| TAX AND ACCOUNTING/ BUDGETING |
March 2003 |
THE FIVE-YEAR ITCH
For CFOs, the biggest question about
doing five-year plans is, why?
By Kris Frieswick
Next to preparing the annual budget, the
exercise that many CFOs dread most is creating a five-year
plan. The document can take months to craft, is impossible
to get right, and generally becomes obsolete within six months.
Why, then, are companies still wedded to it?
The answers are varied. Some CFOs, especially
those at capital intensive companies or municipalities, produce
five-year plans to support bond issues or other long-term
capital financing. Others do them simply because their bosses
want one. No matter why they do it, however, CFOs agree on
one thing: after year two, it's all guesswork.
"For some reason, the best year is
always the fifth year," laughs Jim Bell, director of
corporate finance at Huntsman, a US-based petrochemical maker
with operations throughout Asia, including China. "Truthfully,
once you get out past two years, it's so fuzzy that it's fairly
meaningless." Bell has done a five-year plan roughly
every four months for the past year and a half, even before
the privately held company defaulted on a bond payment and
had a change of investors. He and his finance team have become
so good at creating the plan that he says it now takes them
only two to three weeks to complete the next version. "We've
had all the big consulting firms in here in the past year
representing potential investors, and they all want a five-year
plan," Bell adds.
Oddly, even the lenders that demand the
plans acknowledge their fallibility. "There's a high
degree of uncertainty the further out you go," says John
Daniels, senior vice president in the commercial banking group
at Bank of America. Uncertainty notwithstanding, BofA still
requires that companies produce forecasts that cover the duration
of nearly any loan they request. "We're obviously asking
so we understand the risk of a deal," says Daniels. "We're
looking for the cash flow perspective and how we're getting
paid. We build our loan agreements and covenants on that information."
Dead or Alive?
While five-year plans may be a great tool
for banks, many CFOs think they're a big headache and will
jettison them at the first opportunity. That's what Dawson
Cunningham, CFO of US-based Roadway, did in 1996 after his
company was spun off from its parent. Roadway had no debt
until 12 months ago, so it could easily drop such plans, says
Cunningham.
"[The parent company] required that
we do detailed five-year plans that contained, basically,
a lot of text outlining goals and the financial forecasts
relative to operating results," recalls Cunningham. He
thinks the document, which took two months to complete, was
useless. "The problem with a plan is that it gets put
on the shelf," he says. "It's not a living document."
Today, Cunningham leads Roadway through strategic planning
exercises on an "as-needed basis".
"We're heavily driven by the economy
and cycles that we can't forecast," he notes. "We've
found that the best thing to focus on is not the process of
creating a five-year plan, but the process of creating benchmarks,
and reviewing your progress against those benchmarks."
But there are CFOs who actually like five-year
plans. David Schroeder, CFO of Brady, a US-based manufacturer
of high-performance identification systems, says he'd do a
five-year plan even if he didn't have to.
"The process is very useful,"
states Schroeder, who says it takes his team four months to
create a five-year plan. "We do five-year plans to give
ourselves a longer-term view to achieve long-term growth goals.
We have grown through a blend of acquisitions and internal
growth, so we want to know what kinds of resources we need
to develop acquisition pipelines, and what infrastructure
we'll need to do it."
Schroeder and his team produce a document
that is then broken down into division specific action plans.
It also includes major milestones that he and his team track
over time. "For us, it's a living thing," he says.
"It helps us communicate with other parts of the organization
about how we plan on executing our mission." If Schroeder
sounds unusually positive about the plans, it should be noted
that he and his team complete them only every two to three
years.
Roulette
KCritics of five-year plans can point
to the events of the past two years to argue the futility
of forecasting anything further out than a year or two. Even
that can be a game of roulette - although, like roulette,
some are better at it than others.
"There's no doubt that there's a
connection between quality of management and ability to forecast,"
says BofA's Daniels. "But with that said, even some of
our best clients have missed forecasts, and no one predicted
the downturn." That includes BofA, which estimated in
January 2003 that it would write off US$1.2 billion in bad
loans for Q4 2002. Daniels says the bank's problems were due
to "economic factors that were outside of how we evaluate
the quantity and quality of historic and projected earnings."
In other words, stuff happens. Scenario
planners have long argued that it is these "outliers"
- with the lowest odds of occurring - that have the greatest
potential for affecting a company's long-term viability. But
five-year plans rarely account for outliers.
For that reason, some companies use a
variety of inputs often used for scenario planning - interviews
with industry experts, suppliers, industry associations, and
economists - to create five-year plans. But unlike scenario
planning, where the aim is to develop strategies for possible
futures, CFOs developing five-year plans today are expected
to turn revenue projections into everything from earnings
in 2004 to cash flow figures in 2007. Such forecasts, of course,
are composed of roughly one part science and three parts wishful
thinking.
Bell says Huntsman usually relies on raw
material pricing data from the Chemical Manufacturers Association
to compile pricing forecasts for its five-year plan. But such
things as war and terrorism have made even that data less
than reliable. Says Bell: "I heard a report recently
that said three things could happen to the price of oil if
the US goes to war with Iraq. It could go up to five dollars,
down to a dollar, or stay the same. I mean, I could have arrived
at that conclusion without doing any research at all."
There's some consolation in knowing
that even the bankers feel the CFO's five-year planning pain.
"I have a great deal of sensitivity to it," says
Daniels, whose group routinely prepares multiyear forecasts.
"The hardest part is knowing what you don't know."
Kris Frieswick
is a staff writer at CFO, CFO ASIA's sister publication in
the US.
|