Category Archives: Finance

Should You Be Using CEI?

Chances are, like every other organization on the block, your Finance department is tracking DSO and if the DSO metric is close to the corporate goal of, say, 30 days, declaring everything to be wonderful and right with the customer base. But is this really the case?

As a recent article over on CFO.com that points out “the trouble with DSO”, an acceptable DSO might not be acceptable at all. First of all, DSO can be manipulated. Secondly, increases in DSO can indicate a situation where a company is “forcing” sales by accepting poor receivable terms, or selling its product at a discount to create sales. (Not good at all!) Thirdly, not only will most customers not pay a net 30 day invoice early, some customers will pay on day 30 like clockwork and should probably be excluded from the DSO calculation.

According to the authors of the aforementioned article, what is really important is collections relative to accounts that have come due, not the current receivables unlikely to be paid early. In order to capture this, the authors are recommending a different metric, the Collection Effectiveness Index (CEI). In this index, 100 is a perfect score, but 100 can be exceeded if a company asks for, and gets, cash in advance. The calculation of CEI is as follows:

 

Beginning Receivables + (Credit Sales/days) – Ending Total Receivables

Beginning Receivables + (Credit Sales/days) – Ending Current Receivables

 x 100

 

It’s an interesting calculation, and I see one advantage for Procurement. During the calculation, the analyst will have to identify those customers with amounts due in “current”. If a customer shows up in this bucket month after month, they probably aren’t a good customer to have. And if a customer never shows up in this bucket, they are probably a good customer to have. This will help Procurement prioritize customer requests as the requests from good customers should get priority, as that is what can keep an organization afloat in trouble times.

Any different thoughts?

An Idea for Aligning the Non-Competing Finance and Procurement Agendas

About two weeks ago, in What Competing Agendas, SI pointed out that, where Finance and Procurement are concerned, there are no competing agendas. Furthermore, as far as the doctor is concerned, whomever said that the dynamics and sometimes competing agendas between finance and procurement are widely known doesn’t get it. At all. Remembering that the ultimate goal of any organization is to derive value for the stakeholders — employees, customers, and shareholders alike — both organizations are trying to find the right balance between cost cutting and value generation to meet the company’s goals and shareholder return. Just because Procurement is always spending while Finance is always trying to cut spend doesn’t mean that the departments are in opposition. Finance knows better than any other department that companies have to spend money to make money, as long as the money is being spent wisely, and a good Procurement organization has better spending as its ultimate goal. There is no competing agenda.

However, since Finance and Procurement sometimes speak a different language, because Procurement hasn’t learned to Speak the Language of the CFO, the agendas aren’t always aligned. And while they both plot a route to the same goal, the routes barely intersect. And any good financier as well as any good sourcerer knows that taking two planes from New York, New York to Mumbai, India with one routed through Frankfurt, Germany and the other routed through Sydney, Australia, is wasteful. Thus, the agendas have to be closely aligned for optimal performance.

But how do you align the agendas?

One idea could be to use balanced scorecards as a shared framework. Back in the early days, SI ran a post that asked if you need a Chief Strategy Management Officer. Back in 2006, CFO Research Services published a short paper that summarized the highlights of their annual executive conference in New York, New York. Part of that report was a mini-paper on aligning the finance function to strategy execution based on a presentation by Robert S. Kaplan, co-developer of the balanced scorecard and co-author of Alignment: Using the Balanced Scorecard to Create Corporate Synergies with David P. Norton.

At the conference, Kaplan discussed various approaches for aligning the finance function more strategically with the goals of business units and corporate leaders, including:

  • the use of balanced scorecards as a shared framework to run the business, guide the operating agenda, and evaluate progress against strategy
  • the use of activity-based budgeting to link the strategic planning capability of Balanced Scorecards with the operational budgeting mechanism of a time-driven ABC (activity-based costing) model

And, as I suggested in my original post, I think it’s a great idea. And I still see no idea why it can’t work for Procurement. In the process of creating a balanced scorecard, Procurement and Finance will have to agree on budgets and savings / avoidance targets, payment terms, working capital objectives, inventory turnover, and a host of other supply management issues. And by scoring themselves on the same metrics, they will have to stick to the plan to collectively succeed. Now, getting the right scorecard might not be easy, but the exercise will get the organizations to a deep alignment that will pay off in the long run if each goes in to the discussions with an open mind and a true desire to work together.

Time to Shorten those Payment Cycles

If you want a sustained recovery, it’s time to start shortening those payment cycles. During the recession, the average payment cycle time in many companies shot up due to “cash flow issues”, and it’s already coming back to bite them in the rear end. As SI has said before, this is not the solution to cash flow and any “cost savings” that the business appears to benefit from (by having more cash in the bank that can potentially earn interest on short 60 or 90 day notes) is more than eaten up by the higher costs the suppliers have to charge to make up for the high interest rates they have to pay to obtain working capital.

