CFO

If not renewed, CISA 2015 protections end in the US on September 30.

This article appears in the September issue of Global Finance Magazine.

Companies that share cybersecurity information with their peers have until Sept. 30, 2026, before the limited liability granted by the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 runs out, exposing them to potential regulatory scrutiny and penalties.

Under the Act, non-federal entities may share anonymized cyberattack and response information with other non-federal entities and the federal government via the Automated Indicator Sharing (AIS) program operated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).

In July, 23 industry associations that represented the financial services, energy, technology, transportation, healthcare, and retail sectors wrote to Speaker of the House Michael Johnson (R-LA) requesting an extension to the Act since it is “a foundational component of the nation’s cybersecurity.”

However, some view AIS as a relic of an earlier era of cyberdefense that provides machine-readable cyber threat indicators and defensive measures against malicious IP addresses, file hashes associated with malware distribution, and known malicious web links.

“It was a failure from the get-go, and it accomplishes nothing,” Milton Mueller, a professor of cybersecurity policy at Georgia Institute of Technology’s Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School of Public Policy, told Global Finance. “No one will notice when it’s gone.”

A web post by Mueller earlier this year cited a DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) report stating that non-federal participants using AIS fell to fewer than 90 in 2024 from a high of 304 in late 2022. The report also noted that alert volume on the platform dropped 93% between 2020 and 2022. Though there was a surge in alerts, to 10 million from 1 million, the OIG found that 89% of the data came from a single private-sector participant.

“The non-Federal participants we interviewed stated that they find AIS useful and an effective tool for protecting their systems from cyber threats,” wrote the report’s authors. “However, the number of non-Federal participants remained lower in 2023 and 2024 than in previous years. AIS now has 87 non-Federal participants compared to 252 in 2020.”

Nonetheless, the House of Representatives included an extension to the Act in part of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act, which is waiting for Senate approval.

In July, the Trump administration sidestepped legislative concerns and created “Gold Eagle,” a clearinghouse to share cybersecurity vulnerability information and coordinate responses among private industry and federal agencies, including the U.S. Treasury Department, CISA, and the U.S. War Department, formerly the Defense Department. The new system will be powered by frontier artificial intelligence, which emulates and may surpass human-level intelligence.

Private Data Sharing Alternatives

Although CISA 2015’s renewal is up in the air and details regarding Gold Eagle are sparse, private industry has had formalized cybersecurity data-sharing programs since 1999.

“There is plenty of threat intelligence sharing going on,” said GeorgiaTech’s Mueller. “There are commercial services, sectoral nonprofit Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs), and industry consortia like the Cyber Threat Alliance.”

The newly rebranded Alliance for Critical Infrastructure (formerly the Tri-Sector Executive Working Group) seeks to bring together critical infrastructure operators to strengthen national resilience and reduce systemic risk, while sustaining economic continuity.

The 501c(6) non-profit industry coalition started with nine founding members: American International Group Inc., AT&T Inc., Berkshire Hathaway Energy Co., Consolidated Edison Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Lumen Technologies Inc., Mastercard Inc., The Southern Co., and Xcel Energy Inc.

Since its formation, the organization has been on a membership drive, with JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon reportedly having private conversations with numerous companies across industry sectors to join the alliance.

Despite the benefits of sharing cybersecurity data, such as faster and broader threat detection and coordinated responses, sharing that data is not risk-free for a corporation.

“When information is shared, one should assume that information could be obtained by others, including regulators, litigants, and insurers, and that can inform the nature, contour, and context of the sharing,” said Mary Alexander Myers, lead of law firm Jones Day’s Cybersecurity, Privacy & Data Protection practice.

For chief financial officers, uncertainty around CISA’s liability shield adds another costly risk to the existing risk landscape. As cyber governance moves from the realm of IT to a board-level issue, CFOs and other C-level executives will have to determine if a reauthorized CISA 2015 or Gold Eagle provides them with enough confidence to continue to share cybersecurity information without the fear of regulatory penalties.

