(rock music)
-: Good morning to everybody, I'm Chris Beck,
I'm the Manager of ITRB, the Intragovernmental
Transactions and Reconciliation Branch,
and I'm joined today by our Accountant, Leah Delbaugh,
and we're gonna be taking you through
the ongoing effort to eliminate IGT differences.
I'll talk for a little bit, then the real brains
behind the operation, Leah will get up here
and talk about some data, and hopefully,
you guys learn something today.
This is unofficially, for those of you, IGT Day.
So this morning at nine, in this room,
obviously we have IGT, after this,
Keith Jarbaugh and myself will be up here
talking about G-Invoicing, and that theme
will go throughout the day.
So at 11 o'clock, and Claire, she came here from Alex,
on Orders Functionality and G-Invoicing
at one o'clock in this room,
you can hear about Performance Functionality.
At two o'clock and three o'clock,
in Polaris, we'll be hitting G-Invoicing as well,
so throughout the day, if you guys that love IGT
and G-Invoicing, this is definitely your day today.
See if I can get this thing to work, there we go.
Alright, so, learning objectives for today.
We're gonna talk about the IGT material weakness
a little bit, we're gonna talk about
some of the accomplishments we've had over the past year.
Leah's gonna take you through our subcategories,
and some of the trends that we're seeing with that.
She's also gonna discuss what's left to address
in the IGT world.
We're gonna talk about IGT eliminations and you,
you're definitely a big part of helping us drive these down.
Then Leah will kick it back over to me,
we'll talk about some future plans, and some final thoughts.
Now most of you have seen this slide a few times,
both from Jamie Saling and Kirsty Popmeyer yesterday.
Jamie always says this is the sad slide,
but I have to disagree with Jamie.
This is an opportunity slide, it's not a sad slide,
these are things we can do to get better.
It's kinda like when I go to the doctor,
I always have lots of opportunities to make myself better,
typically, it involves me losing weight,
so I always have that opportunity,
I always tell him that if I lost weight,
what would I have to get better at?
So let's just keep it on and stay status quo there.
But this slide you have seen before,
and as Jamie and others have mentioned,
we're on 20-plus years of getting a disclaimer
from GAO and the FR, and as part of that,
there's three major impediments, right?
We've got DOD, and congratulations to them,
going through their first audit,
now they have several opportunities,
just like we do, to get better.
We have the compilation impediment,
which is, Jamie touched on that a little bit
around the preparation and the cruel-based information
versus the budgets deficit and things of that nature.
And obviously, we're here today, throughout the day
to talk about the IGT portion, and I just wanted
to point out to you in bold on this slide,
from the GAO report,
GAO has cited difficulty to "adequately account
"for and reconcile intragovernmental activity
"and balances between federal entities."
So that's what that bucket is made of,
the fact that we really just can't do business
with ourselves.
On the next slide, it's as simple as this,
again, from the auditor's report,
"If two federal entities engaged
"in an intragovernmental transaction
"do not both record the same intragovornmental transaction
"in the same year and for the same amount,
"the intragovernmental transaction
"will not be in agreement, resulting in errors
"in the consolidated financial statements."
It's really as simple as that, and I know Mike Linder
in the session before touched on it.
It's really to me, a black eye
on the government-wide accounting community.
When you've heard Dave Lebert talk Monday morning
about the trust from the American public
in the government, and how low it is right now,
how do you think it looks to the American taxpayer,
that when we do business with each other,
we can't agree on the amount and the accounting period?
It seems really silly.
From 1,000-foot view, if you're a taxpayer,
there's really no reason why we shouldn't
be able to do this.
I know we've been doing it for 20 years
and it's a lot more complex than what folks see,
but at its simplicity, it really is,
a simple solution that has some complex
underlying reasons for it, right?
So that's what we're trying to get to today a little bit.
Some accomplishments from this past year,
we had no new audit findings related
to IGT material weakness, which is good.
As you saw with Jamie, we did go up a tick,
we have audit findings this past year,
but none of those were related to IGT this year,
so that we felt good about that.
We expanded the guidance for Custodial Activity,
so that's Joe Herb talked about a little bit yesterday
with the General Fund, he worked with his counterparts
in USSGL and we came up with some Custodial Activity,
which resulted in one new subcategory,
and five new RCs to try to account for that activity.
We also published in 2019, February actually,
the G-Invoicing Program Guide.
Now you're gonna hear a lot about G-Invoicing,
and that's a Treasury solution you've heard
from Mike, Tim, Dave Lebert and all these folks.
