The Frustrated CFO

CFO Folklore: You Can't Teach an "Old" Boss New Tricks

It has nothing to do with age. Notice, I adorned OLD with quotation marks. It's rather related to obstinateness, which frequently becomes a distinct mark of business ownership.  Many CEOs deliberately focus themselves on certain  commanding tasks and stunt the expansion of their knowledge in any other areas.  For example, your CEO could be a 30-year-old venture capital hot shot, or a 55-year-old veteran entrepreneur; most likely both possess mere basic computer skills.

Of course, they love electronic chotchkies, especially those that bring their huge mailboxes wherever they go. Then again, it's mostly just reading and writing emails, but not necessarily organizing. Most of them can use Word and Excel. Some can even create their own documents, but formatting, formulas, data manipulation, graphs and somesuch fancies are usually beyond them. Leave alone PowerPoint, Visio, Publisher and so on. God forbid they need to look up a customer's contact information in your ERP system - brace yourself for barrage of slander against "your choice" of software.

Obviously, the founders of high-tech startups don't count - everything "computer" comes natural to them. But I had a CEO only a few years ago who called his secretary into the office every time he needed to insert a column in a chart.  And the funniest thing happens to these people every time you send them a spreadsheet set for printing on a legal-size paper. It's like a fucking stumbling block - they will spend at least 30 minutes trying to reset the printing area to fit the letter size before crying out for help.

For those employees who don't deal with execs on a regular basis this is somewhat perplexing, considering that most of entrepreneurs are quite capable, and sometimes even brilliant, people. But for those of us who daily interact with these semi-savants, the situation is absolutely clear. The limitations have nothing to do with their natural abilities. Their responsibilities lie in developing the business and creating jobs to fill them with people, who can produce pretty reports and fancy presentations. They don't need to occupy themselves with learning new tricks.

And that's absolutely fine. In fact, if I have to choose I'd prefer them perpetuating the business than learning how to create a pivot table. Yet, some situations are simply maddening.

I've been working on a fairly complicated customer-commitment program with one of my client's owner. Now, all steps developed and all kinks worked out, the project is supposed to culminate in an Agreement document.  I drafted the first version and sent it out in the Word format for the boss's review.  

An email comes back - no attachment.  Instead, in the body of the message, there are multiple paragraphs of my document copied and pasted in black followed by his version of the same paragraphs in blue.  The crazy thing is that on the first glance they look exactly the same, but somewhere in the middle there are several words altered.  And it's like a half of the document is there.  Basically, I have to visually compare both versions of each paragraph line by line to find the damn changes.

I was like, "What the fuck?!" and picked up the phone, "Adam, what are you doing?  It seems like you've adjusted only a handful of minor points, but it will take hours to fish them out.  Why didn't you make those adjustments directly in the document?"  He is perplexed (probably thinks that I've gone momentarily stupid),"How would you know what I've changed then?  You would have to comb through the entire document."  The truth dawned on me, "You've never used Track Changes or Compare Documents functions before?"  "I've never even heard of them."

Maybe I should've been ready for this after so many years of dealing with these people.  I was somewhat stunned, nevertheless, and, in stupor, offered a training session free of charge.  "Great," he said, "I am very excited.  I will let you know when."  

I am still waiting. 

Overhead! - Every CEO's First Response to Subpar Performance Results

Of course, it would be obnoxious to generalize my observations to include the entire class of business owners and chief executives (maybe they are not all the same), but every single CEO, with whom I've ever dealt, displayed the same behavioral pattern at the first sound of "bad news."

It's one of the most unpleasant experiences many financial professionals go through from time to time. The fiscal period (month, quarter, year) is closed and you look at the bottom line that is way below the company's target, or worse - the numbers are in red. You cannot help feeling singly responsible, simply because you are the first person to stare in the face of this unfortunate reality.

Yet, while it's true that a holistic CFO, the rightful member of an executive team, shares the P&L responsibility with the rest of the decision-making crew, unless she uses extravagantly expensive capital resources, her direct responsibility for the poor performance is highly unlikely. In fact, she probably anticipated this outcome and was doing everything in her power to prevent it: fought for better informed procurement decisions, higher efficiency, sensible distribution methodology, more selective sales, and so on.

