Download - What is top of mind for the CFO? Read Protiviti's 2012 Finance Priority Survey Results

2012 Finance Priorities SurveyBalancing core transactional responsibilities with a greater focus on strategic capabilities to build value in the finance function

1 2012 Finance Priorities Survey

INTRODUCTION

Corporate finance functions continue to tear down walls – those surrounding organizational silos as well as the company’s outer partitions. But make no mistake: These efforts are highly constructive. In response to ongoing macroeconomic and marketplace volatility, leading finance functions identify, analyze and share information with their organizations about innovation, customers, competitors, government actions and other aspects of the external environment to help maximize market opportunities while minimizing the risk that strategic assumptions will become invalid.

In addition to building this “competitive intelligence” capability,1 more finance executives and professionals appear eager to take on greater responsibility for analyzing and reporting key operational metrics to enterprises that grow increasingly hungry for more precise and actionable intelligence. Of course, these executives and professionals also must continue to sharpen their financial performance management activities while improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the broad range of financial processes, transactions and analyses they traditionally have performed. Strengthening these long-established, predominantly transactional activities (while also contending with an ever-increasing risk and compliance management workload) still qualifies as necessary work for finance functions, but the results of Protiviti’s latest finance survey indicate more strategic work is necessary.

Protiviti’s 2012 Finance Priorities Survey, through assessing the self-reported skill levels of finance executives and professionals along with areas they cite for improvement, identifies top priorities and key areas of focus for today’s finance functions. The finance executives and professionals who participated in our survey include chief financial officers, vice presidents and directors of finance, and controllers, and they represent virtually all industry sectors. The most-represented industries include financial services and manufacturing. In terms of size, they represent a diverse group of organizations, with more than 40 percent from companies with US$1 billion or more in annual revenues. We take a closer look at the responses from this group throughout our report. (We may be able to provide additional insights by company size and industry – please contact us for more information.).

Respondents answered more than 100 questions in three categories: Process Capabilities (which include a) Financial Transaction activities and b) Financial Analysis activities), Technical Capabilities (including competencies related to regulatory compliance) and Organizational Capabilities (personal skills).

The study’s most notable findings include the following insights:

1. While finance executives and professionals are focusing more and more on strategic activities, complex transactional issues also rate as top priorities, placing increased pressure on finance functions to make traditional, transaction-heavy processes as efficient as possible, thus freeing up more time for high-value contributions such as financial analysis and business decision-support activities.

2. Competitive intelligence and financial risk management represent top priorities across all sizes of companies and among all levels of the finance function (finance executives, managers and professionals).

3. Finance functions appear intent on moving their shared services organizations beyond a “lift and shift” approach to mature proficiency, enhancing the scope of business services and increasing overall efficiency.

4. Survey respondents are targeting improvement in personal and organizational skills such as negotiation, Six Sigma and dealing with confrontation to help them successfully address functional priorities.

1 The concept of competitive intelligence is addressed more comprehensively in Protiviti’s white paper, “Maximizing the Value of Competitive Intelligence,” available at www.protiviti.com/earlymover.


Throughout the survey findings, it is clear that respondents have prioritized strategic capabilities – including those related to operational metrics, competitive intelligence, customer profitability analysis and reporting, among others – over more transactional activities. That said, highly complex transactional activities, such as complying with international/transfer pricing, also represent key concerns. Combined, these priorities place growing pressure on all finance functions to make transactional work, such as transaction processing and performance of account reconciliations, as standardized, automated and well-governed as possible. Doing so frees up finance resources to concentrate more on adding strategic value to the organization.

Please note that this year’s Finance Priorities Survey includes the addition of a number of new competencies and skill areas. Last year’s survey was the first of this research series. We made adjustments based on feedback and suggestions from the market. Additionally, we revised our 2012 survey instrument to reflect current market conditions, specifically in the areas of financial transactions and analysis.

We are confident the results from our Finance Priorities Survey will be of interest to chief financial officers and other finance executives as well as the finance community at large. In addition, we anticipate a high level of interest in the survey among board members and other C-level executives seeking to understand the strengths of finance functions and areas of priority in terms of growth and development. We are very appreciative and grateful for the time spent by the finance executives and professionals who participated in our survey.

Protiviti July 2012

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe would like to express our thanks to True Partners Consulting and WTAS for their insights and contributions to this study.


RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Process Capabilities (Financial Transactions)

Key Findings – 2012 • Strengthening financial risk management capabilities is a top priority in 2012 amid ongoing

macroeconomic uncertainty (this also was a top concern in the 2011 survey).

• Another clear priority is ensuring tax compliance while lessening the organization’s overall tax burden.

• Chargeback allocation methodology, overall shared services governance and performance management/operating metrics rank as top priorities, suggesting that finance functions are seeking to increase overall performance and generate as much value as possible from shared services centers while also increasing the support levels they provide to operational partners/internal customers.

• Although survey respondents generally rate their competency at performing highly transactional activities, such as account reconciliations, higher than more strategic activities (such as mergers and divestitures), the findings suggest that increasing the efficiency of transactional activities remains critical, as doing so can free up finance resources to devote to higher-value and more strategic concerns.

Table 1: Overall Results, Process Capabilities (Financial Transactions)

“Need to Improve”Rank Areas Evaluated by Respondents Competency

(5-pt scale)

1Financial risk management (hedging, credit risk, FX risk, interest rate risk,

etc.) 2.9

2 Chargeback allocation methodology 2.9

3 Overall shared services governance 2.9

4 Performance management/operating metrics 3.2

5 Foreign taxes 2.2

6(tie)

Tax processing (sales and use tax, 1099, T&E tax coding, etc.) 3.3

Service-level agreements 3.0

8(tie)

Tax planning/forecasting 2.6

State or jurisdiction taxes 2.6

Mergers and divestitures 2.9

Customer management (internal and external) 3.1


NEED TO IMPROVELOWER HIGHER

COM

PETE

NCY

LOW

ERHI

GHER

4

32 1

5

6

710

11

12

13

1415

1718

19

20

21

22

24

2326

27

282930

31

323334

3536

37

38

25

89

16

Number Process Capabilities (Financial Transactions) Number Process Capabilities (Financial Transactions)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Financial risk management (hedging, credit risk, FX risk, interest rate risk, etc.)

Chargeback allocation methodology

Overall shared services governance

Performance management/operating metrics

Foreign taxes

Tax processing (sales & use tax, 1099, T&E tax coding, etc.)

