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 - 'Celebrating success'

I'm writing these words ahead of the ICM British Credit awards which are taking place at the Hilton, Park Lane. A night of celebration, networking and fun with about 400 people, many of whom will be hoping that their entry to the Awards has done enough to earn them success. They should all however recognise the achievement of being short-listed - there may only be one trophy but they're all winners!

The success of the Awards has made me reflect on the power of social media. When we held our last Awards Dinner in February 2011, I think I'd just started Tweeting and I was certainly a novice. Since that time, Twitter has emerged as a powerful source and - in many respects - an effective tool. I'm an avid personal user (@philipkingicm) of Twitter but the ICM's corporate social media activity (@icmorg) is driven by my long-suffering Executive Assistant, Tracy Carter (@tracycarter) and she ensures that our activity is as effective as possible, constantly watching for new developments such as pinterest which we'll be using to post pictures from the Awards Dinner at the event and afterwards (http://pinterest.com/icmorg/icm-credit-awards-2013/).

Whether you're a user of social media or not, and whether you believe it has a place or not, there can be no doubt that it is having a major impact. I've just finished listening to Nick Robinson's book 'Live from Downing Street' and he makes the point that phenomena like Twitter mean that politicians and broadcasters are no longer able to control the timing of news being released in the way they were able to just a few years ago. 

The last few days has seen frenetic activity on Twitter and LinkedIn as we count down to our Awards evening, and hundreds of conversations and exchanges have taken place that would never have happened without Twitter. Real conversations are still the best form of communication but let's not knock anything that complements them and allows for networking and communication that otherwise wouldn't exist at all.

 

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'The case of the pickled onion'

I belong to a Vistage Chief Executives Group which provides its members with the opportunity to hear expert speakers, to share issues with other Chief Execs from different unrelated sectors and industries, and coaching. I attended a session yesterday with a workshop on negotiation run by Malcolm Smith.  He was one of the best speakers I've heard and his style, passion and energy were very impressive.  A couple of things seem worthy of mention.

We hear a great deal about large retailers exploiting smaller suppliers by demanding long and extended payment terms, and one of the things I always say is that this behaviour isn't restricted to the issue of credit. Buying power will manifest itself across all areas including credit terms, margin, price, rebates, packaging and so much more.

Malcolm shared a story from earlier this decade about how a supplier in the US was put out of business by the behaviour of a large retailer.  I don't want to go into too much detail here but, in essence, a small supplier won a contract to supply the retailer with its pickled onions which would retail at their almost standard price.  Buoyed by the prospect of massively increased sales, the company expanded by setting up new processing plants and scaling up to meet the expected demand and everything went well.  Two years later, after a process involving merchandisers, auditors (who were on the supplier's site for eighteen months), and procurement experts, the selling price was reduced to less than half and the quantity for that price was increased from a small jar of a few grams to one the size of an aquarium that was too big to carry in one hand and was branded as a 'gallon jar of pickles for $2.97'.  Not surprisingly, we were told, the company went out of business and I guess it's a case of the classic ‘if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is’.

I understand how difficult it must be to resist the demands of a large customer when that customer might be the gateway to a brilliant future but, if the ultimate price is too great, what's the point?  I've been quoted frequently saying that businesses shouldn't just roll over.  First say no, then get back to the table and negotiate what can be obtained in return, before finally walking away if that's the only option.  Accepting business, however good it seems, at suicidal terms can only be a recipe for disaster.

One of the things Malcolm talked about yesterday was the need to have a list of ‘tradables’ that could be introduced to prevent the negotiation being only about price.  I was delighted that one of the key ‘tradables’ on his list was payment terms – "yes, I can reduce the price by x% if you guarantee to pay me within 14 days rather than your standard 30, 60, or 90 days".  The thing he clearly understands that so many businesses, politicians and others do not is that payment terms are as much a part of the overall business transaction as price, colour, delivery or anything else.  When payment terms are left to be discussed after everything else has been put to bed, the only loser is likely to be the supplier!