Connect with us

Accounting

Art of Accounting: A template for hiring an experience manager

Published

on

Complimentary Access Pill

Enjoy complimentary access to top ideas and insights — selected by our editors.

Firms that hire experienced people do not usually get what they expect or are paying for. Here is a template to help you maximize your investment in such people.

Usually, but not always, experienced people leave a job because they are not growing in their experience. Yet many firms hire these people expecting to capitalize on their “experience.” This makes no sense and seems to be illogical. However, it happens all the time. The following is a template to assist you in getting what you need or think you are getting. 

Salary level: The salary you will be paying will be the market rate. Not much higher or much lower, so regardless of what you are getting from your new employee, get over it! You will not be overpaying. You might not be getting what you think you are paying for, but you will be paying the market rate for that person.

Profile of new hire: You hired someone who has been specializing in the area that you hired them for. You also hired someone that probably had three or four jobs previously, with the last one or two (or more) in that specialization. What you do not know is the depth of their experience, how well they managed their workload or the people reporting to them, and what desire they have to grow further. If they had that desire, and they weren’t growing, then they “wasted” time in their growth trajectory trying to decide when they should leave. Further, their impression of their experience will not be the same as your expectations of their experience. Get over it!

Experience: I can almost guarantee that the new hire will not be able to perform at the level you expect them to, and my advice is to get over it. What you need to do is to evaluate their experience and figure out where they stand on the curve line of the scale that you expect. Not where you want them to be, but where they actually are. Once you figure that out, start your training and mentoring and everything else you do to move that staff person forward at the level they are at on your scale.

Getting what you are paying for: You will be not getting what you really need, but what the market has available. And whatever that is, you will likely be better off with that person than without that person, if you do not screw it up.

How to not screw it up: Do not give them work that you know they could not handle without training, supervising and being watched over closely. Start off with pretty easy work at a higher level, not the lower levels, and see how they do. Use that to guide you in where they need to go to help you. Go easy, but do it with steady forward movements. But do it slowly and deliberately. Consider your investment in a long-term relationship with that manager-level person. If they are the right person, it will become evident within a couple of months. If they’re not the right person, get rid of them quickly (see next item). 

Hire carefully, but fire quickly: I know of a very successful practice that used a headhunter for staffing and was provided with a two-month guarantee, so their timetable was seven weeks. I know this because someone who left me for a higher-level position called and asked me if he could have his job back seven weeks after he left. That person was not growing with me (for various reasons that I am not getting into now) and I told him so. We liked him and explained a program that we developed to have him grow sufficiently. He immediately started to look for a job, which he got. His job was filled by us with a three-year level staff person we hired out of school and who was ready to be moved up to that position. We did not miss a beat. That shows you how “valuable” he was to us, and how invaluable he was to his next employer. 

Be nice: It’s probably not all their own fault they haven’t grown. I’m sure the firms they worked at contributed immensely to that lack of growth. Be nice. Do not tell them how you feel about where you think they are on your scale of development or what your current expectations are. Just focus on using them to move you forward by helping them grow. Compliment them frequently and never disparage them. Be nice!

The past, present and future: Their lack of experience is in the past and is the present situation. Fuggeddaboudit! You hired this person so you could move your practice forward into the future. Focus on that future and getting there as easily as you can. You can do it with this person if you do not over-anticipate their ability or over-expect their output and production. 

Natural tendency: A natural tendency is to be upset with them and then to use them as best you can to clean up past due work, move things out and work on slightly higher lower-level engagements. You won’t be anxious to have them train anyone so they will become lone rangers. That is not how you will be able to grow and you will doom yourself to restart with someone very similar when that person leaves “because they are not getting good experience.” And then you will start over with someone who is a mirror image of the person who just left you. Your efforts become dissipated replacing someone who left rather than concentrate on nurturing staff so they will grow and stay. 

Set expectations to a lower level: When they start, do not expect more of them than is realistic. If you get more than you expect, you will be happy. If you get less than you expect, you will be miserable and probably make them, and everyone else around you, miserable. You can’t lose with lower expectations and might lose with the higher expectations. Choose can’t lose instead of might lose

The above is not really a template, but if I added three lines to each item and asked you to write what you think or will do and perhaps include a chart (for No. 3 above), it will be a template. Figure it out for yourself, but if you believe I make sense and you are stuck in a can’t win position unless you face reality, then get over it and make the best of it to move forward. And I just showed you how to approach that.

