How to build a pitch deck that actually gets funded: a finance professional's guide (Part 1)

This two-part series is for finance professionals who want to create investor-grade pitch decks that actually secure funding. In Part 1, you will learn the first six slides using real financial analysis: quantifying problems, building credible market models, and presenting unit economics that prove scalability. By the end, you will transform any startup idea into a compelling investment opportunity.

Introduction

Let me tell you about Rahul, a CA with three years of audit experience who just landed his dream job at a Mumbai-based investment firm.

His first assignment?

Evaluate ten startup pitch decks and shortlist three for partner meetings.

After reviewing the first deck, he was confused. The entrepreneur claimed a ₹50,000 crore Total Addressable Market (TAM) but provided no breakdown.

Revenue projections showed 300% year-over-year growth with no explanation of customer acquisition strategy.

Unit economics were missing entirely.

“How am I supposed to evaluate this?” Rahul asked his manager.

“Exactly,” his manager replied. “Most entrepreneurs do not know how to present their numbers properly. That is where finance professionals like you become invaluable—both in evaluating these decks and eventually creating better ones.“

Welcome to my two-part series on learn how to create a successful pitch deck for a client.

In Part 1, I will teach you the fundamentals of pitch deck creation and build the first six slides of a complete investor presentation.

In part 2, we will cover advanced techniques, financial projections, and delivery strategies that close funding rounds.

Understanding pitch decks: what you need to know

Before we start building slides, let me clear up some confusion that trips up many finance professionals when they first encounter startup presentations.

Last week, a senior CA asked me: “Should my client include their full P&L projections in slide 3?” This question revealed a fundamental misunderstanding about what pitch decks actually do.

1. What exactly is a pitch deck?

Think of it like this: if a business plan is like a detailed financial audit report (comprehensive, thorough, meant for deep analysis), then a pitch deck is like an executive summary presentation to the board (concise, visual, designed to get approval for the next step).

A pitch deck is NOT:

A business plan (that is 20-40 pages of detailed analysis)
A Confidential Information Memorandum (that’s for later-stage M&A transactions)
A detailed financial model (though it summarizes your model’s key outputs)

A pitch deck IS:

A visual story in the form of a PowerPoint presentation that gets your client to the meeting, where they will discuss details
10-12 slides that summarize your investment opportunity
Your “movie trailer” that makes investors want to see the full feature

2. Three primary uses

A. Securing Initial Investor Meetings. You will create these for your clients when advising on fundraising or when evaluating startups for investors. The goal is not to get funded from the deck alone—it’s to get a follow-up meeting.

B. Applying to Accelerators. Many corporate development roles involve evaluating accelerator applications. Understanding what makes a strong application helps you identify promising early-stage companies.

C. Presenting at Angel/VC Events When your client presents at investor events, they will often have just 5-10 minutes to make an impression. Your finance background helps you use that time effectively.

The framework we will use

Every successful pitch deck follows the same basic structure, but the finance professional’s version emphasizes different elements:

1. Standard Structure:

Problem → Solution → Market → Business Model → Traction → Team → Financials → Ask

Pitch deck enhancement:

We lead with quantified problems (not just emotional stories)
Our market sizing includes bottom-up validation (not just top-down research)
Business models focus on unit economics and scalability
Financial projections include a sensitivity analysis and key assumptions
The ask connects directly to specific milestones and returns

2. A quick reality check

Before we dive into GrainKart’s deck, let me give you some perspective on what investors actually see:

Average VC firm: Reviews 1,000+ pitch decks annually
Typical review time: 3-4 minutes per deck initially
Success rate: Less than 1% get funded
Most common rejection reasons: Unrealistic financials, unclear market opportunity, weak unit economics

Your finance background helps you avoid these common mistakes and create presentations that survive the initial screening.

Now, let me put this knowledge to work with GrainKart’s pitch deck.

Meet your case study: GrainKart’s pitch deck

Before we start building slides, I want you to understand GrainKart’s current situation from a finance professional’s perspective. This is not theory—these are real numbers that you will need to present convincingly to investors.

