Friday, August 15, 2008

The CFO’s first hundred days

McKinsey Global Survey about Chief financial officers around the world describes their first hundred days on the job as a time when most received guidance, but many had difficulty devoting enough time to their top priorities.



New chief financial officers may not be spending their time where it’s most needed, according to the survey.



Finance chiefs, globally and across industries, report spending most of the first hundred days on budgeting, management reporting, and financial reporting. By contrast, they think that the most crucial activities during that time are understanding the drivers of the business, providing input into corporate strategy, and building the finance team.



Why are there such differences between what they do and what they regard as important?



There is no simple answer to this. One cannot put the clock back. Every day the situation changes, and the responses and actions will have to be tuned to the situation. CFO must be able to assess the business needs and act.



Fortunately for new CFOs, as they respond to their fluid situations most have strong support from the CEO. More than three-quarters of the respondents say that they received explicit guidance from the CEO in the first hundred days on the job, and 46 percent say that the CEO was a mentor. CFOs also are more likely to name the CEO than anyone else as having been helpful in making big decisions early on.



Almost twice as many CFOs credit the CEO with playing that role as credit their finance staff. A majority of CEOs strongly support the CFO’s involvement in strategy; more than half of our CFOs say that the CEO expects them to challenge the company’s strategy, though CEOs see other activities as more important. Nearly 90 percent of CEOs encourage the CFO to be an active member of the senior-management team. This is good news for CFOs, given the ongoing evolution of their role, the increasing visibility of their statutory responsibilities, and their considerable interest in corporate-wide strategic initiatives.



Indeed, nearly three-quarters of the CFOs reported that they would like to be involved in strategy, and those who wished they had spent more time with the CEO say that they wanted to talk about strategy more than anything else.



Finally, relatively few CFOs say that the finance staff would explicitly articulate its expectations to a new CFO. However, when staff members did provide explicit guidance, the CFOs say, their priorities differed from those of CFOs and CEOs. This makes a CFO’s communications with the finance team all the more crucial. A CFO is likelier to communicate with the team ad hoc and in person than in any other way.



Alignment of expectations, nearly four-fifths of the CFOs report that the CEO provided explicit guidance about expectations of the new CFO; CFOs at private companies were significantly more likely to report getting such guidance than those at public ones.



CFOs overall say that the activities the CEO most often describes as important are being an active member of the senior-management team, contributing to the company’s performance, and ensuring that the finance organization is efficient.



Furthermore, more than two-thirds of CFOs say that the CEO expected them to improve the quality of the finance organization, and more than half that the CEO expected them to challenge the company’s strategy.



CFOs overall showed little propensity to make fundamental staffing changes during the first hundred days, though CFOs of private companies were more likely to do so than their counterparts at public ones.



CFOs who planned fundamental changes in financial accounting and reporting or financial planning, budgeting, and analysis (FP&A) were significantly more likely than not to have had formal plans to do so. Overall, FP&A and accounting are two out of the three areas that demand most of a new CFO’s time, as well as the areas where CFOs made the most fundamental changes.



CFOs hired during or after a turnaround are more likely to report that redesigning the finance organization was crucial. Building relationships, most CFOs tell us they communicated widely during the first hundred days, holding regular in-person meetings with the core finance team and the broader finance staff and (in many cases) making themselves available for ad hoc discussions as well.



Interestingly, CFOs who report being satisfied with their performance during the first hundred days are far more likely than those who are not satisfied to report having held in-person meetings with both the core finance team and the broader finance staff.



They also report having more communications overall. CFOs at large companies tend to report communicating across every channel (except broadcast e-mail) more than CFOs at smaller companies do.



CFOs hired at companies during or just after a turnaround are much more likely to report having used ad hoc communications - probably a result of the fast pace and high uncertainty common in such situations. These CFOs are also more likely to have held in-person meetings with the finance staff.



Relatively few CFOs—just over a quarter—report not having enough resources and support to make the transition a success. However, that figure rises to a third among CFOs of public companies.



CFOs who wanted more help most often said they would have liked three things:
- better access to internal information,
- more time with the CEO or the board, and
- the ability to bring new people into the finance organization.



Also, more than 60 percent of CFOs overall report that they would have liked to spend more time with business unit heads. Of the two-thirds of respondents who were external candidates for the CFO role, a majority report that the major challenges during the first hundred days were building credibility and understanding processes.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Letter from a man who married a CA (imaginary one)

SHOULD U MARRY A CA...??

When I told my mom that I wanted a professional woman as my wife, she got me one – “a Chartered Accountant” and I started facing the following problems.

She uses LIFO method while taking out the refrigerated food for cooking. She thinks I am no good at figure work. Fine with me, for now she handles the budget of the house.

Initially she used to send me a bill at the month end, but when I told her that I am not her client but her husband, she asks for the money in advance. The expenses had been rising steadily over the months, so one day I snooped into the papers maintained in a current file. No wonder! She was charging conveyance and overtime to the house budget.

She is crazy, I tell her but she corrects me. "No my darling, I am the auditor." I fail to see the light.

Every scrap of the paper in our house is filed. She tells me as per some Ordinance she must keep a copy of every thing for at least ten years before destroying it. I am worried.

The other day we had an hour-long fight. Later, I got to know that she had charged that hour to a client of hers, in the time sheet. My time was put down as unoccupied.

She says that she loves me and I tell her that I love her too. However, she never believes me. She says that there is susceptibility of it being a misstatement. Duh! She wants my representation on this & opinion of some Expert!

Not a long time back my brother's wedding was to be solemnized. Wedding cards had been sent. After some time I started receiving a steady trickle of letters. I was puzzled until my wife explained that external evidence was more reliable. She had called for confirmations from all those to whom cards were sent.

When she cooks, my wife at times does not go by recipe. Where the recipe says add half-teaspoon vinegar, one tsp black salt or one teacup of water, she ignores them. She says that they are not material when taken in context of whole meal being prepared.

She is crazy, I tell you. Surprisingly everybody calls her an auditor, instead. I checked the dictionary and it did not state that auditor is a synonym for crazy. The dictionary must be outdated.

When we got married, she had given me an Engagement Letter and I had said how cute-how sweet. Now she gives it to me every year saying that her standards state that it must be sent anew if there is any indication that I have misunderstood the objective and scope of engagement. Huh!

Apart from sending me the engagement letter once again, she says I can't get rid off her just like that. She says that she has the right of being heard before I appoint some one else. It seems I must keep reading one local and another English newspaper published and circulated in the vicinity of our house for more details.

Phew! For a minute, I thought that we had jeopardized our going concern status. Duh! Dare I say so?? I am told by one of my female colleagues who is married to a CA that the scenario is even worse when the guy is a CA.

Apparently he capitalised the wedding expenses as preliminary expenses and is writing it off every year.

Also the time he spent dating his wife before marrying her is still under consideration for valuation under AS-26...valuation of intangible assets.
So guys please think twice....should u really marry a CA? And yes please discount it by the appropriate rate to arrive at the present value of the risk of doing so !!!