Service-level agreements

Tax planning/forecasting

State or jurisdiction taxes

Mergers and divestitures

Customer management (internal and external)

Cash forecasting

In-country taxes

Working capital management

Debt and other investments

Non-conformance

Issue escalation

Contract management

Overall customer service

Fixed asset accounting

Activity-based costing

Cost allocation

Banking relationships

Month-end close

Quarterly close

Project accounting

Pricing

Travel and entertainment reimbursement

Annual close

Account reconciliations

Standard costing

Time capture and reporting

Payroll tax processing

Payroll processing

Invoicing/billing

Accounts receivable

Accounts payable

Variance analysis

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

Figure 1: Process Capabilities (Financial Transactions) – Perceptual Map


Respondents were asked to assess, on a scale of one to five, their competency in 38 areas of process capabilities focusing on financial transactions, with one being the lowest level of competency and five being the highest. They were then asked to indicate whether they believe they possess an adequate level of competency or if they need to improve, taking into account the circumstances of their organization and industry. (For the Financial Transaction Process Capabilities under consideration, see page 4.) Figure 1 depicts a comparison of “Need to Improve” versus “Competency” ratings in a Process Capabilities (Financial Transactions) landscape.

Financial risk management (FRM) stands out as a top priority in this year’s survey, just as it was in the 2011 study. The sustained importance of FRM reflects ongoing macroeconomic volatility that frequently causes intense uncertainty regarding credit risk, liquidity risk and market risk.

FRM represents a highly strategic and complex activity. Throughout the survey, in fact, respondents consistently rated activities that are more strategic and complex in nature as higher priorities than transactional activities such as accounts payable, accounts receivable and payroll processing. For example, survey respondents place a relatively high priority on improving their management of mergers and divestitures as well as the finance function’s work in developing operating metrics to manage performance. However, the issue still remains that several organizations have yet to fully adopt a strategy focused on automating pure transactional processes and thus driving manual activity around business processes like accounts payable, month-end activities and accounts receivable. Organizations may reflect positively on the overall effectiveness of these processes, but the efficiency and effort to make them effective dramatically increase the cost of these functions compared to implementing some level of automation.

While this weighting makes sense – finance functions contribute the greatest value to the organization through their strategic capabilities – it should not diminish the importance of continuously improving transactional processes. It is notable, for example, that account reconciliations as well as the closing process (month-end, quarter-end and annual) figure as priorities even though survey respondents indicated their finance functions perform these processes with a relatively high level of competency. By further standardizing and automating account reconciliation and other transactional processes, finance functions not only drive greater efficiency, but can also devote more resources, time and attention to FRM and other strategic activities.

Also, foreign taxes, tax processing and tax planning/forecasting rank as higher priorities given the complex and fluid nature of tax policy, as well as the growing global footprint of most companies.

Lastly, finance executives and professionals identified several shared-services-related activities as key priorities, including chargeback allocation methodology, overall shared service governance and better management around service-level agreements. These findings suggest finance organizations that have existing shared services in place are now committed to improving these capabilities and implementing a stronger service management framework. Doing so means increased utilization of performance metrics, implementing simplified service-level agreements that ensure these metrics are better managed, and a transparent costing methodology driving consistent and fair economics. Likewise, as shared service capabilities mature, eliminating “shadow process activity” in the field where duplicate processing typically occurs will be vital for continuous improvement and achieving full maturation within a shared services model.

Key Questions to Consider:• How knowledgeable of, and comfortable with, the organization’s FRM capability is the board of directors?

How can the company’s FRM capability become more forward-looking and responsive?

• How can internal tax policies and the procedures that translate those policies into practice be improved to address frequent changes by relevant tax authorities as well as the company’s entrance into new markets?

• How can we continue to drive greater efficiency (via standardization, automation and additional process improvements) among the finance function’s highly transactional processes?


• How can finance shared services move beyond a “lift and shift” process centralization approach and deliver greater value through a “true” shared services model managed by performance and governed via service-level agreements?

Table 2: Overall Results, Process Capabilities (Financial Transactions) – Two-Year Comparison*

2012 2011

Financial risk management Financial risk management

Chargeback allocation methodology Foreign taxes

Overall shared services governance Tax planning

Performance management/operating metrics Project accounting time tracking

Foreign taxes Tax processing

Tax processing In-country taxes

Service-level agreements State or jurisdiction taxes

Tax planning/forecasting Cash forecasting

State or jurisdiction taxes Debt and other investments

Mergers and divestitures Project budget to actual reporting

Customer management

* Certain competencies and skill areas in this category were not included in both years of the survey.

NOTABLE TRENDS• Financial risk management continues to be a consistent priority within finance transactions.

• Chargeback allocation methodology and overall shared services governance – new additions to the survey – were ranked high as priorities and areas for improvement.

• Consistent with last year, tax-related competencies also rank as top areas of priority.

YEAR-OVER-YEAR RESULTS


Table 3: Finance Executive Results, Process Capabilities (Financial Transactions)

FOCUS ON CFOs AND OTHER FINANCE EXECUTIVES2

The priorities in this category for CFOs and other finance executives are largely similar to those identified by all survey respondents. However, it still remains clear that the most urgent priorities with senior finance leadership include:

• Managing overall business risk from a financial and external market perspective, and hedging currency fluctuations, interest rate and cash flow management.

• Increasing capacity and efficiency surrounding the back office, eliminating concern around non-core business processing and increasing focus on financial analysis and business-planning capabilities.

• Enhancing focus around working capital management practices, better managing cash flow throughout an organization and understanding the impact on the financial bottom line.

2 Includes responses from CFOs and vice president-level executives.


(5-pt scale)


etc.) 3.2

2 Overall shared services governance 3.2

3(tie)

Chargeback allocation methodology 3.2

State or jurisdiction taxes 2.9

5 Foreign taxes 2.5

6(tie)

Activity-based costing 3.4

Contract management 3.2

Non-conformance 3.0

9(tie)

Fixed asset accounting 3.9

Working capital management 4.0


Table 4: Finance Executive Results, Process Capabilities (Financial Transactions) – Two-Year Comparison*

2012 2011


Overall shared services governance Tax planning

Chargeback allocation methodology Foreign taxes

State or jurisdiction taxes Month-end close

Foreign taxes Manual journal entries

Activity-based costing Account reconciliations

Contract management Pricing

Non-conformance Financial consolidations and eliminations

Fixed asset accounting Travel and entertainment reimbursement

Working capital management Tax processing

Leave, overtime and other employee time reporting


NOTABLE TRENDS• Similar to the overall results, financial risk management continues to stand out as a top priority for CFOs

and finance executives.