We're talking about IGT overall in this presentation,
and we talk G-Invoicing, we're talking about a subcategory,
Buy/Sell of the total difference,
and you're gonna hear a lot more about that.
I'm gonna put a lot of pressure on Brian Castow
and Andy Layer, but the Program Guide
has a 3 p.m. session in the Polaris Theater,
and you're gonna wanna be there.
One person from an agency said,
the Program Guide is the best piece of accounting guidance
in the 25 years she's been in federal governments.
It's pretty high praise for that Guide,
and Brian and Andy and some other folks
have done a lot of work on that, making that really good.
And also in '19, we incorporated the Trading Partner Main.
So you've heard Kirsty and Luke in years past
beat the drum about Trading Partner Main,
we took a phase-in approach over multiple years
to get this accomplished, and in FY19, we are there now.
Alright, so quiz time, this is our audience
participation section.
If you were at Jamie's session yesterday,
you should know the answer, so if you're at Jamie's session,
and you missed the question,
I gotta question Jamie's ability as a speaker
not being able to communicate to you the right numbers.
It's not your fault, it's not your fault, it's Jamie's.
But unlike Jamie and Kirsty, I need more than two options,
you only have a 20% chance to get this right.
So this is the raw differences that you're in.
So how many of you think it's A, $2.3 trillion?
A lot of people were in Jamie's session, OK.
Good, what about $1.6 trillion, any hands on that?
I see a couple, what about $652.5 billion?
No takers, I made that really specific
hoping to draw people, they might think,
man, that's a really specific number, that's probably it.
$213.8 billion, how many, OK a lot of people
went to Jamie's thing, good, very good, very good,
and $75.6 billion, and by the show of hands,
the answer's D there, $213.8 billion.
I will say, and Jamie touched on it,
I know Dave touched on it Monday morning as well,
that number has been brought down significantly,
and that's no credit to me, it's a credit to the staff
and under the leadership of Kirsty previously,
they have driven that number from '14,
2014 that number was $163.6 trillion in differences.
In 2015, it was $12.3 trillion.
Now '14 and '15, big reduction, right?
You know what became a reporting entity in '15?
The General Fund, right?
Big reason why that came down and that keeps coming down.
So through your help and through your efforts
with us and our staff that we've been able
to drive this down that much.
So that's the $213.8 billion that's near and dear
to my heart and Jamie's heart.
Now Leah's gonna get up here and talk
about some of the data trends and subcategories
related to that data.
-: Alright, thanks Chris.
So next, if you were in Jamie's sessions yesterday,
you probably have seen slide
that looks very similar to this,
we have the same few little boxes here,
but I'm gonna go ahead and go over it
in case there were some people who weren't in that session.
So first, I wanna show you the pre-JV differences
year over year, so take note that these differences,
these are differences before Fiscal Service
created our Journal Vouchers for the compilation of the FR.
The pre-JV differences between FY17 and FY18
improved by 80% or $835 billion.
These were intragovernmental differences
that were resolved either through the collaboration
of agencies as trading partners,
or completing the intragovernmental model
through additional USSGLs or TFM guidance
that agencies implemented then,
and all of those efforts led to the reduction
of the $835 billion.
So like Chris was talking about before,
in that chart, and I think Jamie mentioned
in the trend graph yesterday,
that we don't have 2014 on there
because, can you imagine how that would dwarf
the improvement that you see throughout the rest of the year
going from $100-plus trillion,
down to, in 2018, $213.8 billion
in intragovernmental differences?
But I do have to mention, that even with $835 billion
in improvement over FY17, 113 Journal Vouchers
still had to be made for the compilation of the FR.
74 of those being intragovernmental JVs,
and a total of $598 billion across the government
were reduced through these,
from the intragovernmental differences.
OK, so here we have three trend graphs.
So I love data, this is the part
that I always like to present,
when we go into these presentations,
so thank you Chris for allowing me to do that.
But I'm gonna give you a little bit of context
on these three trend graphs.
So on your left, we have the total differences,
so this is all of the intragovernmental differences,
whether it be General Fund-related subcategories,
or your investments, borrowings, transfers,
investments, et cetera.
So this is everything in total.
And what you'll see from Q2 of FY18,
to Q2 of FY19, the difference is greatly improved.
And from Q1 to Q2, we had an improvement in FY19,
so we're currently working on the Q3 draft scorecard,
so if you work in the intragovernmental world
for your agency, you should be receiving those
this week or next week for upcoming meetings for Q3.
I did go ahead and look to see how we did in Q3
compared to what is here and what I'm presenting you,
and the numbers did increase by about $50 billion,
I believe, but that was due to one agency
having difficulties getting into GTAS for this quarter.
