COWBOY ACCOUNTANTS – THE LAWLESS FRONTIER

Can you imagine accountants as American cowboys of the Wild, Wild West in the 1800s? I can. And they can be dangerous. Yeehaw! Yippee-i-o-i-a! 

In place of guns in their belt holsters, the cowboy accountant may be carrying a smartphone. The rodeo rope that cowboys use to catch running steers may be their audit controls manual. Cowboy accountants also wear well-shined, wing-tipped dress shoes as their cowboy boots.      

Why am I making light humor of accountants with a metaphor of them as cowboys? It is because they operate today in a lawless frontier no different than the Wild West. To be clear, I am not referring to external financial accounting, but rather to the lawless frontier of internal managerial accounting used for internal analysis and decision making. 

No laws. No jail.

When accountants get the financial accounting numbers wrong, they might go to jail! Think Enron. However, if they get the internal managerial accounting numbers wrong, they don’t go to jail. So they can ease up and report reasonably accurate information. 

But therein is the problem: some accountants are lazy. The laziness I am referring to is not about working long hours – most accountants do. The laziness I am referring to is where they do only enough work for what is convenient for themselves as opposed to what is good for who they serve; the users of the information who perform analysis and make decisions. So, the accountants typically slack off by applying simplistic cost allocations. 

Who is to say what is correct?

A complicating matter in our Wild West of managerial accounting is there are few, if any, standards to follow. On the financial accounting side of external compliance accounting there are many rules, including the emerging International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). And tax authorities have thousands of rules. 

In contrast, managerial accountants are left to their own devices to define the managerial accounting practices to apply within their own organisations. If they want to allocate indirect and shared expenses (commonly called “overhead”) to product costs based on a single broadly averaged factor with no cause-and-effect relationship to the products (for example, the number of units produced, direct labour input hours), then they can. No one can stop them, despite the fact that the result will be flawed and misleading with over-costed and under-costed products. There is zero-sum error. Using activity-based costing [ABC] principles is the obvious solution. 

Accounting institute task forces to the rescue.

Fortunately, some of the professional accounting institutes are beginning to address this problem. A task force of The Institute of Management Accountants has published “The Conceptual Framework for Managerial Costing.”[1] [2] I was privileged to be a contributor to this document. This report specifically defines 12 principles that if followed, an organisation’s users will be more assured that they are receiving highly valid and accurate managerial accounting information. 

So, for you cowboy accountants who are operating in the lawless frontier, you may discover there is a new sheriff in town. You may no longer get away with reporting flawed and misleading information to your users and violating universal costing principles. Now what the accounting industry needs is enforcement for managerial accounting such as “certification” programme, but that is an advanced topic for another article.   


References: 

http://www.imanet.org/resources-publications/research-studies-and-resources/transforming-the-finance-function/mccf


http://www.imanet.org/docs/default-source/research/cfmc-draft-for-review.pdf?sfvrsn=2

 

  • 2015-04-29 15:35:03
  • Gary Cokins
  • Managerial accounting, financial accounting, activity-based costing