It’s important to remember that late payments put extraordinary pressure on suppliers, especially small and medium sized suppliers, which often desperately need cash to purchase equipment, raw materials, and, most importantly, meet their payroll. Furthermore, in addition to cash flow problems caused by late payments, many firms incur significantly extra costs for the time and money spent chasing payments and securing interim financing, usually at exorbitantly high rates – which can often exceed 20% compared to your rate of borrowing, which can be as low as 5%.

All these costs do nothing but drive up the supplier’s cost of operation, and effectively, the price they will need to charge to maintain enough profitability to survive. That’s why many prices for components are rising faster than the raw commodity costs. The lack of prompt payments has cut many suppliers to the bone. Extending payment terms doesn’t help with cash flow or “cost savings”. Extending payment terms only drives up the price in the long term while increasing the risk of a major supply disruption as a supplier could go out of business if all its customers take too long to pay.

So instead of extending Days Payable Outstanding, consider looking at other strategies that can lower your cost of operations – such as improving forecast accuracy, balanced just in time (JIT) production, and low cost financing options that are available to you, as a large company, and not your supplier. Better forecasts lead to less missed opportunities and a reduced need to clear inventory at significant markdowns, balanced just in time (JIT) production reduces inventory costs, which is much better than just shifting them to a third party, and financing your purchase at prime or less will cost everyone less in the long run that forcing a supplier to take out short term financing at 20% to 40% per annum.

Why Finance Needs to Work With Supply Management

A recent survey by KPMG that was highlighted in a Supply & Demand Chain Executive article on how “finance executives [are] at odds with dated, ineffective technology” made it abundantly clear why finance needs to work with Supply Management. The global study found that the number one weakness in finance processes, as reported by almost one-third of respondents, was planning, budgeting, and forecasting.

It’s hard to plan without a budget, and its hard to budget without a forecast. To get a forecast, Finance could work with Marketing, but that’s not meaningful from a Finance perspective. What’s meaningful is how many units are actually bought and used / sold. And how much is actually paid. Who does the buying? Supply Management. And who is most likely to have a price locked in, or at least reasonably estimated? Supply Management. If Finance works with Supply Management, they can get meaningful acquisition/production forecasts (distilled from input from Marketing and Manufacturing), generate meaningful sales forecasts (using historical fill rates), calculate a realistic budget (once target sale prices are factored into account), and then construct an actionable plan. But if Finance doesn’t work with Supply Management, then everything is a crap-shoot estimate based on unrealistic interpolation curves.

Cost Reduction Strategies to Avoid

Cost reduction as a strategy is dangerous. First of all, a company that is too focused on cost might lose sight of value, which is what Supply Management is all about. Secondly, a company that is myopically focussed on immediate cost reduction is likely to make one or more of the following mistakes and actually increase costs in the long term.

Direct cost focus

This sounds like a great idea, since it’s where many organizations in manufacturing and CPG have the bulk of their spend, but the reality is that these are the categories that get analyzed year after year after year, while indirect categories fall by the way side. And the reality is that it’s much better to save 10% on 40 M then it is to save another 2% on a 100 M category. It’s twice the savings.

Landed cost focus

While it’s true that you can (theoretically) “book” a savings if a hardball negotiation gets you the same widget for $1, including transportation, that the organization used to pay $1.10 for, this is not really a savings if the widget is of lower quality and has a higher failure rate. If 15% break-down during the warranty window, when only 5% used to break-down, this has not only increased the average unit cost from 1.16 to 1.18 (in terms of functioning units), but tripled your warranty costs. If replacement costs turn out to be twice the product cost then, instead of paying an average of 1.20 per unit from a TCO perspective, the organization is now paying 1.30 per unit (from a TCO perspective) when the total cost of the lower quality product is calculated.

Year-over-year price reductions in multi-year contracts

This is my favourite example of cost reduction ridiculousness. Sometimes, anxious to meet the ridiculous mandate of 5% year-over-year cost reductions for the next three years, Supply Management organizations will try to negotiate three year contracts with year-over-year price reductions of 5% built in. And often they’ll exceed, and cost the organization approximately 15% more then if they just negotiated the best deal they could. Why? The supplier is going to have to make a profit each year it is in business. Since it’s likely not going to change the production methodology, the raw materials, or the labor that goes into making the product for the lifetime of the contract, the supplier knows that the price in year 3 has to be enough to be profitable. So the price it quotes in year 2 will be 5% more and the price in year 1 will be 5% more again in an attempt to insure it is still profitable in year 3. As a result, the organization ends up paying significantly more in the first two years than they could have paid by just negotiating the best, flat, deal possible. The right way to get year-over-year savings is to tackle different categories each year, not try to negotiate silly year-over-year savings in a single category.