​

Hello Reader 👋

OK, let’s be honest, today’s topic might hit a little too close to home.

Because if you've been through a few budget seasons (and you're maybe finalising the approval of your first quarterly forecast), you’ve probably seen (or played) the game of sandbagging.

Though understandable, it's one of the behaviours that could frustrate me the most.

I hate it when it's obvious you're being played but it's never been easy to know how to react.

That’s what we’re diving into this week.

So take a coffee, sit down and read FP&A Stories just like 26k other readers

This week in FP&A Stories

🎯 The Forecast You Knew Was a Joke

If you've worked in Finance long enough, you've been through at least one planning cycle where the forecast looked too cautious to be true.

The revenue targets were a copy-paste from last year, even though pipeline discussions were already underway.

The cost assumptions left comfortable buffers in “other expenses,” just in case.

And somehow, nothing ambitious made it into the base case.

Everyone plays their part. The business comes in “careful", Finance acts surprised, a few adjustments are made, and suddenly we’ve all kept the rhythm of the process.

We don’t believe the numbers are complete. But we do believe they’re manageable. That’s what matters in these cycles, not truth, but stability.

It’s not about who’s right. It’s about who’s predictable. And once the spreadsheet is stable, we call it a forecast.

Why We Let It Slide

It's easy to frame sandbagging as prudence. We say it's better to be conservative, to underpromise and overdeliver, to avoid surprises.

Some of that is fair. But when the forecast becomes more about avoiding exposure than about enabling execution, it stops being a planning tool and turns into an insurance policy.

People lowball their targets because they’ve seen what happens when a forecast is too optimistic.

Finance plays along because they’ve fought the same battle too many times and lost.

It becomes a habit, almost institutionalised, and nobody questions it anymore.

A Case I Remember Clearly

The real issue with sandbagging isn’t just the numbers in the model. Over time, it damages the reputation of the teams behind them.

I remember one budget cycle where all stretch targets were automatically assigned to one of my business partners, even though their assumptions that year were actually reasonable.

Leadership didn’t even check anymore, they just remembered how many times that team had been overly cautious in the past.

Once a department is seen as sandbagging by default, you stop negotiating your forecast. You get handed a new one, and you have no credibility to push back.

What I Try to Do Today

I don’t try to eliminate sandbagging: it’s impossible. There will always be buffers.

But I refuse to let it become normal without at least showing the real picture.

Today, when I smell sandbagging, I do a few things:

• I quantify the upside separately.
• I make it clear when we’re working with a "secured floor" vs a "realistic outlook."
• I push for transparency in areas where flexibility is being built in (not to punish, but to create real visibility).
• And I treat my role not as controlling the model, but elevating the conversation behind the model.

Because if we don’t do it, nobody will.

That's a wrap for this week

See you next week!​