The Frustrated CFO

IBM Predictive Analytics, or Are We There Yet, Watson?

I have no clue what a Venn diagram for conjuction of this blog's readers and tennis fans would look like - probably unnoticeable to human eye, but whether you care about professional tennis or not, bear with me and I'll explain its relevance to the subject at hand.

Those who watched Australian Open during the last two weeks of January on ESPN2 (or any grand slam in the past few years) incidentally exposed themselves to various elements of IBM's "Let's Build a Smarter Planet" promotional campaign.  IBM has been sponsoring ATP and WTA tours for years. They don't limit themselves to the ads that run during commercial breaks, but it's a good starting point for our topic. 

The current versions of these TV spots are a lot of fun - very slick, very futuristic, very high-tech, very white-surface, and they feature Dominic Cooper (whom I first saw on stage [I cannot help myself, can I?] back in 2006 as Stuart Dakin in Alan Bennett's The History Boys)!  Handsome, in the contemporary sense of the word, and serious, but tongue-in-cheek, British actor promotes IBM's cloud, smart day in the office, and... PREDICTIVE ANALYTICS. 

Aha!  Very interesting:  Did IBM branch out into Astrology Charts and Crystal Balls?  The advertisement's copywriters are appropriately non-specific and vague so not to bore an averagely challenged viewer, but let's look a bit closer at the core issue here.

Predictive Analytics belong to the realm of other popular concepts, such as business intelligence and performance assessment - none of them new ideas, by the way.  Data warehousing may sound like a novelty, but collecting and organizing records in a particular order for easier access existed for centuries. The concept of information as a key to business success is millennia old.  In ancient times tribal chiefs were estimating how many spearheads their craftsmen needed to make in order to win a battle.

Yet, in the past 10-15 years, the obsession with gauges, graphs, and all other forms of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) have become pervasive to the point of silliness, especially in business, financial, and data-management spheres.  Everyone and their mothers are absolutely convinced that they MUST have KPIs or they will be running a danger of failing, while analysts and software developers just know that they MUST provide KPI capabilities or their services will be deemed obsolete. 

Truth be told, the escalation of urgency is totally understandable.  The pace and
vulnerability of the business environment and entire human existence have increased exponentially.  Today, more than ever, we need to have timely and valid data that has a power of springing us into immediate corrective actions. 

Of course, as it always happens, the form obscures substance and common sense.  In most cases, the procurers of reports with colorful dials, bars, and pyramids end up just staring at pretty pictures, nothing more.

Now, the Predictive Analytics are a very special brand of information manipulation because they claim that on the other side of chewing up and digesting tons of historical data they can poop out specific recommendations for WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN ORDER TO SUCCEED, i.e. an action plan for a prosperous future.

And I have to say, when it comes to chomping massive inputs of data, while allowing flexible and customized outputs, various IBM Business Intelligence Suites, including Cognos, are probably the best performance analytics software out there in the land of information management - terribly expensive, of course, but awfully powerful in terms of the facts-and-figures consumption (imagine Coneheads at breakfast).

And as noted, IBM wants to take you a step further on the road to the future of business intelligence.  In 2009 the computing giant bought SPSS, which stands for Statistical Package for the Social Science, a software product that was created in 1970 to deal specifically with the analysis of what I personally call “data with a psychological twist.”   In other word, it digests information that doesn’t necessarily have dollar signs or volume units attached to it.  It was widely used in sociology, marketing, health care, education, and government. 

In its current developmental stage SPSS has become an integral part of IBM's predictive analytics solutions, which presumably  can be applied in any field.  According to IBM’s own description, the SPSS’s mission is “to help organizations to predict what will happen next, so that they can make smarter decisions to improve business outcomes."

Are they succeeding in this futuristic endeavor?  It’s hard to tell, because there is not enough readily available feedback: everyone’s KPIs are proprietary.  Even public companies will not disclose how IBM’s predictive analytics compare to the actual results.  Fortunately, there is one application of IBM’s analytical intelligence that is very public.  Here's where tennis comes back into the picture, offering us an opportunity to look at the system’s predictive aptitude. 