The business in numbers (what your analysis should reveal)

Current financial performance:

Monthly Recurring Revenue: ₹1 lakh (25% month-over-month growth)
Active Paying Customers: 100
Customer Retention Rate: 65% (measured over 6 months)
Average Order Value: ₹400
Order Frequency: 2.3 orders per customer per month
Gross Margin: 85% (calculated as net revenue after payment processing costs of 2%, excluding logistics and fixed costs, which are covered under operational expenses)

Unit economics breakdown:

Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC): ₹150
Gross Revenue per Transaction: ₹20 (5% platform commission on ₹400 AOV)
Payment Processing Cost: ₹8 (2% of ₹400 AOV)
Net Revenue per Transaction: ₹12 (after payment processing, excluding logistics costs covered under operational expenses)
Customer Payback Period: 12.5 transactions (₹150 CAC ÷ ₹12 net revenue per transaction)
Payback Timeline: 5.4 months (12.5 transactions ÷ 2.3 orders per month)

Operational metrics:

Farmer network: 45 farmers across 12 villages in Pune district
Customer satisfaction: 4.2/5 rating
Repeat purchase rate: 78%
Referral rate: 40% of new customers come from referrals

2. Your analysis

Now, let me show you how to analyse these numbers like the finance professional you are:

What looks good:

25% month-over-month growth is sustainable and indicates product-market fit
85% gross margin provides room for scaling operations
40% referral rate suggests strong customer satisfaction and reduces future CAC
3-month payback period is reasonable for a marketplace business

Red flags to address:

65% retention rate needs improvement (industry benchmark is 70-80% for marketplaces)
₹1 lakh MRR is still early-stage; needs to demonstrate scalability path
Single-city operation creates concentration risk

Key questions investors will ask:

How do unit economics change with scale?
What is the customer lifetime value calculation?
How defensible is the 5% platform commission?
What happens to CAC as you expand to new cities?

3. The funding context

What they are asking for:

Amount: ₹3 crores pre-seed funding
Equity offered: 20% (implying ₹12 crore pre-money valuation)
Use of funds: Expansion to Delhi and Bengaluru
Timeline: 18-month runway to break-even

Your valuation analysis: At ₹1 lakh monthly revenue (₹12 lakh annual run rate), a ₹12 crore pre-money valuation implies a 10x revenue multiple. For comparison:

SaaS companies typically trade at 5-15x revenue
Marketplace businesses usually trade at 3- 8x revenue
Early-stage agriculture tech averages 4-6x revenue

Conclusion: The valuation is aggressive for an early-stage company. However, it may be justified by superior unit economics (85% gross margin vs. industry average 30-50%) and strong referral-driven growth potential. A more conservative range would be 6- 8x revenue (₹7-10 crore pre-money valuation).

4. The challenge you are solving

Here is what makes this an interesting case study for finance professionals:

Real-world complexity: Unlike textbook examples, this business has mixed signals—strong fundamentals but early metrics that need improvement.
Scalability questions: Your job is to show how current unit economics improve with scale, not just assume they will.
Multiple stakeholder interests: Farmers need fair pricing, customers want quality and convenience, and investors need returns. Your financial model must balance all three.
Regulatory considerations: Agriculture markets have complex regulations that could impact the business model.

5. Your learning objectives for this case

As we build GrainKart’s pitch deck together, you will practice:

Turning raw metrics into compelling narratives – How do you present 65% retention as a strength while acknowledging room for improvement?
Building credible scaling assumptions – If CAC is ₹150 in Pune, what will it be in Delhi? How do you justify your assumptions?
Addressing investor concerns proactively – How do you acknowledge risks while maintaining confidence in your projections?
Connecting financial metrics to business strategy – How does the 40% referral rate support your go-to-market strategy and funding requirements?

6. Setting up for success

Before we start building slides, remember this principle: Every number in your pitch deck must tell part of a larger story about returns.

Investors do not fund businesses because they are good ideas—they fund businesses because the financial projections show clear paths to significant returns. Your job as a finance professional is to make that path visible and believable.

Ready to see how we transform GrainKart’s current metrics into a compelling investment opportunity?

Building GrainKart’s pitch deck: Slide by slide

Slide 1: The Problem – how to frame market pain points

Most entrepreneurs start with emotional stories: “Farmers are suffering!” But as a finance professional, you know investors want quantified problems that represent market opportunities.

Here is how we will present GrainKart’s problem slide:

SLIDE 1: THE PROBLEM

India’s fresh produce supply chain destroys value for everyone involved.

