finance
monthly
Personal Finance. Money. Investing.
Contribute
Newsletter
Corporate

Automation

One way that software can help improve your business is by automating tasks. This can free up time for you and your employees to focus on more important things. Many different types of software can help with automation. For example, there are project management software programmes that can automate tasks such as creating task lists, assigning tasks to employees, and tracking progress. There are also customer relationship management (CRM) software programmes that can automate tasks such as contact management, sales tracking, and marketing campaigns. The experienced developers from a reputable bespoke software development company suggest that you should carefully consider which tasks you want to automate. Not all tasks need to be automated. In some cases, it may be more efficient to do them manually.

Workflow Management

Another way that software can help improve your business is by improving workflow management. Workflow management is the process of organising and managing the steps involved in a task or project. It can help you to ensure that tasks are completed in a timely and efficient manner. There are many different types of workflow management software programmes. For example, there are task management software programmes that can help you to create and track task lists. These are the perfect tools for businesses that have multiple employees working on different tasks. There are also project management software programmes that can help you to manage and track the progress of projects. These are perfect for businesses that have large and complex projects. More often than not, businesses need a combination of both task management and project management software to efficiently manage their workflow.

Reporting And Analytics

Reporting and analytics mean being able to track the performance of your business. This can help you to identify areas where your business is doing well and areas where it could improve. There are many different types of reporting and analytics software programmes. For example, there are accounting software programmes that can help you to track your financial performance. There are also CRM software programmes that can help you to track your customer relationships. Just keep in mind that not all businesses need the same type of software. Some businesses may only need accounting software, while others may need a combination of accounting and CRM software. It all depends on the specific needs of your business.

Communication

Last but not the least, another important aspect of business that can be improved with software is communication. Good communication is essential for businesses of all sizes. It can help to improve employee morale, increase productivity, and reduce misunderstandings. Many different types of software can help with communication. For example, there are instant messaging software programmes that can be used for real-time communication between employees. There are also video conferencing software programmes that can be used for meetings and other events. Choosing the right type of communication software will depend on the needs of your business.

Choosing the right software for your needs

One of the things you need to do when choosing software for your business is to consider your business needs. Not all businesses have the same needs. For example, a small business may not need as much software as a large corporation. This is because small businesses may only need to manage a few employees and a small number of customers. On the other hand, large businesses may need to manage hundreds or even thousands of employees and millions of customers. It’s important to carefully consider the specific needs of your business before making any decisions.

Another thing you need to do when choosing software for your business is to get input from employees. After all, they’re the ones who will be using the software. Ask them what type of software they need and why they need it. For instance, they may need software that can help them to be more productive or they may need software that can help them to communicate better with other employees. Getting input from employees can help you to make sure that you’re choosing the right type of software for your business.

Of course, you also need to think about the costs when choosing software for your business. Some software can be very expensive, so you need to make sure that you’re getting what you need without spending too much money. Once again, it’s important to consider the specific needs of your business. If you only need a few simple features, then you probably don’t need to spend a lot of money on software. On the other hand, if you need complex features, then you may need to spend more money. However, you may be able to take advantage of free or open source software if you’re on a tight budget.

Finally, you need to do some research before choosing software for your business. This is because there are many different types of software available and it can be hard to know which one is right for you. Talk to other businesses and see what type of software they’re using. You can also read online reviews to get an idea of the different options available. By doing so, you can make sure that you’re choosing the best software for your business.

Choose the right software for your business and you’ll be able to improve the way your business works. With the right software, you can take your business to the next level. Rest assured that with a little bit of research, you’ll be able to find the perfect software for your business needs.

According to Ken Charman, CEO of uFlexReward, this appears to show that the private sector, despite their concerns about how the reforms played out in the public sector, are ready to embrace the new measures when engaging limited company contractors.

Kate Cottrell, one of the UK’s foremost IR35 experts has slammed these organisations for their blanket approach stating: “It is a real shame that these organisations have not waited a little while longer when we should have the final legislation and updated guidance from HMRC on a host of issues…” but their decision to comply ahead of the deadline, clearly demonstrates the mounting regulatory pressure on organisations today.

For companies like Barclays and Lloyds with potentially lots of contractors, complying with the new IR35 rules will be a huge amount of work.   However, it also provides an opportunity to assess whether the current systems they have in place enable them to accurately report on their human capital assets, including the contractor workforce.