Nowadays, IBM's sponsorship of the Grand Slams also includes the powering of the websites of individual tournaments, including the Wimbledon, Australian, French, and US Opens.  And so, if you go on one of these sites’ home page you will see right there, in the top-right corner:  Smarter Analytics by IBM.

Well, right now it says “Completed Matches” above it because we are still almost 7 months away from the US Open 2015, but if you were to track a live match during a tournament, you can observe the IBM’s predictive functionality in real time:

This here is one of the most important predictive KPIs provided by Smarter Analytics - it is designed to show most important milestones one must achieve to reach one’s goals, and supposedly it is applicable to any data set. 

In tennis application they call them Keys to the Match.  Right there on the screen, in just two sentences IBM delivers the gist of the chart, explaining both the terminology and the methodology: “Keys to the Match system identifies key performance indicators – what players need to do to succeed in a match.  Each player’s performance is measured against their keys and updated in real time.”

This one in particular was for the 2014 Championship match between our very own champion extraordinaire Serena Williams and Caroline Wozniacki.  The system isolated three performance keys for Serena: 1^st serve points, medium rallies, and the returns of the opponent’s 1^st serve. 

According to the system’s algorithm these parameters are the most impactful in terms of the winning statistics.  The calculated "musts" are in blue and according to the statistical analysis of the historical data, Serena won 74% of sets when she won more than 61% of points on her own serve; 87% of sets when she won more than 49% of medium rallies, and 81% of sets when she won more than 38% of points returning her opponents 1^st serve.  

The red sectors show where Serena was in this match.  She exceeded all requirements: reaching 62% in the first parameter (very close), 54% in the second (also pretty relevant), and 68% in the third.  It is no surprise that she won the Championship match, but that wild discrepancy between the prediction and the actual in the third indicator (38% vs. 68%) makes me question its relevance.

We will come back to my doubts about the validity of the entire model in a moment.  Now, let’s see how we would apply the same approach to a business.  Here is a chart that identifies AZ Company’s Keys to a Successful Month: what needs to be done to achieve sufficient profitability and positive cash flow.

These are very familiar to all business runners and highly vital parameters.  Product mix is a crucial profitability factor.  The same goes for the portion of the gross profit eaten up by the overhead.  And, of course, the speed with which we manage to turn our inventories into receivables and receivables into cash determines whether we can generate more cash than we disburse during a particular period, in other words, produce a positive cash flow. 

The green bars represent the levels of the parameters at the moment this snapshot was taken.  Orange ones are the objectives that simply must be achieved, and pinks are desirable targets that supposedly guarantee a financially successful performance. 

According to the model’s algorithm the share of the highly profitable product X in the
trading mix should be at least 39%, because 69% of the months when such mark
was achieved were profitable. Obviously the overhead has far more definitive impact on the bottom line - the model confirms it by calculating a higher probability of success (79%) at its relatively lower levels.  There is even closer interrelationship between receivables and inventory turnovers on one side and the positive cash flow on the other – respectively 80 and 85 percent. 

Many business owners and executive managers, when they see a chart like that, get very excited by the prospective of having a system that can “see the future” – they think they’ve got the ultimate solution in their hands.  The widespread assumption is that Technology is smarter than a human, calculates everything faster and with higher accuracy.  And this application presumably eliminates the need to process information yourself - analyze, ponder, be anxious, listen to your gut feelings, or rely on anybody’s expertise.  Just follow the model’s suggestions and everything will be fine. 

If you sense sarcasm between the lines it’s because I am very resentful to such a blind reverence of computing technology.  And coming from me it’s a very serious statement, because I love progressive computerization.  But I cannot tolerate the lack of common sense.

Look, the selected parameters themselves are great – no question about it, but do we need a fancy program to tell us that the business is going to be okay if we push sales of a high-margin product to nearly 40% of the volume and turn most of our beginning-of-the-month AR into cash?  I don’t think so.  The years of our own expertise will kick in and reassure us – we don’t really need the statistical confirmation of the possibly successful outcome.     

