Matrix financial structure. Financial structure of the company. management accounting

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF UKRAINE

DONBASS STATE MECHANICAL ENGINEERING ACADEMY

In the discipline “Budget activities of business entities”

On the topic: “Financial structure of an enterprise and its formation”

Completed: st-ka gr. F05-2

Kosyachenko V.A.

Checked by: Mikhailichenko N.N.

Kramatorsk, 2010

INTRODUCTION

CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION

One of the differences between budgeting as a management technology is the ability to see the financial condition of an enterprise or firm in the context of its individual types of business. In fact, the choice of a financial structure is the choice of a budgeting object. It subsequently determines: what types of budgets will be used; what budgeting formats and technologies are advisable to use. With all the variety of classification options, three main groups of structural units - budgeting objects - can be distinguished.

The financial structure is a hierarchical system of financial responsibility centers. It determines the procedure for generating financial results and the distribution of responsibility for achieving the overall result of the company. Financial structuring allows you to maintain internal accounting policies, track the movement of resources within the company and evaluate the effectiveness of the business as a whole and its components. In other words, the presence of a financial structure allows the company’s management to see who is responsible for what, allows them to evaluate, control and coordinate the activities of departments, and helps to develop an effective system of employee motivation.

1. BUILDING THE STRUCTURE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY CENTERS

Currently, many enterprises use management by financial responsibility centers in their activities (practice), since it has become clear that the use of such a mechanism is one of the most important subsystems of building intra-company management.

The use of such a management principle will allow the enterprise, firstly, to have a systematic and structural-logical understanding of the organization and the directions of its development. Secondly, this will make it possible to identify the “weakest and strongest” centers of responsibility based on evaluation indicators in order to identify the most effective divisions of the company, by influencing which the greatest effect can be achieved.

In general, the financial structure of an organization is a hierarchical structure of financial responsibility centers, which act as integral segments and objects of management accounting, having their own goals, objectives and functional responsibilities aimed at achieving the company's goals.

The main goal of forming a system of financial responsibility centers is to increase the efficiency of intra-company management based on the generalization of information on the results of the activities of each responsibility center.

The main tasks of management of financial responsibility centers include:

1) coordination of strategic and operational activities of departments

2) creation of an effective system of personnel motivation

3) distribution of areas of responsibility for the overall result

4) assessment and control over the effectiveness of the company’s business areas

5) comparison of financial results with other divisions and competing companies.

The financial structure of the company is built and formed on the principle that each financial unit is responsible only for the results of operations that it can influence, i.e. these are the costs and income (if any) of the financial responsibility center.

As already noted, a financial structure is an ordered set of financial responsibility centers (FRC), which can act as a separate structural unit or department, area or specific function. The central feature of a financial responsibility center is the presence of a direct manager who is responsible for the results of the financial responsibility center's activities.

The financial structure depends on the specifics and scope of the enterprise, its size, organizational and legal form and form of ownership and other factors.

2. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY CENTERS

In modern literary sources one can find the following classification of financial responsibility centers:

Revenue Center

The income center is a structural division or group of divisions of an enterprise (for example, divisions of marketing and sales activities), which are responsible only for revenue from sales of products, goods, services and for the costs associated with their sales.

The effectiveness of this center is determined by maximizing the company's income within the resources allocated for these purposes. However, in this case, the question may arise whether this service is also a cost center, since costs arise in the process of marketing and sales activities. Of course, such centers of financial responsibility have a dual nature, but for sales services the share of income exceeds expenses, and this is the principle that must be followed when determining the center of responsibility.

Cost center (production activity)

A cost center is a structural unit responsible for performing a certain amount of work (production task) within the resources allocated for these purposes. As a rule, most divisions of the company belong to this type of central financial district. First of all, production (shops of main and auxiliary production, service departments). At the same time, the cost center may also have income (for example, revenue from the sale of external services by the transport division), but if their value is insignificant, and the provision of these services is not the main business of the company, the Central Federal District is defined as a cost center. However, there is an opposite opinion on the principles of separation of cost and income centers. The main idea is that the sales department is engaged in the sale of finished products - this is its function, but this department does not produce these products (it only performs actions and operations for its sale). According to this, the production department - the sphere of material production - is the center of income, since if the products are not produced, there will be no result (income, revenue) and the sales department will not be able to influence the change in this situation, since its functions include only sales products, not their production.

It must be assumed that both of these approaches have a place.

A profit center is a structural unit or group of units of an enterprise (for example, a manufacturing enterprise that is part of a holding company) that are responsible for the financial results of their activities.

An investment center is a structural unit or group of units of an enterprise that is responsible not only for revenue and costs, but also for capital investments (for example, a large subsidiary of an industrial holding company).

Building a financial structure in accordance with the organizational structure will allow you to evaluate the performance of each department in achieving the overall goal of the company. However, we should not forget that the financial structure should not completely coincide with the organizational one.

Let us consider the features of forming the structure of financial responsibility centers using the example of an industrial enterprise.

First of all, it is necessary to become familiar with the organizational structure of the enterprise (Fig. 2), and then bring it into line with the financial one.

It is assumed that CFOs are responsible for all financial results, both for profits (income) and losses (expenses). They usually have a complete budget scheme, that is, they make up all types of basic budgets adopted in the organization. DFS may be responsible only for some financial indicators, for income and part of the costs (for example, the sales service). Cost centers are responsible only for expenses (for example, accounting, which, naturally, does not earn anything, but only spends), and not just for some part of them, but for the so-called regulated expenses, the savings of which cost center management can control and ensure (develop relevant activities).

Some examples of central financial districts and digital financial institutions

subsidiaries of holdings;

separate divisions, representative offices and branches of large companies;

large manufacturing (assembly) shops of production associations;

production departments of companies with a divisional organizational management structure;

auxiliary workshops of production associations;

regionally and (or) technologically isolated types of activities (businesses) of multi-industry companies.

main production facilities (shops) participating in unified technological chains (redistributions) in enterprises with a sequential or continuous technological cycle;

production (assembly) shops;

sales services and divisions. Cost centers:

functional and staff services of enterprises and firms (accounting, economic planning services, personnel departments, other divisions of plant managements and central offices of firms);

main and auxiliary workshops.

When determining the financial structure of an enterprise or firm, as a rule, a list of types of businesses is first compiled, the range of products, works and services sold is studied, the most important and significant of them are determined, and the distribution of businesses by market segment is analyzed.

At an enterprise or production association with a divisional organizational management structure, divisions and production departments are allocated as the central federal district, i.e., the object of budgeting. The situation is somewhat more complicated in a large production association that has complex technological chains, for example, at an instrument-making plant. Here, production (assembly) shops that ship, for example, finished products can be identified as central financial centers, and auxiliary (mechanical, procurement) workshops and production facilities can be identified as central financial centers.

Another criterion may be the size of the structural unit. Here we are talking rather about the fact that one or more structural units (one or more workshops or departments) act as a central financial unit or central financial unit.

3. PROCEDURE FOR ANALYSIS OF THE COMPANY’S FINANCIAL STRUCTURE AND SEPARATION OF FACILITIES, CFI AND COST POSITIONS

The procedure for analyzing the financial structure of the company and identifying central financial districts, central financial institutions and cost centers

Compiling a list of businesses (types of economic activity, main types of products, works and services sold):

Analysis of the legal status of structural divisions (subsidiaries of a holding or quasi-holding, branches without legal personality, etc.);

Checking the degree of technological, production, sales, regional and other isolation in the activities of structural divisions.

Determining the type of organizational management structure of the company: divisional or linear-functional.

Distribution of businesses by structural divisions, identification of structural divisions that are not engaged in business (without sources of income).

Distribution of income, expenses and expenses by structural divisions, determination of regulated and non-regulated costs.

Identification of structural units capable of being responsible for cash flow.

Drawing up a list of central financial districts, central financial institutions and cost centers.

In Russia, an important criterion for identifying a structural unit of an enterprise or firm in the Central Federal District can also be considered its ability to work independently in the market - to market its products and services, the ability to bring them to the end consumer and control the sales network.

When deciding whether to allocate a particular division to the central financial district or to the central financial institution, and before compiling a list of central financial districts and central financial institutions for an enterprise or firm, it is necessary to distribute among the structural divisions:

types of businesses;

income, expenses and expenses.

If a structural unit cannot be responsible for income, as well as for cash receipts, but its functioning is necessary for the company as a whole and it incurs significant costs and expenses, then this is a cost center (for example, the service of the chief technologist). If a structural unit is responsible for revenue (sales department), but incurs only limited expenses and cannot be responsible for all costs, then it should be classified as a financial function. If a structural unit does not have the responsibility and ability to influence either income or expenses, then it should be attached to some other cost center.

To identify a structural unit as a central federal district, it is necessary to meet as many criteria as possible.

CONCLUSION

The problem of building a financial structure is to determine the basis on which the Central Federal District will be allocated. In the classification presented in the work, various options are possible, and with examples it was possible to observe how this process is implemented. However, it should be noted that there is no possibility of “checking” and monitoring the correctness of the chosen method. It is clear that the results are distant in time, so it is too early to talk about them, and that is why the comments of enterprise managers do not contain this information. Consulting companies do not publish the results of the work of enterprises for which they developed the financial structure and set up budgeting for the same reason - time must pass so that it can be compared and either a positive or negative result can be identified.

