Financial reporting mistakes are not always incorrect formulas or numbers that fail to balance. A report can be completely accurate and still be a poor report if nobody reads it, it arrives too late or it does not help anyone make a better decision.
That is the theme of this Finance Leaders Unplugged conversation between Jon Clarke and Gavin Roe. Jon is a former Finance Director and Gavin a former Financial Controller. Both now work as Sage Intacct consultants at Inixion, so their views come from having produced and used finance reports as well as helping organisations improve them.
Their discussion raises a deceptively simple question: if finance stopped sending a particular report, would anyone notice?
Watch the full discussion on financial reporting mistakes here: https:Â https://youtu.be/Q-sw8VKxOY0
Bad reporting is rarely just a report problem
When a report is not working, it is tempting to focus on the layout. Perhaps it needs another graph, a cleaner dashboard or more commentary.
Sometimes presentation is part of the problem, but Gavin makes an important point in the video: bad reporting is usually linked to the data, the process, the ownership or the decision the report is supposed to support.
Before redesigning a report, finance should ask:
- Who is the report for?
- What decision should it help them make?
- Which information is genuinely relevant to that decision?
- Who owns the accuracy and usefulness of the report?
- How quickly can users investigate a number that looks unusual?
- Is the underlying data current, consistent and trusted?
Without clear answers, changing the format may simply make an unhelpful report look better.
Mistake one: producing reports nobody uses
One of the most common financial reporting mistakes is continuing to produce a report because it has always been produced.
Somebody was shown how to prepare it years ago. It became part of the monthly routine and is still emailed to the same distribution list. The business may have changed completely, but nobody has stopped to ask whether the report is still needed.
The cost is easy to underestimate. Even a report that takes only an hour each month consumes twelve hours a year. If it also involves extracting data, fixing formulas, adding commentary and checking different versions, the time soon grows. Multiply that across a full reporting pack and the finance team may be spending days on outputs that add little value.
Gavin’s blank-report test
Gavin shares a wonderfully simple example in the video. He once sent his normal monthly Excel file, but removed the report and replaced it with a message asking the recipient to contact him if they opened it.
Nobody did.
It is funny, but it makes a serious point. Finance teams can become very disciplined about producing reports without checking whether anybody is disciplined about using them.
There is no need to repeat Gavin’s experiment literally. A more constructive reporting review can look at whether recipients open the report, ask questions about it, refer to it in meetings or take action because of what it shows. Asking users directly can be even more useful: what do they use, what do they ignore and what information do they still have to request separately?
Mistake two: confusing more reporting with better reporting
More information does not automatically create more insight. A large management pack can make it harder for leaders to identify the few things that genuinely need attention.
This often happens because new reports are added but old ones are never removed. Every request becomes a permanent monthly output, even when it related to a short-term issue or an earlier stage of the business.
A useful report should have a clear purpose. It should bring the important message forward rather than make the reader hunt through pages of detail.
For each recurring report, ask:
- What question does this answer?
- Who acts on the answer?
- Is the level of detail appropriate for that audience?
- Could an exception or KPI view replace pages of routine information?
- Does the recipient need a scheduled report, or controlled access to a live dashboard?
The goal is not to remove useful detail. It is to make sure the detail serves the decision rather than hiding it.
Mistake three: allowing reporting to happen outside the finance system
Excel remains extremely useful for ad hoc analysis, modelling and one-off calculations. The problem begins when core monthly reporting depends on repeated exports, manual adjustments and linked workbooks.
Once information leaves the finance system, the connection to the source can weaken. Figures may be changed for valid reasons, but it can become harder for the recipient to see what was adjusted, by whom and why. Different versions can circulate, while the spreadsheet itself may already be out of date because the source data has moved on.
This creates familiar questions:
- Is this the latest version?
- Has every entity or department been included?
- Were any formulas overwritten?
- Is everybody reporting from the same numbers?
- Can we trace this figure back to the underlying transaction?
Our related article explains in more detail why finance teams still live in Excel and how spreadsheets often fill gaps left by the finance system.
Mistake four: separating financial and operational data
Financial results tell the business what happened. Operational information often helps explain why it happened.
If those two types of data are held separately, finance can report the number but struggle to connect it with activity in the business. Revenue might be shown without the volumes, customers, projects or service lines behind it. A cost variance might appear without the operational measure that explains the movement.
The result is a reporting pack that describes performance but does not help leaders understand it.
Better management reporting connects financial outcomes with the dimensions and operational measures that matter to the organisation. The exact measures will vary, but the principle remains the same: readers should be able to move from the headline number to the business activity behind it.