For Farmers:

Receive only 20-25% of the final retail price
Example: Tomatoes sold at ₹10/kg reach consumers at ₹40-50/kg
₹30-40/kg value captured by 4-6 middlemen layers

For Urban Consumers:

Pay 200-300% markup over farm prices
No visibility into produce origin or quality
73% willing to pay 10-15% premium for traceable, fresh produce

Source: Primary survey of 500 urban households, Pune (Oct 2024)

Market Impact:

₹2.1 trillion fresh produce market with 60-70% inefficient value capture
40% post-harvest losses due to supply chain delays
Zero transparency in the ₹45,000 crore urban fresh produce segment

Why this approach works

You quantified the problem: Instead of saying “middlemen take too much,” you showed specific price differences (₹10 vs ₹40-50). Investors immediately see the arbitrage opportunity.
You validated customer willingness to pay: The 73% survey statistic proves that market demand exists. This is not just a problem—it’s a monetizable pain point.
You sized the opportunity: ₹2.1 trillion market with 60-70% inefficiency suggests massive room for value capture.
You cited your research: Primary survey data shows you understand due diligence, not just assumptions.

What makes this different

Typical entrepreneur approach: “Farmers work hard but do not get fair prices. Consumers want fresh vegetables, but cannot trust the quality. Our app solves this problem.“

Finance professional approach (what you just saw):

Specific price points and margins
Quantified consumer research
Market sizing with inefficiency analysis
Clear value arbitrage opportunity

Importance of correct problem definition

As a finance professional, you must instinctively think about problems in terms of:

Value leakage: Where is money being lost in the current system?
Arbitrage opportunities: What price differences can be captured?
Market inefficiencies: Where do supply and demand fail to meet efficiently?
Quantifiable impact: How big is this problem in rupees, not just emotions?

This analytical approach immediately sets your pitch deck apart from emotional storytelling that does not translate to returns.

Slide 2: Our solution – product demo with unit economics focus

Now that we have established a quantified problem, let us show how GrainKart solves it profitably.

SLIDE 2: OUR SOLUTION

GrainKart eliminates middlemen through technology and direct transactions.

How It Works:

Farmer Dashboard: Upload produce photos, set prices, generate QR traceability codes
Consumer App: Browse local produce, scan QR codes for farm verification, place orders
Direct Logistics: Local pickup points + urban delivery partnerships

Sample Transaction:

Farmer in Baramati: Lists organic spinach at ₹25/kg (vs ₹15/kg to middleman)
Consumer in Pune: Pays ₹30/kg (vs ₹45/kg in retail stores)
Platform fee: ₹1.25 (5% to GrainKart)
Result: Farmer earns 67% more, consumer saves 33%, platform generates sustainable revenue

Key Technology Differentiators:

QR-code traceability for quality assurance
Real-time inventory management
Automated logistics coordination
Transparent pricing dashboard

Why this solution slide work

You showed the value flow: Every stakeholder wins financially. Farmer gets ₹25 vs ₹15, consumer pays ₹30 vs ₹45, platform earns ₹1.25.
You proved unit economics: The 5% platform fee generates ₹1.25 per kg on a ₹25 transaction. With an average order of 8kg (₹200), that’s ₹10 revenue per transaction.
You connected features to financials: QR codes are not just cool technology—they justify premium pricing that improves unit economics.
You demonstrated market validation: Both sides of the marketplace benefit financially, creating natural incentives for adoption.

Slide 3: Market opportunity – TAM/SAM/SOM analysis done right

This is where most entrepreneurs lose credibility with investors.

They throw around massive TAM numbers without proper validation. As a finance professional, you must build market sizing that actually survives scrutiny.

SLIDE 3: MARKET OPPORTUNITY

India’s fresh produce market offers a significant arbitrage opportunity in urban segments.

Total Addressable Market (TAM): ₹2,50,000 crores

India’s fresh produce market, including fruits, vegetables, and grains
Conservative estimate based on agricultural sector analysis
All channels: wholesale, retail, processing, export

Serviceable Addressable Market (SAM): ₹7,500 crores

Fresh produce consumed in metro + Tier-1 cities
Households with >₹50,000 monthly income + smartphone access
Segments willing to pay a premium for quality/convenience

Serviceable Obtainable Market (SOM): ₹30 crores

Target cities: Pune, Delhi, Bengaluru (3-year focus)
Premium/organic segments (15% of urban fresh produce spend)
Realistic penetration: 2-3% market share in target segments

Bottom-Up Validation:

