Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Recent days have held mixed emotions - first driven by our government and, secondly, by my family'

Francis Maude announced a few days ago that the Government would name and shame prime contractors who fail to pay suppliers within a 30-day limit. The Prompt Payment Code was established by BIS to encourage best payment practice and by definition expose those whose behaviours might be open to question, and here is a classic opportunity to promote its existence by insisting that suppliers sign up to it. It certainly needs more publicity and this would have built on the work we're doing with BIS; instead an initiative is launched that demonstrates a seemingly lamentable absence of joined-up thinking across government departments.

A day or two later, I attended a stakeholder meeting with the Insolvency Service looking at proposed changes to the rules surrounding pre-pack administrations. Having held a number of forums, the policy team had decided to meet with stakeholders again in smaller groups to inform a 'period of reflection' before deciding on the best way forward for the detailed implementation. I was greatly encouraged by what is a rational and sensible approach that will - I hope - lead to a better outcome than would have resulted from rushing ahead regardless.

On the personal front, I recently attended a family funeral that was both poignant and sad reminding me of the uncertainty of life and the future, and bringing things into perspective. On Saturday, my daughter is getting married and this will surely be a day of pride, happiness and, yes, some tears too I suspect!

After the weekend, I'm off for a few days post-wedding recovery in the North West so I've asked Rob Beddington, the ICM's Director of Commercial Relationships, to share some thoughts with you next week, and I'll be blogging again on 18 August which, coincidentally, is the day of the next ICM Regional Roadshow at Cutlers' Hall in Sheffield. If you're in the area, I hope I'll see you there.

www.icm.org.uk

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'You tell us'

The ICM UK Credit Managers' Index for the second quarter of 2011 is now well underway and responses are coming in. If you haven't responded yet, there is still time and you can do so at http://svy.mk/j6zyU6.

When we launched the Index last year, we wanted to create something that would provide regular insight into the thoughts, attitudes, and levels of confidence of UK credit professionals.

Nobody is closer to customers - their behaviours, their financial strength and their financial weakness - than a good credit professional. When we know our customers as we should, we are often able to see the signs of trouble looming well before our peers from other parts of the business. In the same way, we are aware of, and more sensitive to, changes in general activity and across the wider economy.

It is unusual for me to make much mention of the ICM in my weekly blog but our members are vital players in delivering value for their businesses. Their opinions are relevant and perceptive, and combining their insight into a serious Index provides a really good barometer of where the country's economy is heading.

The ICM is a community of credit professionals; we speak for that community and the importance and relevance of credit management is being recognised more and more by government, business organisations, and businesses themselves. The Index is an output from the credit community and, if you haven't already done so, please take 3 minutes to have your say now.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - ' Smoke and mirrors'

The SME Finance Monitor has at last been published with the sub-title: 'To what extent do SMEs have issues accessing bank finance?'. This report, which will be undertaken quarterly, is said to be the largest and most detailed study of SME's views of bank finance ever undertaken in the UK. It stems from the Business Finance Taskforce, comprising the BBA, Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds, RBS and Santander. It is independent and the banks have no editorial control.

The report was on the agenda of the BIS Small Business Economic Forum that I attended on Monday, and which was chaired by Mark Prisk. Mike Young, the independent chair of the Survey Steering Group gave us a fascinating insight. What has been even more fascinating, however, is the variety of interpretations and responses since its publication.

The BBA said that: "most businesses are able to get the credit they need." The Labour party was quoted as saying that: "it showed that a significant minority of small businesses seeking loans are failing to get the credit they seek." Richard Tyler, from The Daily Telegraph, said: "that banks are much more selective about which firms they back and are unlikely to change their minds."

All of these are factual and - in a week when the integrity of newspapers is under scrutiny - I am not suggesting that there is anything misleading. However, few will read the full 126 page report (available here: http://www.bdrc.co.uk/business-issues/sme-finance-monitor/) so one's understanding of the report will be heavily influenced by the headlines they read.

The truth, of course, is that this is not a simple issue. Mike says in his introduction: "This report does not provide quick and easy answers to the claims and counter-claims swirling around in the debate about SMEs and banks. That is because it is an extremely complex issue, incaple of easy summary into 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. So, the report eschews glib answers and focuses on bringing out the evidence. It is for others to draw conclusions from it." The conclusions drawn by journalists and politicians will steer our thinking too, I suspect.

The one report I really liked though was in the Telegraphs piece on Tuesday quoting Manos Schizas, a senior policy advisor at the Association of Certified Accountants, who I know well and have worked with a number of times recently. It highlighted one key message of the report: "that it is vital for firms to produce accurate information." Businesses with a low external risk rating were far more likely to be offered an overdraft (93%) or loan (81%), than those with a worse than average risk rating where the 'offered what they wanted' category percentage was only 61% and 41% respectively. No surprise here and you will indulge me while I once again bang on about the 'information' debate.

In many cases, the categorisation as 'worse than average risk' will not be because the business's numbers are bad but because there aren't any numbers to go by at all!. Information facilitates the flow of credit and the current proposals to exempt micro businesses from filing accounts will simply make things worse, not better. Our petition on this subject is still open at http://bit.ly/mliWbY and I urge you to add your name to the growing list of signatories. This isn't just about credit professionals wanting more information available from Companies House or credit reference agencies so they can make better decisions more easily; it's also about helping the economy back on to its feet.



http://www.icm.org.uk/

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Can we influence?'

Last week I mentioned the petition the ICM has launched urging the government to rethink its plans to exempt micro-businesses from filing accounts. Although broadly welcomed with the number of signatories growing by the day, there have been a few dissenting voices on our LinkedIn discussion group (http://linkd.in/ozIELu). One said that we have no chance of impacting the decision because it is an EU Directive; another that it should be a matter of choice for the micro-business determined by their appetite for credit. If they want credit, then they should file accounts and if they don't there is no need for them to do so.

On the first question, this is only a proposal at present and would require ratification before it could proceed and allow Member States to implement locally. More importantly, from what I hear, several countries are resisting it (notably France, Italy and Belgium) while Germany and the UK seem to be the main champions for change. Influencing the UK's stance is therefore a worthwhile exercise, hence the petition. I believe we can influence the thinking of politicians and therefore the progress of the proposal.

As regards the argument that micro-businesses have a choice, I concede there may be many small businesses that do not seek credit and may well never offer credit either; for them, this might save a bit of hassle. But they still need to produce accounts for tax purposes and if they ever want bank facilities, then accounts will be required. Similarly if they tender for a contract with a public sector body (or a large private sector organisation) financial information on the business will be sought, and they need to know how the business is doing and whether it is solvent and profitable. It is true that you can do all of this without filing accounts at Companies House but making financial information a matter of public record has always been the price of limited liability (limiting your personal liability to your £2 issued capital can be very attractive) and online filing means the filing process is getting easier and easier.

Perhaps just as importantly, the filing of accounts allows credit reference agencies to report on small limited companies and many checks are carried out on potential suppliers, customers, and partners that might lead to a lucrative business relationship of one form or another, sometimes without the subject company even knowing. Credit professionals have bemoaned the absence of information on sole traders and partnerships for all of my 33 years in the industry and we're in danger of putting micro-businesses into the same category. Is this proposal going to drive economic growth or stifle it? I know which camp I'm in and - if you agree - then I urge you to sign the petition here: http://t.co/WEZbqw6