⚡ Quick Summary
- NPV is powerful but slow; most CFOs need a faster way to decide “which project first?” when cash and working capital are constrained.
- A cash ladder ranks projects by dollar impact over key horizons (next 13 weeks, 12 months, full life), alongside simple working capital metrics.
- Instead of arguing about discount rates, you compare “how much cash in vs out, and when?” across all projects in one view.
- Use standard capex schedules and short, consistent models borrowed from your investment decision toolkit.
- Rank projects by near‑term cash contribution, then by life‑time value, so treasury and strategy can agree on trade‑offs.
- Treat net working capital as a hard constraint; projects that look great on NPV but crush liquidity move down the list.
If you’re short on time, remember this: build one cash ladder for all projects, rank by dollar impact under your working capital management constraints, and let NPV refine, not dominate, the final call.
📌 Introduction: Why This Topic Matters
Investment committees often drown in decks: every sponsor shows a carefully tuned NPV, but the cash‑timing story is buried three tabs deep. When liquidity is tight, the most important question isn’t “which NPV is highest?” but “which combination of projects keeps us solvent while moving the strategy forward?” A cash‑ladder‑first approach answers that question quickly. By placing every project-capex, M&A, automation, and new markets on a single ladder alongside working capital requirements, you can rank them by dollar impact and make portfolio decisions in hours, not weeks. This guide sits on top of your capex evaluation pillar, location and expansion models, and investment decision frameworks, giving you a simple, repeatable way to turn complex models into clear, prioritised choices.
🧩 A Simple Framework You Can Use
The framework is: standardise → ladder → constrain → rank → decide.
First, standardise inputs by forcing every project into a consistent capex + cash‑benefit model, ideally using templates.
Second, build a portfolio cash ladder that aggregates inflows and outflows by period.
Third, overlay constraints: minimum cash, covenants, and net working capital floors.
Fourth, rank projects by incremental cash contribution in constrained periods: 13 weeks, 12 months, and full horizon.
Finally, decide using both rank and NPV: your “must‑do” projects are those that protect working capital balances and strategic priorities, while marginal projects drop below the cut line. This framework complements more detailed DCF work, rather than replacing it.
🚀 Step-by-Step Implementation
Step 1 – Build Standard Project Models
Start by defining what “project model” means in your organisation. For most operators, it’s a capex schedule, a set of operating assumptions and a basic cash‑flow profile. Use existing templates from your investment modelling toolkit and capex schedules so sponsors don’t reinvent the wheel. Require each project to show initial outflows, ongoing opex changes and incremental cash inflows, with working capital items (inventory, receivables, payables) explicitly modelled. The goal isn’t perfection; it’s comparable structure. Once models share a common shape, you can later consolidate them into a portfolio ladder without wrestling with inconsistent formats.
Step 2 – Create the Portfolio Cash Ladder
Next, consolidate all project models into a single cash ladder that spans your planning horizon, at a minimum, the next 13 weeks and 12 months. For each period, sum the capex and opex outflows and incremental inflows, then overlay them on top of your base business forecast. Add a panel showing net working capital and minimum‑cash thresholds. Now you can see, in one view, what happens if you approve all projects, or only a subset. This ladder becomes your control centre: by toggling projects on and off, you instantly see which combinations maintain working capital balances and covenant compliance while still moving the strategy forward.
Step 3 – Apply Working Capital and Funding Constraints
With the ladder in place, encode your constraints. Set hard floors for working capital headroom, cash coverage ratios and debt utilisation. Mark periods where breach risk is highest. Then, run scenarios: full portfolio, strategic‑only, efficiency‑only, etc. Projects that push the ladder below your floors in critical periods (for example, before a refinancing) are flagged as high‑risk, regardless of their standalone NPV. Conversely, projects that accelerate cash conversion or improve working capital metrics, like collections or inventory turns, rise in the ranking. Explicit constraints turn ranking from politics into a rules‑based exercise grounded in liquidity reality.
Step 4 – Rank Projects by Dollar Impact and Robustness
Now assign each project a “dollar rank” across timeframes: 13‑week cash impact, 12‑month impact and life‑time NPV. Projects that are NPV‑positive and accretive to working capital in constrained periods occupy the top tier. Those that deliver value only in the distant future and strain working capital balances sit in the lower tiers. Incorporate risk by testing sensitivities: if utilisation or pricing under‑delivers, which projects remain robust? This is where location expansions, vendor‑financed equipment and automation projects compete on a level playing field. The result is a prioritised list you can defend to the board, lenders and internal stakeholders.