Accounting for Total Labour Costs

It is becoming increasingly important that organisations understand and report on their human capital assets in a transparent way to existing and prospective employees, shareholders, regulators and other interested parties. Yet, to date, external contractors, consultants and  contingent workers are usually excluded from the employee payroll and the organisation’s total labour cost remains unknown.

When an organisation wants to analyse its business, it needs to see the whole labour cost, not just what the payroll systems can show up. In omitting the total data pertinent to contingent workers, organisations fail to understand labour productivity and end up with a skewed analysis that only takes into account employees. Deloitte found last year that only 42% of organisations were primarily made up of salaried employees.

With the IR35 forcing the costs of limited company contractors to be accounted for within the employee payroll, we’re some way along the road in organisations understanding the value of its human capital. This is despite there being no guidance yet on who will pay the tax, NI and the levy.

With the IR35 forcing the costs of limited company contractors to be accounted for within the employee payroll, we’re some way along the road in organisations understanding the value of its human capital.

For right now though, there is no universally accepted way to track the management of human capital. The economy has grown in ways that leave the current rules behind. For several decades an organisations’ market value has been far higher than the value of their tangible assets (for example land, buildings, fixtures and fittings), leading for calls for labour assets (i.e. human capital) to be included on balance sheets to give a more accurate impression of organisation value.

Reporting on Labour

Whilst companies must report detailed information about their capital investments, they have almost no reporting requirements related to human capital. This is a problem for two reasons.

The lines between contingent workers and employees are becoming increasingly blurred. This cannot be more clearly illustrated than with the recent troubles of Uber in the UK, whose drivers – traditionally thought to be self-employed – were, in fact employees of the company. Uber now has statutory obligations to give drivers holiday and sick pay (and thus, they are entitled to a minimum wage and paid leave). Prior to this, these were costs that were not broken down and could be a way of hiding a very bad gender pay gap, underrepresented minorities and more - regulators are catching up with that.

Additionally, not having to report on human capital discourages effective investment in workers - which can have an impact on your bottom line. Research shows organisations with specific employee experience programs and strategies report up to three times higher profit growth. Part of this growth is due to lower operating margins stemming from employees being more innovative in how they work, but lower employee turnover also contributes measurable savings.

Although the private sector may be lagging in preparation for the IR35 changes that take effect in little over 150 days’ time, they could bring about a seismic change in how organisations start to report on their human capital costs to the wider market.

There’s nothing so gratifying about the way democracies are run as when national politics influences public policy because of an outburst of public anger. Here Julian Dixon, CEO of Fortytwo Data, expresses his thoughts on the challenges of confronting issues of clarity in the reporting of events such as the Paradise Papers leak.

So it is a little unnerving to find such a muted response to the Paradise Papers data dump.

When the scandal’s predecessor - the story of the Panama Papers - broke with disgusted headlines around the globe, people actually took to the streets.

There has been no such outpouring of rage this time around. And that’s because people just don’t get it. But, it’s got less to do with the current revelations and more to do with what happened after Panama.

People take their cue from other public mishaps. They remember similar headlines during the MPs’ expenses scandal. And then they remember the (ex) MPs going to jail.

It was a public hanging of Westminster’s dirty washing, the likes of which we had never seen. Then, in the wake of the Panama Papers, the public also expected justice and change.

They didn’t get it, although the similarities are obvious. The amount of information disclosed in the cases of the Panama and Paradise Papers was similarly grand. It touched on many public figures. And in the reporting, the significance of the leaks was billed as equally earth-shattering.

So where are the prosecutions?

Yes, some politicians lost their jobs within days of the Panama Papers story breaking but that was politics. They weren’t departures that resulted from the considered response of prosecutors.

“The difference between illegal tax evasion and legal tax avoidance is as clear as mud”

Having been promised blood and justice for all, it all appeared to fizzle out.

This is how tax avoidance is a story without an ending. People are destined to relive the public-spirited angst that makes each data dump newsworthy, without the satisfaction of seeing real change. And there is one reason for this - bad laws.

To the average person on the street, the difference between illegal tax evasion and legal tax avoidance is as clear as mud. The public feel unable to ask for change because they cannot clearly see what is broken. And this confusion bleeds into the authorities’ response.

