The Frustrated CFO

HBO's "Girls" Still Play with "Tiny Furniture" - Part V: What Is to Be Done?

Continued from the Previous Post

There is a moment of truth (actually, two truths) at the end of "Tiny Furniture." Aura (Lena Dunham) tells her mother, "I want to be as successful as you are." And that's all it is about: not the Story, not the characters, not the message, not the art; it's about fame and recognition. If you ever watch her talk-show interviews, notice how she never looks at the audience. She doesn't care what their reaction to her is. She is intent on the celebrity host in front of her - always ready with some statement of admiration.

In response to Aura's (Lena's) admission, her mother (Lena Dunham's real mother) says, "Oh, you will be more successful than I am. Really, believe me." And that's, ladies and gentlemen, is a promise made by someone who knows a full power of her influence. Many mothers are ready to sacrifice their lives for their children, but only a few, have means to part the Red Sea of obstacles in the way of their offspring's march to success.

Some people, I am sure, will be surprised by the extent of this five-part "feature article." Well, what can I say? Nepotism is one of my themes. It happens everywhere and pretty much in the same manner, but an entertainment case is easy to breakdown into crucial components for everyone to understand.

Lena Dunham is not a talentless person. She is apparently an intelligent and well-read cinephile. Most likely, if I met her casually, I would enjoy talking to her. But she did benefited from nepotism unfairly - her output did not deserve all the noise around her. Maybe eventually she would arrive there anyway, with more mature and important material. Instead, she got ahead of other talented and brilliant young people, who are deprived of the ability to deliver their important messages to the world because they have no connections and no funds to produce their projects or hire PR firms.

And that's, boys and girls, where your already hopeless economic predicament becomes even more hopeless. The resources that could've been used for worthier projects (or jobs that could've been filled by worthier candidates) go to those who have connections. Some Internet writers predict "Lena Dunham's inevitable world domination," and they are absolutely correct - the connected people will always know how to work the world machine to their advantage.

So, 150 years after Chernyshevsky, I have to ask the same question, "What is it to be done?" Well, I am not claiming to be a revolutionary. As a matter of fact, I always say that Compromise is my middle name. You don't get to have any career at all if you don't play along at least to some degree.

So, the only advice I can render is this. If you have a real talent and desire to succeed, don't give up. Work hard and produce deliverable products; fight your fears and insecurities; build your own connections; keep people in your iPhone, even if you don't like them; knock at all doors and use whatever resources you can gather to help you reach your targets. I cannot promise that it will work, but if you don't keep trying, only lena-dunhams will always win.

The End

HBO's "Girls" Still Play with "Tiny Furniture" - Part IV: What's the Big Deal?

Continued from the Previous Post

So, why "Girls" are lauded as unique, original, ballsy, even revolutionary?

Is the writing that astonishingly good? Well, for me good writing means story and character development; the more layers, the better. And as hard as I tried, I have not seen any of that in "Tiny Furniture" or in "Girls." In fact, the most fitting description of the situational comedy that came off Lena Dunham's printer so far would be sketches, sticky notes transplanted from a mac-book onto the proverbial silver screen. I've seen 90-second student movies with more story substance. Yet, what else can we expect from someone who experiences "a joy of writing." Let me give you a quote from Thomas Mann: "A writer is someone for whom writing is more difficult than it is for other people." But, of course, the great Noble Prize laureate was talking about REAL WRITING.

Is it the recognizable dialogue plucked straight from today's conversations? The use of the momentary phraseology that is on everyone's lips today and completely forgotten tomorrow? But I thought Diablo Cody has already been improbably celebrated and rewarded with an Oscar for that.

Is it the fantastic directing skills? Seriously? Some of the shot choices make me dizzy. Acting? Ms. Dunham's acting is limited to changing her real-life masks (you know, cheerful buddy one minute, snooty bitch - another), but acting out a scripted emotion - so far it comes off wooden. The whole hire-who-you-know method didn't work too well for the rest of the cast either, except for maybe Jemima Kirke, who is a natural.

Is it because the creator is 26? Well, we've been blessed by young filmmakers before. The brilliant and defiant Harmony Korine was 22 when he wrote astonishingly raw "Kids," 24 when he wrote and directed "Gummo," and 26 when his heart-breaking "Julien Donkey-Boy" came out.