Also, as an issue of this topic, we can name the accuracy of the manager’s determination on what basis the central financial district is allocated, that is, the prevalence of pros over cons. So, for example, if the financial structure is built on a process principle, then it has its advantages and disadvantages. The advantages include high business transparency, due to the clear localization of the main business processes, and the absence of “general” costs that distort information about the financial results of the business. Among the positive aspects, one can highlight the good management of the business, due to high transparency, the presence of clear financial goals of the activity, as well as self-regulation and incentive mechanisms. If the financial structure is built in this way, then the overall security of the business significantly increases due to the high independence of business units.

The disadvantages of such a system include high requirements for the qualifications of personnel, primarily top managers, since the principles of interaction between business units are not trivial and require constant monitoring. The complexity of setting up the system, developing a transfer pricing mechanism, as well as high requirements for accounting technology and its technical mechanisms, due to the large number of accounting objects and accounting for internal transactions, are a significant drawback of a system built in a similar way.

Thus, the main conclusion can be drawn: the construction of such a business system is justified by its high efficiency, but is associated with high risks associated with the complexity of construction and configuration.

LITERATURE

1 http://www.fd.ru/article/2504.html

2 National Economy/Ed. V.A. Shulgi, 2001

3 http://www.iteam.ru

4 Budget and targeted financing. Abramova E.V., Makanova I.N., Semenikhin V.V.

And distributions financial ...

Theoretical aspects of assessing current financial state enterprises

Thesis >> Financial Sciences

... structures property and its sources formation in order to prevent unsatisfactory structures balance; - development and implementation financial politicians enterprises...connected with the general financial structure enterprises, degree her depending on creditors...

Production structure enterprises And her elements

Abstract >> Economics

Production structure enterprises And her elements... structures enterprises should be carried out taking into account their factors formation. Factors influencing formation production structures enterprises... scientific and technical, financial, social, etc.) with...

Financial activity enterprises analysis and paths her improvement using the example of C-trading LLC

Test >> Finance

The prerogative of senior management structures enterprises, capable of influencing formation financial resources and cash flows... 2006–2008 real picture developed financial state enterprises And her change within three years...

Order 2884

Coursework on the topic: “The relationship between organizational and financial structure”

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..3

Chapter 1. Financial and organizational structure of an organization as an interconnected element of management………………………………………………………...5

1.1. Construction of the financial structure of the organization…………………5

1.2. The relationship between the financial structure and the organizational structure………...7

Chapter 2. Consideration of the relationship between financial and organizational structures in practice………………………………………………………...9

2.1. The relationship between financial and organizational structures using the example of industrial enterprises………………………………………………………..9

Conclusion……………………………………………………………...25

List of sources used………………………………….28

Introduction

Relevance of the research topic. Constantly increasing customer demands and increasing competition in the market are forcing companies to increase the decentralization of the organization's management system.

Since, along with the delegation of decision-making authority, responsibility for financial results is delegated, there is a need to delineate areas of financial responsibility within the organization, which, like compartments on a ship, allow financial problems to be localized. Thus, the bank/insurance company faces the need to implement a management system based on business units, the first step of which is financial structuring.

The essence of financial structuring is the grouping of various elements of the organizational structure (organizational units) into elements of the financial structure. That is, from the same set of structural links, two models of organization are built - organizational and financial.

If, when building an organizational structure, the unification of structural links has, first of all, an administrative meaning, then the financial structure is built on the principle of unity and interconnectedness of business processes in the field of finance, thereby allowing the transition from administrative management to financial management.

For this reason, the financial structure, in most cases, differs significantly from the organizational structure. The greatest similarity between the organizational and financial structure is observed with a divisional organizational structure, since the principles of its construction are very close to the principles of constructing a financial structure.

Purpose This work is to study the relationship between organizational and financial structures.

Object research in this work is the organization as a structural unit, subject are the relationships that appear in the process of work.

Chapter 1. Financial and organizational structure of an organization as an interconnected element of management

1.1. Building the financial structure of the organization

The main task of building a company's financial structure is the distribution of responsibilities and powers between managers for managing income and expenses, assets, liabilities and capital of the enterprise, as well as a number of non-financial indicators. Having developed a financial structure, the company's management creates the basis for the implementation of management accounting, budgeting, as well as an effective system for motivating the company's personnel.

Building the financial structure of a company involves performing the following sequential stages:

description of the functions of structural divisions of enterprises: sales, supply, production, administration, etc. This will make it possible to determine cost and income items that can be influenced by certain divisions;

classification of types of responsibility centers (RCs) depending on the powers and responsibilities of CO managers;

determination of the hierarchy of responsibility centers and their relationships.

A responsibility center (RC) is an element of the company’s financial structure that carries out business operations in accordance with its budget and has the necessary resources for this. The budget of the responsibility center includes only cost and income items controlled by the head of the central center. As a rule, the company as a whole, its individual structural divisions (workshops, departments, employees) or their groups are identified as the center of responsibility.

When developing a financial structure, it is first necessary to analyze the routes of cash flow within the company, who influences and controls them and how. The financial structure of the company is the basis for building a management accounting system, since the identification of responsibility centers gives a clear idea of the sources of reliable and timely information existing in the company.

The main difficulties in building a financial structure, as a rule, are associated with determining the types of responsibility centers and the hierarchy of their subordination.

In my opinion, in the financial structure of a company, depending on the specifics and structure of the business, as well as on the functions performed by the divisions, five main types of responsibility centers can be distinguished:

Standard Cost Center (SC) - the head of the SC is responsible for compliance with cost standards for the production of products, works or services (production divisions, purchasing department);

Management Cost Center (MCC) - the head of the Management Cost Center is responsible for maintaining the level of expenses planned in the budget (for example, accounting, administration, security). As a rule, TsUZ includes divisions whose activities are associated with indirect costs of the enterprise;

Income center (RC) - usually divisions that sell products, works and services are identified as income centers. The head of the revenue center is responsible for the size of the company's revenue;

Profit center (CP) - the head of the profit center has the authority to make management decisions on which the company's profit depends. Since in this case control is exercised over income and expenses, then, as a rule, divisions are allocated in the CPU that implement one or more projects;

Investment Center (IC) - in addition to the powers and responsibilities of the head of the IC, the head of the IC is also responsible for the effectiveness of investments.

1.2. The relationship between financial structure and organizational structure

The financial and organizational structures of a company are closely related, but not necessarily the same.

For example, if a workshop has a section equipped with more modern machines than others in the same workshop, then it can be separated into a separate central center: in terms of productivity, as well as in standard costs, it can differ significantly from the average value for the department.

Another example is the presence in the organizational structure of an enterprise of several divisions that are responsible for the same item of direct expenses. In the financial structure, these units can be combined into one responsibility center.

It should be noted that often the discrepancy between the financial structure of a company and the organizational one leads to changes in the latter.

Having determined the financial structure, it is almost always possible to identify some imbalances in the organizational structure that have developed during the operation of the enterprise. In this case, it is often necessary to make changes to the organizational structure - transfer employees from one division to another, separate or merge divisions.

In cases where the company's organizational structure does not correspond to the financial structure, new responsibility centers can be created. Let’s say that, in accordance with the organizational structure, smaller divisions are not allocated in the distribution center of a retail chain. However, the company considers it necessary to separately plan and take into account the costs of the storage, packaging and processing areas of products in this center. In this case, appropriate central centers are created in the financial structure (for example, a packaging area), headed by persons responsible for the expenses of these central centers. Another example from the practice of the same retail chain: procurement issues are completely controlled by the logistics department, sales issues - by the marketing department. In fact, the first is the cost center, the second is the income center, and no one is responsible for the gross profit in the distribution network. In such a situation, changes are necessary in the organizational structure of the company - moving the purchasing department from the logistics department to the marketing department, creating a regional or category management system.

Chapter 2. Consideration of the relationship between financial and organizational structures in practice

2.1. The relationship between financial and organizational structures using the example of industrial enterprises

Financial and economic management is part of the process of general enterprise management, therefore management in this area can be built according to management schemes traditionally related to the enterprise as a whole. These can be linear-functional management schemes that have proven themselves in stable conditions, or flexible and adaptive schemes focused on changing market conditions, or matrix, product management schemes. The main condition for choosing a management scheme is that it must meet the production conditions and the type of organization.

Let us consider, as an example, the organizational structure of the financial and economic service at the enterprises of Mostostroyindustry JSC. In Fig. Figure 1 shows the organizational structure of the economic service of Ulan-Udestalmost CJSC. Enterprises in Kurgan and Ulan-Ude were built on the model of the Voronezh plant, repeating its organizational structure. Over time, it began to change at all enterprises.

Rice. 1. Organizational structure of the financial and economic service of Ulan-Udestalmost CJSC

The organizational structure of the financial and economic service of the Ulan-Ude plant has currently undergone the least changes. This management scheme can be considered the original one, preserved from the time of the planned economy. It includes traditional groups within the accounting and economics departments.

In Fig. 2, 3 show diagrams of the financial and economic services of the Voronezhstalmost and Kurganstalmost enterprises.