So we know what caused that increase already.
In Q1, you can note that there was an increase.
If we go over to the top-right chart here,
and since this is just your standard
intragovernmental differences.
This includes investments, borrowings,
buy/sell, benefits, and transfers.
So what happened in Q1, because you can see
that there was the great increase there in Q1,
and what happened was one agency
didn't certify their bulk files,
and this created huge differences.
If they had certified their bulk files,
and this was just an issue they had,
a one-time thing, you can see in Q2
that they went and they were able to certify
their bulk files, but you can see what differences
that creates when you do not certify your bulk files
in GTAS, so make sure, it's very important
that you do that so we can have the full information
from all agencies.
Now, if you wanna look down below in your lower-right,
there are the General Fund differences.
And if you remember our presentation last year,
I mentioned that there was a group working together
to eliminate specific differences with the General Fund,
and to note the change from Q2 of FY18 to Q2 of FY19,
the differences for the General Fund
have decreased by 89% or $2.82 trillion.
So that is a huge downward swing on differences
that we should not see again in the future.
And now we can target what's left,
and work to eliminate or reduce those differences further.
So here on slide nine, I have subcategory statistics,
and this is for Q2.
So we're looking back at Q2 of FY19.
We have a nice pie-chart and it has a visual,
so it looks kind of like, if you see,
General Fund Authority is our top difference there,
with 90%, and he looks like a little blue Pac-Man,
and he's eating all the rest of the subcategories
that are right there, so they're very small in comparison
to the General Fund Authority.
So the pie-chart, it shows you a visual display,
and then if you look at the chart next to it,
we have listed out all of the subcategories
from highest to lowest.
And so our top two here are General Fund Authority,
and the next are Buy/Sell differences,
and I wanna let you know that when I presented this
last year, this is a very different view
than what we had last year.
Last year, our top two subcategories of differences
were Fund Balance With Treasury,
and Non-Entity Transactions.
So if you look here now, Fund Balance With Treasury
is now the third largest, but it has greatly, greatly
improved from the previous year and previous quarters.
And then also, the Non-Entity Transactions
is the next to last subcategory of differences.
So there's been great improvement made,
we're always looking to tackle the problems,
look to see what we can do to make improvements.
So this is good to show a big change from last year.
So now I'm gonna move on and we're gonna focus
a little bit on the General Fund Authority
and Buy/Sell differences because those were our top two
subcategories of differences in Q2.
So yesterday, there were a few presentations
on the General Fund.
So I hope you were able to attend those,
and so a little bit of this might be a recap,
but the General Fund is responsible
for recording and reporting assets and liabilities
associated with financing government operations.
The General Fund is its own separate and significant entity,
and we must make sure that all activities for the government
are accounted for and that the accounting model in complete.
If you were to add up the percentages
for each General Fund subcategory for Q2,
it would make up 92% of the total
intragovernmental differences.
This is still a huge decrease from the total
intragovernmental difference dollar amount
from previous fiscal years.
And as I mentioned before, there was an 89% decrease
in General Fund differences from the previous fiscal year.
So the largest subcategory for differences
in the General Fund is General Fund Authority.
This issue that we know about that's driving this difference
is known and it is a timing difference
that will resolve at year-end.
So we already know what's going on with this subcategory.
So now for our second highest subcategory of differences
in Q2 of FY19, this was Buy/Sell.
This includes activity, where transactions
between agencies are managed through an interagency
agreement which may be called a reimbursable agreement.
The platform that I know that you all
have probably heard a lot about,
and I hope you're attending several presentations on today,
that will provide increased accessibility
to interagency agreements among other things is G-Invoicing.
Buy/Sell differences made up $19 billion for Q2 of FY19.
And if you have not already done so,
please make sure to send in your G-Invoicing Agency
Implementation Plans, they were due on June 28th, I believe,
but we will still take the ones
that have not been sent in already.
Most of you have sent in your plans,
so we do appreciate that.
But be aware that we are focusing on G-Invoicing
and how to properly use this tool
to drive the reduction of Buy/Sell differences
between entities.
So you will likely start seeing things about G-Invoicing
on your scorecard.
In Q3, we'll just give you a note
as to whether you sent in your Implementation Plan or not,
but in the future, we're gonna find ways
to implement G-Invoicing
into your Intragovernmental Scorecard.
OK, so here's a question, what is left to address
of intragovernmental differences?
So now we're going back to that $213.8 billion
of differences at Q5.
So each year we ask ourselves, what's left to address?