Is it because the creator of the show is naked a lot? Apparently Ms. Dunham thinks it's groundbreaking - she talked about it in many interviews. But let me tell you: every cultured kid from New York, regardless whether her/his parents are artists or financial execs, have been exposed to truly revolutionary artists who used their naked bodies as artistic media: Matthew Barney and Marina Abramovic come to mind first and foremost. These people already broke the ground and the young creators who've seen them have stepped over the naked barrier.

Is it sex? Oh, excuse me, the awkward sex? Common, the show is on the cable channel that brought us Real Sex series.

And who can seriously claim that it's edgy, when we have "Homeland" and "Nurse Jackie" on Showtime?

So, you see, there is nothing special or unique about it. It's just a carefully designed media campaign. But it works, it always does. It managed to create the hype, to convince viewers that Lena Dunham, through her personal experiences, represents the entire generation. 3.8 million people watched the first three episode.

In reality, Lena Dunham's personal experience and power of imagination are so limited that every time the situtation goes outside of her immediate surroundings, she needs a co-writer. But it doesn't matter. That three-episode viewing statistic was enough for HBO to renew the show for the second season even before the 4-th episode aired. As Hannah's boyfriend says in that crucial third episode, "We are only as blind as we want to be."

To be Concluded

HBO's "Girls" Still Play with "Tiny Furniture" - Part III: This Is How It's Done

Continued from the Previous Post

Lena Dunham is unabashedly bold about her position in the world. She provides a straightforward example of how it's done in "Tiny Furniture": you have a friend with an art-dealing father who cannot say no and puts up your horrible, stupid video in his gallery.

In the sixth episode of "Girls" Ms. Dunham throws hapless Hannah Horvath's mask away (who cares about the inconsistent characterization?), fixes a bewildered look on a Michigan girl with a plan to go to Hollywood, and asks if this person has connections, people who can arrange auditions, ways to get in. Because in Ms. Dunham's mind, the only people who have rights to be in the entertainment world are people like her, the ones supported by a network of contacts.

And why would she think differently? Life comes with very specific benefits when your mother's photos are displayed at the Met, the MoMA, the Guggenheim, and the Whitney, among other places.  Did Laurie Simmons ventured into making a musical short starring Meryl Streep in 2006 for the pure purpose of getting her foot into the filmmaking business?  The same year she produces Lena's first short "Dealing," which somehow gets accepted at Slamdance, while thousands of much stronger films from all around the world are rejected. 

Three years later Lena graduates from college and now it's time for things to start really happening.  I can just picture Ms. Simmons telling the curators at Guggenheim, "Did you see my daughter's web series Delusional Downtown Divas'?  It's all about the art phonies!  It's hilarious!" And before you know it, Lena is commissioned by the museum to produce another 10 episodes of tedious sketches, set in a plethora of Tribeca wealth, to be projected at the first annual Art Awards.  She is also invited to host the event.  Isn't it awesome to have that on your bio and resume? 

Still, I don't understand how "Creative Nonfiction" got accepted at 2009 SXSW.  I've seen much better movies with real stories and characters, written, directed, and shot by young aspiring filmmakers, who sent their work in and got "sorry, you were rejected" emails.  Then again, it's very possible that Lena Dunham's first feature got sent directly to Janet Pierson (head of the festival).  After all, when written in four days "Tiny Furniture" was finished, the writer/director/star managed to get a post-deadline waiver, enter in January 2010 and win 2010 SXSW Best Narrative Feature Award in early March.     

Here is a challenge for my readers: how many independent film festival's winners get to have multiple gala-premiers in places such as Brooklyn Academy of Music and MoMa?  I found only one - the one that stars a famous artist, "Tiny Furniture."

And then, of course, there are publicists (check out ID Public Relations). For all we know, Lena has been their client since nursery school (both Dunham and Jemima Kirke were featured in Vogue as preteens). Let me explain for the uninitiated.  If you can afford to pay steep PR fees, publicists will be the ones responsible for putting together smart websites for all your opuses, writing press releases and bios, contacting publications, etc. 