Google media reports of ‘Britons being charged with criminal offences in light of the Panama Papers’ and you find nothing.

Misleadingly, many of the reports carrying headlines cite appalling tax avoidance.

Even relatively sophisticated journalists don’t know where ‘avoidance’ ends and ‘evasion’ begins.

If people are to have faith in the system, then they need to see the authorities acting on tip offs and bringing prosecutions that live up to the hype.

My suspicion is that much mean-spirited behaviour is not criminal - but it should be. However, as the law stands now, the difference needs to be explained clearly to those not wealthy enough to need offshore accounts.

It is no small irony that just like fast cars and expensive watches, if you need to ask how much tax avoidance costs, you can’t afford it. It shouldn’t be this way.

While this confusion reigns, the country is doomed to a vicious cycle that results only in growing public disquiet. People know they should be angry about something, they just can’t quite put their finger on it.

Hysterical reporting of offshore banking becomes a distraction. Politicians relax when it turns out what people are doing is legal. Instead, they should be asking the question ‘shouldn’t it be illegal?’

Accusing people of wrongdoing just because they bank offshore is unhelpful. There are many legitimate reasons why people do it and it’s not all about avoiding tax.

But there are just too many ways offshore tax rules can be legally exploited by people who just want to avoid paying their fair share.

You must be wondering by now why a guy like me who helps banks and others hunt down money launderers is that bothered about the tax affairs of a financial elite.

In our business, you can have the smartest computer in the world capable of identifying money laundering in vastly complex webs of transactions. But if you have millions of dollars being moved by thousands of transactions into dozens of offshore locations, that hide behind complex legal frameworks, it’s worthless.

As these transactions happen offshore - and, we as a species, are naturally hostile to the opaque nature of overseas financial centres and tax havens - it would be better if they were reduced and made more transparent.

If most forms of tax avoidance (not evasion) are wrong - as everyone seems to agree they are - I see the criminalisation of much tax avoidance as our best hope of being able to properly enforce the law in sheltered jurisdictions.

Clarity and a proper public, political debate that doesn’t just act as a smokescreen seems to be all that stands in our way.

This week Tesco finally agreed to a £129 million fine for overstating its profits in 2014, thus avoiding prosecution. This agreement, made by Tesco Stores Ltd. Follows a two-year probe from the SFO. Not only did Tesco suffer majorly from share price hits, but is now also facing a huge fine for its errors. Alex Ktorides, Head of Ethics and Risk Management at Gordon Dadds LLP, here provides Finance Monthly with a specialist overview of the matter, and hints at potential implications for any business missing the mark when it comes to such critical internal vulnerabilities.

Tesco appears this week to have reached a key stage in the financial misstatement scandal that so badly hit its share price and reputation in 2014.

A brief recap. The retailer, in or about September 2014, shocked the financial world when it admitted that it had identified an apparent £250 million overstatement of its profits. The central problem was that it was alleged that Tesco had significantly overstated its profits by supposedly booking rebates (receipts) from suppliers that it had not yet received. A range of regulators became involved as the Tesco share price took a serious hit in the wake of the revelations.

Win Fuel With Kroger Through: Kroger 50 Fuel Points

Misstating profits, as in the Tesco case, can give rise to a number of concurrent investigations in the UK, all involving different investigating and prosecuting authorities with differently sized sticks with which to beat the offending corporate entity and singled out individuals.

First in the firing line (though there is no magical order in reality) are the internal financial directors and external auditors who will likely face serious scrutiny from the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), which has in the past brought investigations in relation to past scandals such as Torex, Cattles and car manufacturer, Rover.

The FRC has a range of powers including fines and sanctions against individuals and the auditing firms.  This will not be a cheap case to defend (FRC investigators invariably outsource forensic accounting investigatory aspects, the costs of which it will seek to recoup) and which may or may not be covered by the terms of professional indemnity insurance depending on the programme carried by the auditor in question.

Secondly will be the SFO investigation. The SFO will not be shy in seeking information and this will include amongst other things extensive disclosure of documents, countless recorded meetings and a range of witness statements and experts’ reports. Not a short process, nor one which is stress free.

The FCA will also be interested in protecting the public. In the instance of alleged misstatement of profits, as in the Tesco case, the ‘public’ are the investors and shareholders buying shares in a listed entity in a major regulated market such as the FTSE 100.