Rob Daly covers fintech and the economy. Contact him at rdaly@gfmag.com.

How China’s $7.4T trade strategy impacts global supply chains—and steps CFOs must take now to regain control.

This article appears in the July/August issue of Global Finance Magazine.

Ram Charan is an adviser to CEOs and boards who built his reputation advising CEOs and boards inside some of the world’s largest companies. In his new book, China’s 90% Model: China Has America by the Throat: Here’s How to Fight Back and WIN, he turns that lens on the trade war reshaping global supply chains.

In this Global Salon conversation, he lays out how Beijing uses cheap exports to flood markets and squeeze out rivals — and what CFOs need to do, in the boardroom and beyond, to respond.

Global Finance: Your book lays out the scale of China’s trade surplus and cash reserves. Can you walk us through what you believe are the actual numbers?

Ram Charan: China has earned over time $7.4 trillion in hard cash [e.g., dollars, yen, euros] and 2,250 tons of gold. It is now earning hard cash at a rate of $1.5 trillion a year. My forecast is $1.8 trillion. If nothing is done, in five years China will have an additional $10 trillion in cash in dollars, yen, euros, South Korean won, and other currencies of countries that trade with them. 

Negotiations between President Trump and President Xi Jinping have taken place. They have now stopped because President Xi has clearly declared, “If you do this, I will supply the supply chain. If you don’t do this, I will stop supplying the supply chain.” He’s done the same thing with India.

GF: The Indian rupee is down about 10% against the U.S. dollar compared to a year ago. What does India’s currency situation tell us about the mechanics of the risk from China?  

Charan: Nobody knows the outcome of that crisis [the currency and trade deficit spiral] like the Indian currency going to hell, and trade deficits, which are increasing [India’s bilateral trade deficit with China grew from about $44 billion in 2020 to roughly $100 billion in 2025]. If you call 10 business people of reasonably sized companies in India, now they understand it. 

The reason? The currency. They’re taking action. Your business model has got to change. You better make cash flow [a priority]. If nothing is done, your currency will decline, as it has in India. Your balance of payments will decline, and that is a real cycle.

GF: If a CFO agrees with you on the China threat, what three things should they do in the next 12 months, and what should they avoid?

Charan: First, be defensive. Analyze your country. Which imports are coming from China? If nothing is stopped, what will it do to your country’s currency and balance of payments? A country’s currency is directly relevant to the CFO. 

Second, the CFO should look at which industries are totally dependent on China. If the industry stops, what happens to the country’s GDP? What happens to the value chain? Because almost all value chains, in some way, are interconnected. The CFO has to allocate cash for defensive purposes.

Third, the CFO should substitute China [products] if they can. But the cost of every single thing non-Chinese is very high. How would this change the market? How would they sell, and how would they price? I recommended they start a war room, every morning, see what’s changed, what’s the pattern, who’s driving it, and what are the signals.

GF: What about going on the offense?

Charan: On the offensive side, identify the gaps the Chinese are not filling, including which countries and segments, and where the opportunities lie. The best thing I’ve learned is to think 20 years out. Just think: What will humans need 20 years out? 

For example, there’s the Adani Group in India. The [founder] predicted that India would need ports 25 years ago. Now he’s the largest private port developer and operator in India. Look for those opportunities. You don’t spend your money on a 20-year basis, but you learn how to get there. Get three or four people on the payroll to investigate and look at the technologies.

A company is not competing with a company in China. A company is competing against President Xi Jinping of China, so it has to pull together as an industry. Go to the government. Stop fighting alone. India is doing this actively. Europe is struggling; they don’t have an answer yet.

GF: What is China’s impact on the European auto industry? 