Rice. 2. Organizational structure of the financial and economic service of Voronezhstalmost CJSC

Rice. 3. Organizational structure of the financial and economic service of Kurganstalmost CJSC

There are many similarities in the organizational structures of the financial and economic services of these enterprises. The highest management level is the general director. The second level is deputy general director (at the Kurgan enterprise traditionally - “for economics and finance”, at the Voronezh plant - “for long-term development”). At the same time, the chief accountant and his department, according to the organizational structure diagrams, report directly to the director. To a greater extent, this is appropriate for a Voronezh enterprise, since the main activity of the deputy director is related to long-term planning, working with customers and justifying product prices. The same functions are typical for the deputy director for economics and finance of the plant in Kurgan. It is under his subordination that the department of foreign economic relations is located, the work of which is primarily aimed at providing production with orders. The subordination of the chief accountant and his department directly to the general director is explained by the compliance of the organizational structure with the essence of a planned economy, as well as the right of the chief accountant to manage funds in the current account based on the requirement of a second signature on payment documents. The personal responsibility of the chief accountant for the use of funds remains. Today, the subordination of the chief accountant directly to the general director is enshrined in the statutory and official documents of enterprises.

One of the elements of the organizational structure of the Kurgan plant deserves special attention - the subordination of the legal department to the deputy director for economics. The work of this service is largely connected with the preparation of contracts with external organizations, with assessing the legality of decisions made by economic services, with the fulfillment of the enterprise’s obligations to the state and contractors. Therefore, this position of the legal service in the organizational structure, in our opinion, is natural. Also, in our opinion, the direct subordination of the department of foreign economic relations (EFR) to the deputy director for economics of the Kurgan plant or the deputy director for long-term development of the Voronezh plant is completely justified. The main activity of OVES is aimed at providing production with orders, which is closely related to the economic analysis of a potential order. Having a group of economists in both the planning department and the OVES is impractical and expensive. The consolidation of these services under the leadership of a deputy director is entirely justified. Evidence confirming the appropriateness of the provisions of the OVES and the economic planning service are changes in the organizational structure of the Voronezh plant over the past few years.

After the establishment of the foreign economic relations service at the plant, the price bureau, which was responsible for product costing and subordinate to the chief economist, was transferred to the structure of the external relations department. Later he was returned directly to the chief economist. Currently, the organizational structure looks more complete: both economists and marketing specialists are united under a single leadership (at the Voronezh plant - deputy director for long-term planning, in Kurgan - deputy director for economics and finance). The Price Bureau remains under the authority of the Chief Economist, works within the structure of the financial and economic service and reports ultimately to the Deputy Director for Economic Affairs.

The economic services of factories include the labor and wages department (LOW), which is traditional for the structure of the financial and economic service.

A peculiarity of the structure of the economic service of the Kurgan plant is the allocation of an independent financial department within its structure. His position and subordination directly to the Deputy Director for Economics and Finance meets modern requirements. The Voronezh plant does not have an independent financial department. Its functions are performed by the financial group within the accounting department. There is no doubt that the role of the financial service has increased and is strengthening with the development of market relations in Russia. Currently, there is a need for financial departments whose responsibilities include the tasks of forming a rational capital structure, assessing the enterprise's supply of working capital, managing cash flows, conducting financial analysis, searching for sources of financing, budgeting, etc. In this regard, the experience of the Kurgan plant in separating accounting functions and the financial department seems to meet the requirements of the time. At the Voronezh plant, the financial group is part of the accounting department. In this regard, the main functional responsibilities of accounting include: financial management, accounting for materials and other property, depreciation, financial reporting and taxes. At the same time, the accounting department does not have an analytical service that would assess the current financial and economic state of the enterprise, sources of financing, and investment flows. There is no such service in the structure of the economic planning department. Calculation of the cost of new orders, comparison of planned and actual indicators are carried out by the economic service, financial activities are controlled by the accounting department, which records the progress of the movement of financial resources, manages them and sums them up. Thus, forecasting the financial and economic state of the enterprise and operational analysis of its production activities are missing. The assessment of the economic state is carried out based on actual data, when it is no longer possible to influence them. To improve the organization of work and coordination of the activities of the financial and economic service, each of the analyzed enterprises can and should optimize the organizational structure of this service. It is no coincidence that the size of the accounting department at the Voronezh plant has increased significantly in recent years. Increasing the number of functional responsibilities within one department has a negative impact on the results and efficiency of its work. To change the situation, it is necessary to streamline and clearly delimit the functional tasks of the financial and economic service and reflect this in its organizational structure. Today, it is important, in our opinion, to provide within the financial and economic service positions of specialists in financial planning, conducting current operational analysis, assessing the attractiveness of investment projects, drawing up an enterprise budget, assessing various sources of financing, i.e. positions of financiers or financial managers.

Along with the enterprises of Mostostroyindustriya JSC, the organizational structures of other Voronezh enterprises were analyzed: Rudgormash OJSC and the Voronezh Car Repair Plant named after Telman (VVRZ). Diagrams of the organizational structures of the economic services of these enterprises are shown below in Fig. 4 and 5.

Rice. 4. Organizational structure of the financial and economic service of OJSC Rudgormash

It should be noted that if the first three enterprises are comparable in production volumes, then the Rudgormash plant and VVRZ are almost twice as large both in production capacity and in the number of employees. The structure of the financial and economic service of the Rudgormash enterprise is focused on the modern requirements of financial management of a commercial organization and, in our opinion, is quite complex. The entire service is headed by the Deputy Director for Economics and is divided into departments: economic planning and accounting and analysis (which includes accounting and financial departments). The service also includes a tax department.

Economic planning management includes traditional divisions: economic, labor organization and wages. The management structure of accounting and finance includes services that meet modern requirements. Here, in addition to the traditional sectors, the accounting department includes separate services: management accounting and analysis, budgeting, mutual settlements and work with banks. However, the subordination of the financial department to the chief accountant seems unjustified. The head of the financial department does not have direct access to the head of the economic service. It is more expedient, in our opinion, to reserve for each of the services only the functions inherent to them and to bring each of them under direct subordination to the deputy director for economics: accounting, economic planning and financial departments. The tax department has been removed from the accounting department, although it bases its activities on the basis of accounting data and, therefore, should be part of the accounting department.

The organizational structure of the economic service of the Telman VVRZ, on the contrary, is not complicated by the modern division of functions and is similar to the organizational structure of Ulan-Udestalmost CJSC. The difference between the financial and economic service of the Telman plant is that it is headed by a deputy director for economics. The service itself is divided into economic department and accounting department. Each division includes traditional functional groups and bureaus. It is worth paying attention to the fact that the economic department of this enterprise has an accounting and analysis sector. Typically, such a sector is present in the structure of accounting (in its financial part).

Rice. 5. Organizational structure of the financial and economic service of VVRZ named after Telman

From conversations with heads of economic services, one gets the opinion that practicing economists see the analytical group either in the financial or economic departments, least of all connecting its activities with purely accounting departments of accounting. The authors of the work share the same opinion about the position of this group in the organizational structure.

At the time of the inspection of the activities of the financial and economic service of VVRZ, an additional tax specialist was added to the accounting department. In our opinion, in the modern situation, the presence of such specialists in the economic service of an enterprise has become a necessity.

From the analysis of the considered organizational structures of financial and economic services, the identified patterns of their changes and the requirements for them, it is possible to draw conclusions about what conditions the financial management scheme at an enterprise with a nature of production similar to production at the enterprises of Mostostroyindustry JSC should meet:

The management of the financial and economic service of the enterprise should be headed by the Deputy General Director for Economics and Finance - the person bearing full responsibility for managing the cash flows of the enterprise;

Separation from the structure of the accounting service into an independent division of the financial department, the functions of which are: cash flow management; analysis and assessment of the state of the enterprise; financial planning and forecasting; assessment of investment projects;

Organization within the framework of the financial or economic planning departments of an analytical service to conduct periodic comparable analysis of the financial and economic condition of the enterprise, comparing planned indicators with actual ones;

Inclusion of OVES in the economic service, since planning long-term activities and providing production with orders require an economic justification;

Since the activities of the economic service of an enterprise are designed both to meet the internal needs of production and to ensure a very wide range of external relations, the inclusion of a legal service in this structure is quite justified.

The main role in the process of managing the finances of an enterprise is assigned to the deputy director for economics and finance (otherwise: director for economics, vice president of the company for finance), who directly reports to the general director. This is the key figure responsible for developing financial management strategies and tactics and their implementation to achieve the goals of the enterprise. The job responsibilities of the Deputy Director for Economics and Finance include solving problems that determine financial policy and realize the economic goals of the enterprise. Let's name some of them: selection of service management schemes, ways and means of their improvement, organization of effective work of the economic service, selection and placement of personnel, management of structural divisions of the service, provision of financial and economic indicators of the enterprise to interested parties, work with the banking system and business partners , formation and development of relationships with owners.

The next level of management of the financial and economic service is the chief specialists and heads of departments, heading functional services, under the direct supervision of the deputy director for economics and finance. This is an accounting department headed by a chief accountant; financial department headed by the head of the department; economic planning department, labor and wages department and price bureau under the unified leadership of the chief economist. The organizational structure of financial management, which allows optimizing the financial flows arising as a result of the production and financial activities of the enterprise, may look like the diagram shown in Fig. 6.