But I have even more troubling concerns about this “keys to success” model.  Let me show you that the examples we just reviewed are fraught with at least two serious problems. 

The first one is the size of the statistical sample.  In quantitative research, you need a sufficiently large sample in order to be able to pinpoint trends with an acceptable level of realism.   Did you notice that Serena’s KPIs were related
to sets rather than matches?  That's understandable.  The Smarter Analytics uses just 8 years of grand slam performance.  In the period from 2007 through 2014 Serena Williams played 157 matches in the four major tournaments of the year.

Women play “win-2-out-of -3-sets” matches. Sometimes it’s 2 sets, sometimes it’s 3, and sometimes your opponent retires before you get to finish the first set. Serena has a high percentage of straight-set wins, so we can safely estimate her average at 2.25 sets per match.  This means that the predictions produced by IBM are based on a pool of
data collected over 353 sets.  It’s not US census, of course, but it's an okay sample size.

Now, in business, to approximate the tennis-model’s reliability of conclusions we would need to look at least at 30 years of a company's monthly performance data.  And that's a lot to hope for: 25 years ago the majority of small to mid-size companies were not even computerized and the paper journals and ledgers are either rotting in some storage unit or gone!          

But the bigger problem is the quality of the historical data, its relevance to the very specific, very present moment in time.  We operate in remarkably dynamic environments.  Business conditions change every moment.  One day everything is going great and another day everything falls apart.   Labor costs grow exponentially in every corner of the world.  Foreign exchange policies force one currency to soar and another currency to drop below everyone’s expectations.  Cyclicality shifts all the time: what was true for February of 2005 may not be applicable at all for this month.  And there are multitudes of industry-specific stressors. 

For decades Kodak was competing with BASF, TDK, etc. for the worldwide market share of film distribution.  Who knew that the biggest challenge would come from the photo and video equipment that didn’t need any film at all? 

20 years ago American agricultural sector exported nearly 3 million tons of frozen meat and poultry to Eastern Europe.  Then came 1999 and protectionist governments in the region declared US produce unsanitary.  Prices tanked and multiple industries contracted. 

15 years ago fashion industry had six major seasons.  Today it operates in micro-cycles with styles changing every two weeks. This dramatically altered the landscape of apparel importation. 

Well, business insiders live and breath this knowledge, but does the prediction model take into account all these factors?  It simply cannot – any mathematical algorithm can only account for a limited number of time-proven constraints.  How can we presume then that what might have been true historically will apply to our current conditions?

Even Serena’s keys to success, as far as I am concerned, are not too trustworthy, even though they are based on the game that have been played by the same rules year after year, on exactly the same courts, tended in exactly the same way.  But was it the same winning Serena Williams in September 2014 as she was in 2007, when she fell away in quarterfinals?  Or was she even the same in January of 2014, at Australian Open?  Can you spot the difference that made a significant improvement to her swing?

Can IMB’s "social" software comprehend that?  I don't think so! 

There is no way I'm putting away the years of expertise and my business instincts to start relying 100% on some computerized predictions in my strategic and tactical decision-making.  It may be a good contributing tool (again if you can afford it), but a computer is nothing more than a sidekick to the human brain; even if it's the IBM’s star artificial-intelligence child Watson.  Hence, the appropriate name it's given.  Yes, it can answer questions posed in natural language and wins Jeopardy! thanks to the 4 terabytes of information stored inside its metal guts.  Yet it's not able to intuit the right response to a simple clue “This hat is elementary, my dear contestant!”  My mind, on the other hand, serves up the answer instantaneously.

An expert with a common sense should be able to formulate her conclusions and make fast decisions herself, without any magical software, as long as she is steadily provided with timely and relevant information - whatever it is: business, sports, or arts.  It's as I always say: give me sensible data and I will tell you what needs to be done.