Mistake five: measuring what mattered three years ago
Businesses change. They add entities, launch services, enter markets, reorganise teams and develop new priorities. Reporting often changes much more slowly.
A KPI that once helped the leadership team manage the business may no longer reflect its strategy. A report created when the organisation was smaller may be too broad for its current structure. Measures designed around an old operating model can survive long after the model itself has changed.
One of the most useful financial reporting best practices is therefore a regular relevance review. This does not need to become a major project. At least once a year, ask report owners and recipients:
- Does this still reflect how the business is managed?
- Are the current entities, departments, projects and service lines visible?
- Which new questions are leaders asking?
- Which measures no longer lead to action?
- What is missing from the current reporting pack?
Reporting should evolve with the organisation rather than preserve a historic view of it.
Mistake six: treating report production as the finish line
Finance teams are often measured on whether reports were produced accurately and on time. Both matter, but delivery is not the same as impact.
The real test is whether the information is understood and used. A report should prompt a discussion, reveal an exception, confirm that performance is on track or support a decision. If it does none of those things, completing it may be an administrative success but a reporting failure.
This is why ownership should extend beyond preparing the numbers. Somebody should understand the audience, invite feedback and challenge whether the report continues to earn its place in the process.
What good finance reporting should look like
Good finance reporting does not mean giving everybody the same dashboard. Different users need different levels of information and control.
A strong reporting process should provide:
- A consistent source of current financial information
- Clear ownership of reports and measures
- Role-appropriate views for different audiences
- The ability to investigate a result without rebuilding the analysis
- Financial and operational context
- Relevant measures aligned with current business priorities
- Less repeated extraction, consolidation and checking
- A clear link between the information and the decision it supports
The best reporting is not necessarily the most elaborate. It is the reporting people trust, understand and use.
How Sage Intacct can help improve financial reporting
Sage Intacct reporting is designed to keep more of the reporting process within the financial management solution, reducing the need to rebuild recurring reports elsewhere.
Customisable financial reports
Finance teams can build and adapt reports around the organisation’s structure and reporting requirements. This makes it easier to create appropriate outputs for different audiences without starting again in Excel every month.
Dimensional reporting
Transactions can carry business context through dimensions such as entity, department, location, project, customer or service line, depending on the implementation. Finance can then analyse performance across those areas without creating an unwieldy chart of accounts.
Drill-down to transactions
Users can move from a summary result into the underlying detail. This helps finance answer questions more quickly and preserves the connection between a reported figure and its source.
Role-based dashboards
Dashboards can present relevant, current information to different users. A CFO may need an organisation-wide view, while a department leader needs controlled visibility of their own budget and performance.
Multi-entity visibility
For organisations with multiple entities, Sage Intacct can support consolidated reporting without relying on a collection of separate spreadsheets. This can reduce manual consolidation and help teams work from a more consistent view of the group.
The technology alone will not decide which reports matter. That still requires conversation with the people who use them. A well-designed Sage Intacct implementation should explore reporting requirements, business structure, processes and decision-making before reports and dashboards are configured.
A practical reporting review finance teams can run now
You do not need to replace your finance solution before improving your reporting. Start with an honest review of the current reporting list.
1. Create an inventory
List every report the finance team prepares regularly, including spreadsheets, dashboards, emailed packs and manually consolidated outputs.
2. Identify the audience and decision
Record who receives each report and what they are expected to do with it. If nobody can describe the decision it supports, challenge whether it is still needed.
3. Measure the effort
Estimate how long each report takes to prepare, check and distribute. Include time spent chasing information and correcting versions, not just the final production step.
4. Ask the recipients
Find out what people actually use. Ask which sections they value, what they ignore and what they still cannot see.
5. Keep, change or stop
Decide whether each report should continue, be simplified, move into a dashboard, combine with another report or stop completely.
6. Review again
Reporting requirements will continue to change. Assign an owner and set a sensible review point so the reporting pack does not become another inherited routine.
The biggest reporting mistake is failing to ask whether a report still matters
The financial reporting mistakes discussed by Jon and Gavin are connected. Too many reports, spreadsheet workarounds, disconnected data and outdated measures all survive when reporting becomes a routine rather than a conversation.
Finance should not produce information simply because it produced the same information last month. Every recurring report should have an audience, a purpose and a link to a decision.
If your team spends too much time producing reports that are difficult to trust or rarely used, request a call back or get in touch with Inixion to continue the conversation.
