Yep, all Dennis's shots about ethical businesses are hitting the target. But it feels odd to be having a discussion about sustainability here in 2006. I thought the dangers of the quarterly reporting cycle and the pressures on management to deliver for the short-term had been laid to rest when Enron and WorldCom showed their investors how dangerous it was to ignore long-term business objectives.
The problem, of course, is the free movement of capital. If shareholders had to hold equity for a minimum of, say, five years, they'd pressurise management to deliver sustainable growth; businesses that had true "density" - and that means great relations with staff and customers - would win out both in terms of market cap and revenues. That enforced holding is impossible to engineer, of course. But some investors do it voluntarily - Warren Buffett, for instance.
As an aside, I once had a chat with John Rishton when he was CFO at British Airways. Oil was heading north at a rapid pace at the time, and I asked how his financial planning was going. He said they had a few more months of their forward buying to unwind, so they were OK for the moment. But he also told me what a lousy investment airline shares were. I said I was amazed - surely he could explain why BA was a good buy. Not to hold, he argued. No airline has ever really made any money over the long term and the professionals simply watch the yo-yo of the share price and sell on the peaks to make their money.
In other words, there is no incentive for the airlines, individually or collectively, to operate sustainably. They see the long-term investors as fools and the ones who make money on their stock as bandits. We all know how they view a majority of their customers (cattle - and DVT, did you now, is largely down to poor air quality in the cabin so they can save money). And they're having a tough time with staff, too. Not, then, the model of the open, honest and fair organisation that can deliver for the long term.
27 November 2006
China as a market
Just heard Alan Wood CBE, chief exec of Siemens UK and speaker at the CBI conference, on the Today programme. He was being interviewed about the trend for foreign companies to buy UK businesses and argued that while this was not a positive movement, legal barriers to overseas acquirers were not appropriate. Instead, he said, British business needs to get more outward facing, seeing China and India not as sources of cheap labour but as huge potential markets - and the government should lobby to ensure they are as open to UK exports as we are to their imports.
All motherhood and apple pie (at least for a capitalist - he could hardly call or less free markets, although the leader of the capitalist world, the US, has plenty of funny quirks and folds in its free trade eiderdown). But then he said, (and I paraphrase) "We have to look at China as the single biggest market in the world."
Hmm. I wonder. Is China really the single biggest market? One might successfully argue that England and Scotland are different markets (especially for services - in goods, it's still probably advisable to operate off the logisticians' approach to geographic proximity when discussing "markets"), let alone Britain and Italy. Is Shanghai the same market as Zhuzhou or Chonqing or Xi'an or Urumqi? Is doing business in Delhi the same as in Cochin or Calcutta or Patna? You'd treat Lahore differently from Amritsar, but they're relatively close neighbours.
Perhaps that's the key: start thinking of true markets and not nation states. Yes, the legal and regulatory borders are still significant. But if we think of peoples by our own, rather crude and dare I say imperialist, categorisations, we'll never really be able to sell to them properly.
One day I'll round to publishing my thoughts on the death throes of the concept of the nation state...
All motherhood and apple pie (at least for a capitalist - he could hardly call or less free markets, although the leader of the capitalist world, the US, has plenty of funny quirks and folds in its free trade eiderdown). But then he said, (and I paraphrase) "We have to look at China as the single biggest market in the world."
Hmm. I wonder. Is China really the single biggest market? One might successfully argue that England and Scotland are different markets (especially for services - in goods, it's still probably advisable to operate off the logisticians' approach to geographic proximity when discussing "markets"), let alone Britain and Italy. Is Shanghai the same market as Zhuzhou or Chonqing or Xi'an or Urumqi? Is doing business in Delhi the same as in Cochin or Calcutta or Patna? You'd treat Lahore differently from Amritsar, but they're relatively close neighbours.
Perhaps that's the key: start thinking of true markets and not nation states. Yes, the legal and regulatory borders are still significant. But if we think of peoples by our own, rather crude and dare I say imperialist, categorisations, we'll never really be able to sell to them properly.
One day I'll round to publishing my thoughts on the death throes of the concept of the nation state...
14 November 2006
Reporting: keep it simple, stupid
A rather lengthy response to a post over at Dennis Howlett's place.