They will get you on 25 Independent Filmmakers list (Ms. Dunham was featured in 2009, right after "Creative Nonfiction").  They will make sure you are featured on one or another talk show.  Through their personal connections (again!) with writers and editors, they will get you a NY Times profile (03/19/2010) and a movie review (11/11/2010) after your big win at SXSW.  No publicist?  You are shit outta luck.  Robbie Pickering won the Best Narrative Feature this year. The Gray Lady completely ignored his existence. 

It just a fact of my life that I came to know someone who worked in the entertainment PR and explained this to me, but for those who want a second opinion I recommend to watch "Nurse Jackie," episode 2.3.

We may never know how exactly the mechanics of personal connections worked for Lena Dunham, but we do know for a fact that thirty-something Jenni Konner, who's been working on various TV projects since 2001 and now happily serves as an executive producer on "Girls," was outfitted with a box of "Tiny Furniture" DVDs she pushed into hands of every single person she knew in Hollywood, including her "Undeclared" boss Judd Apatow.

The uber-successful Hollywood tsar of awkward comedy seems to be on a mission to show the world that life sucks for everyone, but everything going to be Ok at the end. A privileged girl having an unhappy moment in a huge Tribeca loft - how could he possibly resist?  Keep in mind, the man does have two pre-teen daughters, whose acting "talents" he promotes in his own movies. He simply had to offer Lena Dunham millions of dollars to plow her shallow-themed field on television.

To Be Continued

HBO's "Girls" Still Play with "Tiny Furniture" - Part II: Psychological Nepotism

Continued from the Previous Post

But Lena Dunham is not a "regular" person. Far from it. Her parents have enveloped her entire being into nepotistic shroud of cultural connections. More importantly, however, they bestowed upon her, what I call, the psychological nepotism - a phenomenon specific to wealthy families with no worries for the children's material wellbeing in the future. The ability to provide for their children far beyond their own graves turns these parents into blind believers that whatever their daughters and sons poop out are unmatchable manifestations of incredible talents.

Let me give you an example.  I remember many years ago Alec Baldwin telling David Letterman how him and his then-wife Kim Basinger were playing tennis and their three-year-old daughter touched a racquet. Kim started talking incessantly about the child's "being drawn" to the sport and a possibility of John McEnroe "taking a look." Are you catching my drift?

I believe that Ms. Dunham herself is somewhat aware of impact the psychological nepotism has on privileged children. In the third episode of "Girls," when Jessa is introduced to her babysitting charges by their mom, a filmmaker, we learn that the little girls (I think 6 and 9) have several "incredible" projects in the making: painting a toy animal, a mosaic project, a novel that requires editing...

My readers may think I am a "material" bitch stifling "normal" children's creative aspirations. That's laughably far from the truth. I firmly believe that real talents should be encouraged to go the distance no matter how hard the road ahead is. However, my standards are pretty high. On the other hand, "connected" parents turn everything into a tightly managed "artistic" output and treat every piece of a mediocre crap as a fucking masterpiece. 

Judd Apatow keeps saying in different interviews that for him writing is an extension of his struggle for self-esteem, while Lena just goes and enjoys herself, merrily banging at the keyboard. And it makes perfect sense: no matter how much success he will achieve, Judd will always need to prove his worth to himself, while Lena Dunham was born with the idea that everything she does - every nursery school drawing, every little story for the English class, every small part she had in a school play, is absolutely, indisputably precious. As it frequently happens, when nepotism is at play, the quality is irrelevant - the products get pushed through all available channels anyway.

To Be Continued

HBO's "Girls" Still Play with "Tiny Furniture" - Part I: The Predicament

I frequently talk about the hopelessness of life prospects for most people in their twenties. In my post Futurenomics of Higher Education, I wrote about practical uselessness of college degrees for the majority of these kids. Anyone with half a brain can see that a staggering number of recent grads will never be able to buy houses in the same neighborhoods their parents did, enjoy nice vacations, pay for their children's education or elderly care.

And it's unfair, because on average the generation in question stands on much higher ethical grounds than, us - their parents: they are more open-minded, more accepting of diversity, more environmentally aware. At least the kids in their twenties that I personally know deserve a better future than we've set up for them. For years now, I've been like, "Hello! These young college grads have nowhere to go! Can we start talking about this issue?"