And I'm sure you're wondering,
how does Fiscal Service sit down
and determine what issues to work on,
what do we decide to coordinate
with the USSGL Advisory Team,
how do we want to update guidance, et cetera?
So quarterly, our team actively reads
each form you provide to us,
whether that be your Material Difference Form
that you complete in GTAS, a Targeted Difference Form
that you may complete at our request.
A Root Cause Analysis Corrective Action Plan, or an email,
we take each one of your responses,
and we categorize your responses into types of differences.
From there, we determine what categories
have the largest differences and then we dive in deeper.
We create projects to determine the next steps
towards solutions.
And so here is what we have categorized
as the issues in FY18.
So on this slide, what you can tell,
this is the pre-JV data with the exception
of a few agreed upon JVs that can be excluded at year-end.
At year-end, the Conflicting Accounting Methodology
between entities caused $119 billion
or 56% of the total intragovernmental differences.
We researched what made up these differences,
and there's already been a resolution put in place
to remove the $50.5 billion,
which is part of that $118 figure,
also the $64 billion that Jamie mentioned yesterday
which was a result of one transaction
that caused $16 billion of differences
in four reciprocal categories.
That should not reoccur in the future.
And much of the remaining difference,
is in Dispute Resolution and being actively worked on.
As you can tell from the slide,
all but $20 billion of the $214 billion
at year-end was categorized.
These categorizations drive projects
that the teams focus on each for the year,
and then beyond if necessary.
OK, now we're gonna get into some updates
for the Treasury Financial Manual
that relate to intragovernmental activity.
In Main chapter 4705.20a,
and updated section was included to expand
information on Custodial Activity.
Also, it's noted that the General Fund
does not engage in exchange activity,
generally, although there may be exceptions.
In section 4706.30a, it states
that significant entities and other entities
are required to explain MDR parts one, two, and three,
for quarters one through three, and at year-end in GTAS.
So this isn't really a change,
but more of a terminology update to the TFM.
Also included in that section is something
that I hope you already knew from attending CRT meetings,
webinars, and conferences in the past,
but we added the Intragovernmental Raw Data File in GTAS.
This is a report that you can pull from GTAS,
you can run it quarterly, you can run it periodically.
At year-end, it will also factor in any manual adjustments
that you or your trading partner may have made.
Please note though, that if you run it
before the period is complete, you will not see anything
but your trading partner's certified data.
So you can work on it while the window is open,
but if you wait until the window is closed,
you'll see what your trading partner has certified,
and you'll know your true differences for that period.
So this report can be pulled from GTAS
and it's in an Excel format, it displays like a pivot table,
so you'll see you and your trading partner,
and along the top you would see the reciprocal category,
if you double-click, the report will provide you
with all of the bulk file details
that make up that difference.
So it's a nice way, you can see all of this
in the intragovernmental module of GTAS,
but if you like to do research and you want to sort things,
it's a little bit easier format for you to do that in.
So this slide displays the intragovernmental updates
to Appendix 1a.
In a previous CRT call this year,
you may have heard that your favorite appendices
have changed in numbering, so this kind of threw me off
a little bit this year, and so it may throw you off as well,
so I'm gonna try to provide you what the old number was,
and then what the new number is as well.
But in the new 1a, there is an update
that states how an entity can determine
the Trading Partner AID and Trading Partner Main Account
to use when reporting activity in your bulk files.
If your trading partner is using a specific AID
and Main Account to report the activity,
then you should be using that AID and Main Account
as your Trading Partner AID
and Trading Partner Main Account.
This is the way you can ensure that your activity
is going with the correct trading partner,
and also that your funds are aligned,
your fund families between your trading partner.
And last year, in my presentation,
I let you know that there is a new Fund Family View
in the Intragovernmental Module of GTAS
that shows you your fund family
versus what your trading partner reported,
and you can see which funds, so not only your total
intragovernmental difference, but down to the fund,
where you have your main differences.
And it's a very nice view, if you haven't seen it yet,
make sure to contact me or one of my coworkers
and we can point that out to you.
But it's a really good way to see
which funds are really causing you to be out of line
with your trading partners.
So here's just an example, and that's the example
that is shown in the TFM, and I'm not sure
how big it is for you to see.
OK, but this is just showing though,
that even though you're using a TP AID
of a one-one, let's say,
if you use it with the correct Main Account,
you will get the trading partner of 2000 which is Treasury.
So as long as you're using the correct AID,
Trading Partner AID and Trading Parting Main Account
combination, you will obtain the correct
trading partner in GTAS.
So the update to the new Appendix 4,
or the updates to the Appendix 2 and 3, I'm sorry,
so this is the old Appendix 6 and 7.
