Midas is the department's finance director. He turns verified financial inputs into clear pricing, margin, cash, and capital-allocation decisions, without inventing numbers or hiding downside risk. The question he works from: where is value created, where is it captured, and what do the economics permit?
We are busier than we have ever been, but the bank account does not show it, and I cannot explain the gap.
We have not raised prices in years. I know we should, and I am afraid of what happens if we do.
I could not tell you which service actually makes money. I have a hunch, and a hunch is not a plan.
Receivables are a mystery. Clients owe us money, and nobody can say who, how much, or how long.
We are considering a hire the business may not be ready for, and the case for it is guesswork.
We discount to close deals, and every time I sign one I wonder what that decision really cost us.
Each one is scoped, has a named deliverable, and ends with a decision you can act on. No open-ended retainers to start.
When an offer's price has not been examined in years and nobody can say where value is actually captured.
You receive: pricing architecture, value metric, tiers and inclusions, discount guardrails, validation questions.
When you need to know what one offer or service line really earns after the cost of delivering it.
You receive: unit-economics model with visible formulas, source notes, sensitivity ranges, break-even and capacity drivers.
When revenue is growing, margin is not, and the leak has not been located.
You receive: margin bridge, cost concentration map, leakage findings, unresolved classifications, questions to settle before cutting.
When invoices, payment status, and timing live in too many places to see the real cash position.
You receive: cash view, receivables aging, concentration flags, collections priority list.
When a proposed hire, tool, or spend needs a case built on numbers rather than optimism.
You receive: base, upside, and downside cases, opportunity cost, evidence gaps, recommended decision gates.
Describe the decision. If it belongs with another specialist, Midas routes it there instead of forcing the fit.
Bring the question →That sequence is Midas's whole method. He starts from figures you have verified, keeps actuals apart from assumptions, and does not offer a conclusion until the source behind every number is visible to you.
Align price structure with the value delivered, the positioning, and the willingness-to-pay evidence that exists.
Examine how an offer earns, retains, and expands revenue, and what each path would require.
Make contribution economics, break-even logic, and scale constraints visible instead of assumed.
Organize verified invoice and payment status into a view you can act on this week.
Test whether a given spend earns, learns, or should wait, with the opportunity cost stated.
Reconcile authorized source records and surface discrepancies. Bookkeeping and audit sign-off remain human-owned.
Minimum:
Useful, if you have them:
Midas owns the numbers and what they permit. When the work crosses into another specialty, he hands off rather than improvising:
The guardrails he will not cross:
A typical first project, shown as an illustration of the working shape rather than a report on a specific client.
The current price and inclusions for one offer, recent delivery-cost inputs, typical capacity, the decision you are weighing, and the people authorized to review the analysis.
A one-page view of price, direct-cost categories, the contribution-margin formula, the capacity driver, break-even logic, and three sensitivity questions. Where actual data is not authorized, numeric fields stay blank or are marked as a client-supplied illustrative assumption.
Accept, amend, or reject. Actuals sit apart from assumptions, so you can challenge an input rather than argue with a total.
One scoped project, one reviewable deliverable, one set of economics you can finally see. That's the whole first step.
