI values. Common pitfall: anchoring forecasts off a single month with a known one-off (large bill, prepayment received) bakes a distortion into all scenarios — pick a representative period or document the adjustment.
Material risks that could break the forecast or the cash position — customer concentration, contract renewal risk in the next 2 quarters, debt-covenant proximity, FX exposure on multi-currency revenue/cost mix, payment-processor concentration, audit/tax adjustments under review, regulatory changes affecting revenue recognition. Distinct from `risk_factors` at the operations level — this is explicitly financial. Common pitfall: this field becomes boilerplate ("market risk, execution risk") instead of naming the specific risks the board can act on this quarter. Best practice (per the standard board-pack guidance reflected in NVCA Model Investor Rights Agreement information-rights conventions): name the top 3–5 risks with a probability/impact note and a current mitigation status.
Track these KPIs with your board
I'mBoard helps startup CEOs report the metrics that matter, track resolutions, and run better board meetings.