Do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] with your practice management questions or about engagements you might not be able to perform.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Accounting

Fraud guilty plea from accountant over $1.4M mortgage loan

Published

on

In a case involving phony documents and unpaid taxes, a prominent Washington, D.C.-based accountant pleaded guilty last week for making false statements on a mortgage application after failing to file IRS returns.

A certified public accountant with expertise on tax compliance and due diligence matters, Timothy Trifilo has held partner or managing director positions at several firms for over four decades. He also taught courses in taxation and real estate as an adjunct professor, the original Department of Justice indictment said. Trifilo was hired as a managing director with consulting firm Alvarez & Marsal earlier this year. 

The fraud allegations resulted from a 2023 purchase, when Trifilo applied for a $1.4 million mortgage on a Washington property. When the unidentified issuing bank advised that they could not locate recent tax returns nor approve his application without them, Trifilo submitted copies of 2021 and 2022 IRS filings to the lender, who then originated the loan.  

Investigators later discovered that, in reality, Trifilo had neither filed returns nor paid taxes for any year beginning in 2012 despite income over the subsequent decade totaling more than $7.7 million. His annual earnings ranged between $636,051 and $948,252 during that time, amounts that required him to file individual tax returns each year.

On documentation delivered to the lender in support of the mortgage application, a former colleague of Trifilo was identified as responsible for preparing, reviewing and signing the falsified returns purportedly submitted to the Internal Revenue Service.  

“This individual did not prepare the returns, has never prepared tax returns for Trifilo and did not authorize Trifilo to use his name on the returns and other documents that Trifilo submitted,” a DOJ press release said.  

A grand jury originally indicted Trifilo in September on seven counts, including bank fraud and failure to file tax returns, as well as aggravated identity theft. His actions led to a tax loss for the IRS of $2.1 million. 

He faces a maximum sentence of three decades in prison for defrauding the lender, as well as one year for failure to file tax returns. Sentencing is scheduled for May 19. 

In addition to potential prison time, Trifilo may be required to forfeit the original loan amount and property acquired through bank fraud, the original indictment stated. He also faces a period of supervised release, monetary penalties and restitution. 

Attorneys from the DOJ’s tax division prosecuted the case, with evidence based on findings from the IRS criminal investigation unit. 

Submission of phony forms and documents have played a role in multiple fraud cases this year, pointing to a pain point in the mortgage process that could end up costing lenders. Problems in income and employment data specifically had a defect rate of 37.01% to lead all underwriting categories between March and June this year, according to Aces Quality Management. The number surged from 23.42% in the first quarter.

Aces’ report found overall defect rates of originated mortgages rising in both the first and second quarters. 

Continue Reading

Accounting

AICPA wants SEC to reject PCAOB standard on firm and engagement metrics

Published

on

The American Institute of CPAs is asking the Securities and Exchange Commission to reject the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s recently adopted standard on firm and engagement metrics, arguing they would drive smaller firms out of the auditing business and affect companies large and small.

The PCAOB voted to adopt the standard last month, along with a related standard on firm reporting, but the new rules still need to be approved by the SEC before they become official and take effect. Under the new rules, PCAOB-registered public accounting firms that audit one or more issuers that qualify as an accelerated filer or large accelerated filer would be required to publicly report specified metrics relating to such audits and their audit practices. The PCAOB made some changes from the originally proposed rules to accommodate some of the objections from the audit industry and public companies, but they remain far reaching in scope. The AICPA argues that the rules would affect more than just accelerated filers and large accelerated filers and could harm smaller companies and their auditors as well. Under SEC rules, accelerated filers are companies that have a public float of between $75 million and $700 million,  annual revenues of $100 million or more, and have filed periodic reports and an annual report within the past year. Larger accelerated filers have a public float of $700 million or more. The AICPA expressed caution soon after the PCAOB voted to approve the new standards, but said it was still studying it. Now it is coming out firmly against the new rules and urging the SEC to reject them.

“Alternative approaches that better balance transparency, cost, and the needs of audit committees, while continuing to support the quality of audit services and choice of audit providers available to perform public company audits and serve the public interest should be pursued, rather than introducing potentially detrimental unproven regulations,” the AICPA said in a comment letter to the SEC.

