Tag: small business

The Lopsided View of Corporate Taxation


Corp TaxesIn October 24th issue of New York Magazine, Andre Tartar's Intelligencer column featured a black-background Darth-Vader-sinister entry, disdainfully called The Freeloading Playbook (see the page's image to the left).  It presented four "tax-dodging" schemes employed by international corporations.  I have quite a few problems with the piece, but will focus on the misleading interpretations that I believe to be the most damaging to the education of general public on such important subjects as political economy and corporate taxation.

First of all, as far as an average reader is concerned, the implications are that the corporations are engaged in unpunished tax-evasion practices.  This is a gross distortion of truth.  We can argue for years about the nature of trickery, but the fact is that the Internal Revenue Code had deliberately created these loopholes to accommodate the international expansion of the US business, and the companies simply utilize the opportunities the tax laws allow them.  I assure you that there are other ways to reduce taxable income, including transfer-pricing of inter-company transactions (between the US parent and foreign subsidiary, or other way around).

Secondly, "freeloading" by definition means living off somebody's generosity.  Way to further confuse clueless Zucootti-Park affectionadoes!  Whose generosity we are talking about here?  Those who get the biggest chunks of the revenue derived from corporate taxation?  The military complex?  Government-subsidized industries like automaking and agriculture?  Chinese bankers (the interest on their loans to the US government must be paid)?  Welfare recipients?

Also, I am absolutely appalled by the fact that the companies that reinvest their earnings into their international value chains are thrown onto the same page with actual schemers who creatively avoid taxation (still legitimately, though) through M&A transactions and intellectual property licensing.  Notice how for "Double Irish," "Killer B," and "Deadly D" Mr. Tartar came up with singular examples – Google, IBM, and Eli Lilly respectively, while for earnings reinvestment he chummily states, "like, everyone." 

Yes, everyone, including  thousands of international  small businesses who set up foreign subsidiaries as their distribution arms to sell US products abroad.  (These structures are so common that I used one of them as a typical example in my book CFO Techniques– see the illustration below.)  So, they don't repatriate all of their money because they incur operational expenses overseas in the normal course of business.  That doesn't mean that they should be compared with the 500 super-rich companies.

Figure 5-1     M. Guzik, "CFO Techniques," Apress, 12/02/2011; Figure 5-1.

What exactly Mr. Tartar and others like him would like to propose?  That establishing foreign subsidiaries for the sake of running more efficient businesses should be prohibited altogether by law, like it was in the Eastern bloc countries during the communist rule?  Or that we allow double-taxation?  Guess what?  Business super-powers will survive anyway, but the small businesses exposed to such treatment would cease to exist. 

And why nobody questions the incredible fact that in this supposed bastion of free-market economy we have practically the highest corporate taxes in the world  – up to 38% federal, plus up to 12% state?  So, in some localities there are companies who end up paying 50% of their income to the government.  We have over 6 million companies with less than 100 employees in this country, and they are suffocated by these rates.  Why don't we approach the taxation problem from that side? 

Those who have at least rudimentary understanding of commercial principles and really care about our economy should be arguing for the protection of small businesses every chance they get, instead of throwing around meaningless and confused statements like the ones in the "Intelligencer."       

Job Search: Out of Work for a Long Time


The media, politicians and economists are trying to convince everyone that recession has ended many months ago.  Well, good for recession, but from what I observe, a lot of folks are out of work.  There have to be a reason why unemployment benefits are extended up to 72 weeks in most states. 

Let's face it, the "employment gaps" are far longer now than they have been in many years.  It is especially true for CFO's and Controllers whose small and mid-size employers went out of business or contracted to the level of not being able to afford senior management.  Even though I never believed the old recruitment fable that every $10K of your desired compensation translates into one month of job hunting, the basic rules of statistics prove that it takes longer to find a high level position simply because there are less of them.  Now the available openings are further reduced by the economic contraction.  There are government aid packages designed specifically to stimulate hiring by small businesses, but it will take long time before we will see significant impact.

Knowing all that, nevertheless, does not prevent recruiters and HR managers from asking you point blank, "Why you have been out of work for such a long time?"  They know why.  They ask because they want to see how you handle the question.  Your ability to present yourself in the best light during an interview and explain the employment gap on your resume in the most appealing way is a very sensitive issue.

That is why I highly recommend that everyone, even those who are not actively looking at the moment, read The Ladders' article Why Have You Been out of Work So Long?