Be careful what you wish for! Better yet, try to define your wishes more accurately, because it does matter who talks and what they say. There are speakers with trite messages who have access to the channels unavailable to others. They confuse the eager audiences into seeing what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.  When Lena Dunham's movie "Tiny Furniture" was propelled into their view by an inadequately strong PR campaign, they mistook the depiction of someone's feeling momentarily insecure for an introspective statement relevant to the entire generation.

In truth, the movie is nothing more than a photograph (it's ironic that it was shot on an SLR camera) of a bad moment in a life of a privileged girl, whose existence has nothing to do with the reality experienced by the majority of people. As such, it does have some bits of stark vulnerability familiar to many unattractive people. However, as the cinema critic for New York Magazine David Edelstein pointed out "Lena Dunham is so much smaller than life."

In that, she essentially upholds a fine family tradition by following in her mother's (a renown photo-artist Laurie Simmons) footsteps: playing with toys, showing ersatz characters in artificial surroundings, miniaturizing settings and issues to the point of irrelevance. For me, the smallness of the subject matter combined with the repetitiveness of self-pitying incidents turned "Tiny Furniture" into a lack-luster drag. If Lena Dunham were a "regular" person this film would have never been made, won Best Feature at SXSW, and led to the HBO's new series "Girls" bankrolled by Judd Apatow and created by Ms. Dunham, who also stars as a central character.  She also wrote and directed most of the first season's episodes.

To Be Continued

Respect Your Audience: Reflections Triggered by Matthew Good's Concert at Mercury Lounge

Let's face it - most of business professionals, including CFO's and controllers, like hearing themselves talk. Frequently, we cannot stop ourselves, going on and on about some business matter, or bitching about some subordinate, or superior, or peer. Presentations are too long to hold listeners' attention, pitches are unfocused, emails look like novellas, and meeting speeches are self-aggrandizing. There is no denying - that pervasive affliction of humanity, narcissism, is inescapable.

The sad truth is that by doing this we depreciate ourselves - people see it as overcompensation for hidden insecurities. Moreover, such behavioral tendencies give the listeners a good reason to be dismissive. They will feel disrespected and resist to be receptive.

However, even with that affliction sometimes obstructing our way to successful communications, most of us have enough common sense and professional experience not to offend our audience with outright insults. The nature of our positions forces us to be diplomatic. We are in the business of dealing with brash bosses, prima-donna sales people, sensitive customers, important bankers, strategic suppliers, valuable subordinates, and whoever else the job brings into our habitats. The words we use and thoughts we express have a potential of affecting our company's business in a positive or negative way. So, we'd better be respectful, and, most of the time, we are.

These thoughts kept popping into my head last week during Matthew Good's concert at Mercury Lounge. The whole experience was a bit strange. I've been listening to this Canadian rocker's beautiful music, channeled through his amazing vocal and guitar skills, since the 90s (God bless them!). Now, standing right in front of the tiny stage, I've observed a 40-year-old (looking over 50), kinda balding, kinda pudgy, unkempt man, who managed to down three large glasses of gin in a span of 90 minutes. 

It was unexpected, but I really-really don't care what people look like as long as they do their job well. And I've got to say, when Mr. Good sang, it made you forget everything: his age, your age, what he looks like, and what you look like now, and all the shit that happened in 20 years since you first heard him. The trouble was the man sang only half the time.

Dana Carvey once said that all comedians want to be rock stars; apparently, and vice versa. Matthew talked after every song (literally): SNL sketches, whooping cough epidemic in Vancouver, one of his kids being a bastard, postnasal drip, Lance (his guitar Dobby/drinks server/on-the-road chef), hot dogs - what have you. I was standing there thinking, "Dude, do your job, sing. Have some fucking respect - it's midnight on a Wednesday night, some of us worked all day and have to work tomorrow."

It got worse: as the blood alcohol level was rising, his widely known political side started coming out. When he began throwing accusations regarding American government's shadiness mixed with condescending remarks like, "You should know what your government is doing" into the audience (thanks, dude, without your Canadian ass I wouldn't know how to form political opinions!), someone else voiced, "What about your government?"

