Case: can Klasna grow Teams without a loan?

Leo wants to sign three Teams deals on Friday: a logistics firm from March, an IT services company from April and a retail chain from June. Before asking whether cash can carry them, measure what they earn.

Each Teams lesson sells for 800 UAH; Klasna pays the tutor 430 and spends 31 on video and AI. Contribution per lesson = 800 − 430 − 31 = 339 UAH.

The lessons in 2027 add up month by month:

• logistics: 300 a month, March–December, 10 × 300 = 3,000;
• IT services: 450 a month, April–December, 9 × 450 = 4,050;
• retail chain: 400 a month, June–December, 7 × 400 = 2,800;
• together 9,850 lessons, or 7,880,000 UAH of sales.

Contribution = 9,850 × 339 = 3,339,150 UAH.

The deals are clearly profitable. That is exactly why the case is interesting: the question isn't whether they make money, but when the money arrives. The slip here is to multiply the full year (12 months) for every client, or to use the price instead of the contribution.

To see what the bank sees, add the deals to the existing cash plan one month at a time.

Closing cash with the deals = base plan's closing cash + the deals' cumulative cash effect so far.

The deals' effect each month is collections minus tutor payouts and video. On today's terms (quarterly invoices, 60 days) Klasna pays tutors from March, and the first money, May's invoice of 1,440,000 UAH, arrives only in July. The summer invoice of 2,760,000 goes out on 31 August and arrives in October.

So the deals pull cash down exactly when the base plan is weakest:

• June: 1,347,340 − 1,077,050 = 270,290;
• July: 915,930 − 167,200 = 748,730;
• August: 592,132.50 − 697,350 = −105,217.50 UAH.

August is below zero and 1,105,217.50 short of the 1,000,000 buffer, and June and July are under the buffer too. The slip is to add the deals' effect for one month only, instead of everything accumulated since March.

Leo's comfort was December: with the deals Klasna still ends 2027 at 4,647,317.50 UAH. But compare it with the plan without the deals: 4,705,267.50. Deals that earn 3,339,150 UAH of contribution leave the bank 57,950 lower at year end.

The reason is what sits with the clients on 31 December:

• November's invoice of 2,760,000, due only in January;
• December's lessons, 1,150 × 800 = 920,000, not invoiced yet;
• together 3,680,000 UAH of work done but not paid.

Some money goes the other way: Klasna still owes half of December's payouts (247,250) and December's video and AI (35,650), 282,900 in all.

3,339,150 − 3,680,000 + 282,900 = −57,950 UAH.

This is working capital again: profitable growth on credit keeps a growing amount of your money with customers. The deals pay off in cash, just later. The slip is to look for a hidden cost, when nothing is wrong with the deals except the calendar.

Leo's first idea was 30-day terms instead of 60. It moves June by 1.44 million, yet August stays at −105,217.50 UAH. The reason: August is a quarter end. Its invoice goes out on 31 August and is unpaid that day on any terms. Terms decide when an invoice is paid; the invoice calendar decides how much work waits for one.

So shorten the period instead: invoice on the last day of every month, paid 30 days later. Tutors and video are paid exactly as before; only collections change.

By 31 August the invoices for March–July are paid:

(300 + 750 + 750 + 1,150 + 1,150) × 800 = 4,100 × 800 = 3,280,000 UAH.

On today's terms only May's 1,440,000 has arrived by then. Difference: 1,840,000.

August = −105,217.50 + 1,840,000 = 1,734,782.50 UAH, well above the buffer. With monthly invoices on 30 days every month of 2027 stays above 1,000,000. The cost is one invoice a month. The slip is to include August's own invoice: it is sent on 31 August and paid in September.

The simplest way to fund the working capital the deals tie up is to borrow it. Price it the same way as payment terms: the amount you need × the rate × the time.

On today's terms three month-ends fall below the 1,000,000 UAH buffer. A credit line at 24% a year costs 2% a month on what is drawn:

• June: 1,000,000 − 270,290 = 729,710;
• July: 1,000,000 − 748,730 = 251,270;
• August: 1,000,000 − (−105,217.50) = 1,105,217.50;
• total 2,086,197.50 × 0.02 = 41,723.95 UAH, about 41,724.

Next to 3.34 million of contribution that is cheap. But price is not the only question. A bank decides in spring, on its own terms, and in August it would be lending to a company whose plan shows minus 105,000. A credit line is a sound backup; it is a weak plan when changing the invoice calendar costs only an invoice a month.

The slip in the arithmetic is the August sign: below zero, the shortfall is the buffer plus the overdraft, 1,105,217.50, not 894,782.50.

When growth ties up too much cash, slowing it down is the obvious idea. It does help cash, because fewer lessons mean fewer payouts before the invoices are paid. But it has a price that is easy to forget: the contribution you never earn.

If the retail chain starts in September instead of June, Klasna loses three months of its lessons:

3 months × 400 lessons × 339 UAH = 406,800 UAH of contribution.

Then check whether the lever actually solves the problem. On today's terms, with the chain from September, August still ends at 349,582.50 UAH and June at 356,290, both below the 1,000,000 buffer. The lever costs 406,800 and misses.

Compare that with the other options: monthly invoices with 30 days cost one invoice a month and keep every month above the buffer; a credit line costs about 41,724. Judge every lever on two questions: what does it cost, and does it close the gap? The slip is to count only the cash saved and ignore the profit given up.

Hanna ran every idea through the 2027 plan. Read them by two numbers each: the lowest month-end and what the lever costs.

• Today's terms (quarterly, 60 days): August −105,217.50 UAH, three months below the buffer.
• Quarterly, 30 days: August unchanged, because it is a quarter end.
• Monthly invoices, 60 days: lowest July, 748,730; still under the buffer.
• Monthly invoices, 30 days: no month below 1,000,000. The lowest is January, 1,224,590, before the deals start. Cost: an invoice a month.
• Retail chain from September: August 349,582.50; costs 406,800 of contribution.
• Each client prepays its first month (920,000 in all): August 814,782.50; asks clients for money up front and still misses.
• Credit line at 24%: about 41,724 of interest, if the bank agrees in spring.

Only one option closes the gap at almost no cost, and it even fixes the summer valley the base plan already had. That's the shape of a good recommendation: the cheapest lever that fully works, with a backup.

"Can our own cash carry this growth?" has a repeatable answer.

1. What it earns. Lessons × contribution per lesson: 9,850 × 339 = 3,339,150 UAH. This settles whether the growth is worth having.
2. When its cash moves. Payouts on their dates, video a month later, invoices when they are paid. Contribution says nothing about this.
3. The combined plan. Base closing cash + the deals' cumulative effect, for every month.
4. The gap. Lowest month-end against the buffer, not zero: August −105,217.50, 1,105,217.50 short.
5. Levers and verdict. Shorter terms, more frequent invoices, prepayment, a slower start, a credit line. For each: cost, and does it close the gap? Then one clear verdict, the terms to offer and a fallback if a client says no.

The order matters. Starting with levers before sizing the gap leads to fixes that miss; starting with cash before profit makes good deals look bad. Profitable growth isn't funded growth: decide who funds it before you sign.