Category Archives: Finance

They Killed Kenny … You B@st@rds!

Those of you familiar with South Park are aware that poor, cursed, Kenny McCormick died in nearly every episode during it’s first five seasons, before staying dead for a year, and then returning to die occasionally in seasons seven through thirteen. However, even though Kenny McCormick has died over 100 times, the number of deaths he has experienced is only a fraction of the number of companies killed last year because many companies wouldn’t pay on time!

A recent article over on SupplyManagement.com, which summarizes research from the Federation of Small Businesses ( FSB ), notes that approximately 4,000 small suppliers were forced out of business last year as a result of late payment. That’s just small suppliers tracked by the FSB! How many companies would still be in business if their customers simply maintained and adhered to fair payment schedules? How many? Think about it.

So, if you are extending your payment teems to sixty days, ninety days, and beyond … all I can say is … you killed Kenny … you b@st@rds!

Have No Fear … the CFO is Here!?

Share This on Linked In

Recently, no doubt due to the severe financial implications of a poorly performing supply chain or unexpected supply chain disruption in this economy, I’ve been noticing a lot more articles about supply chain finance. This is a good thing … and a bad thing. It’s a good thing in that it shines light upon the savings that are available as a result of good financial decisions and a bad thing in that some articles are still written by people who don’t have a clue and think that factoring, extending payment terms to suppliers, and / or shifting inventory to suppliers are good financial decisions. (They’re not … if you don’t put your supplier out of business, at the very least you will see higher prices. You’ll probably see a lot of animosity and an unwillingness to do anything beyond the contractual obligation and, when the next boom comes and the supplier can choose their customers again, you will ultimately get dumped for a better customer.)

However, one article in particular on “supply chains and demand” in CFO Magazine made a few points that should be highlighted.

While it might be convenient (and even more profitable from an optimization perspective) to model multiple supply chains around product groupings, geographies, or raw commodity requirements … you should only have one global supply chain from an administrative perspective.
When Sara Lee integrated essentially two separate supply chains, administrative costs were reduced by 10%. Furthermore, one chain means one set of best-of-breed applications, which means one set of fees, and one (set of) centralized data store(s) … which saves you big come spend analysis time.

You need to be deliberate and rigorous when it comes to the financial security of your suppliers.
You need to not only make sure that they have enough business to remain in the black, but that they are also getting paid on time. In this economy, working capital loans … assuming your supplier can get them, are very expensive and could tip them into the red and on the fast-track to bankruptcy. You also need to analyze key financial metrics like working capital, ROIC, and ROE to insure that they have stability.

If you’re not sensing demand, your forecast accuracy is likely to cost you significantly when the market picks up again.
Even in stable markets, most traditional forecasting software is barely tolerable. In this market, its accuracy is likely unusable. But new demand sensing based forecasting software that updates daily can be quite reliable in the hands of a knowledgeable user with enough historical data at a granular level. Improvements of 20% to 40% are not unheard of, like the improvement of 25% at Unilever.

For more good advice, and a good introduction to supply chain finance, see the supply chain finance primer on the e-Sourcing Wiki.

Are Bad Financial Tools Killing Your Innovation?

Share This on Linked In

Not enough companies are innovating, even though it’s doubly important that they do so given the current economic climate. Now some companies don’t, and probably won’t ever, get the importance of innovation, and as sad as it is, I get that. A few companies do get the importance of innovation, and are still focussed on innovation. And then there are those companies where the leading thinkers get it, but the management says no because it’s too expensive and too risky, despite the low-risk proposals and high ROI presentations that are put forward by brilliant staff.

Needless to say, this has perplexed me because while I know for a fact that there are always going to be those managers who are just too stupid to get it, I have to assume this is not the case at the average company because most boards don’t put up with idiots for too long, especially when business is going down the tubes. So I did some research, and stumbled upon a great article in last year’s Harvard Business Review that might account for some of the reasons management says no when they should be saying “that’s great … do it now“!

In “Innovation Killers: How Financial Tools Destroy Your Capacity to Do New Things”, the authors highlight three financial analysis tools whose misguided application will cause a CFO to say no to innovation every time, even when the answer should be an exuberant yes. More specifically, the following financial methods tend to lead the CFO, and management, towards the event horizon of the do-nothing black hole where they get sucked in to the forever stagnant singularity from which they’ll never escape.

  • Fixed and Sunk Costs
    The method of evaluating fixed and sunk costs with respect to future investments confers on unfair advantage to the status quo.
  • Share Price
    The emphasis on earnings per share as the primary driver of the share price to the exclusion of almost everything else diverts resources away from investments whose payoff, no matter how large, lies beyond the immediate horizon.
  • Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) and Net Present Value (NPV)
    The common application of these methods to evaluate investment opportunities causes managers to underestimate the real returns and benefits of investment in innovation.

Of these, the DCF and NPV is probably the deadliest because its often the first calculation done by the CFO, and when your proposal fails this biased sniff-test, your project is stopped cold in its tracks.

