Category: Nature of the Job

CFO Folklore: Ignorantly Insolent Bosses


Panda AccountantIn accounting and auditing, first two months of a fiscal year (for most, January and February) make up a period of Subsequent Events, which are directly related to a company's previous year's Financial Statements.  Goods listed as 12/31 inventory are (hopefully) selling; last year receivalbes are being collected; cash being disbursed for unpaid expenses that comprised your year-end payables and accruals.  Financial auditors specifically target these post-12/31 sales, receipts, and payments to test the accuracy of the Financial Statements.  

Business owners, most of them lacking formal accounting knowledge, are especially confused about the expenses: they see payments being made now for the last year's interests, services, and commissions, and it worries them that somehow the current period's profitability will be affected.  Never mind that every year you explain to them that these items have been already recognized as expenses in the previous fiscal period through payables and accruals, and, therefore, impact only current cash flow, not the operational performance.  Even the ones who don't ignore your explanations and, furthermore, remember some of the terminology you've used, can't help but be a little disconcerted.

So, let's say last week (a week of 02/11) you have approved a $75K commission payment due to a procurement agent for the fourth quarter of 2012.  It requires a second signature – your boss's.  Now, she sees the check and your approval.  She knows your qualifications and what you've done for her company.  Before meeting you, she didn't know anything about accounting and finance at all, but she has learned a great deal from you.  Yet, she is a Business Owner – someone who is not capable of making an effort to overcome her impulses.  The strength of the "I-pay-you" sentiment in her subconsciousness is empowering.

So, she comes to your office, announces the topic ("This commission check") and tries to formulate the question.  First, she mumbles something about "the last year's income," and then the light bulb comes on in her head and she asks, "Was the expense accrued?"

Your mind is very fast and in a fraction of a second a swarm of neurotic, childish thoughts storms through your head: "Are you fucking joking me?  This is from someone who had no concept of revenue and costs recognition?  From someone who like a fucking bookie recorded everything when cash exchanged hands?  You, bitch, didn't have proper records, reports, financial statements!  Your tax returns were made up!  Did you forget that the bank demanded you hire a CFO before they gave you the credit line?  Now, everyone gets weekly, monthly, quarterly, annual reports and statements, thanks to ME!  I pass audits and bank exams without anybody finding a single error or omission!  How dare you!!!"

But you have two post-graduate degrees, 20 years of business experience, a book on CFO's functionality, 10 years of age, and a lifetime of hard knocks over this privileged pixie financed by her husband.  So, you look her straight in the eyes and calmly, almost jokingly, say, "Are you checking on my work?  Accruals and prepaids is what I do.  This was a 2012 expense and, in accordance with the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, it was recognized as such."

Look, the truth is you should not get upset at your bosses for who they are.  "…Forgive them, for they know not what they do," and all that.  I always say, they are like spoiled and unruly children, who cannot control themselves.  And as long as you need the salary, you have to continue swallowing their shit pills. 

I wish I could stop taking incidents like that personally.  People with my intellect, background, knowledge, and experience – professional, psychological, cultural – should just brush it off.  Yet again, if I was able to do it, I wouldn't have had this blog.

Joke of the Week: The Linguistic Pitfalls of International Trade


ImagesBelieve it or not, but a few of my readers actually complain that sometimes my posts are "too technical."  I guess, they forget that, even though I manage to squeeze a ton of cultural references here,  this is primarily a business blog and some of the topics will be amusing and/or relevant only to financial professionals, executive managers, and business owners.

Well, even though this may further aggravate the merriment seekers, I cannot pass on the opportunity to share the following 100% true episode that has occurred in one import/export company early last week.  It's just so hilarious (at least to me)! 

Here is the premise.  English has become a common language of international business many years ago.  Of course, there are other linguistic possibilities: if transacting parties are both Latin American, they will use Spanish; employees of a company in Shanghai will speak Mandarin to their counterparts in Guangdong region.  But I guarantee that communications between, let's say, a Turkish manufacturer and a Dutch banker, or a Latvian banker and a Swiss financial broker, will be conducted in English. 

Of course, a Korean supplier has no choice but to employ English to communicate her concerns about a Letter of Credit (LC) provided as a form of payment by an American importer.  The document itself is prepared in English for crying out loud.  Still, it's a foreign language – some linguistic pitfalls are unavoidable.  

Those who work in international trade or read my book CFO Techniques know that LCs are very strict documents treated in a very literal manner by the banks responsible for making sure that a supplier gets paid only if and when it complies with conditions stipulated in the buyer's LC.  For example, the shipping documents (most frequently these are Bills of Lading (BLs)) must be prepared in accordance with the importer's requirements.

Now, enter a young and anxious clerk at the Seoul office of the said Korean supplier.  She is responsible for putting together all documents to be presented at the bank so that her employer can get paid $2,745,000 for 1500 mt of the product that just sailed away.  She knows very well that the papers must be in full compliance with the LC.  She is a novice and feels a lot of pressure to do it right.  On top of that, it's all in English, and, even though she is pretty good with it, the stress makes her paranoid.  Basically, she is a nervous wreck. 