But at the end, it was an issue related to his own music, with which he hit the ultimate low of disrespect. The exhausted, but still forgiving fans started throwing song requests at him; some from The Matthew Good Band's first album "Last of the Ghetto Astronauts." "There is a better chance for my starting chewing crack than for your forcing me to sing anything from that album. Common, people, admit it - that was crap written by a 24-year-old." This is to those who bought the album and listened to it since 1995, plus many members of the audience who are in their 20s now, yet know every word of lyrics you wrote when they were wearing pampers? How offensive is that?

Essentially, touring musicians are in business of selling their albums and solidifying their fan base, thus making sure that people will buy tickets again and again. In that, they are not much different from other business professionals.  The way I see it, they should be afraid to lose their paying customers the same way we do. Alas, Matthew Good thinks differently. Well, I'm not buying next time.

Audit Season Woes

As a corporate controller, CFO, and consultant, I've been on auditees' side of the table for the past 20 years. Yet, I still remember the gratifying excitement of coming to a company as an auditor and testing the depth of my expert knowledge in an unfamiliar territory, quickly absorbing the business's specifics and immediately identifying the scope of testing. Well, Ok, I've been called a "show-off" and "know-it-all" many times, so forget me. Over the years, there were other public accounting professionals (not many, but some), who impressed me with their knowledge and sharpness, but it doesn't happen anymore.

I've been complaining about the decline of the quality of work across all jobs, from customer service representatives on the phone to the cardiologists in fancy hospitals, for years. But somehow I still get very frustrated when I encounter the same trend in my own profession. I cannot even explain why. After all, I am very conscious of the managerial accountants' limitations. The main reason for writing "CFO Techniques" was the desire to fill their knowledge gaps. Just a few weeks ago I wrote about The Unimaginable Abyss of Accounting Ignorance in the small-business environment. So, I should not be surprised when I am faced with the same situation while dealing with financial auditors. Nevertheless, it still gets me.

It's audit season, so in the past couple of weeks I've been helping my client (a young company) to go through their very first independent year-end examination of books and records. It's conducted by a small CPA firm hired before my consulting engagement commenced.

Under my guidance, the client's accountants did what I always advise to do in preparation for an audit (see Chapter 30, What Guarantees Fast and Painless Audit, in "CFO Techniques"), i.e. they loaded the appointed auditor in advance with statements and schedules of data required to make all testing decisions. He definitely had time to prepare well.

The client is an importer of raw materials. So, the revenue/cost recognition and cut-off tests are very important. Accordingly, the auditor gives a list of sales and purchases he wants to test. We provide all supporting documents to verify the propriety and accuracy of each transaction. After a little while the auditor knocks on my door with a bunch of papers in his hands. "How do I know," he asks timidly, "if these invoices have correct dates?"

Inside my head I scream, "Are you fucking kidding me?" But this is not about my frustration, this is about my client. So, I calmly explain that he needs to compare the recording dates with the source documents proving the product's ownership transfer as defined by Incoterms. I go further and demonstrate with one of the selected items: this sales order states CIF (cost, insurance, freight), which means that the customer owns the product as soon as it's loaded on the transport; hence, your source document is the Bill of Lading (BL) attached right here to the Commercial Invoice and the Packing List; the BL's date is the sale's date.

He soon comes back with another file and he is very apologetic, "I am sorry, could you explain this to me again? I never heard of those... terms... before. What did you call them?" I help him out, "Incoterms?"

Will somebody, please, explain to me, since when it's Ok for an auditor, who is responsible to lenders, investors, and other outside users to verify the correctness of books and records, to come to the client without the full knowledge required to perform his tasks? Why is he not even embarrassed to admit that? Why the hell in 2012 it did not occur to him to get his ass onto the world wide web, as soon as he heard the word "Incoterms" from me, and study them?

I guess, that would be too much to ask. Hey, he didn't even know what a "metric ton" was and asked me for the ton-to-pound conversion ratio instead of finding it by himself. He continued coming over, I continued providing him with definitions and rules. At some point he got so comfortable with this teacher-student setup, he even asked my advice on how to "test for prepaid expenses." Seriously? Did he forget that I was their from the client's side, essentially being audited?