• Tax-related areas, along with overall shared services governance and chargeback allocation methodology (which were added to the 2012 survey) also rank as top areas of concern for this group.


FOCUS ON LARGE COMPANIES (>US$1 BILLION)Survey respondents from large companies identified similar priorities, with two notable exceptions: Improving cash-forecasting capabilities and mergers and divestitures rank as higher priorities compared to the overall survey response.

Table 5: Large Company Results, Process Capabilities (Financial Transactions)


(5-pt scale)


etc.) 2.7

2(tie)

Performance management/operating metrics 2.9

Chargeback allocation methodology 2.8

Overall shared services governance 2.7

5(tie)

Cash forecasting 3.0

Mergers and divestitures 2.8

7(tie)

Service-level agreements 2.8

Tax planning/forecasting 2.4

Customer management (internal and external) 2.9

10 Foreign taxes 2.1


Table 6: Large Company Results, Process Capabilities (Financial Transactions) – Two-Year Comparison*

2012 2011


Performance management/operating metrics Foreign taxes

Chargeback allocation methodology Project budget to actual reporting

Overall shared services governance Tax processing

Cash forecasting Project accounting time tracking

Mergers and divestitures Cash forecasting

Service-level agreements Debt and other investments

Tax planning/forecasting Tax planning

Customer management State or jurisdiction taxes

Foreign taxes Project accounting expense tracking


NOTABLE TRENDS• Foreign taxes fell as a priority from second in 2011 to tenth this year.

• Similar to other groups in the survey, financial risk management ranks as a top priority for finance functions in large companies. However, unlike other groups in the survey, respondents from large companies did not rank many tax-related areas to be among their top priorities and areas for improvement.


Process Capabilities (Financial Analysis)

Key Findings – 2012 • Finance functions want to strengthen competitive intelligence capabilities to equip executive teams with a

more holistic, and actionable, blend of internal and external strategic insights.

• Performance management and business intelligence remain top priorities, suggesting that finance functions are being asked to provide better information to the enterprise in a more proactive manner.

• Profitability analysis and reporting efforts are maturing beyond channel profitability to focus in a more detailed fashion on product and customer profitability.

Table 7: Overall Results, Process Capabilities (Financial Analysis)

Respondents were asked to assess, on a scale of one to five, their competency in 22 areas of process capabilities focusing on financial analysis, with one being the lowest level of competency and five being the highest. For each area, they were then asked to indicate whether they believe they possess an adequate level of competency or if they need to improve, taking into account the circumstances of their organization and industry. (For the Financial Analysis Process Capabilities under consideration, see page 12.) Figure 2 depicts a comparison of “Need to Improve” versus “Competency” ratings in a Process Capabilities (Financial Analysis) landscape.


(5-pt scale)

1 Competitive intelligence (competitor, customer, geopolitical, etc.) 2.9

2(tie)

Business intelligence (operations reporting) 3.2

Executive dashboards/scorecards 3.2

4 Profitability analysis (product, customer, channel, etc.) 3.3

5 Profitability reporting – customer 2.9

6 Strategic planning 3.2

7(tie)

Performance management 3.4

Profitability reporting – product 3.0

9(tie)

Profitability reporting – channel 2.9

Periodic forecasting 3.5

Ad hoc reporting 3.2



4 32

15

6

710

11

12

13

14

15

17

1619

20

21

22

89

18

Number Process Capabilities (Financial Analysis) Number Process Capabilities (Financial Analysis)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Competitive intelligence (competitor, customer, geopolitical, etc.)

Business intelligence (operations reporting)

Executive dashboards/scorecards

Profitability analysis (product, customer, channel, etc.)

Profitability reporting – customer

Strategic planning

Performance management

Profitability reporting – product

Profitability reporting – channel

Periodic forecasting

Ad hoc reporting

Multiyear budget

Margin management

Annual budget

Ad hoc nonfinancial reporting

Controls reporting

Other statistical reporting

Profitability reporting – segment

Project management

COSO ERM framework

Board of directors financial reporting

External reporting (10-Q, 10-K, 8-K, proxy and other shareholder)

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

COM

PETE

NCY

LOW

ERHI

GHER

Figure 2: Process Capabilities (Financial Analysis) – Perceptual Map


As senior management teams dedicate more attention to external market opportunities, threats and information, survey respondents indicated that their finance functions fulfill a valuable partnership role in these efforts. Specifically, finance executives and professionals cited competitive intelligence more than any other capability as an area they intend to strengthen. (Competitive intelligence is a new competency in the Finance Priorities Survey – it has been added based on feedback received on last year’s study as well as emerging market trends denoting the increasing importance of a strong competitive intelligence function.)

A robust competitive intelligence capability enables companies to scrutinize the external landscape continually for information that can equip decision-makers with the grist they need to identify new growth opportunities and minimize and/or avoid strategic risks. This priority also explains why a related capability, strategic planning, figures as a top 10 issue among survey respondents. By strengthening their company’s competitive intelligence proficiency, finance functions can expect to deepen their involvement in strategic planning activities.

The fact that business intelligence (operations reporting), executive dashboards/scorecards and performance management figure as key priorities suggests that CFOs and their finance teams are taking on greater responsibility for financial and operational reporting. Indeed, top-performing companies – or “Early Movers” 3 – frequently rely on their finance functions to produce, monitor and share integrated analytics. These include a blend of leading indicators (e.g., competitive intelligence) and lagging indicators (e.g., performance management insights) culled from a broad portfolio of internal and external data sources.

This data, once it is transformed into actionable insights, must be shared in a highly efficient manner. The finance function’s executive and operational colleagues, who are awash in data, want to know the handful of key indicators that have the greatest impact on the organization’s performance.

Survey respondents also identified profitability reporting and analysis activities as priority areas, which reflects a pervasive desire to combat margin pressure amid ongoing economic uncertainty and volatility. While many organizations can monitor and manage channel profitability, survey respondents indicated a desire to advance this capability to evaluate and manage profitability at the individual product level and at the customer level. This visibility, driven by the finance function’s data management and analytical skills, can help companies understand, for example, when high-volume customers also figure as the lowest-margin customers.

Key Questions to Consider:• To what extent can your finance function track external factors and translate them into actionable

information that strategic decision-makers need to exploit new opportunities and/or address new threats?

• Are your organization’s business intelligence and performance management processes producing a sufficiently integrated collection of analytics (e.g., financial and operational analytics; internal and external analytics)?

• Are the finance function’s financial and operational performance reports easy to understand, and do executive and operational colleagues consider the reports required reading?

• Are your organization’s profitability analysis and reporting activities maturing to include actionable insights at the product and customer levels?

