Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Changing the mindset of start-ups'

I've had some interesting meetings this week with BIS officials and Ministers, and other organisations, talking about late payment. No doubt you'll have seen David Cameron's announcement in October that a consultation was going to be launched looking at the issue, and I mentioned it in this blog column a few weeks ago.

One of the meetings was a round table involving a large number of organisations looking for practical steps that might help SMEs to manage their cashflow better. There's no doubt that the required change in culture that I often refer to is needed throughout the supply chain. Big businesses need to take a responsible approach in dealing with their suppliers, and smaller businesses need to apply basic good credit management principles.

Therein though lies the challenge. For many micro businesses, cashflow only becomes important when it runs short, and that's no surprise. If I'm trying to start a business, I'm bound to be more worried about finding customers and delivering my service or product than I am about such things as agreeing payment terms, invoicing accurately and promptly, and chasing unpaid amounts.

But this is what needs to change - we need to make the mindset of start-up businesses one that recognises the importance of cash from day one, that applies the basic principles that credit professionals understand so well. Unless that happens, too many businesses will never grow beyond the micro stage and too many businesses will fail. So what's the answer? I am not sure I know - I wish I did - but I'm glad to be engaged in the debate and to be working with others in looking for solutions.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Better Late than Never'

There's been a late payment furore this week, in my world at least. I was interviewed on 5Live Investigates on Sunday and then on Monday the Prime Minister announced that BIS is going to launch a consultation on the subject.

In the midst of Cameron's announcement he repeated the suggestion made by Vince Cable in August that there might be penalties or fines for late payment. Quite apart from the debate about the practicalities of implementing such a step, the point missed is that the Late Payment legislation introduced in 1998 and strengthened by subsequent Statutory Instruments, most recently in March this year, allows for a fixed fee to be charged and supplemented by additional recovery costs for invoices paid late. The Institute's press release issued on Monday makes the point that the late payment charges are, by definition, a fine or levy for late payment.

Lord Digby Jones entered the fray stating that the Prompt Payment Code wasn't effective. He said it was merely a nice statement of intent. But that's exactly what it is: a voluntary commitment to treat suppliers fairly and pay them according to the terms agreed! If it had the teeth that he is demanding, it would cease to be a voluntary code. Now I'm not saying it couldn't be improved nor am I disagreeing with the sentiment for other or more stringent measures but I do get frustrated when people say something isn't working when it's doing what it says on the tin!

Some critics have suggested that I'm personally responsible for the Code and its defender-in-chief. I'm not, the ICM simply hosts and administers it for government but let's not dismiss the benefits out of hand: nearly 1,500 organisations have signed up, including 72 of the FTSE100; many have made fundamental changes to improve their internal systems and processes; and a dialogue has started where conversations didn't previously exist. If the Code didn't exist, by the way, the debate wouldn't be taking place and the issue wouldn't be getting airtime in the way it is. These are tangible benefits and should neither be ignored nor trivialised.

The fact is that the Prompt Payment Code was introduced as a measure to drive a change in culture complementing other measures such as the late payment legislation, naming and shaming by business organisations, and good credit management practice which - all too often - is missing from business relationships. This last point was driven home to me at an ICM Regional Roadshow in London yesterday when attendees heard about the breadth of influence credit management has, and the value it adds, across the entire business.

Credit management isn't just about collecting cash from recalcitrant customers. Good credit management starts before an order is even received by assessing the risk of a potential customer, establishing its identity and status, ensuring that it is good for the sums of credit likely to be incurred, submitting invoices correctly and promptly, understanding its invoice processing and approval systems so that they can be met, and taking swift action if payment isn't going to arrive when it's expected.

I'm capturing a huge amount of activity in a single sentence and not doing it justice but my point is this: we have to change the culture to one where treating suppliers fairly is part of the corporate responsibility agenda and we have to stamp out exploitation of small businesses by organisations that wilfully take advantage of their supplier base but that's not the whole story. We also have to help businesses to help themselves by getting the basics right. Unless we do that, we'll never see the improvement we all seek.

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 - 'Falling on deaf ears'

I was interested to see the ICAEW (Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales) quoted by James Hurley in the Telegraph last weekend making the same point the ICM had made in its submission to a government consultation in March this year. The consultation related to the implementation of 'Simpler Financial Reporting for Micro-Entities'. The Telegraph article is here and the changes include a reduction in the amount of information filed with Companies House and the opportunity to mix two different types of accounting – the traditional ‘accruals’ approach and so-called ‘cash accounting’.

 

The government claims that the measures will reduce red tape for small businesses making it easier for them to do business. We believe, however, that it will reduce the availability of credit and stifle the economy rather than the claimed positive alternative. Our argument focuses on four key issues. Firstly, to abridge or abbreviate accounts – or indeed any document – you first need to have the full version to work from. Filing less information does not, therefore, reduce the preparation time, indeed if anything it will increase it. Secondly, the presentation of prepayments and accrued income, and accruals and deferred income is vital to understanding the true financial position of a business and to being certain that it is solvent.

