CFO: Brands Rarely Max Out Meta Ads

Abir Syed is an accountant turned marketer turned chief financial officer. He says ecommerce marketing success largely depends on creative volume, and few merchants have exhausted any channel, much less Meta.

Abir is co-founder of UpCounting, an accounting and fractional CFO firm in Montréal, Canada. In our recent conversation, he shared common financial mistakes of merchants, key metrics to monitor, and, yes, how to grow ad revenue on Meta.

The entire audio of our conversation is embedded below. The transcript is edited for clarity and length.

Eric Bandholz: Who are you and what do you do?

Abir Syed: I am the co-founder of UpCounting, an accounting and fractional chief financial officer firm focused on ecommerce. We handle everything from basic bookkeeping and transactional work to high-level needs, such as due diligence, back-office implementations, cash flow forecasting, and financial modeling.

I am also a certified public accountant and previously ran both an ecommerce brand and a marketing agency. Most finance professionals lack hands-on experience in advertising or customer acquisition, but I have lived those challenges, and that background significantly shapes how I advise founders.

Marketing is usually an ecommerce brand’s most significant expense; understanding it is essential for providing meaningful financial guidance. So we structure our reporting, dashboards, and forecasting around the realities of ecommerce operations — not just accounting accuracy but actionable insights tied to contribution margin, customer behavior, marketing performance, and growth strategy.

Bandholz: What is the most common financial mistake founders make?

Syed: I see three major issues repeatedly. First, many founders track the wrong numbers. They monitor revenue or look at profit once a month, but rarely examine contribution margin or cash flow. Contribution margin is often ignored entirely, leading to major blind spots. Top-line revenue means little without understanding the economics underneath.

Second, operators often misunderstand what is required to enable growth. I am frequently asked to review struggling ad accounts. A recurring issue is underinvesting in creativity. Founders try to force growth by pushing return on ad spend harder, rather than improving the creative foundation required to scale spend while maintaining healthy acquisition costs.

Third, omnichannel brands frequently fail to separate channel performance. I see profit and loss statements with a single cost of goods sold line combining, say, Shopify, Amazon, and wholesale. Blending everything prevents founders from seeing how each channel is truly performing. Wholesale, for instance, operates on a very different cash cycle.

Bandholz: How often should operators review their financials?

Syed: It depends on the business’s size, complexity, and growth goals.

Most operators should review key historical metrics weekly — cash flow, expenses, and anything unusual moving through the business. A weekly cadence helps identify problems early.

More detailed reporting, such as margin and channel breakdowns, is usually best reviewed monthly. That interval provides cleaner data and enough distance to spot trends rather than reacting to noise.

The most overlooked piece is forecasting. Few brands build forward-looking financial models because it is difficult, yet essential for aggressive growth. Forecasting helps you understand the implications of scaling. Conservative operators can get away without it, but brands pushing hard need projections. Too many founders grow quickly with no plan, no modeling, and no clarity on future cash needs.

Bandholz: How do you decide if a marketing channel is maxed out?

Syed: It is difficult to know with total certainty, but in most cases, brands have not truly saturated a channel, especially Meta. There is usually far more room available than teams realize.

I often compare similar brands in the same category. One might spend $200,000 a month on Meta while also allocating resources to podcasts, TikTok, affiliates, and other channels. Another in the same space might spend $200,000 a day on Meta. They often have similar products, audiences, and brand quality. The difference is creative volume. The larger spender produces an enormous amount of fresh creative, while the other is effectively using a strategy from years ago.

Most brands have not come close to saturating Meta. They are simply underfunding creative strategy.

Increasing creative volume opens new audience pockets and helps find additional winning ads. If the creative that got you to $200,000 in monthly sales has plateaued, you must increase output to climb further. The more the creative volume, the higher the revenue. The pace depends on profitability, reinvestment capacity, creative quality, and a bit of luck.

Working with a media-buying agency that also produces creative can cost upwards of $7,000 per month, ideally under 10% of ad spend. Smaller brands may temporarily spend as much as 30%.

Bandholz: How should brands budget for bookkeeping?

Syed: Smaller brands face a minimum cost for competent bookkeeping. Hiring in-house rarely makes sense until the company is very large. A Shopify-only brand doing $1–5 million annually should expect to spend $2,000-$3,000 per month. Cheaper options exist, but the trade-off is often lower accuracy and weaker communication.

The challenge is that many founders cannot discern whether financial data is clean. It is similar to hiring an internet security expert when you lack technical knowledge — you might overlook major issues until something breaks. We have onboarded many clients who tried cheaper options, only to find their data was consistently incorrect.

To scale aggressively or make data-driven decisions, you need accurate, timely financials and guidance on interpreting them.

Once a brand surpasses roughly $5 million in annual sales, bookkeeping for multiple sales channels typically costs $5,000 to $8,000 per month.

Bandholz: Where can people support you, hire you, follow you?

Abir: Our site is UpCounting.com. I’m on LinkedIn, Instagram, and X.

Solar Power Developer on Fueling the Grid

Chris Elrod is a renewable power entrepreneur. His company, Treaty Oak Clean Energy, builds massive solar projects that provide electricity for large corporations and utility firms.