3 For more information, visit www.protiviti.com/earlymover.



Table 8: Overall Results, Process Capabilities (Financial Analysis) – Two-Year Comparison*

2012 2011

Competitive intelligence KPI development

Business intelligence Operational/productivity reporting

Executive dashboards/scorecards Controls reporting

Profitability analysis Project management

Profitability reporting – customer Other statistical reporting

Strategic planning COSO ERM framework

Performance management Ad hoc nonfinancial reporting

Profitability reporting – product Board of directors financial reporting

Profitability reporting – channel Disclosure committee financial reporting

Periodic forecasting Multiyear budget

Ad hoc reporting


NOTABLE TRENDS• Several new additions to this category – competitive intelligence, business intelligence, executive

dashboards/scorecards and profitability analysis, among other areas – rose to the top of the list in this year’s survey.

• A number of high-ranking areas from last year’s survey, including controls reporting, project management and the COSO ERM framework, among others, fell from the top 10 priority areas.


Table 9: Finance Executive Results, Process Capabilities (Financial Analysis)


CFOs and finance executives identified similar priorities compared to the overall survey response. Of note:

• Business intelligence and performance management dominate the priorities of CFOs as organizations increasingly rely on finance functions for financial and operational reporting.

• The need to monitor external events and markets is making competitive intelligence a top area of concern.

• The focus on protecting and enhancing margins continues in today’s challenging market, with profitability analysis and reporting being high on the CFO’s priority list.


(5-pt scale)

1 Business intelligence (operations reporting) 3.5


3 Executive dashboards/scorecards 3.5

4 Profitability reporting – customer 3.3

5 Performance management 3.6

6 Profitability reporting – channel 3.2

7 Profitability analysis (product, customer, channel, etc.) 3.5

8(tie)

COSO ERM framework 3.0

Controls reporting 3.4

Ad hoc nonfinancial reporting 3.4



Table 10: Finance Executive Results, Process Capabilities (Financial Analysis) – Two-Year Comparison*

2012 2011

Business intelligence Operational/productivity reporting


Executive dashboards/scorecards Ad hoc nonfinancial reporting

Profitability reporting – customer Other statistical reporting

Performance management Project management

Profitability reporting – channel Controls reporting

Profitability analysis Multiyear budget

COSO ERM framework COSO ERM framework

Controls reporting Customer reporting

Ad hoc nonfinancial reporting Variance analysis


NOTABLE TRENDS• For CFOs and finance executives, the COSO ERM framework continues to rank among their top priority

areas.

• The results suggest that ad hoc financial reporting is not as great of a concern for finance executives compared to last year.


Table 11: Large Company Results, Process Capabilities (Financial Analysis)

FOCUS ON LARGE COMPANIES (>US$1 BILLION)Among the notable findings:

• As previously stated, finance functions are increasingly taking a lead role in monitoring external events and markets, with large companies placing the need for better competitive intelligence capabilities at the top of their priority lists.

• The finance function is being looked upon as an increasingly influential partner in the strategic planning process within large companies, as evidenced by this capability’s high ranking for improvement.


(5-pt scale)


2 Strategic planning 3.0

3 Profitability reporting – product 2.9

4(tie)

Profitability analysis (product, customer, channel, etc.) 3.2

Business intelligence (operations reporting) 3.1

6(tie)

Executive dashboards/scorecards 3.2

Profitability reporting – customer 2.8

8 Periodic forecasting 3.3

9(tie)

Performance management 3.4

Ad hoc reporting 3.0


Table 12: Large Company Results, Process Capabilities (Financial Analysis) – Two-Year Comparison*

2012 2011


Strategic planning Operational/productivity reporting

Profitability reporting – product Board of directors financial reporting

Profitability analysis Project management

Business intelligence Period forecast

Executive dashboards/scorecards Other statistical reporting

Profitability reporting – customer COSO ERM framework

Periodic forecasting Controls reporting

Performance management Ad hoc nonfinancial reporting

Ad hoc reporting Multiyear budget


NOTABLE TRENDS• Similar to the overall results, new competencies in this category – including competitive intelligence,

strategic planning, and profitability reporting and analysis – stand out as top priorities and areas for improvement.

• Board of directors financial reporting and project management are among areas that dropped significantly as priorities in this year’s survey compared to the 2011 study.


Technical Capabilities

Key Findings – 2012 • Given the furious pace of change regarding business regulations, accounting standards and tax rules – as well as

the ongoing convergence of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) – finance functions have a growing “readiness” need.

• Reporting uncertainties to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), fair value accounting, international/transfer pricing regulations and IFRS/GAAP convergence projects are among the top areas of priority for finance functions.

Respondents were asked to assess, on a scale of one to five, their competency in 24 areas of technical capabilities in finance, with one being the lowest level of competency and five being the highest. For each area, they were then asked to indicate whether they believe they possess an adequate level of knowledge or if they need to improve, taking into account the circumstances of their organization and industry. (For the Technical Capabilities under consideration, see page 20.) Figure 3 depicts a comparison of “Need to Improve” versus “Competency” ratings in a Technical Capabilities landscape.

Table 13: Overall Results, Technical Capabilities


(5-pt scale)

1 Reporting uncertainties to the IRS (new regulations) 2.2

2(tie)

Fair Value Accounting (ASC 825 – formerly FAS 159, Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Liabilities)

3.0

International/transfer pricing regulations 2.2

International Financial Reporting Standards/GAAP convergence projects 2.7

5(tie)

Readiness for adopting new and impending accounting pronouncements 3.1

FASB Accounting Standards Codification – impact on both research capabilities and disclosures

2.9

7(tie)

U.S. tax laws 2.6

Domestic regulations 2.5

9 Reporting uncertainties – external reporting 2.5

10International cash/earnings repatriation – compliance and accounting

implications 2.2



4

3

2

1

5

6

7

10

11

12

13

14

1517

18

1920

21

22

89

16

24

23

COM

PETE

NCY

LOW

ERHI

GHER

Figure 3: Technical Capabilities – Perceptual Map

Number Technical Capabilities Number Technical Capabilities

1 Reporting uncertainties to the IRS (new regulations) 13 Business combinations

2Fair Value Accounting (ASC 825 – formerly FAS 159, Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Liabilities)

14Proxy rules, including risk and compensation disclosures

3 International/transfer pricing regulations 15SEC's 2007 Interpretive Guidance regarding Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

4International Financial Reporting Standards/GAAP convergence projects

16 PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 5

5Readiness for adopting new and impending accounting pronouncements

17SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) No. 104: Revenue Recognition Criteria for SEC Registrants

6FASB Accounting Standards Codification – impact on both research capabilities and disclosures

18Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 (Internal control over financial reporting) *

7 U.S. tax laws 19Sarbanes-Oxley Section 301 (Complaints regarding accounting, internal controls or auditing matters) *

8 Domestic regulations 20Sarbanes-Oxley Section 302 (Disclosure controls and procedures) *

9 Reporting uncertainties – external reporting 21 Revenue recognition – multiple element deliverables

10International cash/earnings repatriation – compliance and accounting implications

22 Regulation S-K & S-X requirements

11 Extensible business reporting language (XBRL) 23 Revenue recognition – general

12Stock-based compensation (ASC 718 or ASC 505-50 – formerly FAS 123R share-based payments)

24 Segment reporting

* Or local country equivalent.