 

Thirdly, the absence of reported information will encourage suppliers to simply refuse requests for trade credit rather than go to the trouble of seeking more detailed information from the potential customer, particularly when the amounts involved are small. It is these modest transactions that accumulate into real economic activity and potential growth. Our final argument is that by categorising a business that turns over £440,000 and employs ten people in the same way as a genuine micro-business that might trade solely on a cash basis is ludicrous. What is worse is that the turnover and net assets limits have been substantially increased since the original discussion paper was published in August 2011.

 

Another example of unintended consequences resulting from a failure to listen adequately to the voices of those who live in the real world, I fear.

 

 

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'New Directive leaves authorities doing the maths'

So, the deadline for transposition of the EU Late Payment Directive 2011/07/EU finally arrives this Saturday and the UK government has met the deadline and even issued a Users’ Guide that can be found here.

 

I don't want to go into great detail about the Guide, Directive or Statutory Instrument here, but one paragraph in the Guide has really caught my attention. The paragraph in question within the 'Payment between public authorities and business' section says: ‘If you are a Public Authority..........If you do not pay within the deadline, you are obliged to automatically pay the outstanding amount that includes daily interest for every day payment is late based on 8 percentage points above the Bank of England’s reference rate plus the fixed amount, depending on the size of the unpaid debt. The onus is on you to pay your supplier on time and the supplier is not obliged to remind you that payment is outstanding."

 

The public authority customer is therefore expected to proactively recognise that it is paying late, calculate the late payment charges/interest and add the amount to the remittance regardless of whether the creditor asks for the amount or not! Now, I don't want to be a cynic but what are the chances of this actually working in practice? I can see all sorts of issues and difficulties: how, for example, are authorities going to know they are expected to do this? Who is going to make the calculation and approve the additional payment? How is the increased value going to be matched to the original purchase order? I'd be interested to hear views from readers with their opinion of how they see this working. Please email me at ceo@icm.org.uk or go to the ICM Credit Community LinkedIn group, or the Discussion Forum on the ICM website members area’ and let me know.

  

Finally, I have to mention Start-Up Loans. I'm privileged to have been involved on the Board of the company since its launch and I'm incredibly proud of its success as demonstrated by the announcement this week that the scheme has exceeded expectations as 2,000 aspirational young entrepreneurs have now received support (a loan supported by mentoring) to help get their business venture off the ground. The scheme has already reached its £10 million pilot spend, and a further £5.5 million injection of funding was approved this week in Parliament to fulfill its pipeline until the end of the month. The Government has made £117.5 million available to fund the Start-Up Loans scheme up to 2015. Amidst all of the sometimes dubious schemes our government has come up with in recent times, this is one where it appears to have got it right.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Understanding the value of software'

I had an interesting meeting with our friends at Intuit last week, a company probably best known for its Quickbooks range of accounting software. But as well as producing financial software for small businesses, it also provides free small business training through its Financial Fitness workshops programme. It was this latter activity and its support for Start-Up Loans that led to our meeting.

 

I was pretty impressed by the products I saw and by the ways in which different financial activities can be integrated and monitored over a range of mobile devices as well as traditional Pcs, but I was staggered by a statistic they shared with me. I'm well aware of the 'lies, damned lies, and statistics' notion but – even if the detail is over-stated  - it's still incredible. I was told that 66% of businesses with up to 15 employees use no software at all to manage their accounts, either relying on an accountant to periodically pull together numbers from a pile of abstract pieces of paper and records, or simply muddling through with a combination of paper and/or spreadsheets.

 

I've been preparing for a presentation at the Milton Keynes Business Expo 3.0 Exhibition on 8 March where I'm addressing the topic 'Cashflow is King – Ten Top Tips', and this has made me think. Managing a business means knowing its position at any particular point in time. With a diverse range of simple and inexpensive tools available from a host of different suppliers that allow for the production of invoices, recording of expenditure, taking of payments, summarising outstanding debts, and a great deal more besides, you have to ask why any business, however small, would not use something so obvious and instantly available to make its life easier. I clearly knew there'd be a proportion of businesses that manage without any software or specific credit management tools but 66% is a real concern. I think I have just found an eleventh tip…!

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM -'Directors must take responsibility for their actions'

I received the report from the House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee on The Insolvency Service (Sixth Report of Session 2012/2013) recently. In more everyday parlance, this was the report from the Select Committee that met last October and heard evidence from the Insolvency Service, R3, the Insolvency Regulatory Bodies and others. One of the comments in our submission has been somewhat over-stated,  and our words used out of context, but I am particularly pleased at the inclusion of another reference which says: 'The Institute of Credit Management summarised the concerns of many of those who submitted evidence to us when they commented: "We would be greatly concerned if the reductions in budget [of the Insolvency Service] resulted in a degradation or reduction of Disqualification Unit activity. We believe any such dilution of activity would send entirely the wrong message to delinquent directors at a time when corporate insolvencies are likely to increase".'

 

In connection with the disqualification of directors, the report points out that 'disqualifications have halved over the last couple of years………whilst the number of directors disqualified each year has remained relatively stable over the past decade (approximately 1,200 a year), the number of cases of misconduct identified by Insolvency Practitioners in the same period has risen from 3,539 to 5,401…..the disqualification rate has fallen from 45% in 2002-03 to just 21% in 2011-12.'