    

 

"We Are Good Bosses," Says One Boss to Another

So, that's how these people manage to live with their own shitty selves!  They walk around with a clear conscience; with no doubt in their souls about their actions.  They don't think about the injustices and the insults of different caliber they spread around with every step they take.  They don't even qualify them as injusticies and insults.  Instead, they pat each other on the backs and tell themselves that they are good bosses!  Their self-delusion probably goes even further: I am terrified to think about it, but they might have convinced themselves that they are good people.  Honestly, the idea of these people going through their lives thinking that they are saints makes my skin itch on the inside.  

To tell you the truth, I prefer honest assholes, like the ones whose primary traits are itemized in the list provided by the Time's article attached on the bottom of this post.  They are at least somewhat conscious of their attitudes and  justify their behavior with the "business necessity."  You know: A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do - that sort of thing.  I also think that self-aware bastards are less casual with their cruelty.  Unless they are real sadists, they apply it knowingly and, therefore, sparingly.  

The conversation quoted in the title is not an allegory: I actually had the misfortune of witnessing it.  I had to summon all my will power not to burst out laughing at these jerks.  I've had pangs of suspicion that many business owners felt good about themselves, but this was the first time one of them actually voiced such self-deception in my presence.  Why was it so bitterly funny?  Because, the statement was prompted by their finally adapting a pension plan they promised their employees two years ago. 

These are employers who pick favorites and treat them with an obvious preference, while discriminating against others.  They forget to disclose new commercial initiatives, thus forcing everyone to run against time in order to turn their ideas into business realities.  They will not hesitate to make a "good-natured" joke at an employee's expense or brazenly comment on someone's deficiency.  The list can go on, and on, and on, and on...  What can I say?  Swell guys! 

But let's see.  What are (in my opinion) the attributes of a really Good Boss???

1.  Fairness and objectivity; no bullshit like, "I don't like that bitch's personality, so I don't care if she's going to leave, even if it'll hurt my company."

2.  Dedication to a merit-based system of rewards comprised of both tangible and moral incentives.

3.  Intelligence and business acumen that perpetuates the company's success and keeps employees gratified that they don't work for an incompetent idiot.

4.  High performance standards applied equally to everyone - first and foremost to his/her own work.

5.  Capacity to fully comprehend the abilities and  values of their direct reports.

6.  Sufficient organizational savvy to match subordinates' abilities with functional tasks.

7.  Acceptance of personal responsibility as a job-creator and human-resources leader.

8.  Strong emphasis on the development of employees' know-how and professional growth.

9.  Balanced combination of delegation and efficient supervision; none of that hands-off micromanagement crap I write so much about.

10.  An actual effort to understand people working for the company.

11.  Sufficient tact and self-confidence (!) to prevent casual personal insults, usually resulting from deeply seated insecurity.

12.  And this one is just for me: For once in my life I would like to work for someone with a good memory, because I'm fucking fed up with their forgetting time after time the stuff I say, write, and report to them.   

So, my dear business owners and other chiefs, try to test your performance against the criteria above and see how you do.  None of the "good bosses" I know would score enough for a "D" grade.

Related articles

9 Core Beliefs of Truly Horrible Bosses

2013 Audit Season: Joke #4

I remember a few years ago, during a business lunch, somebody was recapping an episode from one of the numerous crime series all networks are running to compete against each other.  My head was preoccupied with the business purpose of the meeting, nevertheless I do recall that the murder plot turned on a discovery that one of the characters, a compulsive gambler, bet his classy wife's sexual favors in poker and lost.  FBI questioned if the payoff actually took place.  Of course, it did: the real gamblers are "men of honor."  When asked how the pimped out wife handled it, the winner said, "She was willing, but not happy."  I bet this is the best line the screenwriter who churns out this pedestrian crap has ever written! 

Willing, but not happy...  The state of mind applicable to so many situations.  This is exactly how all corporate accountants feel about financial audits, lenders' exams, investors' due diligence, etc.  Commercial and fiscal needs of our employers throw us at mercy of the outsiders: we are forced to carve out time from our main responsibilities and open ourselves up to various poking, probing, and testing.  Oh, we totally understand the importance and the unavoidable necessity of it.  Frequently,  it's our own search for new financing resources that culminates in these proceedings.  Yes, we are totally willing, but we are not happy to go through with it.