In the proposed structure, accounting is primarily responsible for choosing accounting policies and organizing accounting activities. She is also responsible for the accurate reflection of business transactions in accounting, the provision of accounting data to internal and external users, and the correctness of tax accounting. In addition to traditional functional units, its structure may include sectors of internal audit, management and tax accounting. The tax service is part of the accounting department for the following reasons: firstly, due to the fact that all forms of financial statements - balance sheet, profit and loss statement, cash flow statement, etc. - are formed in the accounting department. Secondly, by the nature of its activities, the tax service is an accounting department. Thirdly, rational restrictions on the number of individual units within the economic service are necessary. The accounting department also collects information on costs and posts them by type for further presentation in the format “fixed - variable costs” within the framework of management accounting. Cost differentiation is important for conducting operational analysis and calculating the “break-even point.” The location of such analysis should be noted. Traditionally, it is referred to as management accounting, which appears to be part of accounting activities. In practice, conducting operational analysis is more often referred to as the functions of economic analysts, linking it with the activities of the financial or economic planning department. It can be noted that the analysis of “costs - volume - profit” is an integral part of financial management, therefore, in the presented organizational structure, cost accounting should be highlighted as an accounting function, and the analysis should be assigned to analysts of the economic service. In our opinion, this approach to the division of functions seems more correct, since the planning of production indicators and the comparison of their planned and actual values should be carried out by one service.

In the recommended organizational structure, the financial service, headed by the head of the department, is separated into a separate structural unit. The financial department is directly subordinate to the Deputy Director for Economics and Finance. This position of the department is dictated by the requirements placed on this service by the modern nature of economic relations. In a market economy, the tasks solved by the financial department are of high importance for the enterprise. The competence of the department includes: searching for sources of production financing, managing the capital structure of the enterprise, assessing the availability and adequacy of working capital, tracking revenue receipts, managing receivables and payables, analyzing the compliance of the company’s funds with its financial obligations, financial planning and forecasting, attracting and management of short-term loans and financial investments, participation in the preparation of the enterprise budget, financial analysis, assessment of the economic efficiency of investment projects. The listed tasks are complex in content and therefore require highly qualified personnel from the financial department. For example, the assessment of investment projects requires a high level of knowledge of financial management, accounting, production planning, cost justification, knowledge of methods of analysis and calculation of cash flows. This is why it is so important to have a separate service specializing in financial management. Some semblance of such a service as part of the accounting department, as is the case in most enterprises, is currently no longer acceptable.

The economic service, headed by the chief economist, includes a planning and economic department and a department for organizing labor and wages. The activities of the planning department are related to the solution of the following tasks: planning production activities and related costs, analyzing actual data on production volumes and costs, identifying and analyzing the causes of deviations from planned indicators and standards. This service develops ways and methods to reduce costs, prepares pricing decisions for various types of products, together with other structural divisions is the developer of business plans for the enterprise, collects and maintains reporting documents on its production activities, determines and tracks profits received from production and sales products. Planned and actual profits are the object of close attention of the planning department. This implies the advisability of conducting an analysis of the current economic state of the enterprise in this department. The service in which plans were developed and actual results of production activities were monitored should be the place for conducting operational analysis, analytical work to evaluate the final indicators in comparison with the planned ones. In direct connection with the planning department is the department of labor organization and wages. Its functional purpose is the organization, regulation and accounting of labor costs in the enterprise. The department substantiates prices for production operations, takes into account and analyzes labor costs. Of course, the economic service is not able to independently carry out production planning or prepare reporting. In this work, communication with production departments, marketing and technical services of the enterprise is important. In the process of preparing reports and conducting analysis, economists need to interact with the accounting and financial departments, and the sales department.

As noted when analyzing the organizational structures of enterprises included in Mostostroyindustry JSC, it is advisable to introduce a department of external economic relations and a legal service into their economic services. This proposal is reflected in the organizational structure, which is recommended for implementation at Voronezhstalmost CJSC (Fig. 7).

The activities of the OVES are related to the economic feasibility of projects intended to be put into production. In our opinion, having an economic analysis group in the OVES is prohibitively expensive for such enterprises. The inclusion of OVES in the structure of the economic service, as was done in Kurgan, is, in our opinion, a good decision. A similar situation arises with the legal service. Its activities are closely related to the work of economic structures. The unification of the OVES, legal service and economic structures under the management of the Deputy Director for Economics and Finance seems rational from the point of view of coordinating their joint activities.

The recommended organizational structure of the financial and economic service, in our opinion, most fully reflects the requirements for this service. However, it is indicative. Depending on the specific enterprise, it may be adjusted. With a particular situational approach to building an organizational structure, it is important to preserve functionality, that is, the ability to effectively manage financial and economic activities. In large-scale enterprises, the service may contain a large number of groups, bureaus, and departments. A small-scale enterprise may have a service where the functions and responsibilities of sectors or groups can be combined and carried out by a smaller number of employees, but nevertheless, in this case, it is necessary to maintain the functionality of this service. It is designed to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of enterprise management and the implementation of management decisions at any level. Another requirement for the organizational structure of the economic service, in our opinion, is its adaptability to the constantly changing internal and external environment. The structure must be promptly modified into a system that reflects new trends in the development of the enterprise. The success of its activities in the future is largely related to the compliance of the organizational structure with the goals and objectives facing it.

Conclusion

For a business organization, the main thing is not to perform certain types of activities, but to earn a profit. Consequently, the main thing is to identify centers that will earn it. Then the organizational structure must, in a certain sense, be subordinate to the financial structure, be an organizational framework, one of the ways to achieve the financial goals facing the company.

The concept, criteria, feasibility of identifying financial accounting centers, and the direction of the organization’s financial flows should be generated by the business strategy.

This strategy, in fact, is the only more or less objective criterion that underlies the selection of the Central Federal District.

Organizational and financial structures are closely interrelated:

An example of a criterion for allocating a Central Federal District: let’s say the head of a program is fully responsible for the financial result of this program - we allocate this program to the Central Federal District. Or, let’s say, in the organizational structure there are three departments that are part of one department and are functionally responsible for one item of direct expenses of the company. In the financial structure, this can be called, say, financial responsibility center number five. That is, in the organizational structure these are three separate cells, but here there will be one.

It is important to set targets for departments when implementing financial structuring of a bank/company.

The discrepancy between structures (organizational and financial) should lead the manager to think about the need to make certain changes. For example, correct the situation when the divisions that earn the main profit of the organization are not allocated organizationally or their managers do not have the necessary authority to manage the process.

When analyzing the financial structure, you can evaluate how correctly the direction of development of the bank/company has been chosen. When such a network is built, you can think systematically about the development of the organization, building up infrastructure - both in business, and in support services or headquarters units, and in ventures. Here you can immediately see how many ventures we have, how many areas we have taken on to try to develop them, whether the number of these ventures is adequate for the organization - for example, if there are twice as many of them as businesses, then this is strange. This structure allows us to take a more adequate look at what is actually happening and whether it can be done.

Management can extract other management information from here. For example, the belonging of divisions to different types of digital financial institutions implies different principles of financing these structures, management, motivation of employees: if people work in a business division, then, having clearly defined the type of activity, the goals of this division, we determine what kind of personnel we need to achieve these business goals. Further, the financial system itself says that it is necessary to build a mechanism not only for accounting for the income of a given department, but also for accounting for its expenses, so that the main motives are from profit. If we take a division that deals, for example, with communications, that is, a purely budgetary one, then it does not have any goals related to making a profit. Accordingly, he has a staffing table, a budget, and his own development plans. And here there is a more stationary motivational mechanism, as in all budgetary organizations, where they try to take inflation into account and motivate based on achieved budgetary results, that is, a slightly different approach.

Thus, by combining these two types of structures - organizational and financial - a stereoscopic view of the organization is achieved. The extent of such a view over time is also necessary. After the structure of financial responsibility centers has been drawn, that is, we have taken a snapshot, it needs to be monitored further. Any change in this structure implies the emergence of some new program or project in business, and this should be reflected in financial planning and in obtaining information after the fact.

When building a financial structure, you must remember that, firstly, you need to look for decisive rules, an algorithm of behavior. Secondly, analogies and diagrams that have been used in other banks/companies are useful. Thirdly, you need to understand that there is still no ready-made solution for you. It needs to be created using known algorithms and examples.

List of sources used

1. Balabanov I.T. Analysis and planning of finances of a business entity. - M.: Fis, 2000.

2. Basovsky L.E. Forecasting and planning in market conditions. - M.: Infra-M, 2001.

3. Goritskaya N. Financial strategy.//Financial Director, No. 11 – 2005.

4. Drury K. Introduction to management and production accounting - M.: Finance and Statistics, 2007.

5. Dvoretskaya A.E. Organization of financial management at the enterprise. // Management in Russia and abroad. - 2002. - No. 4.

6. Efimova 0. V. How to analyze the financial position of an enterprise. – M.: Finance and Statistics, 2006.

7. Molvinsky A. Construction of the financial structure of the company // “Financial Director”, No. 2 – 2006.

8. Rodionova V.M., Fedotova M.A. Financial stability of the enterprise in conditions of inflation. – M.: Finance and Statistics, 2007.

9. Sysoeva E. F. Pletnev Yu. M. Organizational structure of the financial and economic service of an industrial enterprise // “Management in Russia and abroad”, No. 4 – 2003.

10. Finance./ ed. Kovaleva A.M., M., FiS, 2002.

11. Finance of organizations: Textbook. manual/Ed. Doctor of Economics science prof. S.S. Artemyeva. - Saransk: Mordov Publishing House. University, 2004.

12. Enterprise economics. / Ed. prof. Volkova O.I.: Textbook. - 2nd ed., translated. and additional - M.: INFRA-M, 2001.

Molvinsky A. Construction of the financial structure of the company // “Financial Director”, No. 2 – 2006.

Enterprise economics. / Ed. prof. Volkova O.I.: Textbook. - 2nd ed., translated. and additional - M.: INFRA-M, 2001. - 520 p.