I don't always agree with their material, but what I like about The Ladders' advice pieces is that they give us the point of view of the hiring professionals, the very people on the other side of the table.   Those on the job market need to cater to their expectations and their mind-set.  This particular article has the most straight-forward advice on the employment gap issue I have ever seen.

I have to say, however, that almost until the end they got me worried because it seemed that the article practically recommended to make up a story to fill the gap: say whatever,  except that you were just looking for a job.  Only in the last paragraph the actual activities are implied.

And I would like to elaborate on that.  Please, don't make up stories – you never know where that may lead you.  Nobody looks for a job for 12 hours every day.  So, use your spare time to occupy yourself with one of those recommended activities, and then you can tell people about them.  Even if you buy a SOX manual and study it on your own, you can say that you have significantly expanded your internal control compliance horizons.


              

CFO’s Performance Focus


I frequently talk about psychological trends and general attitude patterns in a broad sort of sense.  Yes, large groups of people share similar traits due to comparability of their backgrounds, environments, occupational qualifications, etc.  The very reason I write for the audience of financial professionals is because I believe that our experiences have common points and the topics would be understood and accepted; that our expert qualities unite us; that metaphorically speaking we all "have been in each other shoes."  I write about our bosses, small business owners, entrepreneurs as a group of people with very strong and easily recognizable idiosyncrasies.  But I never go too far with it.  I acknowledge and value individuality and uniqueness of each person and each situation.  That is why sometimes I describe experiences of specific people, including my own.

This separates me from organizational behaviorists, especially those who popularize their science for digestion by the masses.  In their zealous attempt to fit the entire universe into a simplistic, easily explainable system, they go as far as dividing everything and everyone into 3-4 categories.  And so, they manage to divide all possible motivations, intentions and impulses that guide employees' task performance focus, into just four categories (they even claim that it applies to "any given situation"):

(1) getting the job finished, which supposedly results in speeding up, being aggressive, and careless;

(2) getting the job right, which translates, according to this theory, into nearly OCD-ish fear of making a mistake and slows people down – they are just checking and re-checking everything over and over again;

Note that these two categories are placed on the opposite sides of the matrix.

(3) get along with people – I cannot offer any comments on this motivation nor its behavioral interpretations.  Honestly, I don't know what the hell is that all about;

(4) be appreciated – Ah, this one all executives understand very well, that's what we strive for.   But why is it associated with "being heard, being assertive, contribute to others;" moreover, why is it separated from 1 and/or 2?

This is laughable!  I don't know what kind of subject group the scientists studied to draw these conclusions.   Maybe these are just empirical deductions.  Then, how many personal observations were accumulated to form these opinions?  One thing I can say for sure  – they are definitely not based on hard-working financial professionals like us – CFOs, Controllers, VPs of small and mid-size businesses. There is no possibility for us of separating "getting it done" and "getting it right."  You don't become a CFO by accomplishing either one or another. 

And it has nothing to do with the time frame, as some suggest.  Other humans maybe can switch between the two, depending on how much time they have on their hands.  Us?  We live under constant pressure to get everything done yesterday and there is no room for errors.  Of course, the good news is that if you are for real, if your expertise is not phony, if you got where you are through hard work and exceptional abilities, you cannot do it any other way.  Your qualities and professionalism carry you through and that how you get to be appreciated.  All at the same time!        

Woes of an Overwhelmed CFO


This quote has been attributed to different people, frequently (and erroneously) to even Andrew Jackson, but in fact it was John W. Raper who said,

"There is no pleasure in having nothing to do; the fun is having lots to do and not doing it." 

Oh, man, he sounds healthy!  What a laid-back guy!  No pressure gets to him?  Where do you get that kind of attitude?  I want some.

Because, in professional life of a frustrated CFO or Controller having lots to do and not doing it spells disaster, anxiety and depression, not fun.  As the matter of fact, "not doing it" is frequently a symptom of a psychological condition experienced by high achievers with multiple responsibilities. 

Images Have you been there, in that scary place?  There is so much to do, your subconsciousness tells you that there is no way all these things can be done by you.   Your entire being refuses to embark on all these tasks – you stop doing everything.  You are so overwhelmed you become paralyzed.  Everyday you tell yourself that tomorrow you will get on with it, and then you close your door and play solitaire all day.  In other words, you are on your way to a fully blown burnout.