I devoted two whole chapters (29 and 30) of CFO Techniques to advising readers on how to deal with auditors, keep yourself focused on the ultimate benefits for the company, and minimize the pains of distraction and intrusion.  It helps to remind yourself that your company needs it more than the one that sends people to conduct the examinations.

And I have to say, most of these specialists of prodding are well aware of the invasive nature of their jobs.  They understand that a financial executive abides by their standards and accommodates all their requirements, because he wants good results, and that this puts a CFO or a Controller into a subservient position. Many auditors are very apologetic for the endless interruptions, inquiries, requests, follow-ups, etc.

Of course, there are always exceptions...

For the CFO with exposure to international measurement systems from this season's joke #2, the last stage of the bank's field exam included physical inventory counts at three locations specifically selected by the bank.  This is habitually done by auditors and examiners in order to (a) establish the presence of various inventories and (b) verify the accuracy of the subject's records.  Obviously, nobody at the audited company has any impact on the choices of locations, timing, or people sent to perform the task.  In fact, the CFO, who every year faces a financial audit and three bank exams, never knows who the hell the counters (usually junior auditors) are. 

This time was bound to be different.  One of the locations the bank selected was the company's storage in Savannah, GA.  A day before the scheduled visit the CFO gets a phone call.  An agitated young man in the receiver tells her that he is from the bank's Jacksonville office and that, according to Google Maps, the drive is 2 hours and 40 minutes each way.  "And it's Friday!  This is outrageous," he says.

The CFO was perplexed: anyone who had dealt with these matters even for one month would know that she had nothing to do with the rookie's plight; that, if it was up to her, she would much rather avoid the scrutiny.  Considering her executive position and professional status, she could've just hung up on this wimp.  But she is the one with a sense of humor, remember?  So, she asked the boy, "Well, what would you like me to do?  Move the inventory to Jacksonville, or cancel your visit?"

"Could you, please, cancel it?" was a hopeful answer.     

The Clueless Boss of a Frustrated Downshifter

The economy and the resulting miserable state of the job market forced many financial executives to downshift, i.e. take jobs way below their levels of expertise, authority, and adequate compensation.  It's been almost a year since I wrote about the heartbreaking reality of first finding such a position and then accepting it for the sake of having food on the table and keeping the roof over your family's head.  Yet, the painful topic is still relevant.

But let's look a little further.  We have an opportunity to examine an interesting situation brought to my attention by an actual downshifter - a former CFO of a, now defunct, $500-million-dollar firm.  After a year of a futile job-hunting he accepted, at 50% of his former compensation, a Controller's position in a young and small ($30 million) company, ran by two owners - a female CEO and her partner with a COO title.  

How many times did I write about accidental bosses?  And here we go again: this business has started because the two partners got lucky. They were in the right place at the right time with extensive connections and sufficient funding at hand.  Neither of them actually needed it to survive, but the opportunity were too exciting to pass up. 

Guess what?  The CEO never led a company before.  She never even worked in a commercial enterprise.  Her partner has an MBA from an Ivy League school, but he only worked overseas.  Neither have the chops to make good executives, yet both have undeniable talents and a lot of enthusiasm.  She is a sales ace and the toughest negotiator you can find.  He is incredibly detailed-oriented.

Not only that they managed to get the company off the ground eight years ago, they kept it growing with minimal labor resources, including  a single bookkeeper.  Hiring a senior financial person was definitely not among their priorities. Until...  Some people are just born lucky.  An even bigger  opportunity presented itself.  To implement it they needed more capital.  The dogged COO wore down one of the major banks into providing them with a substantial trade finance line.  Among bank's mandates was hiring a proper Controller. 

Enter our former CFO.