The largest update has been the change
for the new Custodial and Non-Entity Transaction subcategory
The screenshot is of Appendix 2,
which displays the financial statement line names,
for each of the new reciprocal categories.
The new RCs that created are RCs 10, 13, 14, 15, and 16,
and you can see the financial statement lines
are named here in this appendix.
Appendix 3, which is not pictured,
spells out which USSGLs belong
to the new reciprocal categories.
This is important for you to review
so that you can make sure you're reporting activity
that is reciprocated by your trading partner,
and by the correct USSGLs to eliminate.
And also, something that you should take note,
especially for Appendix 3, is you'll wanna take note
of the attributes that go with the USSGL
because just a change in the attribute
could determine whether it goes RC13 or RC15.
There are some USSGLs that go to both
of those reciprocal categories,
so just make sure to pay close attention to that.
The update to the new Appendix 4,
which is the old Appendix 8, is the CFO Representation Form,
and in addition to the CFO name and signature,
we're now asking to add the CFO's contact,
email, and phone number.
The updated form is already on the Fiscal Service website,
in a PDF and Word form.
If any of you look for this on the Fiscal Service website,
and you're having issues finding
the CFO Representation Form, just make sure
to contact your IGT Point of Contact at Fiscal Service,
or just take down the group email
at the end of this presentation,
and we will be happy to help you.
In Appendix 6, which used to be Appendix 10,
this is the Intragovernmental Appendix,
which is some light reading, I don't know
how many of you have read that,
but it is by far our largest appendix in the TFM 2-4700,
at only around 30 pages or so.
But the updates that were made here,
for the fiduciary authoritative information,
in the past, only DOL's FECA,
so that's Federal Employees' Compensation Act,
was considered authoritative, but last year,
DOL worked diligently to ensure
that the Unemployment Insurance
could also be authoritative as well.
And again, the Custodial and Non-Entity Transactions
were added to this appendix.
The updated guidance defines the collecting
and receiving agency involved in the Custodial
and Non-Entity Transactions.
As a note, these are never collections
on behalf of the General Fund.
Going on in Appendix 6, the updates were made
to update you to where to find your Reconciliation Sources.
So to find the Borrowings detailed principle
and accrued interest, go to the Fiscal Service
Detailed Principle and Accrued Interest Report.
To obtain the Unemployment Insurance balance
mentioned on the last slide,
please go to the DOL Publications,
and DOL Authoritative Source Balances Report.
Lastly, for Appendix 6, one addition made
states that federal entities must create
a corrective action plan for reoccurring differences
with authoritative sources or submit those differences
to Dispute Resolution.
How you may see things change pertaining to this update,
is that you may see an increase
of Root Cause Analysis Corrective Action Plans,
sent by your Fiscal Service
Intragovernmental Point of Contact,
for any reoccurring differences with authoritative sources.
Our stance is that if an entity is truly authoritative,
there should not be differences with the trading partners.
Our hope in adding this update
is that we can better understand
if trading partners do have differences
with authoritative sources, and we can get to the root cause
of why this is happening, and come up with a solution
to not have that happen going forward.
OK, so let's move on to current initiatives.
What are we doing at Fiscal Service
to remediate the intragovernmental material weakness
for the FR of the U.S. Government?
G-Invoicing is a huge part of reducing
differences in the future.
We know that G-Invoicing will increase communication
between trading partners and will be essential place
to house all Buy/Sell agreements.
In your Q3 draft and final scorecards,
you will see a note in the Recommended
Corrective Action section, to address
whether your entity sent in their Agency Implementation Plan
by 6/28.
So you'll either see a, thank you for sending in
your Agency Implementation Plan, or,
you need to send in your Agency Implementation Plan.
So I don't think there were many of you
who will see that second bullet,
and so we thank you for the ones who have sent it in,
but be aware that you will see this on your Q3 draft
and final scorecard.
Please note that in 2020, there will be new
reciprocal categories that will be implemented
to report prior period adjustments.
This is activity that may not have had a way
to be properly recorded in the past to be eliminated,
but in FY20, will.
Also, during 2021, the Treasury Authoritative Edits
in GTAS will become fatal.
So in the past, these edits were proposed analytical fails,
but in the near future, they will be fatal,
meaning the agency must match what Treasury has reported
as an authoritative source or the bulk file will fail.
As with other fatal edits though,
there are cases where there could be exceptions made,
and if necessary, an override can be given,
but these will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
Also, we're in the process of updating GTAS
to include OPM and DOL benefits
on the SMAF Authoritative File Tab.