Sysoeva E. F. Pletnev Yu. M. Organizational structure of the financial and economic service of an industrial enterprise // “Management in Russia and abroad”, No. 4 – 2003.

ITeam Managing Partner

If the company has a pressing need to streamline management processes and create a coherent system of planning and control, then we are talking about setting up a system of management accounting and budgeting. The foundation of this system is the financial structure.

What is the financial structure?

The main types of financial responsibility centers are presented in Table 1. The key distinguishing feature of the CFD is the target indicators towards which their activities are focused.

As shown in Table 1, financial responsibility centers of different levels form a hierarchy in which, for example, a profit center may include income centers, cost centers of both types, as well as other profit centers. In turn, the profit center can be included in the investment center and other profit centers as a subordinate to the Central Federal District.

Table 1

Main types of financial responsibility centers

	Target performance indicators of the Central Federal District	May include the following types of digital financial institutions	May be included in the following types of digital financial institutions
Revenue Center	Income received from the activities of the Central Federal District	Revenue Center	Profit Center
Profit Center	Profit received from the activities of the Central Federal District	Revenue Center Standard Cost Center Cost center Profit Center	Profit Center Investment Center
Standard Cost Center	Central Federal District costs per unit of product or service	Standard Cost Center	Standard Cost Center Profit Center
Cost center	Costs of the Central Federal District	Standard Cost Center Cost center	Profit Center Cost center
Investment Center	Return on investment ROI	Revenue Center Cost center Profit Center Investment Center	Investment Center

How is financial structure different from organizational structure?

Let us list the main differences between financial and organizational structures.
— The financial structure is built on the basis of economic and financial relations between the centers of responsibility. Organizational structure - based on the functional specialization of the organization's divisions. Therefore, for example, costs of a certain type are grouped at a cost center, and functions the implementation of which requires certain professional knowledge and skills are grouped in a division of the organizational structure.
— The financial structure reflects the hierarchy of responsibility for achieving target financial indicators. Organizational structure - hierarchy of subordination.
— When building an organizational structure, “political” compromises and the influence of personal factors are possible. When building a financial structure, only business realities are taken into account.

Due to these features, financial and organizational structures do not coincide. If the discrepancy between them is large, then serious management problems arise, since the picture of the business that is formed by management accounting based on the financial structure does not coincide with the enterprise management structure based on the organizational structure. It's like driving a car with distorted viewing mirrors and confused controls: we change gear, but the windshield wipers turn on. In order for the enterprise management system to be adequate to the business, it is necessary to bring the organizational structure, as far as possible, into line with the financial structure.

Main tasks of developing a financial structure

Developing a financial structure requires deep knowledge of the business and a willingness to look at the company with open eyes. How to form a financial structure?
— Determine the business structure.
— Highlight key processes.
— Determine the boundaries of investment activities.
— Identify assets.
— Determine the profit structure.
— Determine the relationships between departments.
— Identify the main management connections.

Let's take a closer look at each of these provisions.

Determine your business structure

The first step to forming a financial structure is to determine the structure of the business. Often a company combines several lines of business that use common resources and are barely distinguishable in the organizational structure. To highlight business areas, it is necessary to consider the company's customer base, products and services. Here are the characteristic features of various business areas:
— different groups of products are sold to different groups of customers;
— the company has different competitors for different product groups;
— fundamentally different technologies and resources are used to produce different groups of products or services.

The presence of these signs indicates that the company operates in not one, but two or more target markets, in which there are different target customer groups and different competitive conditions.

Often new businesses in a company arise unnoticed by management, and only as a result of analysis this situation becomes obvious. First of all, it is necessary to divide the centers of responsibility by business area, guided by the following principle: “different areas of business correspond to different centers of responsibility.”

Highlight key processes

At the next step of building a financial structure, it is necessary to analyze the structure of processes for each line of business. This is not about a detailed study and description of the company's processes. It is enough to highlight the top-level processes to clarify the structure of the company’s activities and link responsibility centers with key processes. As a basic model for analysis, it is convenient to consider the “value chain” created by the company for the client, as well as auxiliary groups of processes that ensure the functioning of the “value chain”.

Consideration of the process diagram allows you to determine how the financial result in a given business is formed and what are the main areas of investment for its development. On this basis, the main elements of the financial structure of the business line under consideration are formed. It must be emphasized that if a company is engaged in several areas of business, then each of them must be considered in the same way.

It is important that the financial structure reflects the business model and becomes the basis for setting up clearly structured management accounting and building a budget model.

Define the boundaries of investment activities

The question of which processes are classified as investment activities, upon closer examination, turns out to be far from simple. His decision has a direct impact on the financial structure. If we consider the process of developing software products as an example, we will see that the activities of developers have two directions:
— development of new products,
— support for previously created and distributed products on the market.

The first direction, of course, relates to investment activities, while the second is related to the maintenance of an asset that the company already has - a previously created software product. The processes of maintaining a software product include correcting errors in the program code identified during the operation of the program, introducing small improvements at the request of users, and finalizing documentation. This work can take up 40-60% of the development department's resources. Therefore, deciding what type of activity we attribute the costs of these resources to - investment or operating - will significantly affect the company's profit margin. If the processes of development and maintenance of software products are clearly demarcated, then the best solution would be to present them with different centers of responsibility. It is useful to note that this example demonstrates, in particular, the difference between the organizational and financial structures of a company. Thus, the software development department will be represented by two financial responsibility centers located on different “branches” of the financial structure.

In practice, however, the processes of developing and maintaining software products are closely intertwined, and it is not possible to ensure their separate accounting. Therefore, you have to make one of the following decisions
— All activities of the development department should be assigned to the Central Federal District “Software Maintenance.” This is acceptable if the company primarily distributes previously developed software products and does not invest significant funds in new developments.
— All activities of the development department should be attributed to the Central Federal District “Software Development,” that is, to investment activities. This assumption is possible if the company carries out a large amount of development.

Divide between the two central federal districts those resources that can be clearly attributed to them, and distribute the rest on the basis of expert assessment. In this case, employees engaged only in product support will be included in the “Support” CFO, and developers of new products will be included in the “Software Development” CFO. Those who are engaged in two processes will be “divided” between two CFDs in accordance with the assessment of their employment in these processes.

It must be emphasized that such a division into the Central Federal District does not necessarily mean a change in the organizational structure. In this case, it is not people who are divided, but the resources of their working time and the corresponding costs. At the same time, the correct delineation of processes, necessary for building the correct financial structure and the formation of adequate management accounting on its basis, will stimulate company managers to optimize processes and organizational structure.

Define Assets

Assets are a company's long-term renewable resources. They are created during investment activities and “work” for a long time in business, ensuring profit. Why is it important to record assets in a financial structure? Because assets always raise important decision-making questions:
— How much did we invest in creating the asset?
— How much does it cost us to maintain the asset?
— What is the return on the asset?

Which resources are classified as assets is a question whose solution largely depends on the views of the company's managers on the business, their strategy and management style.

Let's consider a traditional type of asset - income-generating real estate - using the example of a development company that owns a business center building. This company operates in two business areas:
— Construction of objects for sale (hotels, business centers, shopping and entertainment complexes);
— Provision of offices for rent in the building of our own business center.

Let's consider the diagram presented in Figure 1.

Rice. 1. Financial structure of the development company

To the profit center “Assets. Business Center" includes the costs of operating the building, depreciation of the asset, and property taxes. The income of the Central Federal District is generated from fees for the use of the asset received from the Central Federal District “Real Estate Rental Services”. This responsibility center acquires the right to use the building at a “wholesale price” (it is advisable to tie it to the market price), and sells it at retail to clients it finds on the market. He is also responsible for providing a range of services to tenants. This structure clarifies the relationships of all parties interested in this business and makes the corresponding financial flows explicit. In this case, you can directly determine the profit that assets bring, as well as the return on investment in assets. In addition, the added value that the Real Estate Rental Services Center creates through its ability to attract clients and provide them with quality services becomes transparent.

Assets can include not only material objects, but also intangible business resources, such as a brand, information systems, and intellectual capital. Their inclusion in the financial structure only makes sense if these resources are actually managed as assets. The key difference between approaches to resource and asset management was noted by P. Drucker: “Resource costs need to be reduced, and investments in assets need to be increased.” I will add that, of course, you need to evaluate the return on investment.

Determine your profit structure

Profit is a universal indicator of the performance of a company and its individual divisions. Approaches to determining profit and methods of structuring it influence the formation of the financial structure. Consider, for example, a bakery that is part of a grain holding company. The holding centralizes the functions of product sales and procurement of basic raw materials. The holding's management evaluates the plant's activities based on profit indicators. In this case, several stages of profit formation are distinguished, as shown in Figure 2.

Rice. 2. Profit structure of the bakery

Each stage of profit generation is associated with a specific group of costs. It is necessary to distribute responsibility for various groups of costs between financial responsibility centers - this will allow one to gain an understanding of the effectiveness of all main production processes and manage them. Figure 3 shows the financial structure of the bakery that provides this opportunity.

Rice. 3. Financial structure of the bakery

Here, responsibility for various types of costs that determine certain stages of profit formation is divided between different central financial districts. A clear diagram of the division of responsibility for cost groups is presented in Table 2.

