Agustín Morrone’s Post

Every business needs a CFO. But paying one full-time is overkill for most SMBs. So, when does it make sense to hire a fractional CFO? The answer is as soon as you can afford one. They offer the strategic financial guidance that helps businesses make better decisions for sustainable growth. But like anything, timing is key. If you’re feeling the weight of making every decision alone, it might be time to consider a Fractional CFO. It is better to bring one and have them work a few hours a week than to not have anyone at all. A big reason is that you don’t know what you don’t know, but a fractional CFO can be an extra pair of eyes, helping you hone your strategy and keep your eyes peeled for any danger. For companies in growth mode, or SMEs that need a level of financial oversight, a Fractional CFO can be invaluable. You have the expertise without the commitment and cost of a full-time role. This is especially useful for startups that need direction or businesses looking to maximize their investment potential. But not every business is at the point where a Fractional CFO is necessary. For startups generating less than $1M in revenue, a solid bookkeeper is usually enough. Once you cross that $1M threshold and start thinking about scaling, that’s when a CFO can really make a difference. And if you’re at $20M+ or dealing with complex operations across multiple entities or currencies, it’s probably time to consider building out a full finance team. One last thing: make sure your bookkeeping is solid before you take this step. Good financial data is the foundation that allows a CFO to do their job effectively. So, for me a small business finance order of operations should be: Bookkeeper CPA Fractional CFO Full-Time Controller/FP&A Full-Time CFO Every business is different, but this is a general path that seems to work well.

I've seen it happen many times: companies hire large teams in other countries, give them little to no training, and then wonder why things fall apart. When the team struggles, the blame often falls on the talent, not the process. But the truth is, global talent isn’t the problem—it's the lack of proper onboarding and training. Hiring without proper onboarding is almost a guaranteed path to failure. If you want your team to succeed, whether they're onshore or offshore, you need to invest in them. That means: Having clear SOPs in place Providing adequate training materials Regular 1-on-1s Invest in upskilling and continuous training. Have a solid onboarding & training plan. Hold everyone accountable through project management. Global talent has the potential to be a game changer, but it does require a learning curve and a commitment to making it work. The best approach is to treat global team members like full-time employees—because that's what they are. They’re an integral part of the team and should be seen as such.

Offshoring is not always the cheapest option. Or most precisely, should not equal “the cheapest option”. Considering offshoring solely as a means to cut costs is top 3 misconceptions with companies hiring global talent for the first time. Often, there's a belief that offshore talent equates to cheap labor, which can be difficult for retention when the said employee doesn’t meet the expectations. Yes, at Vintti, we do promote cost savings as a significant benefit of offshoring, but that doesn't mean pushing for the lowest possible pay. At the end of the day, just like with onshore talent, you’ll pay for what you get. Outsourcing just means opening up the employable market. So two notes on that: 1. You are already saving money—on additional team members, coordination costs, churn, equipment— so paying to work with the best people should not be that much of a stretch. But paying well will help you retain and empower top performers. 2. Competitive wages let you pick the best people, wherever they are set.

Twitter says... 😂

Talent strategy is now a key priority for any company Korn Ferry reported there will be a deficit of 10.7 million workers by 2030, more than 45 times the global workforce of HSBC Bank. We can only imagine the financial impact of this shortage. The study says much of the shortage is based on demography. Japan and many European countries have had low birth rates for years. In the US, most baby boomers will have moved out of the workforce by 2030, but generations Z will not have had the time or training to take the high-skilled jobs left behind. Especially because many of these positions have lost interest for the newest generations. Russia could reach a shortage of 6 million people, and China could be facing twice as large. The United States could also be facing a deficit of more than 6 million workers, and it’s worse in Japan, Indonesia, and Brazil, each of which could have shortages of up to 18 million skilled workers. Due to talent shortages, markets could miss out on more than 16% of the projected global unrealized revenue. What I find interesting about all of these numbers? None of these countries refer to Latam (except Brazil). Because those markets remain fairly unexplored. Companies will need to urgently rethink their recruiting and training strategies. Outsourcing is not the only option, but for companies to consider where they source their talent having the nearshore strategy in their toolbox will be important to mitigate the problem of not finding the necessary talent.