These authoritative amounts are provided by OPM and DOL,
and they will be visible in GTAS by TAS in the future.
So we're currently working with OPM and DOL
to make sure that they have files
where they're outlining by TAS,
what they're saying are there benefits portions
with each of you and each of your TAS.
So that will be really nice for you
to see this in your SMAF Authoritative Tab
in GTAS in the future.
And so with that, we are also going to create
new edits in GTAS, and they will be built similarly
to the Treasury Authoritative Edits,
but to begin with they will be proposed analytical failures.
And as mentioned on the previous slide,
there will be new reciprocal categories in FY20.
That will be for activity involving
prior period adjustments for the General Fund.
These RCs will be RC31 and 32,
and will be a part of the General Fund Authority subcategory
OK, so the IGT elimination effort and you.
So, just as a reminder, pertaining to the CAP process,
CAPs that are not resolved within a year,
or during the extension period granted,
will be entered into Dispute Resolution.
Some of the statistics on the initiative in FY18 here,
so, I have in FY18, 54 issues were resolved,
which equaled $25 billion.
There are 49 CAPs currently remaining,
and that was as of doing this presentation,
so there may be more now, because as you all know,
if you work with us in this process,
we evaluate this each quarter,
and issue new ones if necessary.
But as of this time, so probably about two months ago,
there are 49 remaining and that was $4.8 billion.
And 13 of those from FY18 ended up
going into the Dispute Resolution process.
So that's $2.9 billion that are now
in the Dispute Resolution process.
So the initiative continues to work,
and it works to document all of the effort
that you and your trading partners are doing
as you work through these issues throughout the year.
OK, so these next couple slides,
I think we have presented for several years,
but I did make a slight change this year,
and this can be an audience participation part,
if you want, if you know the answer.
But I have changed it a little bit.
So accurate reporting of balances
and proper elimination of activity depends largely upon,
does anyone have any idea what might be the answer?
Communication?
I heard it, OK.
That's the right answer, but this year,
I changed it up slightly.
Effective communication, oh, there we go,
wanna make things a little bit fresh for you guys.
So, I've learned that through the years,
there's actually levels of communication,
and this is really sad, I thought this was maybe
just something I'd come up with and I decided to Google it,
no, it's real, so there's levels of communication,
and it varies, whether you're talking
about your personal life or your professional life.
So I would say the first level,
the first level is just returning phone calls and emails.
That's level one, if we can't get you
to return a phone call or an email,
you're kind of not doing so well
in the communication department.
And I would say maybe four of five years ago,
that's maybe a little bit more where people were,
but today, that's greatly improved,
there's maybe just a handful of entities
that might still be on level one.
So that can be a struggle, but as a collective group,
you've definitely, definitely improved.
So we've been preaching and preaching about communication,
and people started to communicate, which is great,
so I think that everyone's moved up to level two,
or even possibly level three.
So to me, level three is where not only
are you providing a response,
but you're providing a response that tells me something
I need to know, something that I don't already know,
something that can help me help you,
and it can help your trading partner.
So it's a win-win-win.
So moving on to the next slide,
I decided this year to provide some examples
of ineffective communication.
So I'm hoping this will help me and my coworkers
and in return help you, of course.
So here's a couple example of ineffective communication.
So you can see I've redacted the amount,
and any information that would incriminate
the guilty parties here.
But this is an example of an MDR part three.
So MDR part three, if you work
in intragovernmental department of your department,
you know the MDR part three is only
for non-reciprocating activity.
This is USSGLs that have a Z attribute.
Z means non-reciprocating, OK.
So, this is an example from one of the agencies I work with,
and this was for USSGL 240000,
your liability for non-fiduciary deposit funds,
and un-deposited collections.
So the explanation that I'm given,
is this USSGL is non-reciprocating for the TFM.
So I know this, I know this already,
I would think you wanna tell me something
I don't know already, and actually,
so I thought I would just come up here and tell you
why want this information because maybe it's unclear.
We want to know what a USSGL with a Z attribute,
non-reciprocating, we wanna know what kind of activity
this USSGL is being used for.
So some of them are pretty easy,
some of them, I think it's 640000,
is your benefit expense, and you'll tell me, this is FICA.
So every time I see it, you'll tell me,
still, that's telling me what's going in there,
I know that's FICA, I know that potentially,
we need to see if there's a trading partner out there
that would ever reciprocate FICA.
So I know what's happening with that USSGL,
we can work on that one.
But, with this explanation for 240000,
I know by definition what's in there,
but I wanna know for your specific agency,
what is happening?
So no, we don't wanna see that.
OK, so our next one, so I just have two examples,
these were kinda fun for me too though.