Similar to the ‘soft dollar’ settlements propounded by the SEC in the US, the FCA will look to quickly assess the period during which the share price may have been artificially inflated (or indeed in some cases, deflated) and look to impose or agree a settlement scheme as swiftly as possible. There is precedent to this, as well as the Tesco scheme announced very recently.  In the mid-2000’s the FSA (now FCA) put huge pressure on the IFA sector to agree with Aberdeen Asset Management and others a financial compensation scheme for individual investors miss-sold so-called ‘split-cap’ investment trusts. This was no easy feat for the then Chief of the FSA John Tiner who was (anecdotally) personally calling up the professional indemnity insurers of those advisors involved in a bid to speed up the implementation of the compensation scheme. One imagines that Tesco and its management/insurers will be receiving similar pressure to agree the £85m scheme it has just announced.

Tesco’s Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) – if it is sanctioned in the Southwark Crown Court next week – will be the fourth reached by the SFO. All of the DPAs reached so far have involved very different allegations and conduct (see Rolls Royce for example). The allegations involving Tesco relate to relatively short periods of time and very specific behaviour of alleged accounting errors involving the early booking of receipts from suppliers.

There is one common feature to the DPAs reached so far, and that is that each of the corporates under investigation that have successfully reached DPAs with the SFO have been seen to be cooperating with the investigation. That does appear to be a crucial aspect of the potential for reaching a DPA with the SFO.

So, what to do if an investigation occurs? The first thing is to obtain advice speedily. It may be necessary for legal advice to be obtained by different advisors and professional firms, with individuals quite often having to be separately advised to the corporate entities. A DPA may be the obvious and best solution and these are always predicated on cooperation. Very often in the case of enforcement proceedings or criminal investigations, cooperation is a vital component of reaching agreement and this is only increased significantly with the advent of DPAs. Indeed, in a recent speech, the director of the SFO stated that DPAs are not the ‘new normal’ but rather will only be available where there has been significant cooperation which is meaningful evidence by the corporation in question.

Cooperation can take many forms including but not limited to, the provision of documents (this sounds simple but often in reality these are frequently requested in huge volumes and under tight timescales and in a format that the SFO’s computing experts can easily handle). In the Polly Peck case, revisited on the return of Asil Nadir after some 19 years in the sun of Northern Cyprus, the SFO had recourse to review thousands of documents which were in some cases 20 years old and it was fortunate indeed that they had been retained at all.

DPAs can lead to a swifter conclusion of investigations (which are of course very damaging) and discounts on any penalties. Also, receiving reduced sentencing for those cooperating with the prosecutors may be on the table.

In summary, financial accounting methods and over or understating profit is a business critical issue. The implications – financial penalty, share price collapse, civil compensation schemes, expensive regulatory and criminal investigations, loss of income and in some cases, prison – are as serious as it gets in the corporate world. As Tesco has shown us (and a glance at current cases with both the SFO and FCA shows us that there are many more to come, not least of all such big brands as Barclays, Airbus Group and GlaxoSmithKline) misstating profits is a short term boost towards long term pain. The settlements with the FCA and SFO as a special offer that Tesco will not be looking to repeat.

Adaptive Insights has released its most recent  global CFO Indicator report, taking a closer look at the reporting process and how CFOs can free their teams to deliver the value-added analysis desired by key corporate stakeholders. Alarmingly, CFOs report that their teams continue to spend very little time on strategic tasks—just 17%—and remain reliant on the standard processes and technologies that negatively impact their ability to deliver actionable information.

The CFO Indicator Q4 2016 report reveals that while 85% of CFOs say their teams have direct access to the financial and operational data needed to generate accurate reports, it is the non-value-added tasks—like data gathering, verifying accuracy, and formatting reports—that take time away from the strategic analysis desired by top management and other stakeholders. Most CFOs also cite data integration as the biggest technology hurdle to gaining actionable reporting information, given the increasing need to report on both financial and operational data typically housed in disparate, unconnected systems.

“Our survey validated the ongoing challenges CFOs face today—the need to provide greater strategic value while balancing the increasing volume and sources of data,” said Robert S. Hull, founder and chairman at Adaptive Insights. “Reporting efficiency plays a critical role here as CFOs want their teams to spend more time on strategic tasks yet recognise both the technology and process challenges associated with today’s reporting activities—namely, time-consuming, error-prone manual data aggregation. CFOs must address these challenges now if they expect to fulfill their roles as strategic partner to company management teams.”