I, too, find it strange that we're having the debate on IFRS now - when the damage has already been done. I can understand why fair value accounting was seen as a viable way of taking company reporting forward, but the tools just ain't there. (And although I sympathise with Dennis's finance/HR alliance ideas, the fact is that in the vast majority of companies, HR is a substandard function that just isn't up to managing its people well, let alone coming up with viable ways of communicating their value.)
My view - based on nine years of watching what FDs actually do and hearing how they feel - is that we need to ditch the whole idea of comparability. So I guess I'm actually siding with the Big Four - although I agree with Dennis that they've been a bit disingenuous in how they've gone about this. Here's my thinking.
Most good managers don't run their companies to engineer reported results anyway. We've seen what happens when they do (Enron, WorldCom, iSoft etc etc) and those of you with an accountancy qualification know how much leeway there is in the standards even when (in theory) we can all agree on what they mean. Instead, they use a set of targets and metrics – many of which are shared, like ROCE – to monitor their performance and produce better results. Knowing what those targets are and how management is performing against them is surely more use to investors that how they’ve been filtered into a set of accounting standards. It also means companies can focus on the real drivers of their particular businesses, not some arcane way of segmenting their accounts that fits a theoretical notion of how you uncover value.
I was talking to an M&A adviser at KPMG the other day about the market research industry. He pointed out that it was almost impossible to compare any two businesses in the sector. "Evaluating MR companies is tricky because it’s hard to find true like-for-like comparisons," he told me. "Even with an Ipsos or a TNS, where you have a big group mostly involved with MR, they present their results differently and the only way to really compare them is net margins. But even then, with so many M&A deals going on, it’s hard to make real comparisons between them on like-for-like basis."
In fact, many professional investors already take a case-by-case approach. They get close to companies to understand them beyond the accounts – that’s what gives them an edge as professionals. Some like to focus on a couple of key metrics – Terry Smith once told me that all he was interested in was cash, and talking to management was just a distraction! I suspect many analysts and institutions already operate more like private equity managers now – they’re looking way beyond IFRS and into their own set of either unambiguous or tailored value drivers.
A majority of private investors don’t read the annual report and accounts anyway – or if they do, they’re more likely to be steered by the marketing bumpf at the front than the crowd of figures at the back. And a really smart investor looks at things they can see – joking aside, if you want to know which retail shares to buy, spend an afternoon in Bluewater or your High Street. If M&S is packed… well, you’re in possession of intelligence that won’t be in the accounts for another six months. Buy.
Bottom line: whatever happened to caveat emptor? By scaling back the accounting standards to a bare minimum that allows the banks, investors and the tax man to see a couple of key metrics presented objectively (cash! net margin!), you force companies to compete for finance on their own terms. And you force finance providers to take a much harder look at the companies they invest in. If that means some people get burned because they choose to believe outrageously optimistic statements or shonky metrics from management – well, that’s their look-out. Even my old mum knows that if something looks too good to be true, it probably is.
But the companies that do engage in transparency, the managements that have a track record of good risk management and delivering results – they’ll get the lower cost of capital that, it has been suggested, is the big benefit of these increasingly complex and prescriptive accounting standards. (Of course if FDs, analysts, investors and regulators all think accounts are more confusing under IFRS - and they are - then cost of capital will rise...) And if investors think management isn’t transparent? Big flashing warning signs should go off and that obfuscatory management should be removed.
The one glimmer of hope might be that the ASB and the IASB pursue the international FRSSE for all non-“public interest entities”. But they’d have to take some bold steps to simplify it still further. FDs and investors, I believe, would breath a sigh of relief.
I, too, find it strange that we're having the debate on IFRS now - when the damage has already been done. I can understand why fair value accounting was seen as a viable way of taking company reporting forward, but the tools just ain't there. (And although I sympathise with Dennis's finance/HR alliance ideas, the fact is that in the vast majority of companies, HR is a substandard function that just isn't up to managing its people well, let alone coming up with viable ways of communicating their value.)
My view - based on nine years of watching what FDs actually do and hearing how they feel - is that we need to ditch the whole idea of comparability. So I guess I'm actually siding with the Big Four - although I agree with Dennis that they've been a bit disingenuous in how they've gone about this. Here's my thinking.