And if you work in a small or mid-size company, no outside help is coming:  there are no Employee Assistance Programs or Stress Management Trainings.  Nobody will even notice that something is wrong.  You are on your own! 

But, wait a minute…  First of all, take a fucking Xanax and force yourself to use the moment of relaxation it gives you to not do anything at all, but think about your situation.  Do it NOW! 

Aren't you the self-reliant person who always handled your own problems and overcame all obstacles in front of you.  How did you get here in the first place?  How did you come to occupy this executive position?  Where is that person?  There must be some grains of him/her left in you.

Now, take your favorite yellow (or gray) notepad and write down all those tasks that terrify you so much – beats playing computer games.  This very long list is your basis.  Now start the next list. Title it "Delegate" and transfer here all those tasks you can delegate to your subordinates, or other departments.  Every time you list an item to delegate, cross it out on the main list. 

And don't tell me you cannot delegate anything – this is an emergency, you can and you must!  If you are a one-person show, this is the right time to talk to your boss(es) about hiring help.  Go to them with both lists – they might "surprise" you by saying they had no idea your were so overwhelmed.

The remainder of the base list needs to be further divided into four parts:  

  1. Top priority (today and next three business days)
  2. Short-term plan (next two weeks)
  3. Long-term plan (next six to eight weeks)
  4. Tentative plan aka the back burner (next 4 months, or so).

The only list you are going to look at now is that much shorter Top Priority list.  Calculate how many tasks you have there – let's say 8.  If you work like me, your working day is at least 10 hours.  The 4 business days allotted to this list is 40 hours.  This means you have 5 hours for each task.  That's it – start working on the first one.    

Still cannot do it?  Then you are in need of serious help – find yourself a good doctor.

You can find more advice in this post Time Organization as Anti-Frustration Tool.

Futurenomics of Higher Education


Item_3703People laugh at me when I talk about higher education in negative terms.  And I understand – it sounds hypocritical coming from someone with multiple academic degrees.  But times and environments change.  For my generation, higher education was far less expensive, more intellectually challenging and somewhat more rewarding than it is for young people today. 

Now colleges lower their educational values, so that the degrees seem more intellectually accessible.  The individual thinking is not cultivated anymore and slowly disappears together with independent studies.  It became all about mechanistic skills of test-taking instead of true intellectualism.   

Except for a few institutions still adhering to their academic values, most colleges' coursework does not require any reading beyond the textbooks.  This is how we end up with scores of degreed "professionals" who never read.  My famous pet peeve is having young subordinates with accounting degrees who don't understand the fundamental principles of double-entry bookkeeping. 

So, for $200,000 you get a low-grade minimal intellectual input and the promise of… What?  Nowadays, nothing.  Ok, so wealthy parents may be willing to pay this kind of money in order to delay their children's exposure to the doldrums of the adult life – as far as I am concerned, not a bad idea if you love your children and can afford to do so.  But other than that – it's really just nothing but a bad investment.  

Yet, more and more children continue entering colleges, ending up with unbearable debts.  Some are locked forever in terrible jobs, others are not capable of getting a job at all.   And people still insist that the degrees open some highly desirable doors?  Why is that? 

Because, of that stupid club mentality that pollutes every aspect of our lives.  Hiring managers and recruiters, themselves college graduates, will look down on those without the degrees, regardless of their abilities and knowledge.  This idiotic pattern has to change.  Not to boast or anything, but I always look for a spark of an intellect in a candidate's eyes before I look at the Education section on his resume.     

At the same time, we cannot deny the fact that having graduate and post-graduate degrees inhibits entrepreneurial potential of many bright and capable people.  I have been saying for years that the possibility of being paid good wages prevents people from entering the entrepreneurial route.  It's too scary to gamble on your business success if you have a steady job.   Thus, instead of building small and midsize businesses that could revive our economy, kids "all go to the university, and they all get put in boxes, little boxes, all the same." 

But this point becomes even less relevant now: those highly paid jobs opportunities will not be there in the near future.  Young people, please, you don't have to follow the rest of the sheep.  Think for yourself; let your creativity take you on the self-fulfilling journey.  And you don't have to strive to be rich and famous overnight either – not everyone is meant to be Gates or Zuckerman.  There is nothing wrong with building your own small business that will provide you with middle-class living, while creating jobs for other people on top of that.