The Frustrated CFO

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.

The Trade Finance Prison

Theoretically, you can imagine an international business operating without a trade finance facility - no letters of credit, document negotiations, confirmations, etc. Your suppliers would be more than happy if you always pay in advance. On the other side of the equation, there are some desperate for product customers that you may be able to coerce into pre-payment plans, but, if you want to grow your volume, you will most likely end up extending them unsecured credit terms instead.

Let's pretend for a minute that we don't see the elephant in the room - the cost of working capital, which, under this stretched cycle of paying way before the product is received and collecting long after, turns into a painful burden on the profit margin. Let's ignore it and agree that yes, it is possible to conduct business in this way, especially if the company is cash-rich. It's possible, but dangerous and stupid for reasons too numerous to elaborate in one blog post. I'd say that the top 5 hazards of such modus operandi are as follows:

1. Risk that a foreign supplier will not deliver the product at all.

2. Risk that he doesn't comply with the terms of the purchase contract and delivers wrong goods of unacceptable quality and origin, in random quantities, too late or too early.

3. The danger of not receiving sufficient and correct set of documents that would allow you to claim the ownership.

4. Customer non-payment risk, which is always there when you give open terms, but especially if the payment is anxiously expected to come from abroad.

5. The overwhelming difficulties and costs of international litigation to recover your losses.

To mitigate these risks you need instruments that will protect you and an intermediary that will defend your trading fort. And that's when the trade finance divisions of various banks and financial institutions come into the picture with their Letters of Credits and related services. They can step in and be your guardian against the risks.

A Letter of Credit defines all conditions of purchase/sale, including documentary requirements; and only if these conditions are met, or when discrepancies are accepted, the money will exchange hands. So, the reality is that, you can have $100 million of free cash on your operating account, but if your business has an international exposure, you will end up engaging in Trade Finance relationships one way or another.

The trouble is that the banks know you need them and their benefits come with a price and many strings attached. Even if you only accept your customers' LC's, the cost of advising and processing services may be as high as 0.5% of the transactional value. If you buy product with LC's, then the costs could be as high as 2% (banks love this lucrative business). Yet, that's not the most strenuous part of the arrangement.

When a bank issues a Letter of Credit on your behalf, it takes an obligation to pay to the supplier even if your company goes bankrupt. Therefore, trade finance facility is essentially a credit line (most are utilized by LC's and advances alike). Obviously, to obtain any sizable credit line you must go through a grueling due diligence and you have to pay for it too: field exam, the bank's and your own attorneys' charges, closing fees - $10-12 million facility may end up costing around $150-$175K.

And even that is not the most painful part of the deal. The trade finance Credit Agreements are full of covenants and conditions that restrict your capital distribution, debt acquisition, treasury, operational management, and even dictate how the business is conducted. The banks demand collaterals and guarantees, including personal pledges from owners and their spouses. There are strict and voluminous reporting requirements.

And yet, we work very hard to get ourselves into the Trade Finance prison in order to facilitate our employers' commercial activities. The only thing we can do to ease the pain is to bitch and moan about the banks - a regular exercise of international-business CFO's around the world.

I Dream of "Star Wars," or Darth Vader's Management Style

At the risk of exposing myself to the readers' harsh judgement, I have to admit that there are moments when even my long-time experience of controlling emotions in the work environment is not enough to tame the feeling of... ENRAGEMENT some people manage to ignite inside my being. Hell, even the Page of Frustration doesn't help.

Some dense employees endlessly making the same errors, or chiefs of irrelevant operating sectors creating disasters behind your back, or (most likely) all of them causing damage simultaneously - these people can make you feel the urge to physically harm them in restitution for the emotional turmoil you experience: bite them, or kick them in the shins, or hit them with a monitor, whatever. Of course, you don't do any of that. You go and curse at the toilet bowl instead (one of my Personal Tools of Frustration Relief).

During such moments my mind frequently carries me to phantasmagorical events that took place "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away;" to the image of a person (can we call him a person?) with no tolerance for poor work performance, unlimited managerial authority, and extraordinary motivational tools - Darth Vader. This was an executive who gave no time for excuses and perfected the methodology of frustration release to the point when he didn't even have to touch the failing underlings. He destroyed them telepathically!

"You have failed me for the last time..." Ta da! And the offender of the high work standards is grabbing the invisible fingers at his throat. "I find your lack of faith disturbing..." - same result! This definitely puts the audience on alert: every time there is a discussion of the Galactic Empire's failures or setbacks, you start wondering, will Darth Vader have to choke a bitch again?