And here I have to bring up my book again. There is Chapter 29 in "CFO Techniques" called Choose Your Auditors Wisely... Dear business owners, CEOs, CFOs, and controllers, please, read it if you want to avoid paying $25,000 - $100,000 (average range for small businesses) for low-quality accounting services.

CFO Folklore: Audit Joke of the Month

It's time for CFOs to get in touch with their auditors and schedule preliminary work, field examinations, and so on and so forth.  Some diligently proactive CFOs send auditors estimates of their receivables, payables, and inventory balances even before the end of the year.

One such CFO receives a phone call from a middle-level auditor assigned by the CFO's primary contact John, the partner of the CPA firm, to do the preparatory legwork.

"Hi, my name is Luis, I work for John."

"Hi, Luis, nice to meet you over the phone."

"Based on your inventory levels John has decided that we must do a physical observation test at least at one location."

"That's fine.  Did you, guys, decide which one?"

"It's the one with the highest value of the stored product.  Hold on.  Let me see the name on your schedule..."

"Don't bother.  It's the Hudson Tank in Bayonne, New Jersey, near the port."

"That's right."

"Ok, I will make arrangements for the facility's management to escort you.  We have no activities scheduled for December 30th or 31st, so you can take the gauges' readings on the 30th as your year-end control."

"Well, will they be able to take the product out?"

CFO is silent for a few second, digesting the absurdity of the question and summoning her will power to prevent herself from laughing madly into the receiver.

"Luis, the product is a LIQUID chemical.  THAT'S WHY IT'S IN THE TANK.  The only way it can be taken out is if it's pumped out into another tank, or poured out onto the ground, or into the river, if you prefer that."

"So, I will not be able to actually see and count it?"

"Well, Luis, if you are really nice to the ladies who work there and bring them some Champagne for the New Year's celebration, they may let you climb onto the tank and dive in.  But I am warning you, Luis, it's over 40 feet tall.  Are you a good diver?"

 

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!"    

CFO Folklore: An Insult of the Month

After a long period of solicitation, due diligence, term sheet amendments, and credit agreement negotiations, a company finally closed a new multi-million dollar credit line with a major national bank. Now, it's time to build working relationships with different departments: the CFO is busy establishing communication channels with the treasury services, trade finance, foreign exchange, collateral control, and so on, and so forth. There are conference calls, meetings, lunches.

This is an introductory period for both sides - a short lull between the stormy deal-making and the times of daily grind that lie ahead. There is not much business yet to discuss, so the conversations, especially during lunches, turn to probing each other's backgrounds and chatting about general topics.

During one such first-meet lunch with yet another banker, the CFO, a person of broad interests, talks about this and that, displaying familiarity with various subjects.

Banker (in a very friendly, non-offensive, even appreciative tone): You know a little about everything, don't you?

CFO (waiting for the second part of the expression, but none is coming; so she takes offence): Well, that would make me very superficial, even shallow. I assure you that there are a few areas of knowledge within and outside my professional scope, in which I can claim in-depth expertise.

They look at each other silently for a moment than move onto a discussion of the bank's operational features, both hiding their own grudges.

The Frustrated CFO's situational analysis:

My personal experience of dealing with American bankers throughout my entire career is that the majority of them are not overly bright. I assure you that I am not saying this out of disrespect - it's just a fact of life. The European banking is altogether a different matter. Overseas, the banks are smaller and the profession itself is still considered to be a prestigious occupation, even if you don't deal with investments and make million-dollar bonuses. Some of the European bankers I know graduated at the top of their classes and were recruited right out of the business schools. Ours - they are mostly average.

That's why I think that at the crucial moment of a split-second decision, the CFO went the wrong way. These mental "forks in the road" present themselves in our minds all day long. Sometimes we make right decisions, and sometimes (most of the times, for some) we don't. Looking at the situation from the outside, I gather that the banker did not mean to be brash. She was just limited. Most likely she only remembered the first part of the frequently paraphrased and transformed saying - know a little about everything and a lot about something, and used it, inappropriately, to complement the CFO's erudition. You know, it's like one of those bushisms, "Fool me once - shame on you, fool me - you can't get fooled again." You cannot take that kind of stuff seriously.