So what’s the problem? Why does the DCF, which should be capturing the financial benefits of ROI innovation projects, instead illustrate that they will yield less of a return than the status quo?

The problem, referred to as the DCF trap, is that when most financial managers compare the expected cash flows from an innovation project against the default scenario of doing nothing, they incorrectly assume that the present health of the company will persist indefinitely if the investment is not made. We all know that this is not the case. Pick a vertical … any vertical … the sale of every product declines over time because people always want “new” and “improved”. It’s nothing new. Archaeologists have illustrated that the life-cycle of pretty much every “invention” throughout history followed the battleship curve. This means that, if you do nothing, sales will eventually start to decline.

If, instead of assuming flat line revenues for doing nothing, the financial manager correctly assumed declining revenues starting 6 months to 3 years out (depending on the vertical and product line), they’d quickly see that the loss associated with doing nothing is much greater than the “sunk cost” of a new innovation project, even if the ROI turned out to be less than expected.

Long story short, next time you’re turned down on an innovation request, ask why. When they say it costs too much, or the risk is too high, ask to see the calculations. Review them, find the “trap”, redo them, and try again. You might not succeed (because some managers will never admit their mistake), but if you start educating them, maybe the next project you present will get approved, allowing you to get back on the road to innovation.

The Z-Score … or ZZZ-score

Share This on Linked In

A recent Supply Chain Digest piece on what are the best ways to estimate supplier financial risk? noted that while multiple methods may be needed to see the complete picture, the Altman Z-Score is one of the best, if not the best, predictor of bankruptcy risk. In other words, the lower your score, the more likely your firm will be the next to go to financial sleep.

As per investopedia and wikipedia, the Z-score is a model that combines (four or) five different financial ratios to determine the likelihood of bankruptcy using weighted multipliers calculated against refined statistical models. Studies have shown it to be more than 70% accurate in predicting corporate bankruptcies two years prior to Chapter 7 filing.

The relevant ratios combined in the standard Z-score are:

    • (T1) Working Capital / Total Assets
    • (T2) Retained Earnings / Total Assets
    • (T3) Earnings Before Interest and Taxes / Total Assets
    • (T4) Market Value of Equity / Total Liabilities
    • (T5) Sales / Total Assets

And the calculation is: Z = 1.2T1 + 1.4T2 + 3.3T3 + 0.6T4 + 0.999T5

And it makes sense. With this model, a firm is likely on the edge of bankruptcy if:

  • its total asset to EBITDA is high
    which means it’s earnings aren’t enough to sufficiently maintain it’s assets and cover it’s operating expenses
  • its total asset to retained earnings ratio is high
    which means the bank balance is shrinking (and possibly doing so rapidly)
  • its total asset to working capital ratio is high
    which means it doesn’t have enough working capital free to effectively conduct business
  • its total asset to sales ratio is high
    which means it’s not bringing in enough new business
  • its total liability to market value (of equity) is high
    which means that its investments are actually generating losses

Thus, before you enter into an agreement with a (new) supplier for a critical part or service, you should get its financial information and calculate this score. If it’s in the grey area, be sure to hedge your risk. And if it’s low, unless you’re prepared to finance the supplier or even buy it out, run for the hills!

P.S. A recent article on the ISM site describing “watch points on supplier health” contains a sample calculation.

Corpedia’s Top Five Compliance Measures for Surviving Tough Economic Times

Share This on Linked In

Corpedia, a consulting and e-learning provider of compliance and ethics solutions and training, recently released its recommendations on what compliance measures companies can take to weather the storm, as reported in a recent article in Supply and Demand Chain Executive on “Surviving Tough Economic Times”.

Since the Justice Department is already investigating 120 companies for violations of the FPCA (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act), up from 100 last year, and the year is only half over, you should make sure you are heeding these points. The government needs money too … and if they think they can fine you millions, or billions, of dollars … now is the time they’re going to be banging on your door.

The five measures, which are very common-sense and easy to implement, are the following:

  • don’t wait until it’s too late
    even if you don’t have the budget for everything you’d like to do, you can start designing your program now and identify process improvements to improve your state of operations and implement your program incrementally (and if you happen to be unknowingly violating an act, the government will be a lot more lenient if they see you were taking measures to prevent accidental violations)
  • articulate expectations
    unless you effectively communicate a clear, comprehensive code of conduct, and reinforce desired behavior from time to time, you can’t expect that your employees will always know what to do
  • you can’t run or hide … so don’t try
    you must be organized, transparent, and accountable … because even if you have nothing to hide, you’ll look like you do … and that alone could trigger a costly investigation
  • work out the old, bring in the new
    review and modify existing policies and procedures as necessary and create new controls to insure they are followed
  • utilize available knowledge
    Take advantage of available research that sheds light on others’ successes and failures and outlines the framework for a bulletproof compliance program