People's opinion of George Lucas's writing and directorial mastery varies, but we cannot deny the fact that his ideas are brilliant and his intuition about mass audience response patterns can be matched only by someone like Steven Spielberg. Notice, how he populated the "Good Side" with heroic, largely self-sufficient overachievers, who would sacrifice their lives before they allow themselves to fail. It makes perfect organizational sense: if they were as fallible as the Dark Side's middle management, who would reprimand them? Yoda? Obi-Wan Kenobi? It would never work - they are too soft.

Yoda spent so much time training Luke Skywalker for his intended position as a destroyer of the Empire. Yet, the boy wasn't quite grasping it. So, who did Lucas choose to show the young warrior what's what? Who else? Darth Vader: my son, my son, you still kinda suck at this. Let me raise the bar a bit. Whoosh! Luke's hand goes bye-bye. Now, try to overcome your weaknesses and harness the Force!

I sincerely apologize to the worldwide community of the "Star Wars" nerds, but, even though I admire it as a revolutionary breakthrough in filmmaking, I have to admit that the soap-operatic nature of the material always seemed silly to me. Yet, when the frustration rages in my head, remembering Darth Vader's chocking scenes is extremely satisfying.  Try it!

Response to a Reader's Question: Take a Position Abroad or Stay Home?

One of my readers, a fellow female CFO, have sent me an email asking for an advice on the following dilemma she is trying to resolve for herself:

"Hi Frustrated CFO

Please advice.

I'm at a crossroad between choosing to work as a group cfo in overseas subsidiary in US or stay in home country (malaysia) and becomes a group cfo of a division.

Both has its merits and demerits but i'm a woman and study shows that most women do not end at top spot without sacrifice. My family and I would have to sacrifice more if i choose to go overseas. My husband need to put his business on hold and becomes a house husband for a while until we settle down. Its good for the kids as they will go to international school and gain mastery in english language.

Staying in home country is not bad either. I will be in a familiar condition, i will gain new exposure, nothing need to change and i can send my kids to good schools at a higher fee.

Most people will say that experience abroad will change how people perceive you as a leader and thus this will give you greater opportunities within or outside the group.

What do you reckon?

Thank you.

Rgds
Anonymous"

Honestly, it is apparent to me that deep in her heart Anonymous knows very well that, professionally speaking, the best thing to do is to take the job overseas. I always said that a career CFO or a Controller needs to view every job as a line on her resume. Nothing more and nothing less. And what can make a better resume entry than a position showing that your knowledge and expertise are viewed to be unmatchable by a local talent pool in a foreign location? This is a great stepping stone in anyone's career development.

Men don't even think twice about opportunities like that, family or not. But women are naturally more considerate creatures. Many of us try to achieve an impossible balance between professional careers and personal lives. This requires a lot of trade-offs - you cannot possibly have everything. You want spend more time with your kids than you can. You don't want to be too tired for your husband. But, at the same time, your career is a source of income and, more importantly, social independence. The last thing a strong woman wants is to give that up.

I am also a strong believer in exposing children to foreign cultures. It broadens their horizons and sets them apart. Most professional parents do it through traveling and student-exchange programs, but here is a fortunate opportunity of a complete immersion. It would be a shame to pass on that.

So, the only real difficulty is the husband. Is it fair to ask someone to put their business endeavors on hold for the sake of perpetuating your own career? It's really a very private issue that depends on individual personalities, and it can be blown into a very complex problem. However, in my opinion, at the end of the day, it comes down to two major considerations:

1. What will guarantee better financial future for your family as a whole? We are financial professionals - we know how to count. Estimate the future values of each possibility.

2. What will secure the psychological stability of your family? If you are excited about the overseas opportunity, but decide to stay home for the sake of your husband, will you subconsciously hold it against him? Will you let the resentment corrode your marriage?

If you can honestly answer these questions, it will ease your decision-making process. I promise.

I invite other readers to express their opinions on this subject in their comments.

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."

Strategic Planning vs. Crisis Management

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II" (written by Steve Kloves, based on a novel by J.K. Rowling's):

HARRY POTTER

We have to go there, now.

HERMIONE GRANGER

What? We can't do that! We've got to plan! We've got to figure out --

HARRY POTTER

Hermione! When have any of our plans ever worked? We plan, we get there, all hell breaks loose!

And that, my dear readers, in a nutshell, is the principal difference between the two action-plan extremists.