Nevertheless, here are the results. The gross profit is too low, eaten away by sub-par sales. Some of new products couldn't make any money at all due to the lack of marketing and distribution efforts. There is a delinquent debt write-off on an account blessed by the boss for open terms. All these operational losses that you tried so hard to thwart.

And now it's time to present the results to the CEO. Frustrated by the company's poor performance, worrying about the impact the loss may have on the cash-flow, formulating the bullshit you will have to feed to the bankers to spin the disappointing news, you go through the established reporting protocol, whatever it is in you company: KPI tables, graphic dashboards, formal financial statements. As I said, in my experience the delivery of the news causes the same reaction: "We have to reduce our OVERHEAD!!!"

Overhead? We've kept our general and administrative expenses (G&A) stable for years! While we doubled our volume (triple, quadruple - whatever is your case), we managed to do so with a mere 10% increase in non-operating expenses. It's the gross margin we should be discussing. Alas, your reasonable arguments will break against the wall of stubborn conviction that overhead is the source of all evil.

Afterwards, the useless exercise of scrutinizing every single category of G&A will commence. You will have very expensive meetings with highly paid executive staff, including yourself, devoting their valuable time to discussions of $5,000 monthly Federal Express charges and $500 spent on various subscriptions. While you do that, another transaction bound to lose $250,000 will materialize, and then another, and another...

Why does it always happen like this? The answer is simple: only a handful of people are capable of facing their own failures without flinching away. It is very difficult for chief execs , who are frequently involved in operational management, sales, and business development, to admit that they don't really handle their side of the business too well. So, instead of dissecting the real causes, they jump on something they rarely control. And it's really funny, because a significant portion of the overhead is created by them. You know - travel, dinners, drinks, limos, perks, etc.

Showtime's "House of Lies" Showcases "Big Business"

Showtime methodically continues expanding its gallery of likable bastards - you know, those characters who consistently behave badly, violate conventional "morality" in every other screenshot, show complete disregard for their "fellow humans," and yet entice the adoring audience to watch their screen-capades every week, sins and all. Brian Kinney ("Queer as Folk"), Nancy Botwin ("Weeds"), Hank Moody ("Californication"), Jackie Peyton ("Nurse Jackie"), the Gallaghers ("Shameless") - they all have devoted followers who adore them despite their multiple faults and vices.

Now comes Marty Kaan (Don Cheadle), the ruthless management consultant who, together with his younger team members, would stop at nothing to rake more billable hours and expenses into their employer's purse. To make the main characters more or less palatable to the audience, and at times even lovable and pitiful, the show goes beyond the beaten path of showing their human side in personal situations - it pitches them against the somewhat two-dimensional, but decisively abhorrent, cast of clients who, in the viewers' minds, "deserve" to be taken advantage of, if for no other reason but to restore the sense of "social justice."

This means that the show doesn't go after small businesses - that could be risky as the viewers might feel compassion for the struggling owners, and, more importantly, it would demand from them a sufficient familiarity with commercial specifics. Moreover, even people with no exposure to actual business activities understand that no small company can afford Marty's team's first-class airfare and stretch-SUV limos.

In fact, the clients are all large businesses that seem to be plucked out of the media coverage, which makes them not just the Big Bad Wolves, but the familiar ones as well. These are the entities that, at the very least, come into the peripheral vision of the general public. You've got your proverbial bank, tainted by sub-prime mortgages and riding the bailout wave; an obnoxious teenage high-tech billionaire; a national budget-hotel chain helmed by racist Mormons, etc.

Not-businessy people ask me if the show reflects the reality of the every-day business life. My answer is, "No." And it's not because there are no consulting firms, businesses, engagements, and people like the ones we see in the show, or that the writers get the terminology wrong. Actually they get a lot of things right and I wouldn't be surprised if the writing staff compiled by Matthew Carnahan for this show has at least a few people with MBA's in their past. At times they even go too far in their realism: I wonder, for example, what percentage of the audience understands what KPI's are.

The reason the show has nothing to do with the life most business people live is that the Big Business's actual existence is unreal and makes no common sense. Their paper-financed operations, the influence on the government, the executive compensations, the excessive spenditures on... mmm... everything, the actions they get away with - they are surreal and grotesque. But, I guess, that makes it even more fitting for entertainment purposes.

