Find out interesting insights with Jon Naseath, CFO, Cantu Capital Inc

Moderated by Srishti, Digital Transformation Consultant at Hyperbots

Don’t want to watch a video? Read the interview transcript below.

Srishti: Hello, everyone! My name is Srishti Rajvir, and I am a digital transformation consultant at Hyperbots. I’m delighted to have Jon Naseath as my guest. Thank you so much for taking the time, Jon; it’s so good to have you.

Jon Naseath: My pleasure, thanks.

Srishti: A little bit about Jon for our viewers. He is the CFO at Cantu Capital, and today we’ll be discussing the topic of identifying anomalies in payment terms for vendors. So, without further ado, let’s get started with the first question. What are payment term anomalies, and why are they significant for a company’s financial health?

Jon Naseath: Sure. Payment term anomalies can really be any deviation from what was agreed upon with the vendor—unexpected deadline changes, inconsistent discounts, and discrepancies between the contract and the invoice terms. But really, it’s important to realize that this is sometimes intentional. For example, an accounts payable team might take a strategy of stretching the payments or making payments faster to take advantage of discounts. There’s what the contract defines, and then there’s how the payments are actually made based on whatever strategies are being applied.

Srishti : Understood, that makes sense. What are some common examples of payment term anomalies that CFOs should watch out for?

Jon Naseath: The common one is vendors shifting from net 30 to net 45—or however long they can stretch that payment until you call out and complain. Inconsistent discounts are another one, where vendors apply discounts they shouldn’t have been able to and assume they’ll get away with it. Another example is contract and invoice discrepancies. I helped build a whole practice at KPMG called Contract Compliance Services, which was based on ensuring alignment between contracts and vendor actions. Usually, we’d step in when there was a disconnect—not necessarily fraud, but a failure to fulfill contractual obligations. There are also cases where vendors introduce new fees, change payment structures, or simply develop a different interpretation of the contract over time, leading to payment term variations.

Srishti Yeah, and I think that is extremely interesting. Thank you for sharing that. That brings me to the next question. How can CFOs effectively detect anomalies in payment terms using technology?

Jon Naseath: Different financial software and ERP systems can compare expected payments versus actual payments. The challenge is that there can be many variances, and not all of them matter. The real issue is distinguishing which ones do. False positives can be a problem. Using data analytics and machine learning can help spot patterns, which is valuable from a data forensics perspective. Identifying individual vendor dashboards can also be useful—like a quarterly business review (QBR) approach—tracking vendor performance over time. It also helps to treat vendors more like customers in a CRM, managing them strategically rather than just processing payments.

Srishti: What role does regular auditing play in identifying payment term anomalies, and how should it be conducted?

Jon Naseath: This is exactly the kind of business we built out at KPMG—helping companies implement controls and conduct periodic audits, whether internally or with a third party. One of the biggest companies I worked with was Microsoft. While at KPMG, I worked with their procurement department to build an auditing program that saved them $10 million annually without changing contracts—just by tightening up processes. Regular reviews, cross-verifying contract terms, data sampling, and identifying major variances are key. The focus should be on the biggest discrepancies and having direct discussions with vendors about them. Large companies work with many vendors, so prioritizing key relationships is critical.

Srishti: That is extremely helpful. How can CFOs utilize vendor feedback to identify and address payment term anomalies?

Jon Naseath: It really comes down to the type of relationship you want with vendors. Some vendors seek a trusted partnership, but CFOs have to decide how tightly to control negotiations. If you push vendors too hard, they will often find ways to recover the money, slipping in small charges or making subtle changes over time. I’ve seen this firsthand. When I was VP of Finance, the CFO I worked under negotiated extremely hard between Google and Microsoft for cloud services, getting a fantastic deal. But over time, the vendor found ways to claw back costs in small increments. The key is to manage vendor relationships carefully—whether they’re purely transactional or strategic, you need to structure them accordingly.

Srishti : Absolutely. And I think it’s all about fostering collaboration and relationships. That brings me to the next question. What strategies can CFOs implement to prevent payment term anomalies from occurring?

Jon Naseath: Standardized payment policies are key. If you’re a big enough company, you can dictate terms—like insisting on net 30 payments and avoiding pay-on-delivery. Over time, strong vendor relationships lead to better terms. Contractual agreements, automated processes, and regular vendor reviews help maintain control. That said, vendors can still push back. At Amazon, for example, I saw a case where one vendor manager had negotiated certain concessions for a client. When that person left, Amazon conducted an audit, rejected all those concessions, and demanded back payments. They even withheld the next payment to offset the balance. Having proper documentation is critical. Even an email confirming an agreement can make a big difference in disputes.

Srishti: No, absolutely. I think it is about maintaining transparent communication to avoid situations like that. The objective is to create a predictable payment environment.

Jon Naseath: Exactly. Always get agreements in writing, even if it’s just an email saying, “Per our discussion, this is what we agreed to.” That can be a lifesaver later.

Srishti : Absolutely. That is an extremely insightful tip. How can Hyperbot’s Payment AI Copilot help in anomaly detection and correction?

Jon Naseath: Hyperbot’s AI Copilot can monitor all of these things in real time. Catching anomalies as they happen is much easier than dealing with them after the fact. Since vendors often try to stretch payments, the AI can send alerts and responses when anomalies occur. It can also act as a recommendation engine for repeat offenders and facilitate continuous learning and real-time notifications.

Srishti: Understood, that is extremely helpful. That brings me to the last question. How can addressing payment term anomalies enhance vendor relationships and overall business performance?

Jon Naseath: Back at KPMG, we eventually moved from just conducting audits to fostering better vendor relationships. Instead of constantly chasing vendors for money, companies should focus on establishing good controls and ensuring transparency. When vendors and clients trust each other, they don’t need frequent audits. They can set up periodic reporting instead, which makes things smoother for both sides. At the end of the day, businesses want to make money together. Many times, I found audit findings that could have resulted in a big refund for my client. Instead, senior executives would negotiate a deal where the issue was set aside in exchange for a future business opportunity. So, while identifying and addressing anomalies is crucial, it’s also about managing vendor relationships strategically rather than treating every issue as a battle.

Srishti : That is a great perspective. Thank you so much, Jon, for sharing your insights today. It has been a fantastic discussion, and I’m sure our audience will find this extremely valuable.

Jon Naseath: My pleasure. Thanks for having me.