Because both execs are not very clear on the leadership functions, the division of responsibilities is blurred.  The COO was in charge of the Controller's hiring.  The CEO never even saw the candidate's resume or salary history.  When COO decided that this is their guy, the CEO was called in for a minute to shake the future Controller's hand.  

Yet, once our downshifter started working there, he realized that the woman's word was the final authority on pretty much all other issues.  Now, because she lacks corporate experience, she is not capable of assessing the Controller's performance.  In her mind, any other accountant would provide the same input as this guy, who managed in the first three months to correct more procedural, systematic, recording, and administrative errors than he did in 25 years before this job. Moreover, he contributes into the company's strategic decisions.  All that for a price of a low-brow peripheral Controller.  The CEO has no clue that what she's got was a gift; that she got very lucky again and obtained an Hermes bag for the price of a Coach.

This is a big problem.  If your boss doesn't understand your value, she cannot appreciate your contribution. The fact that someone with lower qualifications and less experience would not be able to attend to the sophisticated tasks you accomplish remains unnoticed.  As a result, you are helping to better the company without a chance for a fair reward. 

What to do in this situation?  You are not the type to brag every time you do something extraordinary.  The first thought comes to mind is to re-introduce yourself.  The guy who hired you didn't share your resume with his partner, so give her one together with your salary history.  You can say, "I understand you've never had a chance to look at it before and I think it's not fair for either of us."   I know some people will say it's tasteless, but the options here are limited.

Secondly, you must propose a proper evaluation system for all staff members.  Because these people have no idea how to go about it, they will turn to you.  This is your chance!  Provide them with the format that allows employees to list their own accomplishments.  Then, make sure that reviews are actually conducted.

Finally, if you don't get satisfactory acknowledgement anyway, start looking for another job.  Maybe you will be luckier this time around.  It's like I always say, employment at will works both ways: they can separate from you at any time, but so can you.

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.

Ten Reasons Why "CFO Techniques" Is a Must-Read for Small-Business CFOs

Reason #1.

"CFO Techniques" was NOT written from an academic perspective, such as of a typical university professor with a consulting-for-large-business on the side.

On the contrary, it WAS WRITTEN by your fellow CFO, who earned her professional stripes in the small-business trenches. During more than 20 years of this hands-on experience, with the last 18 in CFO and Controller positions, she was fortunate to gain exposure to all facets of financial management and organizational administration. Just like the most of you, she knows only too well what it means to wear many hats at the same time.

Reason #2.

Yet, the author did not loose a constructive touch of a theoretician. In writing the book, she employed her:

• in-depth knowledge of the fundamental principles that govern all areas of corporate accounting and finance,
• methodical approach to all tasks that compile ever-expanding scope of a CFO's responsibilities,
• and ability to dissect the cause and effect relationships of various concepts.

The result is the crystallization of the vast experience into a streamlined functional system, easily adaptable to various types of businesses and industries.

Reason #3.

"CFO Techniques" doesn't try to rehash official regulations, statistical information, bits of hot technology news, results of narrow studies, and such. The book's mission is to spotlight the most important areas of a CFO's or a controller's functionality:

Reason #4.

These professional cornerstones are broken down into crucial components described in bite-size, easily digestible chapters written in a fun and lithe language. The book presents the most complex financial and accounting concepts in comprehensive forms,  which can serve as introductory aids for those who just attained their first controllership appointment and as concise refreshers for seasoned professionals.

Reason #5.

It is an unfortunate truth that millions of small businesses struggle (and frequently fail) to survive not because they are neglected by owners and managers, but because these hard-working people simply have no clue what exactly is wrong with their companies, where are the weakest points, which areas require immediate improvements. Smaller enterprises suffer the most from the lack, even complete absence, of business intelligence and performance analytics. "CFO Techniques" is a part of the author's personal crusade to help small and mid-size businesses by providing them with survival tools (analytical, budgetary, procedural, etc.) that don't require expensive and complicated software.

Reason #6.

One of the most unique and valuable devices offered within the book is the proprietary  chart

INCOTERMS FOR ACCOUNTANTS.

