Steward Leadership: Differentiate Strategic from other Financial Roles

Posted by Matthew Thomas

matthew-thomas-2Essential to any financial strategy, no matter whether an enterprise is upscaling, downsizing, or trying to hold a line, is the differentiation of financial roles between strategy, management, and procedure. Most enterprises focus on the procedural: making sure there is adequate separation of roles and powers to reduce the risk of fraud or theft. While certainly an essential part of any organization's structure, this procedural role differentiation is only a small part of the whole. It is also, of course, commonplace to group procedural work by task: Accounts Receivable, Accounts Payable, General Ledger, Payroll, and so forth. This is because a certain degree of efficiency can develop from task repetition and focus, as Henry Ford demonstrated long ago. Modularizing tasks and separating powers is often a technical solution to snarled bookkeeping and accounting. So whether procedural roles sub-divide along tasks or certain powers (or, usually, both), this kind of role takes up most of the "best practices" manuals and accounting standards most enterprises focus on.

 

The management and strategy roles, then, tend to get less attention. Part of the reason for this is that they tend to operate outside the finance and accounting departments and non-financial-titled people often are responsible for them. Nevertheless, to maintain organizational excellence and implement creative, innovative approaches to challenges, steward leadership requires that strategy and management roles must have their due.

 

Like what you're reading? Subscribe Now! Strategy roles often reside in the executive-level staff and the governing board(s) and/or other accountability structures which work on behalf of the owner(s). Strategy begins with the overall financial model in which the enterprise operates. Questions of financial goals, where money generally comes from, where it gets expended, where profits go, what does long-term growth, sustainability, and viability look like - these are strategic questions. Specifically financially-titled executives support the chief executive's capacity to develop strategy within the owner(s') and governing body's parameters.

 

These strategic roles are supported by those in the management roles. Management roles provide the forecasting, planning, analysis, and reporting functions that support the overall enterprise. They also provide the day-to-day decision making within strategic parameters to advance toward longer-term goals. They work at the trend level, observing trends and intentionally working to create trends within their scope of responsibility. Some of these roles may have explicitly financial titles (like Financial Analyst, Office of Budget), but others may not.

 

One of the reasons that many enterprises end up focusing on procedure, even when they want to develop and manage strategy, is because the normal financial reports most accounting systems produce are quite procedural, and many organizations try to use the same, basic reports at all levels. In smaller enterprises, this happens easily since the roles are not very differentiated, and so people who work at a procedural level often are asked to report at the higher levels. And some executives and managers, fearing to reveal their own (perceived or real) lack of financial savvy, just go along with it.

 

Our free Financial Services Roles Tool groups these three types of roles - strategy, management, and procedure - from top to bottom. Using the tool, steward leaders can list out the different needs of their organization at the various levels, and define who is doing what role. It's usually best to start with the procedural roles and work up - procedural roles are easier to define, and the rest may take some thinking and working. Don't be surprised if there are gaps! Don't be surprised, either, if certain roles exist as outside contractors rather than within the organizational chart.

 

Financial Roles Get the map!

Read More ›

Topics: financial confusion, Matthew Thomas, financial management, Financial Health, Financial roles

Steward Leadership of Financial Roles

Posted by Matthew Thomas

matthew-thomas-2As I work with leaders of enterprises large and small, I observe that getting the organization's financial roles in order - from staffing to reporting - is a complex undertaking.

 

In Good to Great, Jim Collins argues that, after leadership, "[getting] the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the right seats" (p. 13) is the prerequisite to any long-lasting healthy growth of any enterprise. Nowhere is this more true than with an enterprise's financial health. Clearly defining roles for financial services helps steward leaders put the right people in the right places and makes sure all the needed roles are covered. Moreover, it helps as leaders plan for how work will be structured - who reports to whom; who needs to see and act upon which reports, and when, and so on.

 

Unclear roles cause us to ask some significant questions about our operations:

 

  • What if we have no one acting strategically? Procedurally?
  • What if our procedures are overly complex? Over-simplified?
  • What if our planning is good, but never gets back to reality?
  • What do we need an outside firm to do? What do we need to keep in-house?
  • How do we handle needed changes? Are they adaptive or technical, or both
  • What reports help which roles do their job?

 

Over the next few months, we will talk about these questions in a series of blog posts. Each of these questions can lead us to designing the right balance of roles, reports, and strategy to accomplish our enterprise's goals. As we exercise steward leadership of our respective enterprises, having the overall systems in place to make sure the right people are doing the right kind of work will help us increase our financial health as we work toward our goals.