One thing in particular bothers her the most.  So, she writes the following email to the customer's CFO:

"LC request is 'FREIGHT PAYABLE WITHING 7 DAYS OF SHIPMENT DATE' but the shipping line put on Bill of Lading 'FREIGHT PAYABLE WITHIN 7 DAYS OF SHIPPING DATE'.  Please urgently ask the shipping agent to revise the BL."[sic]

The American CFO, who has dealt with the international trade issues for many years, had a good laugh reading it, thought that the girl needs some Xanax, and replied:

"Relax.  The difference between the words 'SHIPMENT DATE' and 'SHIPPING DATE' will not be construed as discrepancy by ANY bank as these phrases mean EXACTLY THE SAME."

Hey, it's all good.  At least she didn't have to gesture and guess.            

   

The Second Quarter Financial Results, or They Always Kill the Messengers


 

Segmental Profitability

© Copyright 2011 E and D CC, Inc.

Believe it or not, but we've already passed the mid-point of 2012.  While the foretold Armageddon is not upon us just yet (most likely due to the inaccuracy of our calendar), the immediate future of many CFOs can be predicted with a confident certainty: the second quarter financial results will be due in a couple of weeks.

Let's face it, this was not an easy fiscal period.  Whether large or small, businesses were affected by the volatility of the international markets, the slowdown of commercial demand, plunges in both commodities' prices and consumer confidence.  Even the bigwigs at Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, the conjurors of "facts" that prevent trading markets from falling apart, had to admit today that "the recovery slowed in the second quarter" and downgrade their projections.  

What recovery, you clowns?  Anyway, those of us running actual businesses know: the quarter was mostly downsloping, choppy, and unhealthy.  This will translate into smaller revenues, narrower profit margins, and, for many, losses. 

The Frustrated CFO always feels doubly agitated about subpar performance results (obviously, antsy enough to talk about herself in the third person).  On a big-scale, as a small-business crusader, I am worried that with every difficult fiscal quarter the possibility of our economy getting back on the right track, with entrepreneurship reclaiming its rightful status as a backbone of capitalism, becomes less and less real.

And then there is an apprehension of inevitable consequences for all financial chiefs of privately-held companies (myself including), who cannot avoid playing the part of the bad-news heralds. 

Regardless of the nature and the size of a company, the main recipients of its performance results are owners/investors.  For public companies these are millions of faceless institutional and individual stock-market gamblers.  The publication of financial information by these companies is mandated by law and governed by SEC.  

When the picture is bleak, the Boards of Directors, terrified by the possibility of a sell-off and devalue of the stock (first and foremost, their own holdings), frequently spring into action to show the world that they are "doing something about it."  This usually amounts to moving the pawns on the corporate chessboard: we regularly hear about dismissals of CEOs and COOs perceived to be responsible for the failures.  At the same time, unless they are caught together with their auditors cooking the books, the big-time CFOs are rarely publicly flogged. 

Private businesses operate in an entirely different universe.  Here, people responsible for financial reporting, CFOs and Controllers, daily face their owners/investors.  The entire chain of  delivering the message is reduced to a single step.  Here you are with your perfectly accurate, yet unpleasant, reports and there, on the other side of the table, or on the other end of an email link, are the owners/executives. 

And, even though everyone in the room understands that you cannot possibly be singly responsible for the business's poor performance; that it is a result of many contributing factors; that the CEO herself disregarded your loud warnings and fucked up several crucial deals – the bosses invariably follow their first impulse to lash out against somebody.  At that initial moment of disappointment, there is no better a scapegoat than you, the news-bearer.  As if on cue, the bosses turn into cranky babies  and throw pointless tantrums.  The funniest thing that ever happened to me was when the President wanted to see the general ledger details and "check the numbers." 

Eventually, of course, they come down, and become reasonable.  If you've earned their respect and got their ear, they would listen to your analysis and accept your improvements proposals.  The thing is, though, we are human too and no matter how well we hold it together, the hurt of that initial heraldic punishments stays with us.

Queen's Herald

The Queen's Herald

In Defense of Business Owners: Scope of Responsibility


Many of my fellow small business CFOs and Controllers mistake my singling out a BOSS as one of the main frustration triggers for an ardent enmity towards business owners.  The truth is quite opposite.  As the matter of fact, most of the time I find myself on the same side as my boss; shoulder to shoulder, fighting the daily war of commercial survival. 

Yes, it’s tough to deal with their complex of unlimited powers.  At the same time, I always say that business owners create our jobs and that alone merits respect.  I also never imply that all CFOs and Controllers are made equal.  I’ve met plenty of inadequate, limited, lazy and dangerously indifferent financial execs who damaged the companies they were supposed to guard.  In due time I’ll write about them as well.