That said, there were a few observations within the first 5 episodes of the show that not only rang very true to my ears, but some were already addressed in this blog's posts:

1. Within the first 10 minutes of the pilot, Marty explains to the audience how the "afterwork" is attained: make them feel like their business is going to fail without you and tons of billable hours will be generated (see 05/14/2011 post Case Study: The Marketing of Fear).

2. The member of Kaan's team responsible for crunching numbers and analyzing clients' financials looks timidly and acts awkwardly in social situations, representing the classical Hollywood stereotype of an accounting professional (see 10/26/2010 post He Looks Like an Accountant...).

3. The core substance of dynamics between various CEOs and CFOs so frequently discussed here (just go to the "Bosses" category) is accurately captured in a very schematic way, which actually manages to make it almost biblical in its generality: a prim-spined, heartless bully, bent on doing the things his way, whether it's good for the business or not (the Boss), on one side and a somewhat hunched, practical, reasonable, subordinate, but still powerful in his own sneaky way schemer (CFO) on the other.

4. Finally, the ultimate truth I have an occasion to repeat at least once every day: everything in this world is a matter of perception, or, as Marty Kaan puts it, "Data dump is the key; everything else is horseshit, except PERCEPTION, which is horseshit you can leverage."

CFO Folklore: Joke of the Day

From an actual email exchange:

CEO:    "I wonder when my crack accounting team planned to tell me about this previously unknown accrual!"

CFO:     "First of all, it's not crack, it's dope!  Secondly, the accrual is only 5 minutes old and you are already informed.  We are not in an AT&T commercial, you know."

 

 

A CFO's Democratism Gets Tested

In most smaller companies, CFOs and controllers include general HR functions into their scopes of responsibilities - that's a given. The flat organizational structures, though, with their spatial and psychological proximity of top executives to the staff, play peculiar tricks on those in charge of the company's human relations.

Very frequently a CFO takes a role of a buffer between the owner/CEO and the rest of the company's employees. She feels obligated to soften the impact of the direct dealing with frequently harsh and hard attitudes of the boss.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: more frequently than not entrepreneurs don't have an experience of ever being in a position of an employee and, therefore, they have very little understanding of the staff's mentality. On the other hand, a CFO maybe a right-hand person now, but she is still just a salaried employee, most likely grown into her current status by climbing through the ranks. If she is a decent human with a conscience, she is sensitive to the needs of valuable employees and cares about their well-being (if they are useless, let someone else care about them).

It's likely that an excellent CFO would enjoy a comparatively preferential treatment by a CEO: more disciplinary leniency, nicer attitude, better perks, general amiability, etc. When it comes to other employees, their efforts and achievements may be remarkable, but they are not as evident to the boss, and that reduces their value in his eyes. I've had one CEO openly tell me that if I want a certain benefit (let's say flexible spending account) for myself, he would be fine with obtaining it, but he did not care about the rest of the "worker-bees."

So, the CFO takes it upon herself to protect other employees from undue tyranny and act as their speaker when it comes to betterment of the employment conditions, whatever they are: raises, bonuses, vacations, benefits, etc. Sort of like a representative of the XYZ Company's employees union. And when she discusses this situation with her friends and family, she expresses her disdain for the undemocratic ways of her boss, taking pride in her efforts to right the wrongs.

Now imagine such a CFO taking a position with a new company - small, young, still pretty much in development stage. The owners are very liberal and treat everyone like equals. Moreover, the CFO is the last person being hired. Those few other employees have been there from the start. Nobody needs protection. Furthermore, there is one person who has been there the longest, starting as a CEO's assistant. Not that she gets any special perks or something like that, but she definitely feels very secure.

This should make the democratic CFO very happy. After all, wasn't she fighting for equality of other employees all the time before? Yes, it's nice; wonderful, really; exactly what she hoped to find... Except that... Being "the chosen one" was kind of a guilty pleasure too, an enjoyable self-esteem booster. And the gratitude of others for all that blow-cushioning effort was very rewarding as well. As important as the democratic principles were to this CFO, the old tyranny is somewhat missed.

That's how we, humans, are. For various reasons and purposes, mostly subconsciously and without any malice, we create these little lies that alter our self-image and other people's perception of us in one way or another.

It reminds me of my UK friend of many years, Gerald Hamer's, revelation concerning his constant bitching and moaning about endless international traveling he had to endure throughout many years of his impressive career as financial broker and adviser. "In truth," he said, "deep inside I love the goddamn airports; the sub-par plane food; the inevitable delays; god-forsaken Yakutsk, the coldest city on Earth, with its diamond mines one week, and unbearable humidity of Bahrain another. I wouldn't want it any other way."