 

We've created a tool called the Financial Services Roles tool that outlines some of the basic roles and how those roles are differentiated in organizational systems. The tool is free: also, for a limited time, leaders who download the tool receive a free financial roles consultation. Click the button below to get yours today!

 

Financial Roles Get the map!

Read More ›

Topics: executive leadership, steward leadership, Financial Health, Financial roles

Steward Leadership of Financial Pinch Points

Posted by Matthew Thomas

Subscribe to  Sustainable Vision

matthew-thomas-2I have worked in a number of settings recently where it appears that the different aspects of the enterprise's operations are in competition with one another for resources. For instance, a service organization constantly wrestled with balancing the needs to pay staff against the expenses of running programs and maintaining a facility. As part of its mission was to reach out beyond itself in support of other organizations, the funds needed to do this also competed with the staff, programs, and facilities. Each part of the organization felt the financial pinch.

Like what you're reading? Subscribe Now! We have discovered that many service-oriented enterprises (across sectors and industries) wrestle with these balances between staffing, programs, facilities, and outreach. Balancing these four areas is part of active steward leadership, and steward leaders face this acutely in their role as managers on behalf of owners. Pinch points like these can hurt the entire organization when the different parts are set in competition. We are often called in to work to resolve the organizational pain this causes.

In these settings, we find the balance easier to maintain if the following is true:

  1. FivewaystofindFinancialBalanceLeaders budget forward from income, rather than backward from current expenses.
  2. This planning leaves room for margin so as to be able to maintain core operations despite fluctuations in cash flow.
  3. Plans tie programs and facilities together as a cost since most programs require facilities to house them. (Travel costs are also included here.)
  4. Growing organizations (or those intending to grow) maintain at least 15% in outreach funds against the other two areas.
  5. Leaders recognize that staffing will almost always be a greater portion of the remainder (vs. facilities and programs), even in volunteer-oriented organizations. However, if the program / facility portion is less than 10% overall, the organization may either be over-staffed or have under-developed programs and potentially deferred maintenance on facilities.

When we conduct our financial health assessments, we find that the balance between these areas can fundamentally shape the organization's outcomes. Steward leaders who want to meet the ownership goals for their enterprise continually look toward the capacity of their enterprise to meet them. Keeping these areas all in balance can improve both short- and long-term outcomes and impact.

 

.

Get a Financial Health Assessment!

Read More ›

Topics: becoming a steward leader, financial confusion, Financial Leadership, steward leadership, Financial Health

Steward Leadership as Owner-Centeredness

Posted by Matthew Thomas

Subscribe to  Sustainable Vision

matthew-thomas-2Often, when I hear someone speak of "good stewardship of resources," I find that it is really code-speak for a cost-centered approach to finances or personnel. It's a euphemism for "it costs too much."

Many leaders see stewardship as managing scarce, non-renewable resources in a way that doesn't do too much damage to the environment, the people around us, our organization, or the bottom line. Seeing stewardship as damage control creates a focus on costs, often above all else.

The issue is that good stewardship isn't about cost-centeredness. It's not even technically about return on investment, either, although that is closer to the mark.

Good stewardship is about focusing on achieving the owner's (or owners') goals, within the means constraints the owner(s) have provided. Only then can ROI and cost figure in.

Like what you're reading? Subscribe Now! A focus on costs often diverts stewards from the owners' real goals, and could prevent steward leaders from achieving the owners' outcomes. It tends to stifle creativity as direct cost control prevents alternative ways to achieving goals that still fit within the owners' constraints. 

SixSteward-OwnerQuestionsSteward leadership invites creativity on both sides of the ledger: if something has a high cost, is there a way to engage in a model that either offsets that cost or leverages that cost to accomplish something bigger? Or is it truly just resources being thrown away?

See why cost-centeredness leads to a fundamental confusion about budgets, here. 

Steward leaders value creativity because this best reflects the level of trust and freedom to make decisions with which the owners have invested them. Owner-centeredness allows these leaders to rise above cost accounting (which is often a short-term issue) and move to a more balanced, creative approach.

I find it helps for me to think through the following questions:

  1. What are the owner's (or owners') goals?
  2. What are the stated constraints?
  3. How can I use what they have given me to accomplish these goals?
  4. If at first I think they haven't given me enough, are there creative ways to leverage what I have to do more?
  5. How does this specific item (project, initiative, etc.) fit into the larger picture?
  6. How do I maximize the results the owner or owners seek?