It’s boom times for electricity generators as the likes of Google, ChatGPT, and Amazon scramble for reliable sources.

How, exactly, does a company build a solar-generating plant and then sell the electricity to end users? I asked Chris those questions and more in our recent conversation.

Our entire audio is embedded below. The transcript is edited for clarity and length.

Eric Bandholz: Who are you, and what do you do?

Chris Elrod: I’m the CEO and co-founder of Treaty Oak Clean Energy, a renewable energy developer based in Austin, Texas. We build large solar and battery projects that connect directly to the grid and power enterprise users and tens of thousands of homes. I’ve spent about two decades in the energy industry, mainly in project finance and large-scale infrastructure.

Before Treaty Oak, I co-founded AP Solar, a Texas-based firm focused on utility-scale solar projects. After seven years, we exited the company, and my partners and I used the proceeds to form Treaty Oak with a broader mission and larger geographic footprint. We launched in 2022 and sold the company to Macquarie Asset Management, a private equity investor, in the same year. I continue to lead the business as CEO.

It’s been a journey from early corporate roles to scrappy two-guys-in-a-truck entrepreneurship to running a PE-backed national developer. Every step has sharpened our approach to building and scaling renewable infrastructure.

Bandholz: How big are these projects?

Elrod: They are modern power plants spread across thousands of acres. We secure land, obtain entitlements, build the generation infrastructure, and integrate the projects into the grid. Electricity demand, once flat for years, has surged due to AI and industrial onshoring. The grid needs far more generation, and large-scale solar and storage can be deployed at speed and scale.

This year, we’ll raise roughly $1.1 to $1.2 billion in third-party capital. About $800 million will finance two Louisiana solar projects, with a third under construction in Arkansas. Together, they represent approximately 500 megawatts [the equivalent power needs for roughly 400,000 homes per year].

Bandholz: Walk us through the financing of a large solar installation.

Elrod: Project finance relies on predictable long-term cash flows. Solar assets typically have a 40-year useful life based on warranties and technology. Battery projects run about 25 years because of cell degradation. Lenders don’t lend for the full duration. They usually analyze an 18-year window and determine whether they could recover capital.

Most projects refinance around year five of operation. Lenders want repayment earlier because their funds aren’t structured to hold fixed-rate debt for decades. We pay down a portion through scheduled maturities and then refinance the rest. Long-term interest rates, not short-term, drive our financing costs. The primary lenders in this space are large European and Japanese commercial banks.

Most deals use a club structure where several lenders share the debt equally to balance risk. Another option is underwriting, where one or two banks commit to a large initial ticket and later syndicate portions to others. It speeds execution but costs more.

We’ve gone hands-on, working directly with multiple lenders instead of relying on a single underwriter. It requires additional effort but gives us better control of terms and relationships.

Between debt and equity, it’s primarily a cost-of-capital decision. Interest rates are still several percentage points above 2022 levels, which affects infrastructure returns. Even so, debt remains cheaper than equity because shareholders require higher returns. As long as project fundamentals support it, debt is more efficient and preserves equity while improving overall economics.

Bandholz: How do macro events such as tariffs and supply chain disruptions affect your projects?

Elrod: We monitor macro factors constantly — interest rates, regulatory shifts, and especially tariffs. Tariffs bring real uncertainty. Some policies may serve a strategic purpose, but others affect components that the U.S. cannot yet manufacture at the required scale or cost. Volatility is the most challenging aspect because tariff actions can change quickly.

We shift risk to customers and suppliers where possible, and stay agile. If policy signals suggest a tariff might hit, we may accelerate procurement or import components early. It’s less about a perfect strategy and more about informed, rapid adaptation.

Solar panels are a significant cost driver, but so are steel pilings, racking systems, copper and aluminum cabling, and engineered materials. Some manufacturing exists in the U.S., and more will grow, but not enough to meet current utility-scale demand at the required price or quality. Global supply chains remain essential.

Tariff risk is exactly why contract structure matters. We can’t commit to pricing and later absorb unexpected cost increases that eliminate project margins. We’ve avoided that so far by locking in supply-chain terms early and keeping customer pricing stable from the start. Our goal is to shield customers from volatility while protecting shareholder value. That requires constant coordination, nimble procurement, and effective risk transfer.

Our customers — major corporations and operators — need reliable, clean power to support accelerating electricity demand. Solar generation combined with storage remains the fastest, most scalable solution.

Bandholz: How have you built your team?

Elrod: Our power markets team manages sales end-to-end. They identify customers, respond to requests for information and proposals, submit projects, and run procurement and communication. I support them, but they lead the process.

Our company has grown from about 17 people when we sold to Macquarie in 2022 to over 100 today. Building the right culture has been essential. Our message is “execute with excellence,” and that means staying vigilant across every part of the business.

Hiring has been challenging. Post-Covid labor dynamics and the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act in 2022 increased competition and wage pressure. We sometimes hired too quickly to fill roles. Now we use structured scorecards for senior positions, with clear criteria aligned with the company’s objectives. Our people and culture team works closely with hiring managers to ensure each candidate is the right fit. We maintain transparency and quarterly performance alignment to keep teams focused and accountable.