But Targeted Difference Forms,
so here's a Targeted Difference Form.
OK, so, this is an explanation given,
so I gave an agency a Targeted Difference Form,
and on it, I give you the reciprocal category,
I give you your trading partner, and I give you the amount,
and I also give you the USSGLs that are involved.
So here was the explanation that was given back to me
for this difference.
For RC24, the difference of, XXXX,
is primarily due to our trading partner
reporting less in revenue and expense
than we reported for the related accounts.
Again, this is something I know, I knew that already,
so I could just look that up in GTAS very easily,
it took me about two minutes to see that.
So, again, we're just asking that you give us something
that will really tell me what's happening,
not just something that I could look up myself.
All I really want to see is that,
you've done a little bit of research,
you've reached out to your trading partner,
you're trying to figure out what's happening.
So was there an IPAC with a trading partner
that they went ahead and booked,
and you didn't for some reason,
where there were cruels that didn't match up?
What's really going on between you and your trading partner,
just show me that you've done a little bit of research,
that you know what's going on,
and that will help us tremendously.
So to repeat, effective communication,
oh, so no, don't do that.
And then lastly here, effective communication
is specific and it gives us context about what's happening.
And I think I need to speed it up here, sorry Chris.
OK, I just have two more slides.
So this slide should be very familiar,
if you've been with us here before,
but it stands as true today as it did years ago
when we presented it.
So, the resolution of intragovernmental differences,
will occur as a result of education,
so make sure that you are calling in to CRT calls,
that you're reading your TFM updates,
that you're listening in to IRC.
Preparation, when you find out that guidance
is going to change, make sure that you notify
the correct people that a system change may need to occur,
that's just an example.
Collaboration, so be a part of a working group,
be a part of some sort of group,
we want to hear all of your perspectives,
so it's very important that, if you want to be represented,
if you wanna represent your agency,
to be a part of one of these working groups.
And implementation, so none of the work on our part,
or even your part to help us update guidance,
is really going to do much if it's not in turn,
implemented by the agencies.
So we really need you to help us in completing our mission.
OK, so last slide here.
And then I'll let Chris wrap up with our future plans.
So, for year-end, Material Difference Reports,
this is just some year-end preparation,
things for you to know.
So for year-end, your Material Difference Reports
must be explained and certified in GTAS.
And intragovernmental differences
should be cleared up by year-end.
And this year, the Q5, or we've renamed this year,
to the Financial Reporting and Intragovernmental Scorecard,
will include whether your agency met the deadline
to deliver your Agency Implementation Plans for G-Invoicing.
So if your agency did not turn in your G-Invoicing
Implementation Plan, you will have a no,
and I know that for the Agency Performance Measures,
you all like to have yeses,
that you met every Agency Performance Measure,
and I like for you all to have yeses as well,
but for this particular one, just make note
that you may see a no, you will see a no,
if you didn't turn this plan in already.
And a few important dates that are on the TFM 2-4700
that was updated in July,
MDRs will be available in GTAS November 18th,
CFO Representation Forms are due back
to Fiscal Service with your CFO signature on December 3rd,
and also, MDRs are due to be certified by 5 p.m.
on December 3rd as well.
So thank you, and I'll turn it back over to Chris.
-: I'll take 20 minutes, she says,
and goes a bit longer,
-: Sorry. -: No, that's alright.
That's a lot of good stuff, Leah's really good there.
So for me, some of our future plans,
Intragovernmental Scorecard Program,
we continue that, I don't think it's any coincidence
since we've started scorecards,
and the communication we get from those scorecards,
you've seen a great reduction in differences.
Leah touched on the scorecards,
how we're gonna incorporate G-Invoicing,
your Implementation Plans, your quarterly updates and those,
but additionally, your Q4 scorecards,
you're gonna see a change there,
you're gonna see a more streamlined Q4 scorecard,
so you're not gonna get the full gamut
of the scorecard that you're used to seeing,
we know that you have a lot to do at your end,
and we always see big reduction from Q4 to Q5.
What we're gonna try to do is streamline that,
to get it to you, hopefully, a little bit quicker,
try to target some significant differences you have
and give you more time to address those through your end.
So your Q4 scorecards will be streamlined a little bit
to try to help you out.
Leah touched on the CAP documentation,
and the MDR windows already, and we'll continue on that.
The second bullet there, evaluate the uses
of non-reciprocating USSGL accounts.
So if you look at RC29, that's our non-reciprocating bucket,
it used to be, I think, Mr. Linder said yesterday,
it's a dumping ground, right?
