Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Unearthing a hidden gem'

The government published its Information Economy Strategy last week (it can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/information-economy-strategy).  The 57 pages set out the vision for a "thriving UK information economy enhancing our national competitiveness with, among other things, a strong, innovative, information sector exporting UK excellence to the world; UK businesses......confidently using technology, able to trade online, seizing technological opportunities and increasing revenues in domestic and international markets".  The intent and programme are ambitious yet vital if we are going to stay at the forefront of technological change and make the most of the opportunities that change will present in the years ahead.  I count myself among those who remember computer printouts being introduced as working tools in the late 1970s and I'm still struggling to grasp the concept of 3D printing as a form of manufacture so, like you, I've experienced the huge change over the past few years.  Indeed, it's not so long ago that the idea of me writing these words on an iPad sat in a car would have seemed the stuff of science fiction!

Anyway, back to the government report which has a real gem hidden away on page 23. It says government wants to make it easier for suppliers by encouraging the use of electronic invoicing.  Its aim is for central government to use electronic invoicing for all transactions.  While not mandating suppliers at this stage, it will look at ways to spread best practice and will track progress.  It goes on to say that, to realise the full benefits of e-invoicing, it is important that systems are easy to install and use, and the pricing is flexible enough to suit the needs of diverse businesses.

The ICM is increasingly engaging with the UK National e-Invoicing Forum which pulls together a number of e-invoicing providers, business organisations, and others with an interest in promoting the use of e-invoicing.  One of the interesting outputs from the Prompt Payment Code (hosted and administered for BIS by the ICM) is that the majority of complaints against signatories end up identifying administrative issues in either the raising and submission of the invoice, or the authorisation process at the recipient's end. I regularly talk to SMEs, and particularly micro-businesses, who still appear to fail to see the importance of raising invoices promptly and in line with the requirements of the paying organisation.  It can be a pain to jump through hoops to meet exacting demands of a customer but that pain fades into insignificance when set against the pain of running out of cash!

Implementing e-invoicing systems may seem daunting but, once in place, the whole process can become seamless allowing payment to hit on the agreed and expected day without further intervention.  The report is right in identifying that systems must be easy to install and use, and it's encouraging that providers have committed to look at ways to improve interoperability and accessibility.  Anything that helps add to the certainty of payment is good for business and will help support economic growth through improved cashflow.  The Prompt Payment Code (www.promptpaymentcode.co.uk) drives better payment behaviour.  Good credit management practice is vital, and e-invoicing too can play its part.  I'm looking forward to working with the UKNEF and the e-invoicing providers in the months ahead as their products evolve and awareness is raised.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'A chorus of disapproval'

I was at the ICAEW Insolvency & Restructuring Group Annual Conference in London earlier this week and took part in a panel looking at 'Breaking down barriers between participants in the insolvency process'. It was a good debate, and the whole conference had some excellent speakers and content, not least a presentation by Justin Urquhart Stewart on the global economy that was both insightful and highly entertaining. The reason for writing about the conference here, though, is that I had an issue with three views expressed by different presenters, with which I personally disagreed.

The first view was that the low rate of corporate insolvencies is likely to continue and unlikely to rise even when the economy starts to recover. I've had a long-held belief that insolvencies will spike when things get better and that remains my view. The demand for cash in struggling businesses will inevitably put them under more pressure and a greater likelihood of failure, and it will be accompanied by an environment in which the banks and other creditors will take a less tolerant view of businesses in distress. We were told that this recession is likely to be different from previous ones and the cyclical rise is less likely to happen. I disagree.

The second, from a politician, was that one of the prime reasons for the zombie companies about which we read (and I've written) so much is the failure of the banks to lend. I questioned the linkage he'd suggested and he clarified his point which was that the original failure to lend had created the shortage of working capital that had created the 'zombie state'. I acknowledge there will be some cases where having more working capital would have made the business stronger and allowed it to perhaps expand and thrive but, more generally, the problem must be that the underlying business model is flawed such that either turnover or profitability is inadequate to sustain the operation. Yes, we want the banks to lend more (to businesses that will be able to repay) but not if it means they will become a bigger write-off in due course.

The third was from an eminent senior banker who said he had yet to see a 'zombie company'. Maybe his definition is different to mine but I see, and hear about, plenty of businesses that are living from day to day covering the interest element of their debt with difficulty and knowing they are in no position to reduce the capital borrowing. And that goes for individuals too who are borrowing from one source to cover the minimum repayment on another.

I guess the value of conferences like this is that we learn, we hear different views, and we get the chance to challenge - or reinforce - our own thinking. I'm often wrong, indeed it's one of my well-known strengths, but I'm not sure I am on these issues.
 

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Testament of Youth'

There was an interesting article in the Financial Times about youth unemployment on Monday. Hot on the heels of the recent revision by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) that has cast doubt on last year's UK double-dip recession, it served as a timely reminder of how dangerous it can be to rely on statistics or to accept them at face value.

 

Both the OECD and the United Nations have recently warned that the spiralling rates of youth unemployment across many advanced economies will have severe consequences following the latest reported figures showing that nearly a quarter of European under-25s are now unemployed. A truly terrifying statistic, particularly in Greece and Spain where the figure is over 50%, and Italy and Portugal where it is 40%, until we get beneath the headline, and let me quote the FT's Kate Allen in explaining.

 

"Youth unemployment figures are meaningless without understanding what proportion of a country's young people are economically active."  "Unemployment figures only reflect the proportion of the population who are economically active ­ i.e. looking for a job, but unable to find one."

 

'Youth' in this context is defined as young people aged 15-24 and inactivity rates can be expected to be very high with many in education or training.  Taking this into account the FT calculates the true youth unemployment rate in Spain to be marginally over 20%, Greece about 17%, Portugal 15%, and Italy 11%.  Indeed, on this basis the unemployment figure for European young people is fewer than 10% rather than the reported almost 25%.

 

There are conflicting opinions about who originally said "lies, damned lies and statistics" but, whoever it was, we should bear their words in mind when we read or hear numbers being quoted in support of a view or argument. Context can be all-important!