Charan: Europe is at a major crossroads. Europe doesn’t have a strategy. Germany’s auto giants spent decades helping build China’s car industry; now, they are outcompeted and heavily dependent on China. Volkswagen is already moving into defense, so that single indicator shows they know the Chinese are coming. The destruction of the auto industry is a major blow to Germany, including parts suppliers and chemical and energy suppliers. They don’t yet know how to deal with it. I would say one option for them: get a hold of Trump and combine three or four countries just for the auto industry.

GF: Do you see boards and CFOs as locked into short-termism by their fiduciary duty to shareholders, even when the long-term strategic risk is larger?

Charan: There are exceptions, but it’s a fact. I sit in the boardrooms. The market drives short-termism. But the more important point is they are unaware that China is attacking their industry. There is no manufacturing industry in the world that is unaffected by China’s strategy, directly or indirectly.

GF: You’ve said there are tools to wage a financial war with China. How fast can these be implemented, and how confident are you?

Charan: Saudi Arabia probably could fight, because China depends on oil. The Saudis have control of the price of oil. Small countries can’t fight alone. America alone cannot fight. It has to be coordinated. There are tools for a financial war with China. If Brussels and Washington can work together, Chinese power will be reduced.

GF: How can finance leaders fund next-generation industries where China is ahead?

Charan: In a crisis, you have to have good execution and a dedicated team. We did that in World War II. This is an economic war, and people don’t realize it, so each company is doing its own thing. 

You select the industries, assign full-time people. We must have a department of manufacturing and technology, which I’ve recommended to President Trump, in the U.S., in Europe, in Japan, in South Korea, and in Israel. People have to understand that the cost and the price China charges for products is absolutely not real. It is based on [the fact] that you incur losses internally and earn a trillion dollars in hard cash. Therefore, your profit is on a national basis. It is not on an industry basis.

GF: Beyond solar panels, batteries, and rare earths, what should CFOs be watching in supply chains that they’re not?

Charan: First, most important, are the ingredients that go into the chemical industry, APIs [active pharmaceutical ingredients]. Then, in biology, they take the molecules, they have very fast testing, build it, and now begin to come in at a tenth of the price. 

I have gone to DuPont and other companies to see what China needs from us and what they’re buying. But they know our people are not doing the detailed work. The people who are advising Donald Trump are economists. You need chemical engineers and biological engineers. You need the R&D people in Washington to deal with this. Economists and consultants cannot do it.

GF: Isn’t China under great strain, due to the challenging job market for young workers, the housing collapse, and extremely thin profit margins?

Charan: President Xi has said many times: austerity, austerity, austerity. I believe he correctly realized the real estate booms and busts were created by the central bank. So he’s letting it cool for a long time, because his concern is the threat to the Chinese Communist Party from inside China. He’s very clear about it; that is, that going forward, it may take a loss, a lower GDP.

The rural areas are not in great shape. President Xi is taking that calculated risk. But selecting industries, giving them money, and creating hyperscale: That is the real model. Civil control is total; students are under full control. 

GF: Twenty years out, will AI and robotics change the manufacturing equation for finance and operations leaders?

Charan: If you don’t have industry, you are nobody, [even if] you use AI, robotics, and automation. Any country that says it will go without manufacturing, I guarantee, will not be a democratic country and probably won’t survive.

GF: What practical tools can finance leaders use to act on what you’ve described?

Charan: Figure out the whole supply chain’s vulnerabilities, put an industry coalition together, and then try to get to your government and say: Here is the gap. If we don’t fill this gap against China, this industry will go away.

Weld Royal is a contributing writer based in the U.S.

Holcim CFO Steffen Kindler on executing a regional spinoff, AI value creation, and team leadership.

This article appears in the July/August issue of Global Finance Magazine.

Steffen Kindler has served as Holcim’s CFO since 2023. He brings with him two decades of finance leadership experience from his time at Nestlé. He now guides the financial strategy of the Swiss multinational building materials giant, which generated CHF15.7 billion (approximately $19.7 billion) in net sales last year.

