Most CPAs know income statements inside and out. You can spot aggressive revenue recognition or understated expenses from across the room. But when it comes to the statement of cash flow, most practitioners are focused on its preparation. That’s a problem—because companies that want to paint a rosier picture of their financial health know that the cash flow statement gets less scrutiny, and they use that to their advantage.
Operating cash flow is often treated as the most reliable indicator of a company’s financial strength. Unlike net income, cash flow is supposed to be harder to manipulate. But “harder” doesn’t mean impossible, and if you’re not looking for the warning signs, you’re likely to miss them.
When operating cash flow is trending upward while revenue or net income is flat or declining, something may be off. Strong cash generation should track with strong business performance. If the two are heading in different directions, it could mean that management is pulling cash forward through timing tactics, reclassifying activities between categories, or structuring transactions to boost the operating section of the statement.
It’s not unusual for collections to increase toward the end of a quarter or fiscal year. But when the timing is unusually concentrated—and especially when those inflows reverse or slow down significantly right after the reporting date—there might be some window dressing afoot. Companies can accelerate collections by offering early payment discounts, pulling from revolving credit facilities just before close, or sweeping cash between subsidiaries to inflate period-end balances. These tactics make liquidity look temporarily stronger without reflecting a real change in the underlying business.
The way a company classifies its cash flows between operating, investing, and financing activities matters. When those classifications change from period to period without a clear business reason, it’s worth asking why. For example, a payment to a contractor might show up as an operating outflow one quarter and an investing outflow the next, even though the nature of the work hasn’t changed. These reclassifications can make operating cash flow appear more stable or stronger than it actually is. This should prompt you to question whether the presentation is designed to inform or to impress.
Receivables factoring and supplier finance programs are legitimate tools, but they can also be used to dress up operating cash flow. When a company sells its receivables to a third party, the cash inflow gets reported as an operating activity—even though the company is essentially borrowing against future collections. Similarly, supplier finance programs can extend payment terms in a way that keeps cash on the books longer without changing the company’s actual obligations. The red flag isn’t the existence of these programs; it’s their scale and trajectory. When a company’s operating cash flow increasingly depends on factoring or supplier finance arrangements, it may mean the underlying business isn’t generating enough cash on its own. The reported number looks healthy, but a growing share of it is really financing activity wearing an operating label.
When a transaction involves multiple intermediaries, layered contracts, or related-party arrangements that don’t seem to serve an obvious business purpose, it may be structured to influence how cash flow is reported rather than to support actual operations. One of the clearest warning signs is cash flow that lacks economic substance—money moves into the reporting entity, but it isn’t clearly tied to goods delivered, services performed, or work completed. If the complexity of a deal seems out of proportion to what the business needs, that’s your signal to look more carefully at where the cash is coming from and why.
The MD&A section of a company’s filings is where you should find real context about cash flow trends. When the language is vague, repetitive quarter after quarter, and doesn’t address specific changes in working capital, unusual transactions, or shifts in collection patterns, it may be masking issues rather than explaining them. Companies that are transparent about their cash flow performance provide context: actual figures, trend explanations, and honest discussion of temporary versus sustainable results. Boilerplate language that says nothing beyond “cash flow remains sufficient for business needs” is a signal that you should be doing your own digging.
Understanding the full picture of how companies influence reported cash flow requires digging into the mechanics of classification schemes, timing tactics, transaction structuring, and disclosure strategies. Our cash flow manipulation CPE courses, developed by Kelen Camehl, CPA, MBA, walk through each of these areas in detail—giving you the tools to tell the difference between routine cash management and techniques designed to mislead. Check them out:
Subscribe to our news, analysis, and updates to receive 10% off your first purchase of an on-demand digital CPE course.