So, all you, democratic CFOs out there, work as hard as you can and fight for your employees' well-being with all you've got, but be honest with yourself: you enjoy being special, the Most Valuable Player in the field.

Scenes from a Business Lunch, or the Obnoxious Rudeness of Business Owners

Speaking of lunches (and I swear this is my last holiday post of the year)...

Because there are so many corporate holiday events in December, many business people from all over the country and overseas come to New York City during the month.  Customers, suppliers, vendors, associates, partners, and other relations visit their customers, clients, etc.  So, on top of the parties, you've got lunches with out-of-towners. This is a perfect opportunity to observe the business-owners' behavior in a "casual" group setting (as opposed to conference rooms and other natural habitats).

For many visitors this is also a good occasion for combining business and pleasure (after all, NYC is still #6 most favored tourist city in the world and #1 nation-wide) and quite a few bring their spouses along.  Some are actually in business with their spouses.

At the most recent lunch outing of this kind my guests were a manufacturing business owner by himself, another business owner with a wife, an alpha-female head of a consulting group, and a husband and wife attorneys sharing a corporate legal practice. Fun bunch!  Don't worry kids, it's only going to get worse!

The manufacturer asked for a coke and downed it really fast; then had it refilled several times throughout the meal.  This, naturally, resulted in a fast accumulation of a lot of gas in his stomach, which he unceremoniously belched out every 10 minutes, or so.  It was obviously a habitual occurrence, because he did not even bother to apologize.  It's amazing, how we learned to hide our emotions in "business" situations - everyone pretended not to notice it, even though once in a while one could catch a hint of a smirk or disgust (depending on the personality) playing on the lips of other guests.

[Side note: This reminds me of another experience in my arsenal of wonderful memories.  Early in my career I worked for a company, whose owner, in my mind, will forever carry a title of The Farting Boss.  He was middle-aged, but had a younger second wife and wanted to loose weight by drinking glass after glass of Slim Fast.  This made him very gassy.  The man mastered the skill of silent farting, but the smell was literally unbearable.  Imagine my situation - we sat in the same room.  Good times!]

The lady consultant first tried her sales pitch on every guest around the table, but quickly lost her enthusiasm, when she realized that nobody is interested in her services, except for me.  Since my company already had a contract with her, she did not see a reason to waste anymore time on us and turned her attention to the Blackberry, answering emails between bites and white-wine sips.

The married businessman first attacked his wife in a very loud whisper (it could be heard even at the neighboring tables) for wearing shoes with heels.  This apparently slowed down his purposefully brisk gait that went well, I am sure, with his aggressive mannerisms.  After the woman's eyes welled up with tears he abandoned her to fight it back on her own and observed the rest of the battlefield in front of him.  Dismissing the burping guy and all females as inferior creatures, he concentrated his self-affirmation efforts on the attorney sitting across the table from him.

They went at each other like two roosters in a Filipino cockpit.  "Have you read this?"  "Do you know that guy?"  "I bought Apple at $25 and just sold it at $375." "I am keeping mine - it will be $500 a share in a year."  "I closed that famous private equity deal this year." "I brought this much venture capital to my business."  "I am opening new factory in China."  "We have a law office in Hong Kong!"

God!  I contemplated the scene thinking, "The things we must tolerate to earn a living!"    

Apple's iAd Division Celebrates Christmas

December is still with us and so are the corporate X-mas parties. The holiday cheer is inescapable for the dogged blogger like me.

Did you know that large public corporations, with their in-house event planners working schedules way in advance, always manage to have their parties as close to Christmas Day as possible? I guess it signifies how "family-like" those organizations are.

Apple's latest branching out child, the iAd division, held its party just six days before Christmas - on Monday, December 19th. Constructed out of the body parts of a mobile advertising start-up Quattro Wireless, acquired by the maker of iPhones and iPads in 2010, iAd was not moved to Apple Campus in Cupertino, CA. Instead, it stayed in the advertising capital of the world - New York City, albeit swapping the original small office in SoHo for a 45,000 square-foot expanse on Fifth Avenue at Union Square.

