Connect with us

Accounting

Shift from budget gatekeeper to strategic partner

Published

on

Cloud costs are on the rise, and most organizations are struggling to keep them under control. 

For one thing, most organizations have a passive approval process for realizing spend – that is, no purchase order or written or verbal approval. Cost is based on consumption. 

Organizations need deep insight into what’s driving increased costs,  but that’s easier said than done, and the wrong information can be very problematic. For example, inaccurate usage data leads to overspending, and incorrect cost allocation causes billing disputes. In addition, cloud providers frequently update pricing models and discounts, which means relying on outdated pricing data could mean missing out on cost-saving opportunities like Reserved Instances, Spot Instances or committed-use discounts.

Not only do finance professionals often bear responsibility for allocating these costs — and optimizing them — but they also have to communicate these costs to their leaders in a meaningful way. Fortunately, there are ways to get a handle on these challenges and ultimately meet your goals with improved visibility and better understanding.

Challenges for finance regarding cloud costs

Two primary challenges emerge in understanding cloud costs, and typically, most financial professionals experience one or the other.

One scenario is where they have limited or no visibility into anything cloud; the breakdowns are timely and confusing to analyze or they don’t see the breakdowns at all. They may receive invoices that have hundreds of lines or only have a total, and they have to rely entirely on other teams to break down, translate and itemize that total cost. They are responsible for recording entries related to cost and forecasting in advance, but they have no visibility.

The second scenario is when financial professionals do have visibility, but the process is broken or doesn’t happen in real-time. They may even have a way of acquiring and comprehending the needed invoices, and using them in forecasts. But it still requires a lot of manual work and collaboration with the engineering team to ultimately get to where they need to be. 

Either scenario can make it difficult for the finance department to fully explain to leadership the reality of cloud spend and what they’re forecasting and answer any additional questions. You’re supposed to be the master of your budget, so you can lose credibility when you don’t know the answers in real-time.

From budget gatekeeper to partner

Finance professionals are in an unusual position where they sometimes must translate between engineering and business leaders — which means they have to straddle both worlds and communicate things in a way that any given business leader will understand.

At the same time, you don’t want to be the budget police; you’re there as engineering’s business partner and want them to feel that way. You don’t want every conversation to be about how engineering is over budget because that quickly becomes counterproductive. You might even find they start doubting the data you use for your forecasts. 

The good news: You can begin to solve these issues in one fell swoop with comprehensive cost visibility. 

You want to be able to see cost spikes in real-time. You want the power to drill into costly resources to identify the root cause of the increase. You want to get answers immediately from the relevant engineering team. The ability to pull data in real-time and analyze it quickly also enables quicker strategy shifts where needed. For instance, you can look at the data in real-time and notice things like on the 10th of each month, you experience a cost spike in a particular resource. You can then investigate the spike, assess whether it’s essential or optimizable, and bake the resulting analysis into your forecast.

One way to get comprehensive cost visibility is through a cloud cost optimization platform. Cloud cost optimization is the process of reducing cloud expenses while maintaining or improving performance by rightsizing resources, eliminating waste, leveraging discounts, and optimizing workloads. It replaces the friction between finance and engineering with a bona fide strategic partnership.

From engineering to the board

This all adds a much-needed layer of extra credibility with the board and/or leadership. It also helps improve relationships with engineering and move away from seeming like just a gatekeeper. 

When you have all the information you need from engineering, you can impart this insight to leadership and address any additional questions. This, in turn, empowers you to secure additional budget or make budget shifts. 

It’s possible to get to a place where engineers alert leadership to certain code changes before they push them. The finance team gets educated about what engineers are doing day to day. The result is that in conversations with leadership, finance pros can communicate what’s going on in a concrete fashion instead of giving vague answers like, “It’s a customer bug fix.”