Step 5 – Decide, Communicate and Iterate
Finally, use the ranked list to select a portfolio that fits inside your cash and working capital management constraints. Document why certain high‑NPV projects were deferred, typically because they stressed liquidity at the wrong time, and which lower‑NPV but cash‑friendly projects made the cut. Communicate decisions using the ladder, not just a table of NPVs, so executives see timing, not just totals. As actual results come in, update the ladder and re‑run the ranking ahead of each planning cycle. Over time, this iterative process turns your investment committee into a fast, repeatable decision engine rather than a quarterly argument over spreadsheets.
💼 Real-World Examples
A mid‑market services group has 12 competing projects: system upgrades, new locations, fleet renewals, vendor‑financed equipment, and several automation initiatives. Traditional NPV analysis produces a messy ranking and doesn’t solve the core issue: limited cash and tight working capital covenants. Finance consolidates all projects into a single cash ladder. They discover that approving three large but long‑dated projects would push net working capital below internal floors during peak season, while a combination of smaller, faster‑paying projects plus a targeted automation program keeps liquidity safe and still improves profitability. The board approves the latter mix, defers the big bets until after a planned refinancing, and commits to revisiting the ladder quarterly.
⚠️ Common Mistakes to Avoid
A frequent mistake is treating NPV as the only ranking metric. This biases decisions toward long‑dated projects and ignores working capital stress in the near term. Another is failing to standardise project models, making it impossible to aggregate them cleanly into a portfolio ladder. Teams also underestimate how growth projects affect working capital balances-inventory, receivables, and payables-leading to surprises when cash doesn’t materialise as expected. Finally, many organisations rank projects once per year and never revisit the list despite changing conditions. Avoid these traps by standardising inputs, making cash ladders a permanent fixture of your capex process, and refreshing rankings whenever major assumptions, funding conditions, or strategy evolve.
❓ FAQs
Yes. NPV remains essential for understanding value over the full life of a project. The cash ladder focuses on timing and
working capital risk, while NPV summarises long term economics. Think of the ladder as your feasibility filter: if a project fails the liquidity test, you probably shouldn’t proceed regardless of NPV. Once inside your cash constraints, NPV helps you choose among the feasible set and defend
decisions to boards and investors.
For near term decisions, weekly or bi weekly periods over the next
13 weeks are ideal; beyond that, monthly buckets usually suffice. The key is consistency across projects so you can aggregate cleanly. Over engineering the ladder with daily granularity adds noise without improving decisions. Focus on capturing major capex outflows, meaningful changes in working capital metrics, and step changes in inflows. You can always zoom into a single project’s detailed model if the ladder flags a potential issue.
Model a handful of scenarios per project-base, upside and downside-and roll them into your portfolio ladder. For ranking, consider both base case dollar contribution and resilience under stress. Projects that remain cash accretive and preserve working capital balances even in downside scenarios deserve a higher rank. Document key sensitivities (pricing, utilisation, cost inflation) so the investment committee understands where the risks sit and when to
revisit a decision.
It works particularly well for SMBs, where cash constraints are tighter and modelling resources are limited. You don’t need a complex system—just standard templates and discipline around working capital management. Even a 6-8 project ladder can transform
decision quality, helping owners choose between equipment, hiring, marketing and
new locations. Over time, you can scale into more sophisticated tools without changing the core logic: rank by dollar impact within your cash and net working capital constraints.
📈 Next Steps
Begin by selecting your next planning cycle and listing all candidate projects-capex, M&A, hiring, automation, and new markets. Standardise them using your existing investment templates and capex schedules. Then, build your first portfolio cash ladder, overlay working capital and funding constraints, and experiment with different approval combinations. Use this to drive the next investment committee conversation, shifting the discussion from isolated NPVs to portfolio‑level cash trade‑offs. Finally, commit to updating the ladder on a regular cadence, alongside budgeting and forecasting, so ranking by dollar becomes how you always make investment decisions, not a one‑off exercise.
Back