In the red corner, equipped by multipage projections with color graphs and tables, are those who believe that strategic planning is the only way of life and one must ponder and weigh every situational possibility before taking any step forward (or backward). In the blue corner, wearing their firefighting suits with confidence and valor, are those who are convinced that when the shit hits the fan they will be able to immediately assess the entire spectrum of life-threatening circumstances and successfully handle the crisis.

Any kind of extremism is bad, kids, m'kay? In religion, politics, personal views, and business management. Different situations require different approaches. Only a balanced combination of executive instruments, including long- and short-term plans as well as emergency-response methodology, can guarantee an enterprise's ability to efficiently evolve and weather any dangers that constantly arise in the volatile commercial environment.

In my book, "CFO Techniques", I have devoted an entire section (Part VIII) to strategies and planning as crucial components of CFOs' and controllers' functionality - the important responsibilities that change financial managers from bean-counters to CEOs' executive partners. Participating in analysis of opportunities and construction of well-devised action scenarios offers us a possibility to affect companies in the most significant way. Remember, that those executives who let companies run their course without looking into the future and carefully plotting their steps for further development, leave the businesses vulnerable in the face of the fast-advancing competition.

On the other hand, crisis management efforts applied in situations that present themselves without any warning are of extreme importance as well, particularly in small and midsize businesses, which are highly susceptible to the slightest deviations in market, financial, economic, and political environment. Moreover, these companies frequently have less than sufficient reserves to tide them over tough times. Implementation of a disaster-rescue mission requires high level of composure and rationalization. Those who've read my "About" note know that I consider my "fire-fighting" skills to be the most valuable to my employers and clients.

It is a mistake to think, though, that even a very experienced CFO can wing it without contemplating some sort of advance "what-if" scenarios. In fact, a crisis management policy is just another form of a strategic plan. On top of that, proper preparation for emergencies requires broader expertise and deeper knowledge of various commercial, marketing, technological, financial, legal, and organizational matters.

The truth is that a successful executive must be capable of devising a carefully-weighed and calculated strategic development plan with all visual bells and whistles her digital arsenal can afford, but in her special folder she always keeps a set of comprehensive tactical procedures for effective extinguishment of fires and post-disaster survival.

Unimaginable Abyss of Accounting Ignorance

We constantly read and hear about American students' low level of academic performance. They rank 23rd out of 57 nations participating in international testing. Researchers and public-policy makers have been trying to figure out the reasons for this abysmal show of intellectual power. The "education system" is usually blamed: different teaching methodologies, testing devices, and so on, and so forth.

In my opinion the problem has nothing to do with educational technicalities. It's has to do with obvious gradual degeneration of general public's intellectual abilities (blame it on the mobile devices' radiation, if you have to). Whatever the reason, fact remains: high-schoolers are doing worse and worse in all subjects.

The common sense should lead a logical person to a conclusion that the declining academic achievements translate into a reduction in college enrollments. If one cannot keep up in a secondary school, how can that person attempt to receive a quality post-secondary education, right? Wrong! Between 1989 and 1999 college enrollments increased only by 9%, but in the 10 years after that - by 38% (!!!), from 14.8 million to 20.4 million.

And, of course, it's not easy to get into Ivy League schools, which accept 10-20% of the applicants (well, my readers know my opinion about the quality of education there). Yet, more than 80% of colleges in this country accept every other applicant, and there are some with 100% acceptance rate. I mean, the colleges want money and they will lower their requirements to whatever levels in order to fill the seats in the lecture halls.

So, every year millions of young people who were not succeeding at the high school level enter post-secondary education system. Why do they do that instead of trying to start their own businesses, attempt creative pursuits, or go into honorable and well-paid blue collar trades, I have no clue, but it is what it is.

Now, those kids who had comparatively better grades, some artistic inclinations, and/or expect to utilize their parents connections in the future take pre-med, pre-law, finance, marketing, various arts and designs . Those who don't think, or don't need to think, about their survival head for liberal arts. So, who ends up taking accounting majors? Everyone else as long as they can count without using their fingers.

But accounting and taxation are not easy. To fully understand it one should possess propensity for conceptual thinking, analytical mind, ability to absorb high volumes of regulations, standards, codes. And I am just talking about basics. 30-35 years ago up to 50% of freshmen who signed up for accounting courses would drop out before the first midterm. Nowadays, they somehow struggle through and graduate. The best of them are snatched by the Big 4, the next tier by other large CPA firms and big-time corporations.