Most good managers don't run their companies to engineer reported results anyway. We've seen what happens when they do (Enron, WorldCom, iSoft etc etc) and those of you with an accountancy qualification know how much leeway there is in the standards even when (in theory) we can all agree on what they mean. Instead, they use a set of targets and metrics – many of which are shared, like ROCE – to monitor their performance and produce better results. Knowing what those targets are and how management is performing against them is surely more use to investors that how they’ve been filtered into a set of accounting standards. It also means companies can focus on the real drivers of their particular businesses, not some arcane way of segmenting their accounts that fits a theoretical notion of how you uncover value.
I was talking to an M&A adviser at KPMG the other day about the market research industry. He pointed out that it was almost impossible to compare any two businesses in the sector. "Evaluating MR companies is tricky because it’s hard to find true like-for-like comparisons," he told me. "Even with an Ipsos or a TNS, where you have a big group mostly involved with MR, they present their results differently and the only way to really compare them is net margins. But even then, with so many M&A deals going on, it’s hard to make real comparisons between them on like-for-like basis."
In fact, many professional investors already take a case-by-case approach. They get close to companies to understand them beyond the accounts – that’s what gives them an edge as professionals. Some like to focus on a couple of key metrics – Terry Smith once told me that all he was interested in was cash, and talking to management was just a distraction! I suspect many analysts and institutions already operate more like private equity managers now – they’re looking way beyond IFRS and into their own set of either unambiguous or tailored value drivers.
A majority of private investors don’t read the annual report and accounts anyway – or if they do, they’re more likely to be steered by the marketing bumpf at the front than the crowd of figures at the back. And a really smart investor looks at things they can see – joking aside, if you want to know which retail shares to buy, spend an afternoon in Bluewater or your High Street. If M&S is packed… well, you’re in possession of intelligence that won’t be in the accounts for another six months. Buy.
Bottom line: whatever happened to caveat emptor? By scaling back the accounting standards to a bare minimum that allows the banks, investors and the tax man to see a couple of key metrics presented objectively (cash! net margin!), you force companies to compete for finance on their own terms. And you force finance providers to take a much harder look at the companies they invest in. If that means some people get burned because they choose to believe outrageously optimistic statements or shonky metrics from management – well, that’s their look-out. Even my old mum knows that if something looks too good to be true, it probably is.
But the companies that do engage in transparency, the managements that have a track record of good risk management and delivering results – they’ll get the lower cost of capital that, it has been suggested, is the big benefit of these increasingly complex and prescriptive accounting standards. (Of course if FDs, analysts, investors and regulators all think accounts are more confusing under IFRS - and they are - then cost of capital will rise...) And if investors think management isn’t transparent? Big flashing warning signs should go off and that obfuscatory management should be removed.
The one glimmer of hope might be that the ASB and the IASB pursue the international FRSSE for all non-“public interest entities”. But they’d have to take some bold steps to simplify it still further. FDs and investors, I believe, would breath a sigh of relief.
20 October 2006
Barclays: a step back in time
Interesting that earlier this week Barclays appointed one of its former advisers as its new finance director. Naguib Kheraj is leaving in the spring - ostensibly to the timing is to allow the new chap, Chris Lucas, to be clear of regulatory handcuffs that prevent him taking a senior management role at the bank before the 2006 results are signed off. Why?
Well, Lucas is currently employed by PricewaterhouseCoopers where he is UK Head of Financial Services and Global Head of Banking and Capital Markets - and was Global Relationship Partner for Barclays from 1999 to 2004. That prevents him moving across until a decent interval is deemed to have passed.
Two things. First, what's up with Kheraj? A high-flyer, one can only assume he'll pop up in a CEO role in the not-to-distant. There's certainly no suggestion he was lame in the role (anything but), although he has suggested that he was fed up with the FD role and all the red tape that accompanies it in a large quoted bank like Barclays. In a year-old interview with AccyAge he said: "I wouldn’t rule it out [going for a chief executive role], but I think it’s unlikely. It’s more likely I would do something more akin to what I’ve done in the past, which has been to go back to advising on transactions or working in private equity. I don’t have any firm views at the moment." I guess his views have firmed up a little in the past 12 months...