The answers to these help me design healthy financial practices and systems into the work I do, so that we can meet the long-term ownership goals, rather than just focus on specific item costs. Next time you are thinking through a budget, a new initiative, or a project plan, try these questions out. See how they change the conversation!

 

.

Get a Financial Health Assessment!

Read More ›

Topics: becoming a steward leader, financial confusion, stewardship, steward leadership, Financial Health

Financial Health: 10 Characteristics of Healthy Budgets

Posted by Matthew Thomas

matthew-thomas-2As the year draws to a close, many enterprises have finalized their budgets for the next calendar year. In our work, we see a lot of different types of budgeting styles and processes. Organizations that are serious about their financial health create sound budgets. We find that sound budgets tend to have the following characteristics:

1. They are based in reasonably-expected revenues generated from the actual revenues of the past 3-5 years;

2. They have reasonable margin of revenue over expenses to handle any variations in either that may come their way;

3. They have reasonable provision for reserves that help them manage long-term goals, maintenance and opportunity; (My colleague David Van Winkle's Ministry Financing Group, a Preferred provider through Design Group International, has a great tool for measuring whether an organization or individual has adequate reserves to meet its goals.)

4. They have a good sense of the overall volatility and seasonality of their revenues and expenses and plan cash flow accordingly

5. They have a basic contingency plan for what will happen if the actual revenues and expenses diverge significantly from the plan, either up or down;

Ten_Characteristics_of_Sound_Budgets6. They account for as much of the part of the enterprise's economy for which the organization is responsible and as much of that economy as can be reasonably measured and acertained; 

7. They priortize financially the enterprise's stated priorities and goals and can present proposed financial activities narratively in light of theose priorities and goals;

8. They are fully articulated from the broadest, simplest versions presented at the highest levels down to the specific accounting line items representing specific transactions - in other words, even though different people or groups see different levels of detail (or even different amounts of the whole picture), everything connects between the most general and the most specific all the way through the system;

9. They lean in to the future rather than merely repeating the past; 

10. They have room for review and adjustment at regular intervals to maintain a reasonable plan period - in other words, if the budget is for a 12-month period, then, for instance, that budget can be revised and adjusted on a quarterly basis so that there is always a plan for 9 - 12 months out ahead. 

These are just 10 of the possible characteristics of healthy budgets. What would you add?


 

 

Financial Snapshot

A Financial Snapshot looks at your basic financial statements and gives you a picture of how healthy your organization's finances are at the moment. Get yours today!

Get your Financial Snapshot!

Read More ›

Topics: budget, Margin, Financial Planning, confusing income with the budget, Financial Health

Financial Health: Modularizing Financial Tasks in Small Organizations

Posted by Matthew Thomas

matthew-thomas-2The Challenge - Staffing

Small businesses, nonprofits, and religious organizations often face similar challenges in maintaining separation of powers in financial procedure. Often, smaller enterprise systems may only have one or two people managing the financial operations. Enterprises of this size typically prioritize staffing elsewhere. 

Error Needles in the Accounting Haystack

While risky from an oversight standpoint, small enterprises have limits as to how much they can spend, in time and money, on financial management. The small number of people available limits how much they can divide the role. Setting aside fraud risk for the moment, the small number of people involved lends itself to the risk of errors in recording and reporting. Even the most careful bookkeeper or accountant can make mistakes - and then, in small organizations, they have to have the kinds of procedure and process in order to be able to find their own mistakes and correct them. And as they will tell you, it is often harder to find their own mistakes than it is to find others', as they sift through the stacks of numbers produced by the regular accounting reports. Nevertheless, in small systems, this is often the way things must be.

Staffing Options

Some enterprises work around this by hiring out an accounting firm to do their books, and that can work well. It helps keep compliance with the laws for reporting and taxes, and builds in error checking and correcting into the system. Other enterprises, seeking more internal control (and often, some reduction in cost), will hire in an embedded contract CFO, finance director, or bookkeeper, depending on the level of functionality required. These are the services I often provide through my consulting practice, particularly in organizations seeking to outsource at least a portion of their financial management - either in a long-term or transitional/transformational situation. Still others maintain full internal managment of their financial health and functionality, but do so with relatively few people. 