The U.S. still offers enormous opportunities. Demand for electricity, infrastructure, and clean generation is expanding rapidly, and the market has the capacity to support substantial growth.

Bandholz: Where can people reach out to you or get advice?

Elrod: Our website is TreatyOakCleanEnergy.com. Reach out to me on LinkedIn.

Ecommerce Investor on Turnaround Tactics

Mehtab Bhogal is the co-founder of Karta Ventures, a Canada-based acquirer of troubled ecommerce businesses. The firm seeks companies with “issues,” such as unpaid taxes, regulatory problems, and founder disputes.

He says buying distressed companies is like salvaging a crashed car. “What are the parts worth?” he asks.

Mehtab and I recently spoke. He addressed identifying hidden value, turnaround tactics, seller concerns, and more.

The entire audio of our conversation is embedded below. The transcript is edited for clarity and length.

Eric Bandholz: Give us a quick rundown.

Mehtab Bhogal: I’m the co-founder of Karta Ventures. We invest in consumer brands in distressed situations, such as tax issues, regulatory problems, founder disputes, things like that. We move fast and write checks quickly. Our portfolio ranges from a direct-to-consumer succulent plant farm to traditional apparel companies.

Early on, we invested in companies with both income statement and balance sheet problems. Now, I prefer one or the other. We focus on size. We will shrink a company if necessary. An optimal size for us is scaling businesses down to $15-$20 million in annual D2C revenue if we’re buying them outright.

For example, we looked at a retailer once that had peaked at $110 million, was doing $70 million, but we believed it operated most profitably at $30–$40 million in revenue.

Bandholz: How do you find the right deals?

Bhogal: In 2018, when we began, we sent cold emails to over 2,000 companies. We used BuiltWith to analyze tech stacks and backends to estimate revenue. From there, we targeted businesses generating a few million annually. Most of our deal flow now comes from word of mouth, especially since other investors tend to avoid turnarounds.

We also invest in profitable companies with big projects. One company needed help building a new manufacturing facility, which we’re good at. If there’s value to unlock, we’re interested.

Buying distressed companies is like salvaging a crashed car: What are the parts worth, and what could a skilled mechanic do with them? We sometimes acquire the right to buy equity before full diligence. That lets us move quickly, cut costs, and create breathing room while we dig deeper. We often reduce expenses by six to seven figures within a week or so. Meanwhile, we gain insights, and the existing management determines if they want to work with us.

Bandholz: How can you make those cuts in a single week?

Bhogal: It’s all about context. We can usually tell whether growth came from good marketing or a great product.

For example, I know a founder doing 30% net margins on $30-40 million in annual revenue. He has no idea what he’s doing on the ecommerce side. But his product is incredible — strong patents, hard to copy, perfect market fit. That’s why it works.

We’ve developed pattern recognition from working with many companies. We spot inefficiencies quickly, such as bloated teams, sloppy ad accounts, and underutilized staff. For instance, if a company needs only four raw materials, why does it have an entire supply chain team?

Or why does a CFO at a $20 million company have a huge support staff?

Founders are sometimes great at marketing but weak at finance or operations. I can log into a Google Ads account and quickly see if targeting and spend are optimized. That’s the type of stuff we jump on fast.

Bandholz: Is your goal to flip a business or hold it?

Bhogal: It depends. Sometimes we buy the business outright; other times we invest as minority shareholders with no control — both models work for us.

Take the succulent plant business we invested in back in 2018. We helped restructure debt, acquired a farm to integrate vertically, and began growing and shipping plants ourselves from Riverside, California. We’ve held that position and won’t exit unless the founder wants to. That was our agreement — get our cash out in one to two years and go from there.

Other founders want to optimize and sell in 6-12 months. That works too. The key is alignment: Everyone should have the same end goal and roadmap. If those are in place, things rarely go wrong.

Bandholz: What’s your daily focus, researching deals or operating businesses?

Bhogal: We’re hands-on. We teach teams how to manage recurring tasks. But for one-off strategic decisions, such as evaluating whether to use a 3PL or in-house fulfillment, we’re directly involved. The same goes for setting up manufacturing or optimizing marketing. We’ve performed those analyses so many times that we can quickly run the numbers.

We don’t want to be in the weeds long-term, but we’ll dive in initially to gain clarity and speed things up. We want the company to operate without needing our daily involvement. But we’re very engaged for the first few months.

Bandholz: How should founders evaluate debt financing?

Bhogal: First, understand the deal. Model your payments and liabilities. Know if there’s a personal guarantee, if the loan is secured, and what happens if revenue dips. Research lenders on PACER to review their legal history — some are reputable, others not so much. Ecommerce lenders, in particular, can be volatile. Many raised venture money and spent it recklessly.

Ask yourself: Where is this lender getting its money? Is it sustainable, or will its problems become yours in a downturn? In uncertain consumer markets, flexibility matters. We’d rather pay more for a dependable, traditional lender than risk a deal that could backfire if the economy shifts.

Bandholz: Where can people contact you?

Bhogal: Our site is KartaVentures.com. I’m on X and LinkedIn.