Boss: "Do it this way." Leader: "This is how to do it and why it's done this way." I've been wanting to write some ideas on how to give feedback to remote employees and came across these lines in a tweet (I refuse to call it "X"). And I thought it was a good summary. In the time we've been placing remote talent in US companies, many of them have asked if the company had provided us any feedback regarding THEIR performance after a while. This is strange because every leadership textbook assumes that companies provide feedback to their talent at least once in a while. Apparently, it's not that obvious, or if it is, it's not done clearly. Motivated employees appreciate encouragement and feedback on how they can improve and provide better client satisfaction. It is demotivated employees who abhor feedback. So if you're reading this, be sure to: Evaluate employees' performance. Make sure they know how it is measured. Give them personalized feedback. In our experience, this is VERY important for employee retention. Employees without feedback will feel lost in your company.

We review thousands of CVs per day. These are the 3 things that make a good one: First a declaimer: I’m not trying to explain a CV’s structure, whether to list your experience chronologically or in reverse, should it be designed or not, photo is yes or no, or if your home address matters to anyone. Rather is a quick check on how to make a case for yourself in the first 10 lines. So, the who, what, and why have now become: - Niched resume - How you help companies, for how long, and with numbers. - And success cases. In examples: Niched resume → What position are you applying to? It's different "Accountant" than "Accounts Payable/Receivable Specialist." How you help companies, for how long, and with numbers → "5+ years of experience. Expert in invoice processing, payment tracking, and resolving discrepancies. Skilled in streamlining financial operations and enhancing cash flow management through automation." Success cases → "Successfully reduced accounts receivable aging by 30% and improved cash flow by 20% at XYZ Corporation. Implemented an automated invoice system, cutting processing time by 70% and saving $125,000 annually." Thoughts? Would you add anything else?

We always ask our clients hiring outsourced talent for the first time what their biggest fear was. While doubts about the quality of work and deliverables are the most frequent, multi-employment is the next most common concern. I've also seen this come up in +10 webinars I've held this year. The question that always pops up in the chat is whether the employees we hire are 100% dedicated to the client or if they have more than one job. Why is this such a big concern? One obvious answer is the workload. If a job is supposed to take 40 hours a week or more to do satisfactorily, can you perform well if you’re doing two jobs simultaneously? Then there are the logistics: many jobs are meeting-heavy or require daily deadlines. When remote work meets a candidate determined to lie, it's impossible to anticipate. So we need to tackle the question: why do employees take on multiple jobs? It often boils down to money, job security, and how much time their main job actually takes. Some jobs only need 10-20 hours a week, so people look for more work to fill the time and increase their income. Others feel safer having multiple jobs than relying on just one. So, if this is the concern, how can companies fix it? Make sure your job is the best option they have. Offer incentives that make staying worthwhile. Check how much the job actually takes – you might be okay with a part-time position. Build a culture where the hardest workers are rewarded and create opportunities for growth so they can move up in the company. Determine how you are going to measure performance. If they meet the expectations and perform, then what they do in their extra time shouldn't be a problem.

Labor market churn is not all bad. Apparently, it can also drive U.S. productivity up rather than down, contrary to what you might think. The IMF recently published a paper proving that the dynamic labor market and rapid adoption of digital technologies, particularly in remote-work-friendly industries, have been key drivers of U.S. productivity growth. Before the pandemic, productivity growth had been slowing since the mid-2000s. The pandemic caused large swings in productivity due to industry lockdowns and re-openings. But, since late 2022, U.S. productivity has rebounded, exceeding pre-pandemic levels by over 6% as of early 2024, with a steady upward trend. To put it simply: Labor market churn: People have been changing jobs more frequently, which helps them find roles that better match their skills, making them more productive. Digitalization: Sectors with higher investment in digitalization, particularly teleworkable industries, have seen higher productivity growth. Remote Work: Industries that allow remote work have adopted digital tools faster, boosting productivity. The finance sector is one of the industries that has benefited the most, reversing its negative growth trend from before 2020.