Target households per city: 50,000 (total 150,000)
Average monthly fresh produce spend: ₹4,000
Platform capture rate: 5% (₹200 per household monthly)
Total monthly GMV potential: ₹3 crores
Annual SOM: ₹36 crores (validates our top-down ₹30 crores estimate)

Why this market sizing works (and most do not)

You validated with bottom-up calculations: Notice how our bottom-up analysis (₹90 crores) closely matches our top-down SOM (₹75 crores). This consistency builds credibility.
You defined addressable realistically: SAM is not just “urban India”—it is specifically households with income >₹50,000 who have smartphones and pay premiums for quality.
You showed your work: Instead of just stating ₹18,000 crores SAM, you explained the filters: metro/Tier-1, income level, smartphone access, and premium willingness.
You focused on obtainable market: SOM of ₹75 crores over 3 years requires capturing just 2-3% of the premium segment—aggressive but believable.

If you are unfamiliar with TAM, SAM & SOM, in that case, I highly recommend you read my article on “From Market Potential to Market Reality: How Finance Professionals Can Calculate TAM, SAM & SOM.”

Slide 4: Business model – unit economics deep dive

Now, let us show investors exactly how GrainKart makes money and why it scales profitably.

SLIDE 4: BUSINESS MODEL

Revenue model designed for sustainable growth with improving unit economics.

Primary Revenue: Platform Transaction Fee (5%)

Charged to farmers on successful transactions
Lower than traditional commission agents (8-12%)
Scales with GMV growth without additional customer acquisition cost

Secondary Revenue: Premium Subscriptions

Restaurants/cafeterias: ₹2,000/month for bulk pricing + priority access
Individual power users: ₹200/month for free delivery + exclusive products
Target: 15% of revenue by Year 3

Unit Economics Analysis:

Current State (Month 18):

Average Order Value: ₹400
Platform Commission (5%): ₹20
Payment Processing (2%): ₹8
Net Revenue per Transaction: ₹12
Customer Acquisition Cost: ₹150
Transactions to Break Even: 12.5 (3 months at current frequency)

Projected at Scale (Year 3):

Average Order Value: ₹650 (premium products + larger baskets)
Platform Commission: ₹32.50
Net Revenue per Transaction: ₹24.50
Customer Acquisition Cost: ₹100 (referrals + brand recognition)
Transactions to Break Even: 4.1 (1.8 months at higher frequency)

Pathway to Improved Economics:

Higher AOV: Premium/organic products have a 60% higher basket size
Lower CAC: 40% referral rate, reducing blended acquisition cost
Increased frequency: Subscription users order 4x more frequently
Platform leverage: Fixed technology costs spread across a larger GMV base

Why this business model slide works

You showed progression: Current unit economics → scaled unit economics → pathway to improvement. Investors see the journey, not just the destination
You quantified improvements: CAC drops from ₹150 to ₹100, AOV rises from ₹400 to ₹650. These are not hopes—they are projections based on customer behavior data
You explained the mechanics: Why does CAC decrease? (40% referral rate) Why does AOV increase? (Premium product mix) Investors understand the drivers
You provided a sensitivity analysis: What if AOV only reaches ₹550? What if CAC only drops to ₹120? Your model should work in multiple scenarios.

Critical teaching point: Unit economics vs. financial projections

Many finance professionals make this mistake: They build detailed P&L projections but skip unit economics analysis.

i. Here is why unit economics matter more:

Investors use unit economics to assess scalability
Banks use unit economics to evaluate lending risk
Acquirers use unit economics to determine valuation multiples
You use unit economics to make operational decisions

ii. Quick reality check exercise

Look at GrainKart’s projected unit economics improvement:

Break-even drops from 12.5 transactions to 4.1 transactions
This requires AOV increase (62.5%) and CAC decrease (33.3%)

iii. Questions for you:

Are these improvements realistic for a 3-year timeline?
What specific actions would drive these improvements?
How would you stress-test these assumptions?

iv My analysis:

AOV increase is realistic: Premium products typically have 40-80% higher basket sizes, and customer behavior data supports a 60% assumption
CAC decrease achievable: 40% referral rate already exists; brand recognition typically reduces acquisition costs by 20-40% over 2-3 years
Stress test: Build scenarios with 30% and 80% of projected improvements—the model should still show positive returns

Slide 5: Traction – presenting early metrics that build credibility

Most entrepreneurs present vanity metrics that look impressive but do not prove business viability. You must present metrics that demonstrate scalable fundamentals.

