Category: CFO Functionality

CFO Folklore: A Dumb Boss Can Ask Questions That Will Leave a Wise CFO Stunned


The-boss-stupid-but-can-fire-youA Boss comes to his CFO.  In his hand he carries a report bound into a vinyl cover with a clear front.  The CFO recognizes the presentation booklet she prepared for prospective institutional lenders and private financiers (the company is in the process of restructuring its operating capital).  This particular one is the Boss's personal hard copy: the CFO notices his doodles, scribbles, and squiggles right there on the title page.

The Boss gives the booklet to the CFO, "I've met these two guys yesterday over drinks at the Harvard Club.  I didn't quite understand what they do, but I want to send them this.  They wanted it electronically.  Can we send it as a whole?  I forwarded you their email addresses."

"Of course," she replies, "It's been combined into one file."

"But I've added a few pages."

The CFO skims through the presentation and sees that amid her slick statements, tasteful tables, and vivid charts, there are three pages of text she's never seen before.  She feels the habitual wave of anger she has learned to hide deep inside a long time ago.  She bites her tongue and doesn't tell him that the unprofessional pale blue arial font he chose clashes with the aesthetics of her report and that his text is too verbose.  She just looks him in the eyes and says, "Just send me your Word file and I will incorporate the pages."

"Files," he corrects her.       

The CFO nods silently.  It's clear to her: a separate file for every page – three pages, three files.  If they were all in the same file, he wouldn't be able to print them separately.  It would be too difficult for him.

The Boss still lingers.  "But are the pages all going to be, like, that scanned type?" he grimaces.

"I'm not planning on scanning anything, but yes, I will convert the Word pages into the PDF and insert them into the presentation, which is a PDF file itself."

"But then I will not be able to edit my pages if I want to," the Boss's tone is a mix of whining and irritation, as if the CFO makes his life difficult.  (Which she does, by the way: He always thought of himself as a brilliant man, but this bitch knows too much, understands everything quicker, and her level of expertise and professional standards makes him feel inadequate in HIS OWN COMPANY, for crying out loud.)

"Well, technically if you have Adobe® Acrobat® XI you can edit any PDF file." She thinks for a split second whether she should go on, then continues: "We can also insert the PDF as an object into Word.  Then you can edit your pages.  However, it will most likely, screw up the entire layout of the presentation, which is not good in case someone decides to print it.  I really do not recommend this." 

It all sounds like Chinese to the Boss, who, shockingly, doesn't speak a word of it, even though he used to have a business and lived in Hong Kong – for 25 years, no less.

"I don't know how to use any of that," he says, "Can't you just insert my Word pages without converting them into your presentation?" (It almost sounds as if he is about to say, "Is that too much to ask?")

This is just too funny, but the CFO keeps her face in check.  She decides that she's had enough of this conversation and it's time to stop explaining: "No, even I cannot perform that sort of magic" she says, "It has to be either Word, or Excel, or PDF file.  And PDF is the format of preference in this case."

"Oh, Okay."  The Boss leaves.

Now, the CFO smiles to herself.  And at that moment she realizes the true cause of her dissatisfaction with this job.  It's not this heightened level of irritation.  It's not even the fact that she's undervalued and underpaid.  It's the unfairness of life that forces professionals like her to work for dilettantes like her boss.       

2013 Audit Season: Joke #4


Inventory CountI remember a few years ago, during a business lunch, somebody was recapping an episode from one of the numerous crime series all networks are running to compete against each other.  My head was preoccupied with the business purpose of the meeting, nevertheless I do recall that the murder plot turned on a discovery that one of the characters, a compulsive gambler, bet his classy wife's sexual favors in poker and lost.  FBI questioned if the payoff actually took place.  Of course, it did: the real gamblers are "men of honor."  When asked how the pimped out wife handled it, the winner said, "She was willing, but not happy."  I bet this is the best line the screenwriter who churns out this pedestrian crap has ever written! 

Willing, but not happy…  The state of mind applicable to so many situations.  This is exactly how all corporate accountants feel about financial audits, lenders' exams, investors' due diligence, etc.  Commercial and fiscal needs of our employers throw us at mercy of the outsiders: we are forced to carve out time from our main responsibilities and open ourselves up to various poking, probing, and testing.  Oh, we totally understand the importance and the unavoidable necessity of it.  Frequently,  it's our own search for new financing resources that culminates in these proceedings.  Yes, we are totally willing, but we are not happy to go through with it.

I devoted two whole chapters (29 and 30) of CFO Techniques to advising readers on how to deal with auditors, keep yourself focused on the ultimate benefits for the company, and minimize the pains of distraction and intrusion.  It helps to remind yourself that your company needs it more than the one that sends people to conduct the examinations.

And I have to say, most of these specialists of prodding are well aware of the invasive nature of their jobs.  They understand that a financial executive abides by their standards and accommodates all their requirements, because he wants good results, and that this puts a CFO or a Controller into a subservient position. Many auditors are very apologetic for the endless interruptions, inquiries, requests, follow-ups, etc.