Originally developed by Eclectic & Dynamic Controllership Consulting (E&D CC) specifically for businesses involved in buying and selling goods, it expands the definitions of standard Incoterms to include such accounting notions as title transfer rules and description of applicable source documents, thus accommodating needs of proper revenue, COGS, and inventory recognition.

 

Reason #7.

One of the main underlying themes of the book is the necessity for small-business CFO's and controllers to raise themselves above the bean-counting stereotype and become critical thinkers, indispensable members of the executive management team. "CFO Techniques" emphasizes this pressing demand throughout every section and accentuates the tasks that may facilitate such transformation.

Reason #8.

While shedding new light on the day-to-day routines and spinning conventional accounting and finance tasks as crucial and indispensable cogs in the business machine, the author's functional system gives equal rights to new categories of CFOs responsibilities, such as company-wide Information Technology Management, Risk Control, and Strategic Planning.

Reason #9.

The book takes a holistic approach to multi-faceted positions of CFOs and controllers and supplements specific structural guidelines and practical functional advices with discussions of more general topics applicable to any senior professional operating in private-business environment. Among others, it includes observations and suggestions on how to deal with people on different level of corporate hierarchy and what changes to expect in your future, even if at the moment you feel 100% secure.  

Reason #10.

Even if you don't learn anything new, or if you'll find the book not applicable to your specific professional niche, at the very least you can entertain yourself with the multitude of eclectic cultural references and business insights from the author's personal experience woven through the book's text.

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.

Ten Reasons Why "CFO Techniques" Is a Must-Read for Entrepreneurs

Reason #1.

You are a part of a proud cohort of just a few millions of people who summoned their courage and said, "I will not work for the Man anymore! I will be my own boss!"

While your company is growing, it will need to keep its overhead lean. Meanwhile, you can use "CFO Techniques" as a surrogate for a seasoned executive that will provide you with clear guidelines for financial and administrative management.

Reason #2.

Don't let the title fool you. "CFO Techniques" is not a bean-counting manual. It's written with a view to achieving commercial success and places business considerations ahead of everything else.

Reason #3.

It will arm you with a flexible framework for structuring your business in a logical and sensible way.

Reason #4.

"CFO Techniques" is not an academic textbook either. It manages to shed new light on various aspects of finance and business in a fun and easy language. The book is organized into a bite-sized chapters sprinkled with familiar cultural references and illustrations from the author's professional life.

Reason #5.

Yet, it's packed with practical advice,

instructive suggestions, step-by-step guidelines,

checklists,

and visual examples.

Reason #6.

"CFO Techniques" will provide you with a comprehensive breakdown on acquisition of capital resources necessary to sustain and grow your business.

Reason #7.

An entire section of the book is devoted to assessment, reduction, and transfer of the internal and external risks your company may encounter in a normal course of business and in extraordinary circumstances.

Reason #8.

"CFO Techniques" will show you that one of the most critical determinants of whether your company will fail or prosper is the active attention to its performance. The book rejects the rigidity of the uniform approach to business intelligence and underscores the importance of selecting specific indicators that will have the most significant impact on your decision-making process.

Reason #9.

Anticipating your furture needs, the book describes the fundamental steps of strategic planning and basic techniques for explorting opportunities as well as diminishing external threats.

Reason #10.

And when you are looking to hire a CFO, a valuable member of your executive team, the book may serve you as a benchmark in evaluating the candidates' breadth of expertise and depth of knowledge.

"CFO Techniques" Technical Reviewer's Comment for Small Business CFOs

LinkedIn Groups

• Group: Small Business CFOs
• Discussion: How important is to have a Policy & Procedure for a small business?

"Marina Guzik references her recently published "CFO Techniques" book, and it truly is a terrific reference guide for savvy CFO's, containing valuable information about best practice considerations on a number of critical topics. She has done an outstanding job of writing an easy-to-read one-stop source of valuable tips on identifying and solidifying core business functions, and it was my pleasure to assist with its technical review. A must-read for those wishing to learn more about making their business the strongest it can financially be!"
Posted by Randy KRUG