Second, how long has it been since a major FD post was filled by someone directly from a professional services firm? Of course it happens, but I think the idea that a modern CFO could handle the job without some experience of business has faded somewhat. Time was when a highly technically skilled accountant could just step into the FD seat. But without that broader sense of strategy, of how operations work, about communication, about politics... well, it's just much tougher these days to be an effective FD. Lucas obviously knows Barclays well. But will he make a great CFO?
and interestingly, of course, they've gone from a CFO who wasn't an accountant to one who has no business experience. Feast or famine...
Well, Lucas is currently employed by PricewaterhouseCoopers where he is UK Head of Financial Services and Global Head of Banking and Capital Markets - and was Global Relationship Partner for Barclays from 1999 to 2004. That prevents him moving across until a decent interval is deemed to have passed.
Two things. First, what's up with Kheraj? A high-flyer, one can only assume he'll pop up in a CEO role in the not-to-distant. There's certainly no suggestion he was lame in the role (anything but), although he has suggested that he was fed up with the FD role and all the red tape that accompanies it in a large quoted bank like Barclays. In a year-old interview with AccyAge he said: "I wouldn’t rule it out [going for a chief executive role], but I think it’s unlikely. It’s more likely I would do something more akin to what I’ve done in the past, which has been to go back to advising on transactions or working in private equity. I don’t have any firm views at the moment." I guess his views have firmed up a little in the past 12 months...
Second, how long has it been since a major FD post was filled by someone directly from a professional services firm? Of course it happens, but I think the idea that a modern CFO could handle the job without some experience of business has faded somewhat. Time was when a highly technically skilled accountant could just step into the FD seat. But without that broader sense of strategy, of how operations work, about communication, about politics... well, it's just much tougher these days to be an effective FD. Lucas obviously knows Barclays well. But will he make a great CFO?
and interestingly, of course, they've gone from a CFO who wasn't an accountant to one who has no business experience. Feast or famine...
27 September 2006
Ready for October 1?
The new age discrimination laws are coming into effect on October 1 - that's next week. You don't even want to think about how easy it's going to be to fall foul of them, and there are sure to be a whole raft of test cases after companies leave subtle references to age in job ads, hand people a golden carriage clock on their 65th birthday (and then clear their desks), or tweak their benefits packages according to their decrepitude.
Ach, most of this kind of legislation is poorly drafted, over-fussy and fails to protect those most in need. But... smart companies do know that with age comes wisdom and experience, which are hugely valuable commodities. Just take a look at Anite Group, where FC Neil Bass is facing a taxing time in the absence of FD Christopher Humphrey, who's been out of action since earlier this month with health problems. He's set to be off for a few weeks yet, so Anite has brought in Geoff Bicknell, a seasoned FD with bags of experience in the IT services sector, to act as interim.
Geoff's seen it all - he was the FD who helped turned basket-case MDIS into rather more successful Northgate Information Solutions, for example. He's been around the block - and the world - a fair few times. Just the guy you need to mentor an FC in this situation - and proof that the senior memebers of the business community have a huge amount to offer, whether they're "protected" by legislation or not. More from Geoff on his interim experiences (and how his plural career is shaping up - "I started going into the non- exec arena, but a full time job, albeit for only a few weeks was an irresistible challenge," he tells me) when he's less busy!
Ach, most of this kind of legislation is poorly drafted, over-fussy and fails to protect those most in need. But... smart companies do know that with age comes wisdom and experience, which are hugely valuable commodities. Just take a look at Anite Group, where FC Neil Bass is facing a taxing time in the absence of FD Christopher Humphrey, who's been out of action since earlier this month with health problems. He's set to be off for a few weeks yet, so Anite has brought in Geoff Bicknell, a seasoned FD with bags of experience in the IT services sector, to act as interim.
Geoff's seen it all - he was the FD who helped turned basket-case MDIS into rather more successful Northgate Information Solutions, for example. He's been around the block - and the world - a fair few times. Just the guy you need to mentor an FC in this situation - and proof that the senior memebers of the business community have a huge amount to offer, whether they're "protected" by legislation or not. More from Geoff on his interim experiences (and how his plural career is shaping up - "I started going into the non- exec arena, but a full time job, albeit for only a few weeks was an irresistible challenge," he tells me) when he's less busy!
