Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Why I am not Prime Minister'

This is going to be a shorter blog than I often write and it's more of a question based on my confusion than an exposition of my views! The ministerial reshuffle announced this week includes a move that leaves me perplexed, as did an earlier decision.

In September 2012, Michael Fallon was appointed Business and Enterprise Minister replacing Mark Prisk who'd held the role for a while before that, and was moving to a housing portfolio. So far so good, and Michael Fallon made a good early impression and has been instrumental in successfully driving the prompt payment debate. Then, inexplicably to me, in March 2013 the role of Minister of State for Energy was added to his portfolio meaning he was a minister in two departments: BIS (Department for Business Innovation & Skills) and DECC (Department for Energy & Climate Change). I couldn't work out then why a minister would be given a role across two separate departments given the workload and demands of one but that's probably why I'm not Prime Minister!

In this week's reshuffle, Michael Fallon has been made Industry & Energy Minister, I presume straddling the same two departments (BIS and DECC), and Matt Hancock has been appointed Minister for Skills & Enterprise working in BIS and the Department for Education. I understand such areas as late payment will be moving to Matt Hancock's remit. I've enjoyed working with Michael Fallon and his team. I think he's been effective, and I'm sure Matt Hancock will be similarly so but my question is this: why is attention to such an issue as late payment being potentially diluted through its responsibility being added to such a diverse portfolio? An issue which affects all businesses, particularly small ones, and impacts massively on the wider economy surely deserves better.

 

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Growing Responsibility'

It's the time of year - just pre-holiday season - when we normally expect to see a flurry of papers and consultations being issued by government to keep us occupied over the summer. This year is no exception and the last week has seen a bulging inbox.

To name but a few BIS has issued a call for views on its Corporate Responsibility paper, and produced a discussion paper entitled 'Transparency & Trust', and the Insolvency Service has published the report from Elaine Kempson's review into Insolvency Practitioner Fees, the terms of reference for the long-heralded review into Pre-pack Administrations, and its Annual Report for 2012-13.

The Institute will of course be considering these and submitting responses in due course but, having spent several hours over the last few days scanning the contents of papers, the longest of which is 89 pages, I do have a few initial thoughts.

The BIS Corporate Responsibility paper is looking primarily at what has more traditionally been called Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). It seeks to define exactly what CSR is and how it can be encouraged, developed and reported on. One section looks at supply chain management
and I hope one of the issues identified is that of prompt payment and treating suppliers fairly. Given the impact of late payment on suppliers and, as a consequence, the wider economy this seems a very obvious way for businesses to be seen as acting responsibly. Conversely, making life difficult for suppliers and deliberately exploiting them is nothing short of irresponsible.

The BIS Transparency and Trust discussion paper (or perhaps tome is a better descriptor!)  covers a broad range of issues focusing on two primary themes: enhancing the transparency of UK company ownership, and increasing trust in UK business. The latter theme embraces a number of specific areas but includes insolvency through suggested changes to the disqualification of directors regime and the introduction of financial redress for creditors where directors have acted fraudulently or recklessly. I'm also encouraged by the suggestion of education for directors. I've had a long-held view that the ability for people to gain the privilege of limited liability without putting up any capital nor having to demonstrate any understanding of their responsibilities and obligations is unhelpful and leads to wide-ranging issues. The ICM's press release welcoming the discussion can be found here: http://www.icm.org.uk/statement-following-publication-of- transparency-and-trust/

The Transparency & Trust paper which can be found here also refers to the imminent review of pre-packs and the report from the Review into Insolvency Practitioner Fees and we'll await the Insolvency Service's response in due course with interest.

I'm encouraged that the government is looking at these areas. The provision of credit across all sectors always involves trust so the title of this paper, 'Transparency & Trust', puts it squarely in our space and I look forward to hearing the views of ICM members when we go out for their
input and views shortly.