The Why and What of Modularization

Modularization_helps_catch_and_correct_errorsIn all three basic cases, modularization of tasks can help particularly with the error checking and correcting that would naturally come otherwise from having more people involved. Modularizing tasks for financial health involves establishing procedures that are designed to stand alone, as though different people were doing them in each module, even though, in the cases of these enterprises, the same person is often executing multiple modules. For example, one person may be reconciling the enterprise's bank accounts to the accounting system, and also checking transaction-level reports for errors on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. Modularization argues that those two tasks stay distinct, as though different people were doing the tasks. That way, the procedure design allows for catching errors missed in one procedure through the completion of the other procedure. If the two procedures are worked simultaneously, or otherwise conflated or interwoven, the likelihood of finding errors is significantly lower. 

Retail Example

A retail manager is responsible for reconciling Point of Sale receipts from the cash registers to deposits made to the bank and card transaction deposits made by the merchant servicer to the bank account. The manager is also responsible for accounting accurately for inventory, and overseeing regular bill payment. Making certain these tasks are modularized, so that the franchise owner can review them independently, will improve the accuracy of the tasks themselves and the information they report. 

Religious Organization Example

A church has two volunteers managing its finances. One volunteer and her team manage weekly contributions; the other manages bill payment, payroll, bank reconciliations, and governance reporting. (This is a pretty standard breakdown for many small churches.) The two volunteers must reconcile the deposits against the contributions on a weekly basis. The volunteer responsible for all the non-contribution side of the books must keep all of the tasks modularized to catch errors in bill payment, bank reconciliations and report creation, so that he doesn't introduce systemic errors into the system and propogate them forward - particularly since they only obtain a CPA's compilation or review every few years. 

Process, not just a compilation of best practices.

Much of the modularization of tasks makes sense on an enterprise-by-enterprise basis, and must be fine-tuned to the particular division of labor, task, and oversight used by that enterprise. While there are some "best practices", for small organizations, many times the staffing availability dictates making do with the same person carrying out multiple modules of financial management. This is why process design is often so essential to developing how the modules work in any given system. Modularization is a tool in the process arsenal to help design self-correcting systems where staffing is minimal and the risk of fraud is low.

 


 

Are all your financial roles filled?

Do you have gaps in needed positions? How might you staff your system for optimal financial health?

Financial Roles Get the map!

Read More ›

Topics: Matthew Thomas, financial management, Financial Health

Nonprofit Financial Management: Sustainability in a Volatile Market

Posted by Matthew Thomas

Even small nonprofits often have endowment funds invested to sustain long-term work toward the cause for which they were founded. Large nonprofits typically have a significant source of their annual revenue generated by earnings off of investments. So when the market begins to jump around, as it has done since the middle of the summer, nonprofit leaders begin to get nervous about what downward market trends might do to their revenues. This induces some to pull their funds from the markets, or hesitate putting funds into the markets. 

matthew-thomas-2Downward markets trends tend to cause no small amount of panic. However, sound financial management suggests that there are four things we can do intentionally, and four others we can avoid, that will strengthen our organizations' financial health, and ride out downturns in the markets.

  • Do: Follow your Investment Policy Statement (IPS), even in a market downturn. An IPS specifies the investment objectives, who is responsible for achieving those objectives (and who is responsible for monitoring), asset allocation, diversification, rebalancing, and so forth. Rebalancing should typically take place on a regular, predetermined basis, rather than at the whim of the managers. 
  • Don't: Try to time the market. In the moment, it's never clear where the market bottom is, or its top. In the long term, markets show trends; in the short term, they're a little (a lot?) crazy. If people could predict where the market was going to go in the short term, a lot of people would be making a lot of money. Most people want to sell during a downturn and buy as the wave rides higher. The problem is, that for most people, this means buying high and selling low, which is just the opposite of what would create a strong return. The best option is to buy and sell on a regular basis, according to the IPS, as the budget dictates, taking advantage of the lows to buy more shares, and taking advantage of the highs to gain more appreciation. 
  • Do: Maintain a cash reserve large enough to sustain your organization through a short-term dip in the market, to prevent having to sell securities low, if at all possible. Once the markets rebound, replace the cash reserve.
  • Don't: Focus too much investment in one type of security, or one sector of the market. Diversify. Chasing hot stocks does not typically work for funds that expect to remain in perpetuity. 
  • Do: Allocate assets based on risk tolerance and goals. Can your organization handle the risks associated with the potential rewards of investing? Remember, too, that inflation is a risk - and that securities that offer returns below the rate of inflation are actually losing buying power. 
  • Don't: Rebalance based on short-term swings in the market. Set a time window, and asset allocation variance window, and stick to it.
  • Do: Make sure your organization maintains compliance with the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (UPMIFA) in a down market. UPMIFA requires that the long-term purchasing power of a fund be maintained, not just its historical dollar value. Prudence (the P in UPMIFA) requires sound judgment in a market downturn. The law requires a seven-point test for prudence. (Ohio's version is here, which matches UPMIFA Section 4(a), applicable in all states (and DC, and USVI) with the exception of Pennsylvania.) We have helped organizations implement UPMIFA. We'd be glad to help. 
  • Don't: Panic. Take a deep breath. This, too, shall pass.