Given the intensely complex nature of nearly all of the priorities survey respondents identified in this section of the survey, the underlying takeaway from these results is surprisingly straightforward and practical: To address in an effective manner the never-ending procession of global regulatory and tax-policy changes, finance functions want to strengthen their readiness. This readiness capability requires increasing the supply of expertise – internally and/or externally – available to:

• Monitor and understand pending accounting pronouncements.

• Create new policies concerning relevant regulatory and accounting rules changes.

• Ensure that these new policies are transformed into procedures that the rest of the enterprise understands and follows.

WTAS (www.wtas.com), an independent U.S. tax firm, notes, “The results of the survey, in particular the tax items shown as priorities as well as the related technical capabilities, reflect the increased level of focus on accounting for income taxes that has evolved in recent years. Jurisdictional concerns and the complexity of doing business domestically and internationally demand that companies provide more detailed reporting and disclosures. The result is more comprehensive and complex tax reporting within the quarterly and annual financial statements, including additional risk analysis and transparency. Recent case law, audit activity by taxing authorities, SEC comments and IRS guidance have heightened the focus on these key areas. The technical application of detailed rules in our self-reporting environment is demanding a higher level of skill from existing personnel within the accounting/tax function. Management recognizes these responsibilities and trends as well as the need to monitor the quality of its reporting in our ever-changing environment.”

Accessing and deploying the necessary expertise to address these areas can be a challenge for companies of all sizes. Smaller organizations may have difficulty justifying the expense of keeping that expertise on staff, while larger companies must strike the right balance between devoting too many full-time resources to this type of readiness while remaining prepared to respond with sufficient expertise when the level of new accounting pronouncements and related regulatory changes increases. Regardless of company size, the survey results show that readiness represents a crucial requirement.

Other priorities identified in this section of the survey reflect current regulatory and policy changes and requirements that companies must address. For example, reporting uncertainties to the IRS (a top priority, according to the results) requires corporate finance, accounting and tax functions to balance how to address the required financial reporting of uncertain tax positions with the resulting impact it has on the disclosures that are part of the federal tax return for that year. The standard, originally intended to eliminate inconsistency in accounting for uncertain tax positions in financial statements, continues instead to generate significant uncertainty within corporate finance and accounting functions.

According to True Partners Consulting LLC (www.tpctax.com), a tax and business advisory firm, “The required tax return reporting of uncertain tax positions to the IRS has been evolving for over two years as the IRS has responded to the tax community’s comments on the original proposals. While the IRS has reduced the amount of reporting originally outlined, the required concise descriptions of the uncertain tax positions still contain sufficient detail to allow identification of the items that the taxpayer has recorded for financial statement purposes.”

In addition, top priorities for finance executives and professionals this year include fair value accounting, international/transfer pricing regulations and IFRS/GAAP convergence projects. International/transfer pricing requirements often call for external expertise from tax consulting firms (and, in many cases, from economists). The demand for this expertise is growing, according to the study: In last year’s survey, international/transfer pricing requirements ranked eighth among the areas in need of improvement. In 2012, this area has been elevated to a top-three concern.


True Partners Consulting observes, “It is not surprising to find that transfer pricing continues to be a high priority for finance and tax executives. As the business world becomes more global, transfer pricing becomes a more important component of a company’s finances. At the same time, the existing regulatory regimes are enacting more complex regulations and stepping up enforcement in an effort to increase tax revenues. Developing countries have also enacted or are enacting regulations that are not always in step with those of the industrialized countries, further complicating the regulatory landscape. Because transfer pricing, now more than ever, requires specialized skills, it continues to be an area where companies do not have the necessary level of competency and require the use of external consultants.”

On the IFRS front, IFRS/GAAP convergence continues to move ahead and may even beat the SEC’s eventual IFRS compliance timeline in certain key areas such as revenue recognition and lease accounting. The convergence calendar, because it changes GAAP, will continue to affect private and public companies as it unfolds. Again, since convergence of U.S. GAAP and IFRS already is underway in significant areas such as revenue recognition, now is the time for companies to begin formulating the steps they must take to ensure that the transition to IFRS is as seamless, effective and cost-efficient as possible.5

Key Questions to Consider:• What is the overall state of the finance function’s readiness to respond (with internal policy and procedure

guidance) to new accounting pronouncements as well as tax and regulatory changes that affect accounting and financial reporting processes?

• Does your organization have a clear plan of action for the convergence of IFRS and U.S. GAAP (as well as for adopting IFRS)?

• Does your function possess the expertise to address international/transfer pricing regulations as well as other new business regulations and tax rules (both foreign and domestic)?

• Are CFOs and other finance executives and their managers and professional staff on the same page regarding financial reporting areas of priority identified in the survey results, and revenue recognition issues, in particular?

5 For more information on IFRS, read Protiviti’s Guide to International Financial Reporting Standards: Frequently Asked Questions (Second Edition), available at www.protiviti.com.



Table 14: Overall Results, Technical Capabilities – Two-Year Comparison

2012 2011

Reporting uncertainties to the IRS International Financial Reporting Standards

Fair value accounting Extensible business reporting language (XBRL)

International/transfer pricing regulations Readiness for adopting new and impending accounting

pronouncementsInternational Financial Reporting Standards/GAAP

convergence projects Fair value accounting

Readiness for adopting new and impending accounting pronouncements

Reporting uncertainties to the IRS

FASB Accounting Standards Codification FASB Accounting Standards Codification

U.S. tax laws U.S. tax laws

Domestic regulations International/transfer pricing regulations

Reporting uncertainties – external reporting New proxy rules, including risk and compensation

disclosuresInternational cash/earnings repatriation – compliance

and accounting implicationsSEC's 2007 Interpretive Guidance Regarding Section 404

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

NOTABLE TRENDS• The results show that reporting uncertainties to the IRS and international/transfer pricing regulations have

increased as priorities for finance executives and professionals.