Of course, there are always exceptions…

For the CFO with exposure to international measurement systems from this season's joke #2, the last stage of the bank's field exam included physical inventory counts at three locations specifically selected by the bank.  This is habitually done by auditors and examiners in order to (a) establish the presence of various inventories and (b) verify the accuracy of the subject's records.  Obviously, nobody at the audited company has any impact on the choices of locations, timing, or people sent to perform the task.  In fact, the CFO, who every year faces a financial audit and three bank exams, never knows who the hell the counters (usually junior auditors) are. 

This time was bound to be different.  One of the locations the bank selected was the company's storage in Savannah, GA.  A day before the scheduled visit the CFO gets a phone call.  An agitated young man in the receiver tells her that he is from the bank's Jacksonville office and that, according to Google Maps, the drive is 2 hours and 40 minutes each way.  "And it's Friday!  This is outrageous," he says.

The CFO was perplexed: anyone who had dealt with these matters even for one month would know that she had nothing to do with the rookie's plight; that, if it was up to her, she would much rather avoid the scrutiny.  Considering her executive position and professional status, she could've just hung up on this wimp.  But she is the one with a sense of humor, remember?  So, she asked the boy, "Well, what would you like me to do?  Move the inventory to Jacksonville, or cancel your visit?"

"Could you, please, cancel it?" was a hopeful answer.     

2013 Audit Season: Joke #2


StimpyA lender's field examiner is sent to conduct a periodic review of a borrower's books and records. 

These exercises are regular occurrences in, what I call, the balance sheet financing: a company pledges its assets, receivables and inventories foremost, against a line of credit.  It's only natural that the financial institutions want to make sure, from time to time, that the collateral securing the loans, letters of credits, bank guarantees, etc. actually exists and is properly valued. 

The banks used to be somewhat lax about it and satisfied themselves with quarterly internal financial statements and annual audit reports.  Most of them would ask a client to undergo a field exam (it's always at the client's expense, by the way) only when the issue of a credit line's increase came up.  However, the neverending tittering on the verge between recession and depression has changed things.  The banks got burned by failing companies and defaulted mortgages.  Those that couldn't recover their losses got acquired for peanuts.  The remaining institutions got smarter and stricter.  Nowadays, many lenders demand 2-3 field exams a year.  

Most of these engagements are outsourced to specialized accounting firms, the rest are conducted by the banks' auditing departments.  Either way, the examiners are constantly rotated – every time it's a new team, which is very prudent as far as the auditing standards go, but a pain in the ass for CFO's and Controllers of the companies being reviewed: you feel like a fucking parrot, delivering a summary of the company's business, its operating processes, and accounting procedures over and over again.

Many companies with significant receivables and inventories to pledge against credit lines of $10 million and up are, obviously, international businesses.  The commercial globalization affects both the procurement of resources and the distribution of products.  The ancient golden rule of market success still holds true: people try to buy where the prices are the lowest and sell where the prices are the highest.    

Now, let me remind you, boys and girls, that the United States of America is a solitary customary-measurement island in the global ocean of the metric system.  (Of course, it will cost billions to convert the entire American existence into the world-wide standard. Yet, I always thought that this clinging to the 18th century  units is primarily a manifestation of our country's fundamentally puritan conservatism.  But that's another joke altogether). 

So, back to our examiner.  On the second day of the assignment she comes to her designated point person – the borrower's CFO (the best practice to avoid someone saying something stupid, especially a CEO, is to restrict auditors' access to one person) and shows her an item on the inventory breakdown.  "It says here that the cost is $1.05 per pound, but the supplier's invoice states $2,315 per em tee," she says, actually spelling the stated weight unit – mt.

Reportedly, at this moment the CFO felt like making a joke: "…You know what they call a Quarter Pounder with Cheese in Paris?/They don't call it a Quarter Pounder with Cheese?/No, they got the metric system there, they wouldn't know what the fuck a Quarter Pounder is." 

But looking at the shellac-stiff blond hairdo of this Western PA resident, she changed her mind.  The examiner looked utterly perplexed.  So, instead, the CFO said, "This product is distributed here, in the States, and we keep the inventory records in pounds to match the sales units. However, it was purchased in Korea, so all of the supplier's documentation is in the metric system.  'MT' stands for 'metric ton,' which contains 2,204.62 pounds.  So, if you divide the cost of one metric ton ($2,315) by 2,204.62, you will successfully convert it into the cost per pound ($1.05)."  She writes everything down as she speaks, so that she doesn't have to repeat it again; at least not to this woman. 

The examiner is extremely relieved and very grateful for the little lesson.  The CFO (obviously in humorous mood that day) says, "Wait until you get to our liquid products.  They are bought in metric tons, stored in gallons, and sold in pounds."  "Oh, my God," the auditor looks mortified. 

This is not an isolated anecdote.  It's remarkable how frequently this happens.  I personally never met an auditor who didn't require a tutorial on US vs. metric units conversion.  I'm used to the appalling ignorance. The question is: why is it Ok to come with your tail between your legs and your tongue out, asking these stupid questions?  Haven't these people ever heard about Google?