These do's and don't's will help sustain your organization's financial health in a market downturn. Taking a step back from the day-to-day headlines, looking at the long-term trends, and focusing on your organization's mission will help get you through the days when the market seems crazy. We're in this with you!


We really care about financial health! Click the button below to take the next steps on your organization's road to financial health!

Get a Financial Health Assessment!


This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer or solicitation to sell shares or securities. Design Group International and its associated consultants are not brokers, dealers or registered investment advisors and do not attempt or intend to influence the purchase or sale of any security.

Read More ›

Topics: nonprofit leadership, Matthew Thomas, financial management, Financial Health

Charitable Challenges: Nonprofit Public Image and Financial Health

Posted by Matthew Thomas

Much is being made these days of how much (or little) money raised for various charitable causes is actually "going to the cause." Both traditional and social media regularly cry foul with accusations of waste and excess in charities large and small. (This has been part of the impetus behind the idea of taxing nonprofits or using PILOTS, which we discussed here.) Among charities, religious organizations have escaped some (but not all) of the vitriol leveled against others, largely because their financial statements aren't public in the same way: in the US, they are not required to report on IRS Form 990. 

matthew-thomas-2In scanning through the various arguments, accusations and finger-wagging, it seems there are three major issues that come up regularly:

  1. Executive Compensation
  2. Assets and Reserves
  3. Administrative Costs vs. Direct Program, Grant or Research Costs

Each of these issues impacts charities' reputation and capacity to achieve the goals and purpose for which they were founded - along with their financial health. And each has its source in a wider issue going on in society.

Executive compensation has been in the spotlight recently, particularly after the financial industry handed out large bonuses during and after the US government bailed them out. This was a particularly tone-deaf response, given the size of the bonuses and the increased scrutiny by a public whose median income was several orders of magnitude smaller than the typical bonus. 

While charities must work within the economics of comparable compensation for executives managing similarly-sized organizations, arguing from this reality does not typically reduce the challenge of the perception of excessive executive compensation. Charities must, of course, exercise due diligence that they are not harming their brand and their purpose by excessively compensating executives. Nevertheless, finding a way to use the executive compensation conversation to keep the charity on message and further promote the cause does seem to be the best way forward. Narrative seems to work well.

Assets and reserves - along with endowment principal - are another explanatory challenge for charities. Most charities that intend to fulfill their mission must have reserves large enough, at minimum, to meet the offset in expenses and income, and at best, enough to take care of emergencies that would put them out of business before they have time to get to donors for an ask. In those sort of serious emergencies, even winding down the charity and closing its doors will cost something. Moreover, endowments look quite large, but a charity can really only spend at most $50,000 in earnings off of every $1 Million it holds on an annual basis. (It is often prudent to spend less than that, in reality.)

With the average median household income in the mid-$50,000 range, and the typical household emergency solved by credit rather than by savings, there is often a disconnect between the reserves numbers (that appear astronomical to most people), and the average person's budget and earning capacity. Here, working with percentages can help, especially as it helps keep the charity on message. 

The issue of administrative costs vs. direct program, grant, and/or research costs catches many charities in a bind: in reality, the cost of raising funds is necessary to pursuing and fulfilling the charity's mission; the way these costs are reported often (partially due to the Form 990 breakdown of expenses) make it look like they are some sort of necessary evil that charities should find a way to minimize. The relative costs of administrating and fundraising for a cause, compared to overall revenue speaks to the efficiency of the organization in achieving its goals, but not the actual dollar amount. Efficiency often is affected by scale (smaller being, in reality, often LESS efficient), and larger scale involves more actual dollars going in every category, not just one pocket or another.