Holcim, listed on the SIX Swiss Exchange, commands a global footprint with more than 45,000 employees. It operates across 43 markets in Europe, Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

Global Finance: What do you consider your main achievements since joining Holcim?

Steffen Kindler: A major achievement was helping drive the decision to split Holcim into a North American company and a rest-of-the-world company, and then successfully executing the spinoff. We completed a financial carve-out, established the new company’s finance organization, and listed the North American entity on the New York Stock Exchange. Since then, both companies have operated smoothly and separately.

Another major achievement was defining a standalone company strategy and equity story. We identified where we want to grow, how we want to allocate capital, the financial KPIs we want to be measured against, and our people plan. The strategy was very well received by the financial markets, reflected in strong share price appreciation throughout 2025. 

Since then, the focus has been on executing that strategy quarter after quarter, demonstrating progress on both the strategy and our financial results, and earning the confidence and support of shareholders and stakeholders.

GF: Why did you split off the North American entity?

Kindler: The logic was sustainability and different market environments. In Europe, decarbonizing the product portfolio and production process was a key driver of our strategy and financial success. In the U.S., customers were more focused on volume growth, and the sustainability strategy was not as relevant. We felt the regions were hindering each other more than helping. 

GF: Holcim expects AI to generate CHF200 million in recurring EBIT by 2028. How so?

Kindler: We began exploring AI more than three years ago and felt we were leading in that area. Technology has now matured to the point that we can reliably say it is creating value. Rather than focusing on savings or restructuring, we see AI as a value-creation tool.

Key applications include predictive maintenance, where AI anticipates machine breakdowns, and commercial sales where AI analyzes large amounts of data to optimize our offers to customers for all types of building projects. We are already seeing tangible benefits of roughly CHF30 million this year, even before scaling these programs further.

GF: Can you provide details on how you expect to achieve that EBIT goal?

Kindler: Holcim said that roughly half of the CHF200 million AI benefit will come from additional profit and the other half from cost avoidance. Predictive maintenance helps avoid losses by reducing breakdowns, while AI supporting the commercial teams creates additional value by giving them better insights, faster project proposals, and the ability to participate in more projects. It gives commercial teams insights into how the different inputs of an offer were determined and reduces the manual work involved in bidding. By automating data analysis and proposals, teams can evaluate more projects and focus on judgment and decision-making rather than information gathering.

GF: How important is it to have a strong finance team?

Kindler: I cannot do a job of this scale on my own: the team is everything. I spend about a third of my time on people-related topics, including succession planning, coaching, and career development. We have a structured process for discussing talent, open jobs, strengths and weaknesses, and career paths with regional CFOs and direct reports. It is also important to keep people motivated by giving them interesting roles, exposure, and support through an open-door approach.  

Tiziana Barghini is a contributing writer based in New York.

Why finance leaders are taking over operations—and why the new COFO role isn’t a simple shortcut.

There’s a new acronym roaming the C-suite. The so-called COFO — a hybrid chief operating and financial officer — is more common than ever, marking a structural shift in how companies are deciding who runs the business. But the combined role is a risky one: it works far better going one direction than the other, industry watchers tell Global Finance.

Salesforce made it official last year. The San Francisco-based company named Robin Washington its first COFO — tasking a 30-year finance veteran with steering both the balance sheet and the company’s artificial intelligence (AI) and digital-labor transformation.

PayPal, headquartered in San Jose, California, took a similar route. The company expanded CFO Jamie Miller’s mandate to cover operations as well as finance, putting one executive in charge of the strategic growth initiatives that used to require two separate memos and a joint meeting to sort out. Two very different companies, same conclusion: the boss who understands the cash is likely the person who’s expected to move it.

While some observers view this trend as temporary, many industry leaders see the hybrid COFO as a permanent shift in corporate leadership.

“I do think this is a trend that’s here to stay,” said Jaylene Kunze, COFO at Denver-based LegitScript, a risk management service.