Table 2

Division of responsibility for cost groups

	Subordinates of the Central Federal District	Variable costs	Fixed costs	Indirect internal	Indirect external	Taxes and interest
Central Federal District "Production"	Central Federal District "Workshop 1"
	Central Federal District "Workshop 2"
	CFO "Production Management"
CFO "Production support"	Central Federal District "Warehouse"
	CFO "OTK"
	CFO "Technologist Service"

CFO "Household Support"	Central Federal District "Warehouse"
	CFO "OTK"
	CFO "Technologist Service"
	CFO "Chief Engineer Service"
CFO "Plant Management"	Central Federal District "Warehouse"
	CFO "OTK"
	CFO "Technologist Service"
	CFO "Chief Engineer Service"
CFO "Holding Management"

As can be seen from Table 2, the production central federal district “Workshop 1” and the central federal district “Workshop 2” are responsible for costs consisting of piecework wages of workers, the cost of raw materials and materials used in production. Central Federal Financial Institutions “Production Management”, “Warehouse”, “QTC”, etc., are responsible for the costs of salaries of production personnel, maintenance of production premises, maintenance of production equipment, etc. CFO “Holding Management” is responsible for the costs of maintaining the holding management company and taxes.

Define departmental relationships

All company processes are interconnected. The results of one process serve as resources for another. Therefore, it is always possible to distinguish within the company “suppliers” of internal products or services and “clients” who use these products or services in their work. If you include these relationships in the economic model, then internal profit centers will appear in the financial structure. Such relationship models are called “self-financing” or “internal outsourcing.” They provide the possibility of using economic mechanisms to motivate responsibility centers included in the value chain.

As an example, consider a manufacturing and trading company that has three main divisions: trade, production, and logistics. The company sells primarily its own products.

Rice. 4. Financial structure for the internal outsourcing model

CFO “Sales” is a profit center, the indicator of which is the controlled contribution to profit - the difference between income and costs of implementing sales processes. All other central financial districts could be considered as cost centers. However, if we take a deeper look at the essence of the relationship between departments, it becomes clear that the Production Center is a supplier of products to the Sales Center, and the Logistics Center provides storage and delivery services for the latter. In the case of establishing internal tariffs for the products and services of divisions, the Central Federal District “Production” and the Central Federal District “Logistics” become profit centers. It must be emphasized that this is internal profit resulting from the accrual by these financial institutions of income from the sale of their products and services to the “Sales” financial responsibility center.

The arrows in the diagram show the sources of income for profit centers. The “Sales” financial department receives income from the sale of products on the market, and the “Production” and “Logistics” financial departments receive income from the “sale” of their products and services to the internal client. It is important to note that in this case, the profit of the CFO “Sales” is formed taking into account the cost of products purchased from the CFO “Production” and the cost of services purchased from the CFO “Logistics”. Thus, the center of financial responsibility “Sales” becomes not indifferent to the cost generated by internal suppliers, since it directly affects the indicators of this central financial center. Working in accordance with this model, the Sales Center will necessarily study the cost structure of internal suppliers, compare their prices with market prices and put pressure on internal prices towards their reduction. This pressure will work to reduce production and logistics costs and increase the efficiency of the company as a whole.

Implementing internal outsourcing in a company is a complex task. Establishing customer-supplier relationships between company departments is not limited to developing schemes. But if a decision is made to introduce economic management methods in a company, then the internal outsourcing model must be correctly reflected in its financial structure.

Identify key management connections

Management theory defines several types of organizational structures: divisional, functional, project, matrix. In practice, they are rarely found “in their pure form.” Each company combines several types of organizational structures. In particular, in the example of a production and trading holding presented above, the basis of management is the divisional structure. The holding includes trade, production and logistics business units with significant independence. Upon closer examination, we will see that the structure of the CFO “Sales” includes several trading companies located in different regions, each of which is a profit center: CFO “Sales A”, CFO “Sales B”, CFO “Sales C”.

At the same time, in addition to the divisional structure, there is a functional component in the company's management system. Let's take an example of how the promotion of a company's products to target markets is organized. At the top level of management, this task is solved by the marketing department of the holding management company. In addition, each trading company has a marketing department that ensures promotion in the regional market. This division has dual subordination. In a divisional structure, it is part of a business unit - a trading company. In the functional structure, it is subordinate to the marketing department of the management company, which determines the goals and objectives of work in the market, approves plans and budgets, and controls their implementation. This dualism should be reflected in the financial structure, since in terms of the functional projection it is necessary to present budgets, generate reports, and “collect” costs.

In the financial structure of the Central Federal District, presented in Figure 5, the “Marketing Department” is included in the hierarchy of financial responsibility centers, the top of which is “Alpha Product”. On the other hand, all CFOs, represented by shaded rectangles, are functionally included in the CFO “Marketing” (indicated by a dotted line), which is not part of the hierarchical structure. This is another projection of the financial structure. In the functional projection, other components can be distinguished, for example, “Information technology”, “Security”, etc.

Rice. 5. Clarified financial structure of a production and trading company

Companies with many similar geographically distributed divisions are characterized by a matrix financial structure. A simplified example of such a structure is shown in Figure 6, which represents a company engaged in maintaining regional electrical networks.

Rice. 6. Financial structure for the internal outsourcing model

The company includes Electric Network Enterprises (PES), each of which has territorial divisions in its structure - District Electric Networks (RES). All district production units are engaged in the same types of activities: maintenance and repair of electrical networks, as well as installation and maintenance of electricity meters. In the functional projection of the financial structure, these areas are presented, respectively, as the CFO “Network Maintenance” and the CFO “Electricity Accounting”. The implementation of major repairs is the responsibility of the Electric Network Enterprises; there is no RES level here. In the diagram depicting the financial structure of this company, the shaded rectangles indicate the centers of financial responsibility located at the intersection of the territorial and functional projections.

As can be seen from the above examples, a properly constructed financial structure is a reflection of business management processes. To identify all management connections, it is necessary to consider not only the functional and territorial aspects of management, but also to determine the principles of organizing project activities, which occupy a significant place in most companies.

In conclusion, I would like to note that the development of a financial structure is a creative process in which the entire management team of the company should participate. After all, the goal of the work is not a scheme, but living, working principles of company management. How can you ensure that the financial structure resulting from teamwork is correct? To do this, it is necessary that each of the top managers outline to their colleagues the principles of their work and the activities of the units under their jurisdiction, in accordance with the created structure and the principles of its functioning. After hearing and discussing each report, agreement is reached between the company's leaders, it can be argued that they were able to develop the correct, that is, workable, financial structure, which can become the basis for effective teamwork.

Unfortunately, most companies that claim to have a complete budgeting system in place lack a real financial structure and there is no clear relationship between budgeting and incentive systems. It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that budgets can be drawn up without a financial structure. In order for the company to regularly draw up budgets, it is necessary to develop a financial budgeting model (see Book 3 “Financial Budgeting Model”) and implement budget management regulations (see Book 2 “Budgeting System Regulations”).

Moreover, the quality of budget preparation can be quite high. But when deviations of actual budget indicators from planned ones are discovered, no one in the company will bear any real responsibility for this. And these deviations may appear again and again in the future.

Thus, the presence of a real financial structure and responsibility for the execution of budgets is one of the factors on which the degree of control of the company significantly depends. One of the formal criteria for a company's manageability is the absence of plan-actual deviations. More precisely, plan-actual deviations of budget indicators should not exceed predetermined values, because It is impossible to achieve 100% accurate execution in practice.

So, even if the company develops a fairly accurate financial budgeting model and establishes an effective procedure for analyzing budget execution, this may not be enough to improve the manageability of the company’s financial and economic condition. That is, a company can draw up more and more accurate budgets over time, the company can learn to look for reasons for plan-factual deviations, but if there is no responsibility for this, then what can force the company in the future not to make the same mistakes and not step on the same rake? ?

You can, of course, hope for the conscientiousness of employees, but, as practice has shown, even if there are a couple of such conscientious managers in the company, this will not be able to radically change the situation. And these conscious people will soon come to the conclusion that there is no need to strain so much if this company does not value effective work and does not punish for hackwork.

It is necessary to clearly understand that the introduction of responsibility for the execution of budgets is quite a serious step, so you should take this very seriously, and there is no need to rush into developing a financial structure. When setting up budgeting, it is better to start with the development of a financial model and budgeting regulations and only after that proceed to the implementation of a financial structure (see Book 8 “Technology for setting up budgeting”).

It may even be better to postpone the implementation of a financial structure for some time (1-2 years) in a particular company. The point is that you first need to learn how to correctly calculate budgets, both according to plan and in fact. After all, if the financial structure of the company has been developed, but the company has not yet learned how to count correctly, this means that the salaries of the company’s employees will also be calculated with errors.

If errors are discovered in the company’s budgets, but the financial structure of the enterprise is not yet in effect at this point, then such facts can be perceived quite constructively. But if responsibility is already spelled out, then such errors in budgets, and therefore in payroll calculations, can lead to an undesirable negative resonance within the team. To avoid all these consequences, it is better to spend some time debugging your planning and accounting methods.

In addition, during this time it will be possible to collect statistics on the financial and economic indicators of the divisions. This data will then be used to create incentive schemes with specific coefficients, which will already be adjusted to the relevant departments of the company.

In addition, in addition to technical errors in calculating budgets and bonuses/fines of departments, there may be difficulties of a different nature. We are talking about the psychological side of implementing the company's financial structure. Still, the main element of any organization is people, and their behavior depends on many factors and does not always fit into logical patterns. The introduction of budgeting, as a rule, is preceded by some history of the company, including the history of relationships between people working in this company. Naturally, all this complicates the process of introducing the financial structure of an enterprise.