• While still important, IFRS showed a year-over-year drop as an area of priority – this is understandable given the delays in IFRS adoption and discussions around convergence, all of which have caused the level of urgency to subside somewhat.


FOCUS ON CFOs AND OTHER FINANCE EXECUTIVES6 In this survey category, CFOs and other finance executives identified priorities similar to those identified by all respondents, with two exceptions. Senior finance executives appear more concerned about one of the most common and important regulatory risks in the United States: revenue recognition (as addressed in financial reporting and presented on financial statements). CFOs and other finance executives identified the SEC’s Interpretive Guidance regarding Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) No. 104: Revenue Recognition Criteria for SEC Registrants as top priorities. Given these differences, it would behoove finance executives as well as their staffs to ensure both levels of the finance function stay on the same page in terms of addressing these priorities.

Table 15: Finance Executive Results, Technical Capabilities


(5-pt scale)

1SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) No. 104: Revenue Recognition Criteria

for SEC Registrants 3.4

2 International Financial Reporting Standards/GAAP convergence projects 2.9

3(tie)


3.2

Reporting uncertainties to the IRS (new regulations) 2.4

5SEC's 2007 Interpretive Guidance regarding Section 404 of the Sarbanes-

Oxley Act 3.1

6Stock-Based Compensation (ASC 718 or ASC 505-50 – formerly FAS 123R

Share-Based Payments) 3.1

7(tie)


International/transfer pricing regulations 2.6


10(tie)

Proxy rules, including risk and compensation disclosures 3.0

Sarbanes-Oxley Section 301 (Complaints regarding accounting, internal controls or auditing matters)

3.1

Sarbanes-Oxley Section 302 (Disclosure controls and procedures) 3.3

PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 5 (An Audit of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting That Is Integrated With An Audit of Financial Statements)

3.0



Table 16: Finance Executive Results, Technical Capabilities – Two-Year Comparison

2012 2011

SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) No. 104: Revenue Recognition Criteria for SEC Registrants


International Financial Reporting Standards/GAAP convergence projects

International Financial Reporting Standards

FASB Accounting Standards Codification Business combinations

Reporting uncertainties to the IRS FASB Accounting Standards Codification

SEC's 2007 Interpretive Guidance regarding Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Reporting uncertainties to the IRS

Stock-Based Compensation (ASC 718 or ASC 505-50 – formerly FAS 123R Share-Based Payments)

PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 5


Fair value accounting

International/transfer pricing regulations Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL)

Reporting uncertainties – external reporting Reporting uncertainties – external reporting

Proxy rules, including risk and compensation disclosures SEC's 2007 Interpretive Guidance Regarding Section 404


Sarbanes-Oxley Section 301


PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 5

NOTABLE TRENDS• SAB No. 104, a new addition to the 2012 survey, rose to the top of the list of priorities for finance

executives.

• Interestingly, IFRS remains an area in need of improvement for this group, as does the SEC’s Interpretive Guidance for Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404.


Table 17: Large Company Results, Technical Capabilities

FOCUS ON LARGE COMPANIES (>US$1 BILLION)The priorities cited by respondents from larger companies differ from those who work for small to midsize companies in one regard: The latter organizations appear more concerned about IFRS/GAAP convergence, identifying this competency as a higher priority than their counterparts at larger companies (which typically have more resources to assign to convergence issues).


(5-pt scale)

1 Reporting uncertainties to the IRS (new regulations) 2.0

2 International/transfer pricing regulations 2.1

3 Business combinations 3.1


5(tie)


U.S. tax laws 2.5

Domestic regulations 2.4

Stock-based compensation (ASC 718 or ASC 505-50 – formerly FAS 123R Share-Based Payments)

2.6

9(tie)


2.9


2.8


Table 18: Large Company Results, Technical Capabilities – Two-Year Comparison

2012 2011

Reporting uncertainties to the IRS (new regulations) International Financial Reporting Standards

International/transfer pricing regulations Fair value accounting

Business combinations Reporting uncertainties to the IRS

Reporting uncertainties – external reporting Domestic regulations



U.S. tax laws SEC's 2007 Interpretive Guidance Regarding Section 404


Domestic regulations Extensible business reporting language (XBRL)

Stock-based compensation (ASC 718 or ASC 505-50 – formerly FAS 123R Share-Based Payments)



FASB Accounting Standards Codification

FASB Accounting Standards Codification U.S. tax laws

NOTABLE TRENDS• International/transfer pricing regulations is a top priority area for finance departments in large companies

after not ranking as such in the 2011 study.

• Conversely, after ranking among the top areas for improvement in 2011, IFRS and the SEC’s Interpretive Guidance for Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 failed to crack the top 10 areas for improvement this year.


Organizational Capabilities

Key Findings – 2012 • Finance executives and professionals are looking to improve those interpersonal skills that align with the

functional priorities identified throughout the survey.

• Negotiation, Six Sigma, dealing with confrontation and leadership (in outside organizations, groups, etc.) are among the top priorities in this category.

Table 19: Overall Results, Organizational Capabilities

Respondents were asked to assess, on a scale of one to five, their competency in 23 areas of organizational capabilities, with one being the lowest level of competency and five being the highest. They were then asked to indicate whether they believe they possess an adequate level of competency or if they need to improve, taking into account the circumstances of their organization and industry. (For the Organizational Capabilities under consideration, see page 29.) Figure 4 depicts a comparison of “Need to Improve” versus “Competency” ratings in an Organizational Capabilities landscape.


(5-pt scale)

1 Negotiation 3.2

2 Six Sigma 2.2

3 Dealing with confrontation 3.4

4(tie)

Leadership (in outside organizations, groups, etc.) 3.3

Coaching/mentoring 3.6

6(tie)

Presenting (large groups) 3.6

Leadership (within your organization) 3.7

8 Developing outside contacts/networking 3.4

9(tie)

Change management 3.3

High-pressure meetings 3.5



4

3

2

1

567

1011

1213

14

15

17

18

1920

21

22

8

9

16

23

Number Organizational Capabilities Number Organizational Capabilities

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Negotiation

Six Sigma

Dealing with confrontation

Leadership (in outside organizations, groups, etc.)