26 September 2006
Career watch
Career Watch will pick up on moves news that includes a little background on the mover - to illustrate how FDs and other executives with a financial background are making their way to the top. We kick off with the new FD at Wells & Young's, the recently merger brewer. Justin Phillimore is a classic example of the modern FD. He's got sector experience (finance and business development director of wine and spirits company Seagrams - he'd been there since 1993) but took an important step out of the finance function as general manager of global business development at GE SeaCo - marine container leasing is about as far from beverages as you can imagine. That makes him a very smart hire by the boards of Wells and Young's - with that CV he's certainly a contender for the CEO job one day, and coming in only as the merged group takes shape, he won't be burdened with any historical baggage from either camp. Smart.
22 September 2006
The perils of predictions
Check this out: "Perhaps the most eagerly awaited accolade is the Personality of the Year Award. Among the candidates are Rona Fairhead, CEO of Financial Times Group, Alison Reed, group finance director at Standard Life, Jeremy Newman, managing partner of BDO Stoy Hayward, Dave Hartnett, director general of HM Revenue & Customs and Eric Anstee, chief executive of the ICAEW." That's a news item from the guys over at Accountancy Age announcing their awards shortlists. But I can't help feeling they're being a bit edgy with the names.
Alison Reed is just about to get dumped from Standard Life.
Eric Anstee has already departed the ICAEW.
Rona Fairhead seems to have grabbed the FT by the scruff of its neck, but her success at turning round a declining asset in a volatile market is far from assured.
And Dave Hartnett has got his hands full. "Months after the unexpected departure of HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) chairman Sir David Varney, finance director Stephen Jones is jumping ship. The department is also trying to fill the vacant position of chief financial director." I wonder if he'll have time to attend the awards?
Perhaps "personality" actually means "newsworthy" and AccyAge is just looking for stories. Anyway, on that basis my money's on the accountant.
Alison Reed is just about to get dumped from Standard Life.
Eric Anstee has already departed the ICAEW.
Rona Fairhead seems to have grabbed the FT by the scruff of its neck, but her success at turning round a declining asset in a volatile market is far from assured.
And Dave Hartnett has got his hands full. "Months after the unexpected departure of HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) chairman Sir David Varney, finance director Stephen Jones is jumping ship. The department is also trying to fill the vacant position of chief financial director." I wonder if he'll have time to attend the awards?
Perhaps "personality" actually means "newsworthy" and AccyAge is just looking for stories. Anyway, on that basis my money's on the accountant.
Bend like a Reed
So, it's now pretty much official: FD Alison Reed is to leave Standard Life after less than two years in the job. There's still some speculation about exactly why, but her rumoured successor, Prudential's head of risk Andy Crossley, comes from a financial services background. So perhaps the thinking is that the retail experiment (Reed was FD at Marks & Sparks) has failed.
Except... There's a pretty solid precedent for a woman FD moving from retail to financial services very successfully. I'm talking about Helen Weir, of course, FD at Lloyds TSB which is a somewhat weightier beast than poor old Standard Life. Maybe it's something about those odd chaps in insurance... Anyway, as Weir once told me, one of the great things about being in the finance function is that you can see connections and learn lessons moving between sectors in a way that ops guys often can't.
Still, Reed won't be too upset. Her £900,000 pay-off is almost exactly what the average wage-earner could expect to receive in their whole working life.
Except... There's a pretty solid precedent for a woman FD moving from retail to financial services very successfully. I'm talking about Helen Weir, of course, FD at Lloyds TSB which is a somewhat weightier beast than poor old Standard Life. Maybe it's something about those odd chaps in insurance... Anyway, as Weir once told me, one of the great things about being in the finance function is that you can see connections and learn lessons moving between sectors in a way that ops guys often can't.
Still, Reed won't be too upset. Her £900,000 pay-off is almost exactly what the average wage-earner could expect to receive in their whole working life.
21 September 2006
Buy-out news
I've got a passing personal interest in this story: "Incisive Media PLC, the specialist business information provider, has recommended a cash offer from Apax Summer worth 195 pence per share, valuing the group at £199m." I know FD Jamie Campbell-Harris a bit - he's been CEO Tim Weller's right-hand man for ome years and they're built the business up from virtually nothing. Now they, and COO James Hanbury, will have an 11.7 per cent stake in the busines as it goes private.
