The owner treated bank balance as drawable cash. Working capital and retained earnings were not modeled as separate inputs. They needed clearer draw scenarios before changing owner pay, without paying for consulting.

Using Owner Compensation, they entered pay, draw timing, and retained earnings targets. Free, full, and itemized views showed how each scenario changed cash leaving the business.

The challenge

A single round pay number hid the tradeoff between take-home and the cash buffer the firm wanted to keep.

They needed side-by-side draw scenarios, not advice about what to pay themselves.

What they did

They ran Owner Compensation for lower and higher draw cases, then compared:

• Owner pay as its own line
• Draw timing against working capital
• Retained earnings as a planning buffer
• Side-by-side scenarios before changing pay

When useful, Pro saved scenarios for later revisits. Calculators stayed free.

The outcome

They had a clearer view of the cash tradeoff before changing pay. The model did not tell them what to choose. It showed what their inputs implied.

They keep updating the same structure when revenue or headcount changes.

Modeling draw scenarios side by side made the cash tradeoff obvious before we changed pay.

‍