Coaching/mentoring

Presenting (large groups)

Leadership (within your organization)

Developing outside contacts/networking

Change management

High-pressure meetings

Leveraging outside expertise

Networking with peers

Developing rapport with senior executives

Personnel performance evaluation

Management of outsourcing arrangements

Management of shared services

Time management

Developing rapport with business-unit executives

Written communication

Presenting (small groups)

Working effectively with regulators

Working effectively with outside parties

Working effectively with external auditors

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

COM

PETE

NCY

LOW

ERHI

GHER

Figure 4: Organizational Capabilities – Perceptual Map


The priorities survey respondents cited in this category (which primarily represent personal and interpersonal skills) both reflect and confirm all of the other priorities described in previous sections of this report. For example, respondents indicated that they intend to improve the performance metrics they develop for their operational colleagues (through business intelligence and related analytical processes). This work requires frequent and, at times, contentious interaction with operational and executive colleagues. Performance metrics must be selected, debated and agreed upon. Finance executives and professionals identified priorities – including negotiation, dealing with confrontation, presenting, leadership (within the organization) and change management – that should help them succeed in their efforts to develop more and better operational performance metrics.

Similarly, survey participants identified leadership (in outside organizations, groups, etc.) as a priority. This type of activity can help finance executives and professionals broaden their knowledge of competitive intelligence practices (another top priority discussed earlier in the report) in addition to stimulating other practices-sharing and benchmarking activities.

Continuous improvement, in the form of Six Sigma, is another area identified by survey respondents as a top priority. Once again, this intention aligns with other functionwide improvement priorities – in this case, those related to shared services performance improvements.

Key Questions to Consider:• Is your finance team acquiring, developing and maturing the interpersonal skills required to help build

functional capabilities such as competitive intelligence, business intelligence and financial risk management?

• Do you feel you have a strong network of outside experts you can consult with regularly for counsel and guidance?

• Has your company considered adopting a Six Sigma strategy in the finance function (including finance and accounting shared services centers)?



Table 20: Overall Results, Organizational Capabilities – Two-Year Comparison

2012 2011

Negotiation Developing outside contacts/networking

Six Sigma Negotiation

Dealing with confrontation Dealing with confrontation

Leadership (in outside organizations, groups, etc.) Presenting (large groups)

Coaching/mentoring Time management

Presenting (large groups) High-pressure meetings

Leadership (within your organization) Leadership (in outside organizations, groups, etc.)

Developing outside contacts/networking Six Sigma

Change management Leadership (within your organization)

High-pressure meetings Networking with peers

NOTABLE TRENDS• Though the year-over-year results are relatively consistent in this category, developing outside contacts and

networking slid from the top of the 2011 list to eighth this year.

• Six Sigma, while a top-10 priority in last year’s survey, ranks second on the priority areas for improvement list in 2012.

• Coaching/mentoring and change management are among the top areas for improvement in this year’s survey after ranking below the top 10 in 2011.



The priorities concerning Organizational Capabilities identified by finance executives track relatively closely to the priorities identified by all respondents.

Table 21: Finance Executive Results, Organizational Capabilities


(5-pt scale)

1 Presenting (large groups) 3.6

2 Negotiation 3.5

3 Six Sigma 2.4

4 Dealing with confrontation 3.5

5(tie)

Change management 3.5

Leadership (in outside organizations, groups, etc.) 3.4

7(tie)

Developing outside contacts/networking 3.8

Leadership (within your organization) 3.9

Personnel performance evaluation 3.7

Presenting (small groups) 3.8



Table 22: Finance Executive Results, Organizational Capabilities – Two-Year Comparison

2012 2011

Presenting (large groups) Networking with peers

Negotiation Developing outside contacts/networking

Six Sigma Time management

Dealing with confrontation Presenting (large groups)

Change management Six Sigma

Leadership (in outside organizations, groups, etc.) Coaching/mentoring

Developing outside contacts/networking Leveraging outside expertise

Leadership (within your organization) Negotiation

Personnel performance evaluation Written communication

Presenting (small groups) Developing rapport with senior executives

Developing rapport with business unit executives

Presenting (small groups)

NOTABLE TRENDS• Dealing with confrontation ranks among the top priorities for finance executives in this year’s survey results,

as do leadership (both within the company and in outside organizations) and change management.

• Networking with peers, the top area for improvement in 2011, failed to crack the top 10 in this year’s results – nor did time management, coaching/mentoring or leveraging outside expertise.


Table 23: Large Company Results, Organizational Capabilities

FOCUS ON LARGE COMPANIES (>US$1 BILLION)Finance executives and professionals who work in larger companies appear to place greater emphasis on three competencies compared to their counterparts in other organizations: networking with peers, management of outsourcing arrangements and time management.

The emphasis on improving outsourcing reflects the maturation of finance and accounting outsourcing activities, which have become more closely integrated with internal shared services activities (and, in some cases, produce hybrid models that blend elements of shared services and traditional outsourcing arrangements). The priority placed on time management and networking is a result of increasingly competing demands finance functions face internally for their guidance and support, as well as the growing need to seek outside counsel and expertise for insights and best practices that can help finance functions thrive.


(5-pt scale)

1 Negotiation 3.2

2 Six Sigma 2.3

3(tie)

Coaching/mentoring 3.7

Dealing with confrontation 3.5

Networking with peers 3.6

6(tie)

Management of outsourcing arrangements 3.2

Time management 3.7

Developing outside contacts/networking 3.4

Personnel performance evaluation 3.7

Written communication 3.9


Table 24: Large Company Results, Organizational Capabilities – Two-Year Comparison

2012 2011

Negotiation Leadership (in outside organizations, groups, etc.)

Six Sigma Negotiation

Coaching/mentoring Dealing with confrontation

Dealing with confrontation Developing outside contacts/networking

Networking with peers High-pressure meetings

Management of outsourcing arrangements Time management

Time management Six Sigma

Developing outside contacts/networking Leadership (within your organization)

Personnel performance evaluation Coaching/mentoring

Written communication Presenting (large groups)

Networking with peers

NOTABLE TRENDS• Leadership in outside organizations, the top response in the 2011 large company results, failed to crack the

top 10 in this year’s survey – nor did high-pressure meetings or leadership within the organization.

• Management of outsourcing arrangements, a new addition to the 2012 survey, ranks among the top areas for improvement in this category.


Position

Financial Reporting Director/Manager

Chief Financial Of�cer

Corporate Controller

Vice President, Finance

Finance Staff

Assistant/Divisional Controller

Finance Process Manager

Management Consultant

Budgeting/Planning Director/Manager

Corporate Management

External Public Accountant

Audit Committee Member

Other

18%

14%

10%

9%

8%

5%

3%

3%

2%

2%

2%

1%

23%

SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICS

More than 100 finance executives and professionals participated in the survey, which was conducted online in the first and second quarter of 2012. All demographic information was provided voluntarily and not all participants provided data for every demographic question.