Weller started the original business, City Financial Communications, in 1994; Incisive was launched after CFC merged with Timothy Benn Publishing in 2000. But Campbell-Harris's story is our inspiration here. A CA who moved into treasury at Saatchi & Saatchi in 1994 after qualifying with PW, he became the ad giant's European financial controller in 1996 and then CFC's FC in 1998. The FD role came the following year. But that's a classic trajectory: accounting to a pure-play finance role (treasury), to a financial management role in a big company, then the same role in a smaller company in a related industry - proving his worth as a strategic partner to the entrepreneur to win the top job. Textbook.
(And well done to all on the deal!)
Weller started the original business, City Financial Communications, in 1994; Incisive was launched after CFC merged with Timothy Benn Publishing in 2000. But Campbell-Harris's story is our inspiration here. A CA who moved into treasury at Saatchi & Saatchi in 1994 after qualifying with PW, he became the ad giant's European financial controller in 1996 and then CFC's FC in 1998. The FD role came the following year. But that's a classic trajectory: accounting to a pure-play finance role (treasury), to a financial management role in a big company, then the same role in a smaller company in a related industry - proving his worth as a strategic partner to the entrepreneur to win the top job. Textbook.
(And well done to all on the deal!)
The odd couple: finance and IT
In nearly nine years of reporting on finance directors and their teams, I've rarely come across an FD who doesn't have board-level responsibility for IT. (Many of them have have line management responsibility for it, too...) But I think we're starting to see sentiments shift.
I was chatting to Martin Craddock the other day - he's the former FD of Rank Hovis. "FDs are increasingly moving out of the IT role, simply because technology is no longer just about recording and ordering transactions in the finance function," he told me. "IT has become such a linchpin of so many activities in so many businesses that it’s becoming too important not to have its own voice on the board - although that remains a major debate in British business." That debate is happening: "What are the signs that IT is taken the right way?," asks Gary Flood in Computing Business. "‘When the IT director or CIO, being one of the highest-paid people, is sitting on the board,’ says Auridian’s McCormack. ‘Where he or she acts as the digital coach to the other people on that board – and where very definitely he does not report in to the finance director – that is never a good sign.’" [My emphasis]
Now we're talking mainly about larger businesses here, where there's scope for a seat on the board for, and a department beneath, an IT director. But this issue is equally important for growing businesses. How can you grow unless you have up-to-date technology to provide efficiencies and scalability in your operations? How can you put together a coherent business plan (for growth or for exit) without describing your IT strategy? But to my mind that means finance professionals - FCs carving this stuff out at the coal-face and FDs evaluating tech investments at the board - will always need those IT smarts. Perhaps we ought to accept that they also need someone alongside them - a true peer - to offer specialist support and strategic vision in IT.
UPDATE: And then I saw this feature from the same magazine. The case study is particularly interesting: "Unlike many CIOs, [Scottish Power's] Jim McEwan did not start his career in the IT industry. He was an accountant before moving into IT in the early 1980s." A-ha. Better yet: "To ensure the IT department’s plans match up to this [ROI] requirement, McEwan has his own dedicated financial controller, who ensures that all the numbers stack up before any business case is presented to the board. ‘It makes it much easier to have a good relationship with all the other finance directors,’ he says." That's what we like: finance integrated with operating and support departments - or even being the force for integration between all those silos in organisation. But the second article - by Sally Flood - does seem to contradict the first - by Gary - slightly...
It really is the best place to see how business works - and to make sure it works.
I was chatting to Martin Craddock the other day - he's the former FD of Rank Hovis. "FDs are increasingly moving out of the IT role, simply because technology is no longer just about recording and ordering transactions in the finance function," he told me. "IT has become such a linchpin of so many activities in so many businesses that it’s becoming too important not to have its own voice on the board - although that remains a major debate in British business." That debate is happening: "What are the signs that IT is taken the right way?," asks Gary Flood in Computing Business. "‘When the IT director or CIO, being one of the highest-paid people, is sitting on the board,’ says Auridian’s McCormack. ‘Where he or she acts as the digital coach to the other people on that board – and where very definitely he does not report in to the finance director – that is never a good sign.’" [My emphasis]
Now we're talking mainly about larger businesses here, where there's scope for a seat on the board for, and a department beneath, an IT director. But this issue is equally important for growing businesses. How can you grow unless you have up-to-date technology to provide efficiencies and scalability in your operations? How can you put together a coherent business plan (for growth or for exit) without describing your IT strategy? But to my mind that means finance professionals - FCs carving this stuff out at the coal-face and FDs evaluating tech investments at the board - will always need those IT smarts. Perhaps we ought to accept that they also need someone alongside them - a true peer - to offer specialist support and strategic vision in IT.