Everything needs to project an intended image! And so, they celebrated the traditional combination of year-end holidays in a semi-trendy restaurant in Chelsey, which is themed to alleviate nostalgic pangs of transplants from more humble regions of the US, while entertaining other patrons with a taste of Americana not found on the streets of Manhattan.

The spirit-lifting intent, customarily reserved for such parties, acquired a somewhat militant hue as iAd's execs came to the microphone, each with his own discourse on the same topic: "They all want to see us fail! But we will show them! We'll distroy them all!" Underneath all that bravado, however, there were unmistakable notes of fear. It's understandable, of course. iAd is locked in severe competition with Google for the $630 million market of ads streaming through smart phones directly into the sensory system of general public, incapable of ungluing itself from the beloved devices. The things are not going too well, though.

Apple first lost the edge when it couldn't outbid Google in acquisition of AdMob and had to settle for Quattro Wireless as a less desirable second choice. Advertisers have already rejected the original requirement of $1 million minimum commitment, which now has been slashed by more than 50%. And October departure of Quattro Wireless's founder Andy Miller, who originally accepted an Apple's VP position to lead the iAd team, only intensified the apprehension. This is public-company world - everything is about perception. The execs know their plight: today you are a big shot, but if you don't perform, you are out.

Booze and abusive behavior are traditional fear-drowning remedies for insecure males. The former was thoughtfully accommodated by the party organizers via the open-bar arrangement. Most attendees took advantage of the limitless supply; some with an enthusiasm of newborn calves, who need to be taken away from the udder lest they drink themselves to death. There was this one high-echelon specimen (let's call him The Boss's Boss) who was especially determined to stupefy himself, knocking down one gin after another. As he reached a certain condition, the desire to abuse could not be contained.

One of the waitresses serving the party was a remarkably attractive young woman (let's call her The Striking Girl). She had that star quality about her that causes double takes; something Nora Ephron once described as magnetism that makes a man across the room go, "Get me that!" An obvious target for a drunken bully.

He started by shoving a decorative tree onto her as she was passing. "I am pushing bush on bush," he sneered to other men around him. The Striking Girl didn't say anything - he was a customer. She remained poised and diligently went about her job.

You see, the thing about the hospitality industry in New York City is that a significant portion of waiting, bar-tending, catering, etc. staff consists of struggling writers, artists, actors, musicians - the creative hopefuls. Service jobs are usually divided into shifts and one can combine them into a flexible schedule that leaves time to attend to the true calling. The Striking Girl, as it turned out, happened to be an aspiring writer and a filmmaker, with her first short recently accepted to one of the New York's indie festivals. It explained her composure: she prepares herself to dealing with Hollywood and getting her ego bruised on daily basis.

So, she continued being friendly and pleasant to other attendees. When someone spoke with a Russian accent, she mentioned that she was born in St. Petersburg and was brought to New York as a baby by her political-refugee parents. The Boss's Boss, now never far away from her, heard that. "I have a friend," he said, "he just loves banging Russian pussy."

Next time he caught her in the tiny space of the service station. "Did you come to apologize?" she asked calmly. He thrust his drunken mug into her fragile cheek and responded with,"There is no need for apologies. It's that St. Petersburg love, baby."

Hey, I am a middle-aged broad. I know only too well that chivalry is dead, buried, its corpse rotted into dust long time ago. Still, it's shocking that not a single so-called "man" felt an urge to speak up on behalf of the young lady.

Is this the type of culture Apple Inc. cultivates? Of abusively unrestrained bosses and silent yes-men?

I wonder, how the parents of the Striking Girl felt, when they learned of this incident? Is this the type of democracy and liberty we offer here, in the United States of America, now? Any corporate honcho is free to behave like a dirty animal, while everyone else acts as if their mouths taped shut?

By the way, did you know that corporate execs in public companies get stocks as part of their bonuses? Well, I've sold my Apple stock after that party. The thought that my holding on to them may contribute to the further rise of share prices and one day make the Boss's Boss richer made me sick.

Quote of the Week

In one of my previous posts (Warning: "Horrible Bosses") I've bashed the movie as a pointless, shallow, and phantasmagorical take on workplace relationships between senior staff and their bosses.  I've expressed the combined frustrations of a financial professional and an entertainment connoisseur about the pollution of our cultural environment with yet another low-value cinematic opus, painfully focused on one of the central topics of this blog. 