Size of Organization (by Gross Annual Revenue)

$20 billion or greater

$10 billion - $19.99 billion



$500 million - $999.99 million

$100 million - $499.99 million

Less than $100 million

4%

9%

3%

26%

17%

22%

19%


Industry

Financial Services

Manufacturing

Government/Education/Not-for-pro�t

Real Estate

Technology

Retail

Services

Telecommunications

Energy

Healthcare

Hospitality

Professional Services

Consumer Products

Life Sciences/Biotechnology

Media

Utilities

Distribution

Insurance

Other

14%

14%

12%

7%

7%

5%

4%

4%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

10%

Certification

CPA/CA

CIA

CMA

CISA

Other

76%

12%

9%

5%

21%

Country of Respondents

United States

Canada

Japan

China

Italy

United Kingdom

97%

Other 1%

1%

1%

0%

0%

0%


ABOUT PROTIVITI

Protiviti (www.protiviti.com) is a global consulting firm that helps companies solve problems in finance, technology, operations, governance, risk and internal audit. Through our network of more than 70 offices in over 20 countries, we have served more than 35 percent of FORTUNE® 1000 and Global 500 companies. We also work with smaller, growing companies, including those looking to go public, as well as with government agencies.

Protiviti is a wholly owned subsidiary of Robert Half International Inc. (NYSE: RHI). Founded in 1948, Robert Half International is a member of the S&P 500 index.

Finance and Accounting Excellence Protiviti’s finance professionals help clients meet stakeholder demands by providing assistance with stabilizing and synergizing the finance organization when nonroutine situations arise, dramatically increasing process and reporting effectiveness, and building leading-edge capabilities to provide relevant information and insights to support key business decisions.

• Finance Remediation and Reporting Compliance

– Financial Reporting (Risk Profile; GAAP and SEC Advisory)

– Transaction Services

– Accounting and Reporting Research

• Finance Optimization Services

– Finance Process Improvement

– Finance Strategy

– Finance Operations (Outsourcing and Shared Services)

• Performance and Information Management

– Performance Management

– Business Intelligence

– Data/Information Governance


Other Thought Leadership from Protiviti

Visit www.protiviti.com to obtain copies of these and other thought leadership materials from Protiviti.

• GuidetoPublicCompanyReadiness:FrequentlyAskedQuestions

• GuidetoInternationalFinancialReportingStandards:FrequentlyAskedQuestions(Second Edition)

• EarlyMoverSeries

– Defining Risk Appetite

– Maximizing Competitive Intelligence

– Analyzing Strategic Risk

– Performance/Risk Integration Management Model – PRIM2: The Convergence of Corporate Performance Management and Risk Management

• ImprovingWorkingCapitalManagementandCashFlowIntelligence:BestPracticesReport(from APQC and Protiviti)

• SpreadsheetRiskManagement:FrequentlyAskedQuestions

• PowerfulInsights(Protiviti’s podcast series)

– Assessing the Current IPO Landscape

– The Convergence of IFRS and U.S. GAAP – Key Changes in Accounting and Reporting for Lease Contracts

– The Convergence of IFRS and U.S. GAAP – Key Changes in Revenue Recognition for Technology Companies

– Effective Program Management – Achieving Key Objectives on Time and on Budget

– The Move to IFRS – Start Early to Save Significant Cost, Time and Effort

– New Accounting Standards for Revenue Recognition – Accelerating to the Speed of Business

– Becoming a Public Reporting Company – Things You Need to Know

• OldNationalBank:ALeaderinPerformanceManagement

• ConfrontingtheChallengesofManualJournalEntries

• CostAllocationsandtheFinancialCloseCycle

• ImprovingtheCloseCyclebyBetterManagingCloseTasks

• Reconciliations–ASustainableApproach

• WhytheFinancialCloseMatters

• AccountingandReportingforBusinessCombinations–KeyImplementationConsiderations

• TestingtheReportingProcess–ValidatingCriticalInformation

• GuidetotheSarbanes-OxleyAct:InternalControlReportingRequirements(Fourth Edition)

• GuidetoEnterpriseRiskManagement:FrequentlyAskedQuestions


James Pajakowski Executive Vice President – Global Risk Solutions +1.312.476.6378 [email protected]

Protiviti Finance and Accounting Excellence Practice – Contact Information

CHICAGO James Pajakowski +1.312.476.6378 [email protected]

DALLASRyan Senter +1.469.374.2425 [email protected]

HOUSTONMarcus Delouche +1.713.314.4982 [email protected]

Jay Thompson +1.713.314.4923 [email protected]

MIAMIByron Traynor +1.786.264.7166 [email protected]

NEW YORKChristopher Wright +1.212.603.5434 [email protected]

SAN FRANCISCOGordon Tucker +1.415.402.3670 [email protected]

SANTA CLARASteve Hobbs +1.415.402.6913 [email protected]

WASHINGTON, D.C.Gary Callaghan +1.571.382.7228 [email protected]

© 2012 Protiviti Inc. An Equal Opportunity Employer. PRO-PKIC-0612-019 Protiviti is not licensed or registered as a public accounting firm and does not issue opinions on financial statements or offer attestation services.

ASIA-PACIFIC

AUSTRALIA Brisbane Canberra Melbourne Perth Sydney

CHINA Beijing Hong Kong Shanghai Shenzhen

INDIA Bangalore Mumbai New Delhi

INDONESIA Jakarta**

JAPAN Osaka Tokyo

SINGAPORE Singapore

SOUTH KOREA Seoul

* Protiviti Member Firm ** Protiviti Alliance Member

THE AMERICAS

UNITED STATES

Alexandria Atlanta Baltimore Boston Charlotte Chicago Cincinnati Cleveland Dallas Denver Fort Lauderdale Houston

Kansas City Los Angeles Milwaukee Minneapolis New York Orlando Philadelphia Phoenix Pittsburgh Portland Richmond Sacramento

Salt Lake City San Francisco San Jose Seattle Stamford St. Louis Tampa Washington, D.C. Woodbridge

ARGENTINABuenos Aires*

BRAZILRio de Janeiro* São Paulo*

CANADAKitchener-Waterloo Toronto

MEXICO Mexico City* Monterrey*

PERULima*

VENEZUELACaracas*

MIDDLE EAST

BAHRAIN Manama*

KUWAIT Kuwait City*

OMAN Muscat*

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES Abu Dhabi* Dubai*

EUROPE

FRANCE Paris

GERMANYFrankfurt Munich

ITALY Milan Rome Turin

THE NETHERLANDSAmsterdam

UNITED KINGDOMLondon