UPDATE: And then I saw this feature from the same magazine. The case study is particularly interesting: "Unlike many CIOs, [Scottish Power's] Jim McEwan did not start his career in the IT industry. He was an accountant before moving into IT in the early 1980s." A-ha. Better yet: "To ensure the IT department’s plans match up to this [ROI] requirement, McEwan has his own dedicated financial controller, who ensures that all the numbers stack up before any business case is presented to the board. ‘It makes it much easier to have a good relationship with all the other finance directors,’ he says." That's what we like: finance integrated with operating and support departments - or even being the force for integration between all those silos in organisation. But the second article - by Sally Flood - does seem to contradict the first - by Gary - slightly...
It really is the best place to see how business works - and to make sure it works.
20 September 2006
FC to FD - it's the operational skills!
I'm going to be writing a lot about the move from financial controller to finance director here and elsewhere. This is a fantastic example: "Toby Mundy, founder of independent Atlantic Books UK, was among the publishers to look on enviously when Waterstone's overhauled its finances a few years ago. The country's largest high-street retailer squeezed its suppliers hard and ruthlessly streamlined its own stockholding, to the extent that it moved into 'negative working capital' - meaning that it generally sold books faster than it paid publishers for them. Now Mundy has decided he wants a little of that wizardry, and has poached Waterstone's financial controller, Tom Connor, to be Atlantic's first ever full-time financial director. It is not entirely a figures-driven appointment; Connor is known as an astute reader and observer of publishing." Brilliant: he's earned his spurs as a top-notch numbers man, clearly got a rep for some sweet financial strategy, made a visible difference to his organisation - and to top it off, he's known as someone who's in touch with the business. Ideal.
FCs at the IT coalface
There's no room to be choosy about your roles at mid-sized companies, especially not if you're FD or even financial controller. So it's good to see an FC speaking out at the Best of British Manufacturing IT conference. "Nigel Nash, financial controller at vitamins and minerals supplier LycoRed, will describe how his company moved to an agile ERP environment consistent with food industry requirements, enabling it to compete with much larger rivals on flexibility, speed, lead times and quality of service." Getting stuck into this kind of project - which any ambitious FC probably will do if their business is even remotely up-to-date technologically - is an absolute must. Not only will it give you the technical smarts and project experience that look so good on the CV - getting a single view of the business you're already in can only make the job easier, more fun and free up time for more sophisticated (and interesting) analytical and strategic roles. Nice one.
UPDATE: Missed this story in a similar vein, quoting GNER financial controller Tim Kavanagh about the train operator's new EPOS system. Intimate knowledge of that kind of project is a major plus if you have ambitions outside the finance function, of course. But then, with the board clear-out at GNER last month - which saw rail division FC Tom Fielden promoted to FD - it's hardly surprising that there are opportunities there to get your fingers into different pies...
UPDATE: Missed this story in a similar vein, quoting GNER financial controller Tim Kavanagh about the train operator's new EPOS system. Intimate knowledge of that kind of project is a major plus if you have ambitions outside the finance function, of course. But then, with the board clear-out at GNER last month - which saw rail division FC Tom Fielden promoted to FD - it's hardly surprising that there are opportunities there to get your fingers into different pies...
FD as a potential scapegoat (again)
Big news over at Standard Life where it looks like FD Alison Reed could be on her way - as part of a wide-ranging management ouster. She's only been at the recently demutualised insurer for just over a year, and based on the press coverage, you have to wonder what she's been up to. "She was hired to help the insurer float on the stock market after unprecedented turmoil," argues the Guardian, "following rule changes by the Financial Services Authority two years ago, forced it to conclude it could no longer function as a mutual." But, er, surely former FD John Hylands was tasked specifically with the flotation project. Perhaps Reed has been characterised in this way to make a nice clean break for the business when she goes. If anyone argues about the way the demutualisation was handled, they can just point at her, Hylands (who was always going to leave after the float) and the other departing directors...
First post
This blog will be my "dumping ground" - somewhere to post both personal and professional stuff that's awaiting some other kind of content management. More later...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