I still stand on the same position.  But that doesn't prevent me from objectively acknowledge that the silly flick has provided Colin Farrell with an opportunity to deliver his most farcical performance to date in his pitch-perfect American accent.  His Bobby Pellitt is a caricature of those real people I describe (the ones who think that GAAP and GAP are the same things).  The following exchange (Huffington Post nominated it as one of the funniest movie quotes of the year), written by Michael Markowitz and John Francis Daley, is both funny and probable:

Bobby:  We need to trim some of the fat.

Kurt:  What do you mean by trim the fat?

Bobby:  I want you to fire the fat people. They're lazy and they're slow and they make me sad to look at.

 

 

Joke of the Day

Based on an actual conversation.

New CFO: "Half of your in-transit inventory is not recorded on the books, because you have not followed the cost-recognition rules since you started this company six years ago."

CEO: "The books? Which books? Do you mean the Excel spreadsheet we call Order Book?"

New CFO (doesn't know whether to cry or to laugh): "Your books - your financial records! They are not in accordance with GAAP."

CEO: "GAP? What that cheap store has to do with our inventory?"

Insecure Business Owner/CEO

People write about insecure bosses all the time. There are blog posts, articles, book chapters, cartoons, movies, and TV shows devoted to the subject of dealing with a superior who feels threatened by his subordinates.  Hey, bosses are people and a vast majority of humanity is plagued by insecurities of various forms and degrees. The authors usually predict two possible outcomes of having such a boss: you will either find a way to overcome the problem and turn this person into your ally, or you get fired.  Curiously, in these writings "the boss" in question is usually another hired employee perched on a higher step of the hierarchy ladder.  (It has always surprised me, why these advisers never consider a possibility of you finding the way of getting the insecure boss fired.)

However, when your insecure boss owns the company that employs you, it's a completely different situation altogether.  Here he (or she, or they) was, the big boss with a business that he's built, thinking that he is the shit, the sharpest tool not just in some lousy shed, but in a suburban Home Depot... Until you came along, with your diverse expertise, broad fundamental knowledge, etc.

Now, you start discovering all kind of stupid stuff.  If you are indeed an experienced person, you are not running around like an idiotic show-off screaming that everything is wrong.  No, you tread lightly.  At the same time you must do your job and, therefore, correct the stupid stuff.  So, you say careful things like, "Excuse me, I mean no disrespect, but this and that is not done properly and will result in long-term losses; and, by the way, your accounting doesn't comply with prescribed rules."  You have no choice but to reveal painful observations such as, "You know, that operating system you bought just before your hired me (couldn't you wait?) on recommendation of someone you know, sucks!  You were misled - it's not an ERP, it's a retarded cousin of a real ERP twice removed."

Moreover, from time to time, things come out of your boss's mouth that are not just silly, they are embarrassingly incorrect.  Of course, you can ignore it, and yet you cannot, because if you don't clarify his confusions and educate him, he may say something stupid in front of your bankers, or investors, or auditors.  So, you have no choice but to find an appropriate way to straighten him out, raise his sophistication.

And even though you openly express due respect for his entrepreneurial abilities and acute commercial intuition, he cannot avoid feeling inadequate, insecure.  It's unpleasant and he doesn't like it at all.  Yet, unless you become rude and inappropriate, your job is secure.  The idea of firing you wouldn't even come to his logical conscious mind.  First of all, he knows that the company (i.e. his wallet) needs you and your improvements.  Secondly, you took over quite few tasks, freeing him for business development.   Finally, he doesn't have time or desire to go through the search process again.

Still, from time to time the subconsciousness feels pangs of wounded ego.  When that happens, he'll do anything to make himself feel better.  He will find one or another way to get back at you.  If you have an accent (Irish, Italian, Slavic, French), he will interrupt you in the middle of a meeting and ask the outsiders if they understand at least 30% of what you were saying, even though your English is fluent.  Your writing skills are likely to be far more superior than his, but he will make you run drafts of emails to important people by him, claiming their "political importance."  He may get into habit of reminding you that, considering your compensation, he expects a lot from you, even though you have exceeded all his expectations already.  And so on, and so forth...  

This behavior is childish.  The mere knowledge that it's rooted in his insecurity should help you to brush it off.  Don't let yourself to be hurt by it.  Don't think, "This is not fair, I am helping his business."  Don't take it as an insult.   Accept it as a testimony to your superiority.