For decades, the CFO and COO occupied a kind of awkward office marriage: sharing a roof, splitting the chores, occasionally blaming each other when the numbers didn’t add up.

“Historically, the CFO and COO were often set up to work against each other by default since each one’s success depended on the other, but neither had the full picture needed to make the best decisions for the company,” Kunze added.

That being said: Does the COO job disappear? Kunze calls “operational acumen and a real connection” to the business as “essential.” However, she argues the CFO seat has evolved past spreadsheets and GAAP.

“That’s exactly why the COFO role is emerging as such a powerful one,” she said. “It’s not enough to build the model; you must know what growth targets you’re driving toward and which levers to pull, when, and how.”

‘A Whole New Job’

Executive coach Edith Hamilton, who works with CFOs and COOs at NEXT New Growth, noticed the same pattern.

“It’s not title inflation. It’s authority redistribution,” she said, pointing to AI-driven process change as a major accelerant. But the honeymoon, she warns, is short.

“The second emotion is, ‘Oh dear Lord, this is a whole new job.’” Boards, she added, flip the script overnight — from “protect the numbers” to “use your authority to change the business.”

Her verdict: durable, but not universal. “It will work in companies where finance and operations need to be welded together — not merely coordinated.”

Sierra Hinson has been living this arrangement for over a decade under various titles. Most recently, as a “fractional CFOO” through her firm, Additive Insights. Her reaction to the sudden buzz? “What took so long?” Splitting finance and operations creates blind spots and slows everyone down, she said. And it shows up at the worst possible moment — the exit. “In a transaction, buyers look for inconsistency between what the financials say and what the operations show,” she said. “The title is the easy part — the track record is not.”

Missing the Point

Not everyone’s convinced the direction of travel could reverse. Ariela Tannenbaum, former CFO at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and now a profitability architect, thinks the whole debate is arguing about the wrong things. “The COFO debate misses the point on two counts,” she said. “First, titles. Whether you call it inflation or evolution, a title reflects accountability, not capability. The higher the title, the greater the responsibility. Rebranding a role does not dilute it; it expands it.”

Her second point takes aim at the assumption that AI is what’s really behind all this. “Faster information is not faster judgment,” Tannenbaum said. “A CFO or COO in a COFO role will spend exactly as much time reviewing, analyzing, validating, and deciding as before. AI compresses the data cycle. The thinking, judgment, and responsibility cycle remains unchanged.”

What’s actually driving the trend, she argues, is something more old-fashioned: good managers building good benches. “Great financial leaders already mentor, elevate, and develop their teams to the point where the CFO can spread his or her wings to take on an expanded operational mandate,” she said. Given the chance herself, she wouldn’t blink: “I would run the operation with conviction through the financial lens, where clarity lives.”

The Risk of Reversing the COFO Role

But Tannenbaum, like Hamilton, sees the arrangement working in only one direction. “Can an experienced CFO absorb the COO role? Absolutely,” she said. “Capital discipline, resource allocation, performance accountability — these are financial constructs applied operationally.”

The reverse, however, is not symmetrical.

A COO assuming the COFO role introduces real risk: technical gaps in financial analysis, regulatory exposure, and the kind of judgment calls that only come from deep financial experience.

Her bottom line: “The COFO is not a shortcut. But it works in one direction far better than the other.” And for companies simply focused on saving a salary line rather than building real bench strength, she has a warning dressed up as a punchline: “Can’t find two great executives? Look under the light.”

Which brings the debate back to a question. Firms like Ridgeway Financial Service ask CEOs: does your team just report the numbers, or help run the business? Increasingly, in this new hybrid role, the answer is both — same office, same person, one very full inbox.

Anthony Noto covers corporate finance and private credit. Contact him at anoto@gfmag.com

With $1.7 trillion tied up in inefficient supply chains, CFOs are making liquidity a core strategy.