The rest end up in the small and midsize businesses and accounting firms. It's my plight to deal with them, exposing myself on daily basis to the devastating result of this natural selection process. In every company I observe the same thing: so much is wrong! The books of different corporations are co-mingled, revenues and costs recognized incorrectly, inventory is not valued properly, etc., etc. It's difficult for an entrepreneurial company to survive in the first place; the accounting incompetence drags them down even further.

Books are kept intuitively, as if rules and standards did not exist. The most shocking thing is that auditors look at all that and accept it. The main concerns appear to be that the bank balances are reconciled to the statements and the control accounts match with supporting schedules. The PRINCIPAL CORRECTNESS is irrelevant.

I give them the benefit of the doubt and let them explain themselves.

Me: Why doesn't your inventory in storage match with the warehouse's records?

Them: Because they don't account for the three lots that already been loaded on the trucks.

Me: Neither should you. That's inventory in-transit, not in storage.

Them (in complete seriousness): Oh, that's what "in-transit" mean.

And I have sad conversations like that practically every day. Pity the well-versed professional!

My book "CFO Techniques" can help these people to improve. Too bad my publishers are not doing match to deliver it into the potential readers' hands.

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!"    

Am I Cursed?

Well, it's definitely feels like I am. Throughout my entire career, every time I start a new job or a long-term consulting project, no matter how exciting and successful the business seems, it takes me under 4 weeks (sometimes less than 2) to uncover hidden losses, cash flow deficiencies, operational problems, strategic mistakes, distortion of accounting principles and policy violations. There has not been a single exception to this rule.

Of course, I devoted my career to dealing with privately-held small and mid-size companies. Frequently their CEOs are entrepreneurs with limited understanding of corporate governance, let alone the makeups of quality accounting and finance functions. These companies develop in a haphazard manner and the staff is usually composed of people who are eager and hardworking, but not necessarily highly qualified. The conceptual thinking, I am always so keen on finding, is rarely present.

I've been studying my current client for exactly three weeks now. Oh boy! The company is a wholesaler, but the operating software they bought for a lot of money was created for manufacturers, and it's so rigid, it will require major re-programming to adapt it to their needs. The principle feature of this type of businesses - the lot-driven operations that require lot-specific data tracking and analysis, cannot be accommodated by the software and, therefore, needs to be performed at a great time-cost in Excel. The chart of accounts is completely screwed up and there is no hope to adjust it properly since they already started making entries. There is an endless duplication (and triplication, and quadruplication) of data in different files kept on their local drives by individual employees... And so on and so forth. They don't even have a backup system in place, let alone business intelligence.

But most remarkably, NOBODY (not the co-owners who buy and sell the product internationally for years now, not the logistics managers, not the internal accountants, nor independent auditors) understands the principles of Incoterms. As the result, the revenue, costs, and inventory recognition is royally fucked up. I restated their 9-months 2011 results to proper values and found... you got it - losses!

Sometimes, it makes me wonder, what would happen if I got a chance to dissect a huge belly of some public mammoth. Would the same rotten bullshit pour out of them? The fact that big-time public companies constantly underperform and require bailouts makes me kind of suspicious.

The truth is I don't believe that I am cursed. I think that the majority of companies manage for some time to ride on the wave of a particular product/service demand, or some market twist, or accidental economic development, or novel idea. Yet, they are drowning in small and large errors affecting every facet of their existence. And when the shit hits the fan in the form of financial or operational problems, their chances for survival are minimal because there is no quality back-office structure to sustain them. Moreover, frequently they don't even see it coming, because they operate blindly in the absence of informational support.

The problems may come to light before the downfall if a perfectionist like me appears on the horizon. Such a person may be either hired as a permanent employee, or come along as a part of a consulting team (an option frequently unaffordable for small and midsize companies). So, this client of mine got lucky - one way or another I will correct all their problems. Others out there... it's scary to think about them. Is it surprising that with this poor quality of back office, lack of informational reporting, and all the errors they commit along the way, the companies are going out of business left and right, and the economy has gone to shitters?

I do have a solution that can help many of the companies precariously hanging on the verge of extinction due to the deficiencies in their policies, procedures, controls, and reporting functions - an affordable and easily accessible electronic consulting solution that covers all these areas of expertise and puts a multitude of tools at the fingertips of executives and financial professionals. Let's hope that I will be able to attract investors to back my ideas and bring this revolutionary development to the millions of small and mid-size companies.