Mathematically, though, if 80% of a $100 Million per year charity goes to fundraising and administration, then $20 Million is still going to the core programs, grants, etc. A charity with only 20% going to fundraising and administration would still have to raise $25 Million per year to equal the actual output of the other charity. The question is, then, whether market conditions (in this case, donors, grants, and so on) would actually allow that to happen, or if the "inefficient" charity is really doing the best it can, and the other is a pipe dream. Of course, if the $100 Million per year charity would be able to be more efficient at $90 Million per year, and even less efficient at $110 Million per year, then reducing the scale would make sense.

In addition to this, there is often a matter of misunderstanding of mission: if the perception is that your mission, purpose, and fundraising objective is one thing, and the reality is another, there is going to be outcry. 

In all of these cases, the best answer is to tell the story, tell it clearly, and tell it often. Tell the why and the what. Tell the how. Without becoming defensive, teach others about your realities. This is where vision grows, mission develops, and work has meaning. 

 


 

How financially healthy is your organization? If you work for, sit on the board of, or donate to a charity, and would like us to conduct a snapshot review of your charity's public financial statements (e.g., Form 990, your annual report, or audited financial statement) to gain a preliminary understanding of where your organization stands today, click the button below. 

 Get your Financial Snapshot!

If you would like to explore an in-depth Financial Health Assessment, examining trends, procedure, governance, and financials, giving a more comprehensive reflection of your organization's capacity for achieving its mission, click the button below, and we will get in touch with you to provide you with what it takes to get started. 

Get a Financial Health Assessment!

Read More ›

Topics: nonprofit leadership, Matthew Thomas, Financial Health

Financial Health in Organizations: Solvency and Reserves

Posted by Matthew Thomas

Back in June, we talked a bit about solvency. One of the best ways to maintain solvency is to have a healthy amount of reserves, and to use them judiciously.

matthew-thomas-2Clients often ask me what I consider to be a healthy amount of reserves for their organization. My typical answer is that it really varies based upon their particular enterprise’s goals and needs. Many enterprises operate without much in the way of reserves at all, and this ends up constricting and restricting their options when finances get tight. Nevertheless, long-term solvency is often dependent on having healthy levels of reserves.

In order to set a healthy reserve target, consider answering the following questions:

  1. How much money do we need to make up the difference between our lows in income and our highs in expenses?  (Basic cash flow cushion)
  2. What sorts of emergencies could put us out of business if we don’t have the funds to cover them right away?
  3. Do we foresee any major new initiatives from which we may want to draw down savings in order to start them?
  4. If we lost our major source of revenue, how long would it take to wind down our affairs and go out of business? How much would this cost?
  5. Are we dependent on any cash for investment revenue?
  6. What assets can we sell to raise cash if needed?

Adding up the amounts these six questions generate can help begin to generate a reserve target.

Do you have any additions or subtractions to this list? What has worked for you?

Get a Financial Health Assessment

Read More ›

Topics: Matthew Thomas, Financial Health

Financial Health in Organizations: Solvency

Posted by Matthew Thomas

Solvency is a significant measure of an organization’s financial health. No matter what the type of business, solvency factors in to an organization’s capacity to carry out its mission and purpose. Solvency is an issue for non-profits and churches as well as businesses and corporations.

matthew-thomas-2Solvency is determined by two basic tests:

  1. Balance sheet: a solvent balance sheet has assets that exceed liabilities.
  2. Cash Flow (Liquidity): cash flow is solvent when obligations can be met in the normal course of business.

Organizations that cannot meet one or both of those tests are considered insolvent. Insolvent enterprises often face added legal responsibilities to creditors (not just shareholders or members) in many jurisdictions.

Many organizations operate in or around this “Zone of Insolvency”, adding financial stress to the development of mission and purpose. In the business world, insolvency cuts into profits, since credit is more expensive and opportunities for growth take second place to managing financial emergencies. In the non-profit and church world, insolvency causes paycheck-to-paycheck living that distresses mission, staff, and donors, and additionally tends to create deferred-maintenance policies for fixed assets such as real estate and significant equipment.

There are a variety of approaches to dealing with solvency, which we will cover in future posts:

  • Healthy Levels of Reserves
  • Debt Management
  • Balance of Liquid vs. Non-Liquid Assets
  • Revenue/Expense Balance
  • Mindsets and Paradigms

We would be glad to assist you in assessing your financial health – particularly around the issue of solvency. Click the button below for more information.

Get a Financial Health Assessment

Read More ›

Topics: Matthew Thomas, organizational decision making, Financial Health