There’s $1.7 trillion of working capital sitting on the balance sheets of the largest U.S. companies: not locked in failed investments or delayed acquisitions, but trapped in slow receivables, excess inventory, and payment structures designed for a different economic environment. 

That money hasn’t disappeared. It remains tied up in processes that no longer reflect how companies manage risk, liquidity, or supply chains. 

For many CFOs, the largest untapped source of liquidity is the cash already embedded in operations. Yet organizations often struggle to unlock it because treasury, procurement, operations, and suppliers continue to pursue different objectives using disconnected systems and metrics. 

J.P. Morgan estimates that hundreds of billions of dollars remain trapped in working capital across large corporations, while consultant The Hackett Group places the opportunity loss at some $1.7 trillion. 

The culprits include receivables that take too long to convert to cash, inventory accumulated as protection against uncertainty, supplier payment structures that fail to balance liquidity across the value chain, and cash reserves that remain underutilized because companies lack the visibility to deploy them effectively. 

For years, these inefficiencies were manageable. Low interest rates, predictable supply chains, and abundant liquidity reduced the urgency to rethink working capital. Treasury managed liquidity, procurement negotiated payment terms, sales focused on collections, and financial institutions provided financing within established relationships. 

Today’s environment demands a different approach. 

Higher interest rates, geopolitical uncertainty, higher tariffs, supply chain disruptions, and persistent margin pressure have elevated working capital from a finance function to a strategic business priority. Yet many organizations continue to manage liquidity using operating models designed for a different era. 

According to Deloitte’s Q1 2026 CFO Signals survey, siloed organizations and outdated technology remain among the largest internal barriers to cost management. Boston Consulting Group has noted that extending payment terms alone often merely shifts financing costs along the supply chain rather than improving overall efficiency. 

The challenge is therefore broader than financing. It is about coordination. 

Working capital decisions increasingly require treasury, procurement, operations, finance, and suppliers to operate from the same information and align around shared objectives. Without that alignment, companies often optimize individual functions while reducing efficiency across the broader organization. 

Reflecting these realities, investors have changed their expectations. Following several years of tighter capital markets, boards increasingly emphasize cash-flow resilience, capital discipline, and operational efficiency alongside growth. Liquidity has become a competitive advantage rather than simply a financial metric.

Rethinking Working Capital

Companies are responding in different ways. Many are investing in better forecasting and real-time cash visibility. Others are modernizing treasury infrastructure, digitizing receivables and payables, expanding supply chain finance programs, or adopting data-driven tools that improve coordination across functions. Financial institutions are evolving their offerings through broader funding networks, automation, and digital onboarding capabilities.

No single approach will solve the challenge for every organization. What appears increasingly clear, however, is that fragmented processes and limited transparency are becoming more expensive. As supply chains grow more complex and financing conditions remain uncertain, organizations require greater visibility into where liquidity resides, how quickly it can move, and how financing decisions affect every participant across the value chain.

The International Finance Corporation and the World Bank have consistently highlighted digital infrastructure as a key enabler for expanding access to supply chain finance, particularly among smaller suppliers that have historically remained outside traditional financing programs. The objective is not technology for its own sake, but the creation of more efficient, scalable financial ecosystems.

The U.S. has one of the world’s deepest capital markets. Yet many companies continue to face unnecessary constraints in moving liquidity through their supply chains.

The next phase of working capital management, then, will likely depend less on access to capital — which remains abundant — and more on the ability to connect information, participants, and decision-making across increasingly complex commercial networks.

Organizations that succeed will be those that treat working capital not as a quarterly reporting metric but as an enterprise-wide capability that strengthens resilience, improves capital allocation, and creates flexibility in periods of uncertainty.

***

Gustavo Muller is CEO and co-founder of Monkey, a financial solutions marketplace. He has more than two decades of experience in financial markets, having held senior positions at Citibank, XP Investimentos, and as co-founder of Fisher Venture Builder.