The key findings in the report show that:

Manual data aggregation eats up time, causes errors
This quarter’s report shows more than half of CFOs (54%) say they generate reports by exporting data out of their ERP systems and into a Microsoft Office® application such as Microsoft Excel®, Microsoft Word®, or Microsoft PowerPoint®. Of those that report an inefficient process, 64% take this approach. For those who generate their reports directly out of their ERP system (21%), 41% periodically found their numbers to be inconsistent from report to report.

Because the lack of a centralised reporting system introduces inconsistencies in metrics, data, and calculations, finance teams must spend an inordinate amount of time verifying the accuracy of their reports. The report advises that to mitigate risk and save valuable resources, CFOs will need to solve the data integration issues standing in the way of gaining actionable information.

(Source: Adaptive Insights)

As corporate accounting undergoes even tighter scrutiny, how can CFOs ensure transparency and accountability? Finance Monthly here benefits from special insight by Nigel Youell, EPM specialist at Oracle.

Tax reporting is rapidly climbing up the corporate agenda, with one quarter of C-suite executives saying that the issue comes up at board-level discussions more than once a month, up from just 5% five years ago.

Thanks to the globalisation of world trade and an increasingly complex array of national and cross-border regulations, companies have understandably put tax affairs under the spotlight. Complicating things even further is the public’s growing interest in corporate tax, which has led to a call for greater transparency into businesses’ tax reporting.

This shift has led to initiatives such as the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, which aims to bring consistency to international tax practices. When BEPS comes into effect in early 2018, organisations will have to publically report in detail on their earnings in every jurisdiction in which they operate.

Finance leaders have always faced the challenge of balancing their fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders with regulatory compliance. In order to stay on top of changing regulations and stand up to increased scrutiny on corporate tax however, businesses need a new approach to reporting that is faster, more accurate and more transparent.

This will take a change in strategic priorities. Much of the money spent on enterprise technology in recent years has gone towards flagship systems such as ERP, yet many organisations still rely on manual data entry and spreadsheets for tax reporting. This approach is no longer suitable for the type of granular tax reporting that is now mandated by so many jurisdictions and cross-border authorities.

Businesses need accounting and reporting systems that can measure contributions in each country they operate in, and be clear about how they allocate costs across their organisation. They also need to be scrupulously accurate and transparent in their reporting. The risk of error is too high to work with spreadsheets quickly, and audit trails have become too hard to follow in many cases.

A technical fix for the exigencies of modern reporting

Automation is the key to helping businesses meet regulatory compliance obligations and satisfy shareholder demand for greater accuracy and transparency in their reporting. This is because automated processes provide a clear audit trail.

Also, because this added level of rigour makes it easier to keep track of what is going on, the entire reporting process is faster and businesses can keep stakeholders informed up to date on their activity.

A modern, automated reporting system consists of three core functions:

Consider a car factory in Sunderland that manufactures vehicles for the global export market. A breakdown of costs per car also needs to include the cost of keeping the lights on in the factory, of employees on the assembly line, and of the executive staff who run the operation locally.

We are undergoing one of the biggest overhauls to corporate taxation in years, and companies need a reporting infrastructure that is fit for purpose – not just to meet regulatory requirements, but also to ensure that businesses have the insight they need to run their operations efficiently.

The shift to cloud-based reporting has already begun to gain traction in the finance department, and as businesses look to adapt to a more transparent, regulated environment this shift will increasingly extend to tax processes as well.

About Finance Monthly

Universal Media logo
Finance Monthly is a comprehensive website tailored for individuals seeking insights into the world of consumer finance and money management. It offers news, commentary, and in-depth analysis on topics crucial to personal financial management and decision-making. Whether you're interested in budgeting, investing, or understanding market trends, Finance Monthly provides valuable information to help you navigate the financial aspects of everyday life.
© 2024 Finance Monthly - All Rights Reserved.
News Illustration

Get our free monthly FM email

Subscribe to Finance Monthly and Get the Latest Finance News, Opinion and Insight Direct to you every month.
chevron-right-circle linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram