Can accounting errors ruin your life? JohnOliver explains how they can.

In this episode Last Week Tonight, John Oliver explores the world of debt buying:



The segment received wide publicity as he tried to out do Oprah by conducting the biggest giveaway on television - he bought $15 million worth of medical debt and forgave it. This article on Fortune does a good job of summarizing the show:

• US households owe $12 trillion in debt of which $436 billion is 90+ days past due. 
• Companies who discharge the debt sell it for pennies on the dollar to a growing number of companies that specializes in debt buying.  
• One company, Encore Capital, notes that in 1 in 5 Americans owes or has owed them money. 
• Debt that's been paid "come back to life", which is affectionately known as Zombie debt.

There was some controversy, however, about who he worked with to write-off the debt (they noted their grievances here, to which John responded here) and the value of the debt. On the latter count, is it really fair to criticize an act of charity that improved the lives of approximately 9,000 people?  

Nothing good happens in Excel. 
But the segment which is most relevant to us is when he starts talking about how the information is actually sold.  It is sold on spreadsheets. Oliver gets quite dramatic as he shares his his phobia of Excel and notes how "nothing good happens in Excel". He also explains that the spreadsheets are sold "as is"; meaning that the seller does not guaranty accuracy of the information related to the debt contracts being sold.

And that's where the jokes stops.

In the segment, he has footage from interviews with Jake Halpern, who wrote "Bad Paper: Chasing Debt from Wall Street to the Underworld". The book follows the life of a debt buyer of Aaron Siegel, who is born to a rich family in Buffalo, New York. He takes an array of characters, including his Brandon, who is an ex-con who does that gritty part of work of finding the debt, ensuring its good and collecting on it.

What caught my attention as I was going through book, is that it gave a bit more detail to what John Oliver mentioned about the banks selling the paper "as is". Halpern notes on page 58 of his book (see below for the link to the book), that when Washington Mutual sold Joanna and Theresa's debt to Aaron, the credits awarded against their accounts that were not reflected in the spreadsheet that was given to the debt buyer.


And that's how accounting errors can ruin lives.

When you read the life stories of these two ladies it's heart wrenching to think that a few lines on an Excel spreadsheet could have a detrimental impact on their lives. Some would cynically say this is over dramatic and try to find reason to blame Joanna and Theresa falling into this problem. But I don't think that's fair. When you read the lives of these people, it's clear that they were affected by factors beyond their control. It's really this broken system of debt collection that is responsible for them failing to get the debt relief that they were owed.

The way accounting systems and spreadsheets are designed and operated can have real impact on real people. As an accountant myself, I often wondered what value is accounting in the grand scheme of things. But as Halpern's story illustrates the accountants, bookkeepers, etc. had a real impact on the livesof these two women.

No one is saying that accountants have the same impact on the lives of people the way a cancer specialist does. But at the same time a few a lines on Excel spreadsheet could be the difference between perpetual anxiety and a good nights sleep.

Low Decision Agility: BigData's Insurmountable Challenge?

Working in the field of data analytics for over decade there is one recurring theme that never seems to go away: the overall struggle organizations have with getting their data in order.

Courtesy of this link. 

Although this is normally framed in terms of data quality and data management, it's important to link this back to the ultimate raison d'etre for data and information: organizational decision making. Ultimately, an organization has significant data and information management challenges it culminates into a lack of "decision agility" for executive or operational management. I define decision agility as follows:

"Decision agility is the ability of an entity to provide relevant information 

to a decision maker in a timely manner." 

Prior to getting into the field, you would think that with all the hype of the Information Age it would be easy as pressing a button for a company to get you the data that you need to perform the analysis you need to do. However, after getting into the field, you soon realize how wrong this thinking: most organizations have low-decision agility.

I would think it is fair to say that this problem hits those involved in external (financial) audits the hardest. As we have tight budgets, low-decision agility at the clients we audit makes it cost-prohibitive to perform what is now known as audit analytics (previously known as CAATs). Our work is often reigned in by the (non-IT) auditors running the audit engagement because it is "cheaper" do the same test manually rather than parse our way through the client's data challenges

So what does this have to do with Big Data Analytics?

As I noted in my last post, there is the issue of veracity - the final V in the 4 Vs definition of Big Data. However, veracity is part of the larger problem of low decision agility that you can find at organizations. Low-decision agility emerges from a number of factors and can have implications on a big data analytics initiative at an organization. These factors and implications include:

• Wrong data:  Fortune, in this article, notes there is the obvious issue of "obsolete, inaccurate, and missing information" data records itself. Consequently, the big data analytics initiative needs to assess the veracity of the underlying data to understand how much work needs to be done to clean up the data before meaningful insights can be drawn from the data. 
• Disconnect between business and IT: The business has one view of the data and the IT folks see the data in a different way. So when you try to run a "simple" test it takes a significant amount of time to reconcile business's view of the data model to IT's view of the data model. To account for this problem there needs to be some effort in determining how to sync the user's view of the data and IT's view of the data on an ongoing basis to enable the big data analytic to rely on the data that sync's up with the ultimate decision maker's view of the world.  
• Spreadsheet mania: Let's fact it: organizations treat IT as an expense not as an investment. Consequently, organizations will rely on spreadsheets to do some of the heavy lifting for the information processing because it is the path of least resistance. The overuse of spreadsheets can be a sign of an IT system that fails to meets the needs of the users. However, regardless of why they are used, the underlying problem is dealing with these vast array of business-managed applications that are often fraught with errors and outside the controls of production system. The control and related data issues become obvious during compliance efforts, such as SOX 404 or major transitions to new financial/data standards, such as the move to IFRS. When developing big data analytics, how do you account for the information trapped in these myriad little apps outside of IT's purview? 
• Silo thinking: I remember the frustration of dealing with companies that lacked a centralized function that had a holistic view of the data. Each department would know it's portion of the processing rules, etc. but would have no idea of what happened upstream or downstream. Consequently, an organization needs to create a data governance structure that understands the big picture and can identify and address the potential gaps in the data set before it is fed into the Hadoop cluster.  
• Heterogenous systems: Organizations with a patch-work of systems require extra effort from getting the data formatted and synchronized. InfoSec specialists deal with this issue of normalization when it come to security log analysis: the security logs that are extracted from different systems need to have the event IDs, codes, etc. "translated" into a common language to enable a proper analysis of events that are occurring across the enterprise. The point is that big data analytics must also perform a similar "translation" to enable analysis of data pulled from different systems. Josh Sullivan of Booz Allen states: "...training your models can take weeks and weeks" to recognize what content fed into the system are actually the same value. For example, it will take a while for the system to learn that female and woman are the same thing when looking at gender data. 
• Legacy systems:  Organizations may have legacy systems which do not retain data, are hard to extract from and difficult to import into other tools. Consequently, this can cost time and money to get the data into a usable format that will also need to be factored into the big data analytics initiative.
• Business rules and semantics: Beyond the heterogenity differences between systems there can also be a challenge in how something is commonly defined. A simple example is currency: an ERP that expand multiple countries the amount reported may be in the local currency or the dollar, but requires the metadata to give that meaning. Another issue can be that different user group define something different. For example, for a sale for the sales/marketing folks may not mean the same thing as a sale for the finance/accounting group (e.g. the sales & marketing people may not account for doubtful accounts or incentives that need to be factored in for accounting purposes). 

Of course these are not an exhaustive list of issues, but it gives an idea of how the reality of analytics is obscured the tough reality of state of data.  

In terms of the current state of data quality, a recent blog post by Michele Goetz of Forrester noted that 70% of the executive level business professionals they interviewed spent more than 40% of their time vetting and validating data. (Forrester notes the following caveat about the data: "The number is too low to be quantitative, but it does give directional insight.")

Until organizations get to a state of high decision agility - where business users spend virtually no time vetting/validating the data - organizations may not be able to reap the full benefits of a big data analytics initiative.