But we interact with out bosses more than anybody else and that’s why they are prominently featured in my posts.  Being a CFO or a Controller makes it inevitable that everything a CEO does or doesn’t do becomes a concern and frequently a touchy subject. 

And one of the touchiest subjects is the Scope of Responsibility.  I cannot even count how many CFOs and Controllers have complained to me over the years about perceived imbalance between their scope of responsibility and that of their bosses.  

This disconcert derives from two sources.  First of all, it’s the much-discussed here overwhelming multitasking of the senior financial management.
Secondly, it’s the confusion about what exactly the Scope of Responsibility is.  Even though the position’s breadth of influence on the business is important, it is not just the number of tasks and duties you perform.   The key factor is the depth of the impact executive decisions make on the company’s future.  

The way I always looked at it is as follows.  If you are fortunate to work for a brilliant entrepreneur who, given sufficient time and support, is capable of generating ideas that will ensure your company’s prosperity and growth, that should be his ONLY task.  I consider it my job then to take away from him all functions I can handle myself in order to free him for what he does best.  I don’t let bankers or vendors bother him; I don’t allow him to fiddle with numbers; I don’t ask him to learn the operational system.  As the matter of fact, I prefer them not even know Excel.  All I want them to do is to create business strategies, network, establish new commercial relationships.

Let me leave you with this simile of sorts.  Radiohead’s frontman Thom Yorke cannot read sheet music (neither does Sir Paul McCartney, by the way).  His musically educated multi-instrumentalist  band-mate Johnny Greenwood have been deliberately resisting for 25 years now to teach Thom any musical grammar out of fear that it may diminish Yorke’s creativity.  That’s a great executive support strategy.

And let me tell you: I’ve been to multiple Radiohead concerts through the years and I wouldn’t change anything about Thom Yorke. Nothing at all.


 
  

 

 

 

   

Do Yourself a Favor and Buy Your Boss Some Ginkgo


BooksI am currently reading Jennifer Egan's A Visit from the Goon Squad.  Excellent book.  It's categorized by booksellers as a novel, but it is essentially a collection of stories stringed together by each character's connection to the book's most realized protagonist – the music-industry executive, Bennie Salazar.  I love that kind of staff.  Yet, it's not the author's writing skills that make this book important to me, it's the vivid emotional familiarity of people and situations.  Good writers manage to reach their audience in that way: you read a dialogue or an internal monologue and your heart aches with the painful recognition.

Let's leave the introspective explorations for some other discussion, though.  In light of this post's title I want to describe one particular scene in the book that seems to be taken straight out of my own experience with many a boss.

Bennie Salazar, the President of the record label he founded some years ago, is in his car with his right-hand and catch-all Sasha.  They just listened to the new material of one of the company's signed acts.  Sasha rules the two punk sisters unlistenable.  Bennie woefully wonders, what happened in the two years since he'd signed them on.  Sasha reminds him that it has been five, not two years.  She even gives him a precise time reference: she went to the contract signing straight from Windows on the World, i.e. when the Twin Towers were still intact.

Oh my God!  Did that ring a huge bell in my head?  Situations like this occurred with uncanny regularity throughout my entire career, no matter who the boss was.  We could be in the meeting with some bankers, for example, pitching the expansion of credit lines, and I would show a chart explaining how the company has been adding $40 million to its volume annually for the past five years.  Afterwards, the boss would ask me, if those numbers were true.  Are you fucking kidding me?  You've only seen the chart like a million times.  

And then there are endlessly repetitive requests: Could you send me that report for May (just sent it two days ago, but he doesn't recall)?  What was the bottom line in that forecast you compiled (what did you do with your copy of it)?  Let's finalize that new venture prospectus, okay ("we" did day before yesterday – it's on your desk)?  And so on and so forth.       

Sometimes it seems that the stress of running their own businesses causes these people to experience some form of amnesia or the early onset of Alzheimer's.  But that's not it, because their brains appear to be functioning just fine otherwise.  The fact that this memory issue is such a frequent occurrence among the entrepreneurs of various cultural and social backgrounds, operating in different industries, seems to indicate a psychological rather than physiological phenomenon.

It's my opinion that, when it comes to the retention of any type of information, these people have a luxury of allowing their brains to be extremely selective.  It's not like they make a deliberately verbalized decision, "I choose not to remember this."  But somewhere, deep in their subconsciousness, the opportunity to rely on various subordinates as human data-banks renders the memorization of routine data redundant.  It doesn't matter to them that this makes them look somewhat slow.  The value of your time wasted on verbally repeating and emailing the same things over and over again matters even less.

It's possible that the general improvement of memory functions attributed to Ginkgo can lower this mental resistance to absorbing information.  It may force certain tidbits to stick inside automatically.  Hey, if you are desperate enough, why not try it?  Just put it on his desk when nobody is looking and see what happens.