In one company, for example, the financial director, describing the first timid attempts to develop a system of responsibility for budgets, said that they decided to introduce real responsibility of managers for the execution of budgets. But after several plan-factual showdowns, they decided that they were not mentally ready for this yet. He cited this case as one example. The manager of one of the retail chain stores convinced the management that they needed to purchase more painted computer mice for the New Year (the chain was selling computer equipment). The company invested money in this.

Many visitors were really interested in this product, but... no one bought them. “Well, how can you punish him after this? The man tried, but it didn’t work,” says the financial director. Indeed, on the one hand, it’s a pity. But if the idea had been successful, then the manager would probably have been given a bonus. It turns out that when it comes to successful work, everyone understands that a bonus should be given for this, but it seems a pity to be fined for bad work.

Thus, we need to once again pay attention to the fact that the implementation of the financial structure of an enterprise places quite large demands on the company, and before deciding to take such an important step, you need to carefully weigh everything. But still, this step is necessary on the path to building a full-fledged budget management system.

At the moment, unfortunately, there is no common understanding of what the financial structure of a company is and what its main purpose in budgeting is. In addition, quite often companies confuse responsibility for preparing and executing budgets (see Book 2 “Budgeting System Regulations”). Because of this confusion, a large number of problems arise when trying to implement budget management in a company. Book 4, “Financial Structure of a Company,” discusses these problems in some detail.

It should be noted once again that setting up budgeting and developing a financial structure, in particular, is actually quite a complex task, so its solution must be approached systematically (see Book 8 “Technology for setting up budgeting”). You should not think that you just need to draw squares on a piece of paper and the financial structure will be ready, and the company will immediately have a lot of money.

Naturally, any director may have a certain idea of what kind of financial structure needs to be built in his company. But quite often it happens that such a quick look at the financial structure may turn out to be erroneous. There was such a case once at one of my budgeting seminars. From one company, the general director and financial director came to the seminar. Moreover, before the seminar, the general director believed that he already knew what the financial structure of his company should be.

While at the seminar, perhaps for the first time in a long time, he managed to somehow break away from the routine (as far as his mobile phone, which was not turned off, allowed him to do this), and he was able to take a systematic look at his company. When he began right at the seminar (like all the other seminar participants) to try to apply the acquired knowledge to his company, he came to the conclusion that the version of the financial structure that he had “drawn” in his head had a number of significant shortcomings.

As a result of modeling the financial structure of their company, the general director, together with the financial director, prepared not one, but even three options for the financial structure diagram. Of course, it is impossible to develop a final solution in a few days during a seminar, but, nevertheless, the general director came to the conclusion that this is in fact a rather serious and important issue. It will take some time to solve it, because... There are a number of fundamental factors that must be taken into account. For example, if a company does not have a developed strategy, then it will be quite difficult to build the correct organizational and financial structure of the company. In addition to fundamental issues, there are a certain number of nuances that also cannot be ignored.

What is the financial structure of the company

The financial structure of the company is a set of financial responsibility centers (FRC), for which sets of financial and economic indicators and motivation schemes are defined, based on the budgets of the FRC. That is, the logic here is quite simple - the more efficiently each division works, the more efficient the company as a whole will work.

Only here it is necessary to take into account such an important point as the coordination of the work of the departments. In other words, if one important link in the entire chain does not work effectively, then the final results of the company as a whole may be lower than the minimum requirements of the owners defined in the system of restrictions (see Book 3 “Financial Budgeting Model”).

In order to link the work of all departments and coordinate their actions so that the company as a whole ultimately benefits, it will be necessary to create a system of functional budgets that permeate all the main business processes of the company and on the basis of which the budgets of the Central Federal District are built (see Book 1 “Budgeting as management tool").

In addition, you need to be prepared for the fact that when a company tries to implement a financial structure and budgeting, then in almost 100% of cases, indignant remarks from department heads begin to come with something like the following: “Are we economists or accountants or something?” to draw up all these budgets? For all this to work effectively, we need economic analysts in the departments.”

In such a situation, department heads need to explain that they are the ones who must actively participate in all this. As for analytical support, such assistance should be provided by the financial directorate (see Book 5 “The role of the financial directorate in budgeting”). Only after departments begin to actually engage in planning and then analysis of their activities can we expect that budget management will actually begin to bring real benefits. Having responsibility and a motivation system aimed at fulfilling budgets can help with this.

Thus, in order for the company to earn more and develop effectively, it is necessary to introduce a system of planning, accounting, control and analysis. That is, it is necessary to develop a financial and economic model of budgeting (see Book 3 “Financial Model of Budgeting”). In addition to solving methodological issues, you will have to deal with a large number of organizational problems.

In other words, even if there is an ideal financial budgeting model, it will not work without a well-thought-out organizational mechanism. After all, the model will need to be filled with information, and such filling should be carried out by company employees. Therefore, each participant in the budgeting process must know what, how and when he should do. All this must be spelled out in the relevant regulatory documents (see Book 2 “Budgeting System Regulations”).

So, it turns out that if there is a financial model and budgeting regulations, the company will build a system of planning, accounting, control and analysis of the financial and economic state. Even if this system does not yet implement a block of responsibility for this very financial and economic state, the company will already have a fairly powerful management tool. And if you add responsibility and motivation to this, you can get an even greater effect, because in this case the company will already have a full-fledged budget management system.

It often happens that budgeting in a company does not work due to the fact that department heads give up after the budgets they have drawn up are chopped and cut, and the planned values of target indicators become more tense. Here it is necessary to once again pay attention to the interpretation of the principle of decentralized planning (see Book 1 “Budgeting as a management tool”).

This principle means that all departments should participate in planning, but it does not at all follow that draft plans and budgets prepared by departments will be approved one by one. Budget approval is typically a non-linear process. Here we have to clarify and recalculate a lot. This should be treated normally. But it often happens that the heads of departments, in fact, conscientiously approached the preparation of budgets and did everything, from their point of view, correctly, and after that adjustments are made to their budgets.

After such events, they get the impression that all this decentralization is just a declaration, but in reality, budget indicators are still coming down from above, and no matter how they plan and justify everything in detail, the management or financial directorate will still change the numbers in the budgets. Moreover, as a rule, the changes will come down to higher incomes and lower costs. Therefore, next time, managers hardly do any planning, but make some sketches, and besides, they deliberately inflate costs and underestimate income, because They know that everything will change anyway.

Here, of course, it is very important when making such adjustments to budgets to be sure to explain to department heads why this happened. This should be done by the financial directorate (see Book 5 “The role of the financial directorate in budgeting”) when it accepts draft budgets from divisions, and this should be done by the general director (see Book 6 “The role of the general director in budgeting”) at the budget committee in time for reviewing and approving budgets (see Book 7 “Company Budget Committee”).

During the budgeting process, department heads should be more active and be able to defend their point of view if they are confident in it. At the same time, you need to understand that the company’s management may not always properly evaluate their proposals and ideas. Unfortunately, this does not always happen the first time, so you need to be persistent and constantly improve your skills in presenting your proposals and budgets and the ability to defend them.

By the way, when a financial structure is introduced into a company, which means real responsibility for the execution of budgets, then departments will be more interested in ensuring that the budgeting system works more clearly. Accordingly, this will encourage them to become more active participants in the process of budgetary management of the enterprise.

Thus, the presence of a financial structure makes it possible not only to formally identify those responsible, but also to understand the real mechanism of influence on the financial and economic condition of the company. Indeed, in the course of building a financial structure, you will have to face a large number of questions related, for example, to who should be responsible for which cost items. It is clear that the financial structure is built on the basis of the organizational structure. And in many ways, the effectiveness of the constructed financial structure depends on the current distribution of functions between the company’s divisions. Whatever the organizational structure, it is safe to say that in almost any company disputes will certainly arise regarding who should be responsible for a particular cost item.

This problem is especially acute in cases where the source of costs is one division, and the user of the benefits that are created as a result of these costs is another division. Examples here include energy costs, office equipment costs, transportation costs, etc. Also, problems with determining responsibility will arise when several departments directly influence a cost item.

In addition, when developing budget formats for the Central Federal District, the following quite often happens. The general director strives to record as many costs as possible for the central financial department, and they, in turn, try to minimize this list as best they can. By the way, it should again be noted that the concepts of responsibility for providing information and responsibility for results are often confused. Unfortunately, these questions cannot be answered unambiguously. But nevertheless, there are a number of general principles that it is advisable to adhere to when building the financial structure of a company. These principles will be discussed in the pages of this book.

By the way, with regard to responsibility for information, some specialists, in addition to the term FAC, use FAC (financial accounting center). To be honest, I myself once used such a term simply because it was used by most specialists at one time and seemed to have somehow already taken root. But while working on this series of books, I decided to move away from the term DFS and use only the term DFS.

It should be noted that among those experts who use the term DFS, there is no consensus on what it means. Someone, using the term CFU, implies that if a division has been assigned the status of a CFU, then now the management accounting system for this division will keep records of financial and economic indicators. At the same time, there is actually no talk of any responsibility. Other specialists refer to DFS as units that, in the budgeting process, are responsible for providing information on certain financial and economic indicators. Moreover, responsibility for the implementation of some of these indicators may lie with other departments.