The AICPA argues the new rules would hurt U.S. capital markets as well as the investing public, in addition to auditing firms of all sizes. 

“We believe these rules will have unintended negative consequences, including driving small and medium-sized firms out of the public company auditing practice,” said AICPA comment letter. “This would result in fewer firms performing audits which are critically important for smaller and medium size companies seeking to access the U.S. capital markets. Consequently, companies will face greater challenges and higher costs in meeting necessary audit requirements to access to the U.S. capital markets. The PCAOB acknowledges that mid-sized and smaller accounting firms serving small to mid-sized public companies will incur substantial, if not prohibitive, costs in complying with the proposed amendments. The final rules reaffirm the PCAOB’s belief that the rules will disproportionately affect smaller firms.”

The AICPA contends it’s overly simplistic to believe the impact of the rules would mostly fall within the market for large accelerated filers. “Smaller audit firms often serve clients of varying sizes, and their departure from the broader public company audit market could result in a substantial loss of audit firm options, particularly for smaller, less complex accelerated filers,” said the AICPA. “The loss of competition and the reduction in available audit firms could lead to higher costs and less favorable engagement terms for these smaller issuers. A landscape in which smaller issuers have fewer options contradicts the PCAOB’s goal of promoting fair competition.”

The AICPA disputes the claim by proponents of the new rules that competition may increase in the non-accelerated filer audit market as firms exit the accelerated filer and large accelerated filer markets. “This fails to account for the fact that non-accelerated filers often rely on firms with specific expertise and resources,” said the AICPA comment letter. “Further, the firms exiting the accelerated filer space may not be able to effectively redeploy their capacity to the non-accelerated filer market. In fact, their exit could lead to a loss of specialized services and a further concentration of resources in the larger end of audit firms, making it harder for non-accelerated filers to secure high-quality, affordable audits.”

The AICPA disagrees with predictions that profitable firms in the larger audit markets could expand their market share against the Big Four. “The resources required to absorb and integrate such capacity are substantial, and many firms may not have the operational flexibility to do so without significant strain on their existing clients and resources,” said the AICPA comment letter. “This further risks driving up audit costs for smaller and mid-sized issuers, which are often less agile and unable to absorb such change without significant disruption.”

The Institute is also concerned about the use of performance metrics within the PCAOB’s inspection and enforcement program, and how they might drive up the risk of enforcement for minor, unintentional reporting errors. It said the PCAOB rejected calls for a threshold based on the severity of reporting errors. The PCAOB declined a request for comment.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Aiwyn raises $113M in funding from KKR, Bessemer

Published

on

Aiwyn, a provider of technology solutions for accountants and CPA firms, has closed a $113 million funding round.

The money will help the company continue its evolution from its original focus on payments and collections for accounting firms into a more comprehensive tool for practice management.

Among other things, that will include building a universal client experience portal, where accountants can access all of their engagements in one place.

Justin Adams, CEO of Aiwyn

Aiwyn CEO Justin Adams

The funding will also be used to accelerate product development on both the company’s practice management platform, and on a tax solution that it is working on.

“Aiwyn is committed to empowering CPA firms to elevate their operations and client relationships,” said chairman and CEO Justin Adams, in a statement. “With this investment, we are poised to redefine how firms manage their operations from the CRM to the general ledger, while setting a new benchmark for client experiences. For too long, firms have had to decide between a legacy vendor or modern point solutions. We are proud that Aiwyn is a trusted platform for CPA firms.”

The round was led by global investment firm KKR and Bessemer Venture Partners. KKR is funding this investment primarily from its Next Generation Technology III Fund.

“The accounting industry represents a large market that has long been served by legacy players. Aiwyn is solving a clear functionality gap in the market with a solution that is easily adopted and rapidly delivers tangible enhancements to the customer experience, most noticeably through significant reductions in days sales outstanding,” said Jackson Hart, a principal on KKR’s technology growth team, in a statement.

“Aiwyn’s product suite is already quite impressive, but the company is really just getting started on its quest to deliver compelling technology to the accounting industry,” added Bessemer partner Jeremy Levine, in a statement.

Cooley LLP served as legal advisor to Aiwyn; Latham & Watkins LLP served as legal advisor to KKR; and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP served as legal advisor to Bessemer.

Continue Reading

Trending