The optimal state is that the engineering and finance teams together create the potential for strategic outcomes beyond cost — including:

  • Understanding an unprofitable product line or feature that needs to be deprioritized — or conversely, a particularly profitable product that requires more investment and focus;
  • Investing confidently in AI products or features;
  • Reassessing pricing parameters when cost/margin per customer is more intimately understood

Shifting your cloud cost strategy

Financial teams often struggle to understand what’s behind cloud costs. They also struggle to communicate those costs to executives and the board. Overcoming this dual challenge requires being able to speak to the engineering department in a meaningful way to get the right information without being seen merely as the budget gatekeeper. The next step is to become a strategic partner with the engineering team to uncover what’s profitable and not, where to retrench, and where to double down. That’s the genius of cloud cost optimization.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Mandatory ESG Reporting Standards Demand Standardized Non-Financial Audit Trails

Published

on

Mandatory ESG Reporting Standards Demand Standardized Non-Financial Audit Trails

Corporate accounting departments face an expanded regulatory mandate as mandatory sustainability and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting frameworks take full effect internationally. Governed by the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) IFRS S1 and S2 standards, enterprise financial controllers are now legally required to track, verify, and report non-financial data with the same internal controls and auditability as traditional financial statements.

The expansion shifts ESG compliance

This regulatory expansion shifts ESG compliance from marketing departments to corporate accounting offices. Financial managers are now responsible for gathering, consolidating, and verifying carbon emissions metrics, supply chain labor conditions, water usage, and climate risk exposures across multi-tiered corporate structures. These non-financial metrics must be integrated into standardized general ledgers to withstand rigorous third-party audit assurance processes.

To comply with these rigorous reporting mandates, accounting software providers have added dedicated ESG modules designed to aggregate data from IoT sensors, utility platforms, and vendor management systems. Controllers are implementing internal control frameworks—modeled after traditional COSO frameworks—to ensure the completeness, accuracy, and consistency of sustainability disclosures, protecting organizations against greenwashing penalties and litigation risks.

The transition requires significant cross-functional collaboration between accounting teams, legal counsel, and operational directors. Accounting professionals are expanding their technical expertise beyond financial ledgers to master carbon accounting methodologies, lifecycle assessment standards, and non-financial data governance protocols, fundamentally expanding the role of the modern corporate accountant.

Why This Information Matters
Mandatory ESG disclosures require companies to treat environmental and social metrics as audited financial records. Executives, accountants, and board members must institute formal tracking and assurance processes to satisfy legal mandates, maintain investor confidence, and mitigate regulatory non-compliance risks.

Continue Reading

Accounting

SEC’s Semiannual Reporting Proposal Faces Investor Pushback: What CFOs Need to Know

Published

on

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

A proposal from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to potentially shift some public companies away from quarterly financial reporting toward a semiannual model is drawing significant pushback from investors, even as it continues moving through the regulatory process. The debate has direct implications for corporate finance teams, auditors, and the broader transparency of U.S. capital markets.

What the SEC Proposed

According to a summary published by accounting advisory firm Cohen & Co., the SEC issued a proposed rule on May 19, 2026, aimed at simplifying financial reporting requirements for many U.S. public companies. The proposal would potentially reduce the frequency of certain mandatory disclosures from quarterly to semiannual, a structural change that has not been made to core U.S. reporting requirements in decades.

The proposal follows an extended debate within U.S. policy circles, with proponents arguing that reduced reporting frequency could lower compliance costs and free up management time for longer-term strategic planning rather than quarter-to-quarter results management.

Why Investors Are Pushing Back

Comment letters submitted in response to the proposal have been extensive, and according to Cohen & Co.’s review of the public record, investors “appear to be largely opposed” to the shift, viewing frequent interim reporting as a core benefit of U.S. capital markets relative to other jurisdictions.

Accounting and law firms have taken a more measured position, generally urging any changes to remain aligned with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), whose existing disclosure requirements and guidance are built around a quarterly reporting cadence. A shift to semiannual reporting without corresponding changes to FASB guidance could create friction between SEC filing requirements and GAAP-based disclosure expectations.