Guest blog by James Caan - 'The certainty of payment'

Cashflow, as every entrepreneur will tell you, is the lifeblood of business. But despite this simple truth, the challenges that all businesses – and especially smaller business – face this year and every year, is how to keep the cash flowing? This is especially challenging when it seems that every barrier is being put in your way to stop you from getting the cash you not only deserve but is yours by right.

 

The basics are, of course, to invoice on time, promptly and accurately. They are to ensure that your quote has been accepted, the product or service delivered, and the terms and conditions of payment agreed in advance. If you do nothing else but stick to these simple rules, then your business will not only survive, but it will actually have every prospect of growing and contributing to the economic recovery that we so dearly seek.

 

And there is more that you can do. The Government is keen on encouraging the banks to lend, to support businesses through the good times and the bad, but overdrafts or loans are not the only ways of ensuring you have the cash you need, when you need it. Alternative funding mechanisms such as factoring and invoice discounting rarely deserve the negative publicity they are inclined to attract, and Supply Chain Finance – a particular favourite of Government in 2012 – also has its place for certain companies at certain times.

 

Knowing your customer is a particular mantra of the Institute of Credit Management, and again the tools at a company’s disposal – from credit reference agencies to credit insurance – all have a role to play not just in protecting you from the damaging impact of not getting paid, but more positively in taking on new customers and even new markets, safe in the knowledge that you are better informed.

 

Much was written last year about naming and shaming the poorest payers, but there is so much that a smaller supplier can do to bring about the certainty of payment. As professionals, it is incumbent upon the ICM and its Members throughout 2013 and beyond to ensure that the support is there for these companies when they need it most.

 

To read the full press release click here.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Help and helping oneself'

I attended a Prompt Payment workshop last week, organised by BIS and hosted by Mark Prisk. There was clear consensus among the attendees, representing government and business organisations, that late payment continues to be an issue impacting negatively on business. No surprise there then; every week we see the results of one survey or another reinforcing the message that businesses suffer when they don't get paid promptly.

The EU Late Payment Directive coming into force in March 2013 might help but if anyone really believes it's going to fundamentally change things then they are deluded. Guidance and advice issued by numerous organisations, including the ICM whose Managing Cashflow Guides will shortly reach the 300,000 download milestone, is valuable and helpful but many small business owners are too busy trying to survive to commit time looking for advice about late paying customers even though doing so might resolve many, or even all, of their cash-flow problems. Making 30 day payment terms mandatory for all transactions (as has been proposed by one organisation) would remove one of the key negotiable elements of business transactions and would be tantamount to insisting that all goods must be sold, and services provided, at exactly the same price; that seems a bit perverse and self defeating to me, in a fee economy.

If you've been following the Global Entrepreneurship Congress 2012 in Liverpool this week (I have, but I confess only on Twitter!) you might have seen Richard Branson quoted as saying: "Cashflow is everything when getting a business started..." He is right. One of our challenges is to get advice to business before they're suffering from late payment so that they get the basics right from the beginning of any new trading relationship - basics such as knowing who your customer is, agreeing payment terms before supplying, invoicing promptly and accurately, and so on. I was speaking to a small business owner recently who was complaining he hadn't been paid on time. I asked how he advised the customer what the payment terms were. His answer: "I didn't, because he needed the material urgently". We don't always help ourselves, do we?

The workshop last week was productive and I'm delighted the Institute is going to be even more involved in helping BIS take actions forward. In the meantime, those of us who deal with SMEs could do worse than signpost them to good advice such as the Managing Cashflow Guides available at http://www.creditmanagement.org.uk/ and to encourage them to do the things that we take for granted.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Towards a better future'

This will be my last blog for 2011 so I'm pleased to focus on a couple of real positives.

First, congratulations to Martin Lewis for passing the 100,000 signatories threshold with his petition to make financial education a compulsory part of the school curriculum. The milestone is significant because it means the subject must now be discussed by Parliament, and it's an important subject well worth debating.