After years of skepticism, agentic AI is reshaping how CFOs run their organizations.

Working in conjunction, global accountancy and advisory firm PwC and OpenAI are bringing agentic AI to CFOs and their organizations. They promise that their agents can deliver benefits to the planning, forecasting, reporting, procurement, payments, treasury, and tax functions of financial organizations. 

The technology is no longer seen as emerging—it is now widely accepted as an essential tool for optimizing operations and driving long-term growth.

As recently as October 2025, AI remained controversial. Deloitte in Australia faced a reported $290,000 judgment after it submitted a report to Australia’s Department of Employment and Workplace Relations that included a range of generative AI hallucinations, prompting litigation. Such incidents made accountants wary of the technology and its shortcomings.

Nevertheless, appreciation for AI input has rapidly evolved, with a little help from human touch. PwC and OpenAI have clearly defined roles: AI agents execute and coordinate work, while PwC employees supervise—a structure designed to reduce the risk of hallucinations.

Proposal Relies On Real-World Experiences

OpenAI is presented as “customer zero.” The company uses its ChatGPT AI chatbot and Codex software coding agent in its own financial organization, where they “monitor payments, review contracts, update forecasts, and prepare reporting materials,” according to a prepared statement. Meanwhile, PwC implements that know-how in other companies. The lessons learned at OpenAI will help other CFOs.

Some of the complex corporate workflows that AI agents have managed, according to OpenAI officials, include processing five times more contracts without adding professionals to the existing team, and managing more than 200 investor interactions during a fundraising event. 

PwC and OpenAI appear to have mastered the path to deploying agentic workflows.

Nevertheless, in this rapidly evolving new world, PwC doesn’t work exclusively with OpenAI. The firm recently announced another collaboration with OpenAI rival Anthropic. PwC is offering its large client portfolio access to Anthropic’s Claude AI assistant. Financial services, pharmaceuticals, and life sciences clients are particularly interested in Claude’s efficiencies, according to PwC. In the insurance sector, underwriting cycles could be reduced from weeks to days. In cybersecurity, agents respond to threats in minutes rather than hours. The reimagining of the CFO’s office is just beginning.

Former Pfizer executive David Denton steps into the CFO role amid a bruising stock decline.

Nike Inc. said Tuesday it has hired David Denton as its next chief financial officer, tapping the former Pfizer Inc. finance chief to help stabilize a company navigating one of the most difficult stretches in its history.

Denton will join the Beaverton, Oregon-based sportswear giant as Executive Vice President and CFO effective Aug. 17. Matthew Friend, who has held the role since April 2020, will step down on that date and remain in the role through Sept. 4.

Nike Dogged by Rivals, Slumping Share Price

The announcement did little to reassure investors. Nike shares fell 4.5% to close at $42.38 Tuesday, leaving the stock down 33% year to date. The company has been grappling with slowing sales and eroding market share to nimbler rivals such as On Running and Hoka.

CEO Elliott Hill, who took the helm in late 2024, has been working to arrest the slide, but a full recovery has proven elusive.

Whether Denton’s expertise can generate a turnaround remains to be seen. He previously served as CFO and Executive Vice President at Pfizer since May 2022. Before that, he held the same title at Lowe’s Cos. from 2018 to 2022. He also spent two decades at CVS Health Corp., including as CFO during the company’s evolution into a diversified health. In all, he brings more than 30 years of finance and operating leadership across large, complex public companies.

Denton, in a prepared statement, called Nike “one of the world’s great brands.”

“I’m excited to partner with Elliott and the leadership team to support the company’s priorities, invest with discipline, and help deliver sustainable long-term value,” he said.

Hill framed the transition as a strategic inflection point. “This is a natural moment for a leadership transition as we move from foundational actions to sustained growth through our Sport Offense operating model,” he said.

Friend joined Nike in 2009 and rose through roles including CFO of the Nike Brand and VP of Investor Relations before assuming the top finance post. Nike expanded his responsibilities in late 2025 to include Global Sales and Direct-to-Consumer functions.