SLIDE 5: TRACTION

18 months of execution validate unit economics and market demand.

Financial Performance:

Monthly Recurring Revenue: ₹1.0 lakh (25% MoM growth over 6 months)
Gross Revenue Run Rate: ₹12 lakhs annually
Monthly Gross Margin: 85% (₹85,000 after payment processing)
Customer Acquisition Cost: ₹150 (trending down from ₹200 in Month 12)

Customer Metrics:

Active Paying Customers: 100
Average Order Value: ₹400 (grown from ₹300 in Month 6)
Order Frequency: 2.3 orders/customer/month (industry benchmark: 1.8)
Customer Retention: 65% at 6 months (improving from 45% at launch)

Market Validation:

Customer Satisfaction: 4.2/5 rating
Net Promoter Score: +42 (excellent for early-stage marketplace)
Repeat Purchase Rate: 78% within 30 days
Referral Rate: 40% of new customers (reducing CAC naturally)

Operational Efficiency:

Farmer Network: 45 farmers across 12 villages
Average Farmer Monthly Revenue: ₹8,500 (vs ₹6,200 through traditional channels)
Supply Fulfillment Rate: 94% (orders delivered as promised)
Average Delivery Time: 18 hours from farm to customer

Cohort Analysis Highlight:

Month 1 customers: 85% are still active after 6 months
Month 6 customers: 72% still active (showing improving retention)
Latest cohort (Month 15-18): 68% retention at 3 months

Why this traction slide works (Your Finance Advantage)

You focused on business fundamentals: Revenue growth, margin trends, and unit economics progression rather than just user counts or app downloads.
You provided context: 25% MoM growth over 6 months proves sustainability, not just a one-time spike. 2.3 Order frequency vs 1.8 industry benchmark shows competitive strength.
You showed trend analysis: CAC decreasing from ₹200 to ₹150, AOV increasing from ₹300 to ₹400, retention improving from 45% to 65%—investors see positive momentum.
You included cohort data: Month 1 customers with 85% retention after 6 months prove long-term value creation, not just early adopter enthusiasm.

Let me show you how to analyze your own traction data

Step 1: Identify your key performance indicators (KPIs) For marketplace businesses like GrainKart:

Revenue KPIs: MRR, GMV, Average Order Value
Customer KPIs: CAC, LTV, Retention Rate, Order Frequency
Operational KPIs: Fulfillment Rate, Delivery Time, Supply Availability
Quality KPIs: Customer Satisfaction, NPS, Repeat Purchase Rate

Step 2: Show progression over time. Do not just present current numbers—show how they have improved:

CAC: ₹200 → ₹150 (25% improvement)
AOV: ₹300 → ₹400 (33% improvement)
Retention: 45% → 65% (44% improvement)

Step 3: Provide industry context. How do your metrics compare to benchmarks?

Order frequency: 2.3 vs 1.8 industry average (28% better)
NPS: +42 (anything above +50 is excellent, +42 is very good)
Referral rate: 40% (typical marketplace: 15-25%)

Step 4: Connect to future projections. Use current trends to validate future assumptions:

If CAC dropped 25% over 6 months, projecting a 33% drop over 18 months is reasonable
If AOV grew 33% over 12 months, projecting 62% growth over 24 months needs justification

Slide 6: Go-to-market strategy – systematic expansion model

Now, let us show investors exactly how you will use their ₹3 crores to scale systematically.

SLIDE 6: GO-TO-MARKET STRATEGY

Systematic city expansion leveraging proven Pune playbook.

Phase 1: Market Entry (Months 1-6) Target Cities: Delhi (Gurgaon focus) and Bengaluru (Electronic City/Whitefield) Farmer Acquisition:

Partner with existing Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs)
Target progressive farmers already using digital payment systems
Focus on organic/premium producers (higher margins, quality-conscious customers)

Phase 2: Customer Acquisition (Months 4-12) B2C Strategy:

Digital marketing: ₹3 lakh/month/city (Facebook/Instagram ads targeting health-conscious families)
Apartment complex partnerships: Group buying discounts for societies >100 units
Local kirana store tie-ups: Pickup points for customers preferring physical touchpoints

B2B Strategy:

Corporate cafeterias: Direct sales to tech companies (higher AOV, predictable demand)
Restaurant partnerships: Premium ingredients with traceability documentation
Bulk buyers: Hotels and catering services requiring consistent quality