The report generated by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Financial Education for Young People says that "two-thirds of people in the UK feel too confused to make the right choices about their money and more than a third say they don't have the right skills to properly manage their cash". If we allow children to leave school without the necessary skills to manage their money we are going to reap the deserved harvest in years to come. As credit professionals we know only too well the impact of over-indebtedness and that is why the ICM has encouraged its members to engage in the DebtCred project delivering financial education to 14-19 year-olds.

DebtCred is just one initiative and there are numerous similar projects, materials and voluntary activities all with a similar aim and many accredited by pfeg (Personal Finance Education Group) that exists to help schools plan and teach financial capability. A huge amount of good work goes on but it is all ad-hoc and dependent upon the willingness and appetite of individual schools and indeed teachers to engage. When financial education is a compulsory part of the curriculum, all children will receive training in what is a vital skill. I've heard the argument that there is little point in addressing financial education until basic numeracy and literacy skills are adequately addressed. Of course that is true, but the two are not mutually exclusive; even someone who can't read or write has to manage their money, and both should have focus within the curriculum.

Secondly, the Forum of Private Business has been engaging many organisations in preparing a letter to Mark Prisk, the Business Minister urging government to have a clear and detailed plan to address the issue of late payment which can, and all too often does, cripple a small business. The Institute is a co-signatory to the letter and it suggests a number of specific actions that might be taken.

Government has done some good things with its Prompt Payment Code (hosted and administered by the ICM), and its current Finance Fitness campaign but more needs to be done and it needs to be done more cohesively. I'm writing these words shortly after being interviewed on BBC Radio 5Live Wake up to Money and my message is clear. Government needs to recognise late payment for the issue it is and formulate a plan to address it. The business culture needs to change such that paying on time is the norm rather than the exception. But businesses themselves have to be smarter at getting the basics of credit management right, and we credit professionals need to be willing to share our skill and expertise so that our customers can deliver cash for their businesses just as we deliver cash for ours.

The recently launched ICM Online Services (icmOS) SME Collection Toolkit is an attempt to provide a practical tool to achieve that aim.

The ICM press release can be found here, the FPB release here, our Managing Cashflow Guides here, and the icmOS SME Collection Toolkit here.

If you would like to listen to Philp's interview on BBC Radio 5Live click here.

I hope 2011 has been a good year for you and - after some relaxation time at Christmas - I hope 2012 will be even better. See you next year!

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Finding common cause...'

I said in my blog last week that I would be meeting a couple of MPs to discuss late payment. Since then, I've met with Debbie Abrahams, Labour MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth and Anne Marie Morris, Conservative MP for Newton Abbot. In addition, I attended the BIS Small Business Economic Forum chaired by Mark Prisk and have been talking to the BIS team about some future activity around late payment. I have also been starting to prepare for a presentation I'm giving to the AFDCC (the French equivalent of the ICM) in Paris next month about the new EU Late Payment Directive. It's fair to say that late payment has certainly been at the forefront of my mind in recent weeks!

Debbie Abrahams and Anne Marie Morris are both articulate and passionate about supporting small businesses and helping to protect them from the impact of late payment. Coming from different sides of the chamber, it is no surprise that their views on what can and should be done differ slightly but they certainly have common objectives. I was encouraged by the fact that both recognised the need for a change of culture across the whole business community, acknowledged that payment terms are part of the wider contractual and commercial negotiations between businesses, agreed that more emphasis should be placed on the positive aspects of prompt payment (see www.promptpaymentcode.org.uk), and endorsed the need for businesses to be educated in the basics of credit management that can help them to assist themselves.

There is work to be done and I will continue our dialogue, exploring various ideas and initiatives. This, together with the imminent BIS activity and the continuing demand for the ICM/BIS Managing Cashflow Guides (of which there have now been over a quarter of a million downloads), gives me grounds for optimism.

I'll return to the EU late payment directive on another occasion but, before then, I suspect I'll be addressing the new - and just published - OFT Debt Collection Guidance which I'll be reading in detail over the next day or three.

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