So we've done a really good job of clean that up,
in May of 2015, we had 44 USSGL account in RC29.
44 accounts that you could dump into.
As of May of 2019, there's only 24 USSGL accounts
in that category as we continue to pick those off,
like Custodial, like prior period adjustments.
The next bullet, enhance TFM 4700 guidance,
on intragovernmental business rules in Appendix 6,
so Appendix 6 saw a lot of changes,
you see a lot more about G-Invoicing this year,
in the May publication, including the mandate date
and Implementation Plans, and some information
around GT and Cs and orders and performance with that.
Improve or develop USSGL guidance,
so Steve Reilly and Andy Morris,
I gotta commend them on the efforts they've done at USSGL.
We are creating or updating more scenarios
than we even have in that division,
in her branch, I should say.
And a lot of those are targeted,
as Jamie mentioned yesterday, towards these IGT differences,
you've seen capitalized asset guidance issued,
assisted acquisition guidance issue,
you've seen the G-Invoicing Program guidance now out there,
so we'll continue to go down that path as well.
The last bullet is we're gonna continue,
I don't know if you've picked up on it,
but G-Invoicing's a pretty big deal here at Treasury.
We're gonna continue to hit that,
and support that initiative aimed at reducing
those Buy/Sell differences.
Some final thoughts to try to leave you with,
I know I'm running short on time here a little bit.
Ultimate goal here is to eliminate IGT differences.
As I said at the beginning, simplistic in nature, right?
You're doing business with another federal entity,
it should be easy to agree on the amount
and the accounting period.
We know we can't do this without you.
You know how many transactions I'm in?
None, I don't have a trading partner,
I monitor you guys, you guys are the ones
that are doing the work.
So you guys need to work with each other,
we need to continue to see your efforts
in helping us with that.
There we go.
Some final thoughts there is, focus on
substantiating balances, not gathering exclusions.
So it's really easy at quarter-end
to have a difference of $100 million let's say,
and you go to Leah or Tom, or somebody else on our team,
and say, well I need an exclusion because of X, Y, Z.
It's easy to point the finger,
just like when I talked about going to the doctor,
and some of the opportunities I have,
usually if the last piece of candy's out of the jar,
I blame my daughter Charlie,
because she's not old enough to speak
and tell mom that I'm actually the one that took it.
So that's just me saying, it wasn't me,
I'm gonna exclude this, it's not my fault.
I'm looking for that exclusion, but really I took the candy,
so let's just start doing that,
let's not look for ways to get out of things,
let's look how we're gonna address these items.
Improve the IGT process within your agency,
so we've taken a lot of steps, government-wide,
to improve our process, we expect the same from you.
Leverage our team here, our Leahs, the Toms,
the Angelas, the Katrinas, we got a lot
of really knowledgeable people
that are assigned to you and that's out there on the website
for you to find those folks.
Utilize our Dispute Resolution process strategically.
If you're running into the same issues over and over again
with your trading partner, maybe it's time to call us in
and see if we can help you guys out
and come to a resolution there.
Provide information to the General Fund,
in a timely fashion, I should say.
Kirsty and her team made great strides
in reducing General Fund differences already,
and it could be more effective
if you guys get your information to them
in a timely fashion.
Address the root cause of the issues.
So I know Dave Lebert talked about that yesterday.
Again, going back to the concepts,
we have this difference, why do we have this difference?
Why do we have this difference in the first place?
Yeah, let's resolve this difference,
let's talk about it, but what's really
causing that difference?
Is it a communication issue, is it a process issue?
Diving down into those details.
Lastly, communicate, communicate, communicate.
Communication, I think Leah's hit on it several times,
very effective communication.
I will tell you though, Leah is a lot nicer than I am,
so when she tells you you're level one,
communication's not real good,
I would just say it's not acceptable.
We need everybody to get to level three, OK?
We need to get there, and Leah will call
and talk to you about it, and she's really nice
and good to work with and can give you some tips there.
Last slide here, just some references we put in.
4700, which was published in May,
and we had also a bulletin in July,
but in that, you'll find information of course,
related to all these appendices.
I will tell you though, of course those numbers have changed
so it's adjustment for us as well.
As an accountant, at least on the debit and credit side,
I know old Appendix 7 was of particular interest to me,
that's in Appendix 3 now, you'll see the USSGLs
and RC categories on that.
So I think we're out of time,
but no one's telling me I'm out of time,
so I guess we could take question.
No questions?
Is everybody just really excited for IGT Day,
and just all the presentations we have coming to you?
GAO's clapping, so that's good news I think.
Alright, well thank you guys and have a good day.
(applause)