This approach is also not entirely clear. After all, if you look at it, it turns out that in this situation the CFU is the center of responsibility not for the result, but for the provision of information. But what then is the point of such a renaming of the division into the CFU? As part of the budgeting process, all departments should be involved. At a minimum, each division must plan its work and plan certain financial and economic indicators, which will then need to be justified to the financial directorate and the general director. It turns out that in any interpretation the term DFS turns out to be somehow ambiguous.

Therefore, in the books of the “100% Practical Budgeting” series, the term CFO is used. In this case, the Central Federal District means a division that is responsible (and is responsible for execution) for a certain set of indicators contained in the budget of the Central Federal District. Responsibility is built on the basis of a specific motivation scheme. That is, the Central Federal District has a clear link between wages and budget indicators.

Thus, if we summarize the above, it turns out that the financial structure of an enterprise is a truly effective mechanism that allows the budget management system to work to its full potential. The main factors that contribute to the effective operation of the company's financial structure, as well as the directions for using the financial structure, are presented in Figure 1.

Fig.1. The main directions of using the financial structure of the Central Federal District company

Regulations on the financial structure of the company

The regulation on the financial structure is one of the main documents regulating the process of budget management in the company (see Book 2 “Budgeting System Regulations”). This regulation should be developed in the company only if it is intended to actually build a financial structure, that is, add responsibility and motivation to the set of goals of the budgeting system (see Book 1 “Budgeting as a management tool”).

The financial structure regulation must contain:

general provisions;

structure of the Central Federal District;

classification of the Central Federal District;

financial and economic indicators of the Central Federal District;

motivation schemes of the Central Federal District.

All sections of the Regulations on the financial structure of the company have already been discussed in this section. As for the general provisions, this paragraph must specify the procedure for amending the Regulations on the financial structure. These changes may be associated, for example, with the fact that a new central financial department is allocated in the company, or a decision has been made to make adjustments to the motivation schemes of existing central financial institutions, or due to changes in the strategy and organizational structure of the company, etc.

The main areas of use of the Financial Structure Regulations:

budgeting;

formation of targets for the Central Federal District;

determining the efficiency of the Central Federal District;

motivation of managers and specialists of the Central Federal District;

management accounting (CFD as one of the analytical features).

Use of the Regulations on the financial structure of the company in budgeting.
Until the financial structure is developed, responsibility for the execution of budgets in the company is not clearly stated. Responsibility for the preparation of information can be introduced into the company, which can be recorded in the Budgeting Regulations. That is, there may already be responsibility for budgeting regulations, but responsibility for the result – not. In fact, the general director must be responsible to the owners for the financial and economic condition of the company as a whole. But again, this responsibility must also be defined. Now, when there are centers of financial responsibility, the entire management cycle of budgeting (planning, accounting, control, analysis, adjustment) can be carried out in the context of the financial structure. Examples of budgeting regulations for the Central Federal District are given in Book 2, “Regulations of the budgeting system,” and financial models of budgets for the Central Federal District are given in Book 3, “Financial Model of Budgeting.”

Use of the Regulations on the financial structure of the company when forming targets, determining work efficiency, and motivating managers and specialists of the Central Federal District.
The goals, evaluation criteria and motivation system of the CFO vary depending on the type of CFO. You can read more about this in Book 4, “Financial Structure of a Company,” a chapter that discusses the general principles of motivation for various types of financial institutions. Based on the selected performance indicators of the Central Federal District, the budgets of the Central Federal District themselves are formed. Thus, the Regulations on the financial structure fix not only financial and economic indicators, but also motivation schemes, that is, methods for calculating the FMP of the Central Federal District based on budget indicators. Incentive schemes may also be contained in separate Regulations on material incentives for each Central Federal District. In which documents this will be reflected may depend on the established practice of regulating activities. Although, from the point of view of the integrity of the description of the system, it is better to record all this in one document - the Regulations on the financial structure.

Use of the Regulations on the financial structure of a company in management accounting.
When obtaining factual information about the execution of budgets, you can use data both from the operational management loop (that is, to receive factual information in the same way as planned information from the heads of the Central Federal District) and from management accounting. If in the budgeting system the actual information is obtained from management accounting, then it is necessary to establish a regulation for recording transactions, according to which for each transaction not only the necessary accounting attributes will be determined, but also management analytics (codes of the central financial district, budget items, etc.). This is necessary to obtain factual information not only for the company as a whole, but also for each central financial district separately.

Here, by the way, you need to pay attention to one very important point related to the Central Federal District. CFO is not just some additional analytical feature. In order to expand analytics, it is not at all necessary to create a digital financial center. The analytical feature that will be used to maintain management accounting can be a division. If a financial structure is introduced into the company and a central financial district is formed, then budgets for the central federal district will have to appear, for which motivation schemes will be developed based on their budgetary indicators.

If there is no Central Federal District, then the costs are maintained by department for statistics, and if they are, then the costs carried out by the Central Federal District will already affect their FMP. By the way, once again you need to pay attention to the fact that in the budgeting system and in the budgets of the Central Federal District, in particular, not only financial, but also natural indicators should be used.

Only if the company builds a financial and economic model in which both natural and cost indicators are involved will it be possible to say that it has indeed been possible to build an integrated system. Moreover, based on the indicators involved in this system, the specific responsibilities of company managers will be determined.

Thus, the Regulations on the financial structure are the main document regulating all issues related to responsibility for the execution of budgets, and therefore for the final financial and economic condition of the company as a whole.

Note: the topic of this article is discussed in more detail at the workshop

Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education

"Vladimir State University named after Alexander Grigorievich and Nikolai Grigorievich Stoletov"

Abstract

in the discipline "Finance and Credit"

on the topic “Structure of a financial organization”

Completed by: Guseinov T.S.

Accepted by: Omarov T.D.

Vladimir 2013

INTRODUCTION

CONCLUSION

List of used literature

INTRODUCTION

financial responsibility coordination department

1. BUILDING THE STRUCTURE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY CENTERS

The main tasks of management of financial responsibility centers include:

1) coordination of strategic and operational activities of departments

2) creation of an effective system of personnel motivation

3) distribution of areas of responsibility for the overall result

4) assessment and control over the effectiveness of the company’s business areas

5) comparison of financial results with other divisions and competing companies.

The financial structure depends on the specifics and scope of the enterprise, its size, organizational and legal form and form of ownership and other factors.

2. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY CENTERS

In modern literary sources one can find the following classification of financial responsibility centers:

Revenue Center

Cost center (production activity)

It must be assumed that both of these approaches have a place.

An investment center is a structural unit or group of units of an enterprise that is responsible not only for revenue and costs, but also for capital investments.

Let us consider the features of forming the structure of financial responsibility centers using the example of an industrial enterprise.

First of all, you need to familiarize yourself with the organizational structure of the enterprise, and then bring it into line with the financial one.

Some examples of central financial districts and digital financial institutions

· subsidiaries of holdings;

· separate divisions, representative offices and branches of large companies;

· large manufacturing (assembly) shops of production associations;

· production departments of companies with a divisional organizational management structure;

· auxiliary workshops of production associations;

· regionally and (or) technologically isolated types of activities (businesses) of multi-industry companies.

· main production facilities (shops) participating in unified technological chains (redistributions) in enterprises with a sequential or continuous technological cycle;

· production (assembly) shops;

· sales services and divisions. Cost centers:

· functional and staff services of enterprises and firms (accounting, economic planning services, personnel departments, other divisions of plant managements and central offices of firms);

· main and auxiliary workshops.

Structural divisions whose activities are separate (in technological, production and sales terms) can be identified as central financial districts (depending on the specifics of the organization). Multidisciplinary commercial structures, for example, often represent typical holdings and consist of several legal entities - enterprises of various profiles. Such a company usually includes one or more trading companies, a travel agency, a construction company, an investment company, etc. Here, each such company will appear as a central financial institution. At an enterprise or production association with a divisional organizational management structure, divisions and production departments are allocated as the central federal district, i.e., the object of budgeting. The situation is somewhat more complicated in a large production association that has complex technological chains, for example, at an instrument-making plant. Here, production (assembly) shops that ship, for example, finished products can be identified as central financial centers, and auxiliary (mechanical, procurement) workshops and production facilities can be identified as central financial centers.

3. PROCEDURE FOR ANALYSIS OF THE COMPANY’S FINANCIAL STRUCTURE AND SEPARATION OF FACILITIES, CFI AND COST POSITIONS

The procedure for analyzing the financial structure of the company and identifying central financial districts, central financial institutions and cost centers

1. Compiling a list of businesses (types of economic activity, main types of products, works and services sold):

Analysis of the legal status of structural divisions (subsidiaries of a holding or quasi-holding, branches without legal personality, etc.);

Checking the degree of technological, production, sales, regional and other isolation in the activities of structural divisions.

2. Determining the type of organizational management structure of the company: divisional or linear-functional.

3. Distribution of businesses by structural divisions, identification of structural divisions that are not involved in business (without sources of income).

4. Distribution of income, expenses and costs by structural divisions, determination of regulated and non-regulated costs.

5. Identification of structural units capable of being responsible for cash flow.

6. Compilation of a list of central financial districts, central financial institutions and cost centers.

1. types of businesses;

2. income, expenses and expenses.

To identify a structural unit as a central federal district, it is necessary to meet as many criteria as possible.

CONCLUSION

LITERATURE

1 http://www.fd.ru/article/2504.html

2 National Economy/Ed. V.A. Shulgi, 2001

3 http://www.iteam.ru

4 Budget and targeted financing. Abramova E.V., Makanova I.N., Semenikhin V.V.