Prior to Nike, he worked in investment banking at Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

What’s Next

Nike expects to report fourth-quarter and fiscal year 2026 results on June 30. Analysts anticipate earnings of $0.12 per share on revenue of $10.85 billion, compared with 14 cents per share and $11.1 billion in the prior-year period — a stark illustration of how far the company still has to go. Results will include a one-time benefit from tariff refunds that were not previously factored into the guidance.

Contact the author: anoto@gfmag.com

CFOs lag on the AI curve, risking the growth and value creation they want, EY warns.

CFOs are sitting on a goldmine of tech potential—but most aren’t ready to dig in. That’s the major takeaway from a new Ernst & Young survey titled the DNA of the CFO.

Finance chiefs want to make investment decisions and create value. Yet, the majority of these bosses remain constrained by skills gaps, limited AI readiness and outdated measurement frameworks.

The London-based accounting firm sourced responses from more than 1,600 CFOs and senior finance leaders across 28 countries and 22 industries. The consensus shows a widening gap between CFO ambition and actually getting the job done.

“While CFO ambitions are clear, there’s quite a gap when it comes to execution,” Myles Corson, EY Global Strategy and Markets Leader for Financial Accounting Advisory Services, told Global Finance.

Consider the numbers: 60% of CFOs wish to lead on value creation, but only about a quarter currently guide value-creation discussions or make key investment decisions.

Another finding from the EY CFO survey reinforces that disconnect: Only 27% of respondents say their organizations view finance as a key partner in value creation.

“Organizations that treat finance as a key partner have a common trait: their finance functions demonstrate insight beyond the ‘comfort zone’ of financial performance,” Corson said. “They are also more actively involved in decisions—and it’s this that builds their reputation as valuable business partners.”

AI: What Must Change

A majority of respondents (68%) also say the definition of enterprise value needs to change. This reflects frustration with traditional metrics that fail to capture newer sources of growth. Nearly half (49%) say conventional measurement tools cannot adequately reflect value created by technology, data and long-term investments, while half (50%) cite difficulty in demonstrating upfront returns on investment.

The report also points to significant barriers in AI adoption across finance functions. Only 21% of CFOs say their organization’s AI readiness is “leading” or “advanced,” while fewer than 15% describe their teams as highly adaptable or confident using new technologies. Less than half of CFOs see strong AI potential in areas such as data analysis (49%), growth forecasting (45%), and dynamic pricing (41%).

However, confidence rises sharply among those further along the maturity curve: 71% of CFOs who describe their organizations as fully AI-ready say the technology can meaningfully support growth forecasting.

Finance teams continue to face structural hurdles in scaling AI, with 61% citing poor data quality, 51% struggling to articulate AI’s benefits clearly, and 50% reporting insufficient skills or capacity to use the technology fully.

Leadership Challenges

The survey also highlights talent pool challenges within finance organizations. About 38% of CFOs say they are evolving faster than their wider finance leadership teams, and 68% of CFOs say they require new leadership styles and skills to remain effective.

Just 12% of CFOs say their transformation outcomes exceeded expectations. Organizations with highly adaptable teams are three times more likely to achieve successful transformation outcomes, so leaders who foster a culture of adaptability and continuous learning are more likely to drive differentiated outcomes.

“For finance leaders, one of the key questions is: What is the right balance between specialist and generalist roles?” Corson said.

In the current high-tech environment of continuous change, generalists with broad experience are increasingly important.

“Finance leaders need to assess how to consistently develop broader skills, whether through rotations or other structured programs, including the opportunity to develop collaboration skills across functions,” Corson added. “Future finance leaders will need to be more than simply stronger technicians: they will need to demonstrate the skills of a complete enterprise leader—financial discipline, strategic thinking, technological fluency, and the ability to lead change.”

Contact the author: anoto@gfmag.com