Lessons From the U.K. Experience

The debate is not without precedent. The United Kingdom moved away from mandatory quarterly reporting for listed companies in 2014, returning to a semiannual disclosure requirement. According to Cohen & Co.’s analysis, that experience offers a cautionary data point: there was no measurable increase in capital expenditure or R&D investment following the change, while analyst coverage of affected companies declined as reliable interim information became less available — a particular risk for smaller and newly public companies that rely on analyst coverage to maintain investor visibility.

Practical Implications for Finance Teams

Beyond the debate over disclosure philosophy, the proposal carries practical complications. Many companies have debt covenants and credit agreements structured around quarterly financial delivery; a shift to semiannual reporting could require renegotiating those terms. Reduced reporting frequency would also extend the “window of market silence” between disclosures, a factor that governance and investor-relations teams would need to manage carefully to avoid information asymmetry.

Separately, and unrelated to the reporting-frequency debate, the SEC and FASB have continued finalizing more routine updates this year. New Accounting Standards Updates are taking effect for December 31, 2026, fiscal year-ends covering income tax disclosures, credit loss measurement, induced debt conversions, and stock compensation, according to Eide Bailly’s review of 2026 ASU activity. Additional guidance on paid-in-kind dividends and environmental credits is also on the near-term horizon.

What to Watch Next

The semiannual reporting proposal remains in the comment and review phase, and no final rule has been adopted as of this writing. Finance leaders should monitor the SEC’s regulatory agenda for further movement, while treating the current quarterly reporting requirement as the operative standard until any final rule is issued and an effective date is set.

Given the extent of investor opposition documented in the comment file, a full shift to mandatory semiannual reporting appears more likely to result in either a scaled-back compromise or continued study rather than swift adoption — though the SEC’s ultimate direction remains uncertain.

 

Continue Reading

Accounting

AI-Driven Automation and Continuous Accounting Frameworks

Published

on

The accounting profession is undergoing a fundamental structural transition as enterprise finance departments shift from periodic month-end closes toward automated continuous accounting models. By integrating specialized machine learning algorithms directly into enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms, chief accounting officers are transforming financial reporting from a retrospective exercise into a real-time operational asset.

The Shift from Periodic Close to Continuous Financial Reporting
Traditional accounting workflows heavily relied on manual data reconciliation, spreadsheet calculations, and multi-week closing cycles at the end of each fiscal period. In contrast, continuous accounting frameworks utilize automated software agents to process, validate, and post transactional data in real time as business activities occur.

Automated bank reconciliation tools cross-reference incoming bank feeds, invoice records, and purchase orders automatically. By resolving transactional variances instantly throughout the month, corporate accounting teams eliminate the traditional workload spikes associated with quarterly and annual closes.

Machine Learning in Audit Trails and Anomaly Detection
Advanced natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning tools are redefining internal audit and financial control environments. Automated systems analyze 100% of general ledger entries, identifying anomalous transactions, duplicate payments, and unauthorized journal entries in real time.

Rather than relying on random statistical sampling, corporate internal auditors can focus their attention on high-risk flags automatically surfaced by algorithmic monitoring platforms. This continuous risk assessment strengthens internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) and significantly reduces fraud risk.

Evolving Roles for Accounting Professionals
As routine data entry and manual reconciliation tasks become fully automated, the skill set required for accounting professionals is shifting toward data analysis, system design, and strategic business advisory.
– Systems Governance: Accountants are increasingly responsible for monitoring algorithmic accuracy and managing data integration pipelines.
– Business Partnership: Finance professionals leverage real-time financial dashboards to advise operational leaders on margin management and working capital allocation.
– Regulatory Compliance Management: Accounting teams utilize automated platforms to ensure compliance with dynamic tax codes and international accounting standards.

Core Implementation Recommendations
1. Deploy Automated Reconciliation Tools: Integrate continuous transaction processing modules into existing enterprise ERP architectures.
2. Establish Algorithmic Governance Controls: Implement strict internal testing protocols to ensure automated accounting rules comply with GAAP/IFRS standards.
3. Reskill Accounting Teams: Invest in training finance staff on data analytics, workflow automation, and predictive financial modeling.

Continue Reading

Trending