Phase 3: Optimisation (Months 10-18) Efficiency Improvements:

Route optimization: Reduce delivery costs by 30% through better logistics
Inventory forecasting: AI-powered demand prediction to reduce waste
Premium services: Subscription model for high-frequency customers

Budget Allocation (₹3 crore funding):

Customer Acquisition: ₹90 lakhs (30%) – ₹2.5 lakh per month per city
Technology Development: ₹80 lakhs (27%) – Mobile app enhancement, logistics integration
Team Expansion: ₹75 lakhs (25%) – Regional managers, customer success, operations
Working Capital: ₹45 lakhs (15%) – Inventory buffers, farmer advance payments
Contingency: ₹10 lakhs (3%) – Regulatory compliance, unforeseen challenges

Success Metrics by Month 18: –

Combined MRR: ₹8 lakhs (Delhi: ₹3.5L, Bengaluru: ₹3.5L, Pune: ₹1L)
Customer Base: 800 active users across 3 cities
Market Penetration: 0.3% of our ₹30 crore SOM (₹8L × 12 ÷ ₹30 crores)
Operational Break-even Timeline: Month 20 (revenue covers variable and operating expenses); full break-even including investment recovery expected by Month 24

Why this Go-to-Market strategy works

You connected strategy to budget: ₹90 lakhs for customer acquisition over 18 months = ₹2.5 lakhs per city per month. At ₹150 CAC, that’s 167 new customers monthly per city—exactly what your projections require.
You leveraged proven success: Instead of trying something completely new, you are replicating the Pune model that already works.
You addressed multiple customer segments: B2C for volume, B2B for higher margins, and predictable revenue streams.
You included specific metrics: Not just “we will expand to new cities” but “₹8 lakhs combined MRR by Month 18 with 800 active users.”

Critical Teaching Point: Marketing Budget Reality Check

Let me show you how to validate your customer acquisition assumptions:

Budget: ₹2.5 lakhs per city per month for 18 months = ₹45 lakhs per city
Target: 400 customers per city over 18 months
Implied CAC: ₹45 lakhs ÷ 400 customers = ₹1,125 per customer

Wait—that is much higher than our projected ₹150 CAC!

This reveals the hidden costs most entrepreneurs miss:

₹150 = direct digital ad spend per converted customer
₹1,125 = total blended CAC including brand marketing, events, partnerships, failed experiments

Adjusting Our Go-to-Market Model

Based on this analysis, let us recalibrate:

Realistic Customer Acquisition Plan:

Digital ads: ₹150 direct CAC × 240 customers = ₹36 lakhs (80% of acquisitions)
Brand marketing & partnerships: ₹9 lakhs (20% overhead for indirect acquisition)
Total per city: ₹45 lakhs for 240 customers = ₹1,875 blended CAC

This is still high, so we need to adjust our approach:

Increase referral incentives to achieve a 50% referral rate (vs the current 40%)
Focus on higher LTV customer segments (restaurants, premium consumers)
Negotiate partnership deals that reduce effective acquisition costs

What have we covered so far in Part 1

Congratulations! You have just learned how to build the foundation of investor-grade pitch decks using your finance professional advantages. In this first part of our series, we have covered:

Your New Competitive Advantages

Problem Definition: You now know how to quantify market pain points with specific price differentials
Solution Presentation: You can connect every product feature directly to unit economics
Market Sizing: You have mastered TAM/SAM/SOM analysis with bottom-up validation
Business Model Analysis: You can present unit economics progression and improvement pathways
Traction Presentation: You know how to focus on business fundamentals over vanity metrics
Go-to-Market Strategy: You can connect marketing budgets to customer acquisition projections

Coming Up in Part 2

In the next article, I will complete GrainKart’s pitch deck with the slides that often make or break funding decisions:

Competitive Landscape: How to analyze competitors based on business models, not just features
Team Presentation: Why investors fund teams and how to demonstrate execution capability
Financial Projections: Building credible 3-year models with sensitivity analysis
The Ask & Use of Funds: Connecting funding requests to specific milestones and returns
Advanced delivery techniques and investor question preparation

Ready to learn the advanced techniques that close deals?

Part 2 will give you the complete framework for creating pitch decks that actually get funded.

How to build a pitch deck that actually gets funded: a finance professional’s guide (Part 1)

Table of Contents