 

It is widely accepted that the UK is one of the easiest countries in which to start a business, and that's good, but business owners need to show some responsibility in return for the 'veil of incorporation' which limited company status affords them. If a company can be formed with £1 issued capital and the directors have no personal liability, there have to be consequences if they are found to be guilty of misconduct that leaves their creditors out of pocket. Insolvency Practitioners are required to submit a return identifying where they believe misconduct to have occurred and they have the right to expect their report to be acted upon. Currently only 20% of reports are taken forward to disqualification and that's not good enough so I'm delighted that the Report recommends 'that the Department provides the Insolvency Service with sufficient, and if necessary, additional funding to disqualify or sanction all directors who have been found guilty of misconduct.'

 

Let's encourage entrepreneurship and initiative but let's not turn a blind eye on sharp practice that leaves suppliers with bad debts and impacts negatively on their business and the wider economy. I happen to believe there should be a minimum amount of issued capital required to form a limited company so that directors and business owners take their responsibility more seriously but I'll save that argument for another day. In the meantime, let's hope the Select Committee's recommendation is fulfilled. It definitely needs to be.

Weekly blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM -'An added perspective'

I wrote in my blog last week about the danger of imposing prescriptive maximum payment terms on UK businesses and mentioned, by way of example, the reported offering by Canon and Nokia of favourable credit terms in their bid to keep Jessops' shops open as a route to market. 

This weekend the press suggested that the music and entertainment industry is falling over itself to keep HMV outlets open with The Sunday Times carrying the headline: "Music giants rush to keep HMV alive". The report ran: "The world's biggest music labels and film studios are assembling a multi-million pound rescue package to prevent HMV from going out of business. Universal Music, Warner Music and Sony are set to cut the price of CDs and DVDs, and give the retailer generous credit terms……."

Thinking on this reminds me of the wider role that credit professionals play in their businesses beyond risk mitigation and cash collection. When I address 'credit' audiences, I frequently remind them of the value they add to their businesses by contributing to, and in many cases even driving, the sales effort and activity. I refer to examples in my own career when I used a variety of tools and tactics (perhaps archaic by today's standards!) available to me at the time ranging from a credit reference agency to identify and pre-approve business customers for a number of mobile phone connections as a way of driving sales, to creative financial packages to allow my employer (a computer manufacturer) to supply product. We had a network of dealers, few of whom were good – on a credit basis – for any supplies on open account terms at all. Escrow accounts, back-to-back deals, end-user guarantees and many more solutions enabled us to ship product that would otherwise have remained unsold in the warehouse.

And this is where credit management comes into its own; where we can demonstrate real value. It is why credit management is such a challenging and rewarding career. In my 34th year as a credit professional I still get a huge kick out of it and even greater pleasure from leading an organisation of which I'm so proud and which remains committed to delivering the vital support our members need to deliver the cash.

Weekly blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM -'Maintaining forward momentum'

 

I've received some criticism of my comment about payment terms quoted in the Telegraph last Sunday. Coverage of the Prompt Payment Code (PPC) included my assertion that the drive by many for a prescriptive maximum 30 days credit terms is misguided. 

I make no apology for my comments and stand by them; my position is clear. Payment terms are one aspect of a trading relationship and, as such, should be open to negotiation in the same way as other factors such as price, quality, service levels, delivery arrangements etc already are. If maximum payment terms are stipulated, then one differentiator is removed. 

I remember in a previous role as Credit Manager of a computer manufacturer using very long payment terms as a carrot to persuade retailers to take obsolete printers that would otherwise have been discarded and destroyed. Offering longer payment terms can be a way of gaining business or obtaining a better price, while shorter terms can help mitigate against higher risk or compensate where competitive pressure demands lower prices.

By way of example, the Sunday Times last weekend reported that Canon and Nikon had offered favourable credit terms to Jessops in their attempts to keep it in business and maintain their vital shop window into the British retail market. I concede that their efforts spectacularly failed but, if maximum payment terms were introduced, they would not even have been able to try.

The day payment terms can't be negotiated between a supplier and customer is the day that a nail is hammered into the coffin of free market trading. I'm not for a minute suggesting that it is acceptable for large customers to exploit their suppliers, and especially smaller ones, by imposing unreasonable payment terms. That is unacceptable, just as refusing to pay a reasonable price for the products being purchased would be unacceptable.

The Prompt Payment Code was intended to drive a change in culture where good practice and paying on time, and to the agreed terms, becomes the norm rather than the exception. It is intended to get us to the point where suppliers have certainty about when to expect payment. It's great to see the increased momentum and visibility, and the increasing number of organisations signing up to the Code, but let's make sure that the debate continues to move us forwards and not back.

To become a signatory visit http://promptpaymentcode.org.uk

To read previous blogs visit http://www.icm.org.uk/home/ceos-blog
 

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Reading between the lines?'

Last week Vince Cable announced that the Government was tabling the Statutory Instrument to implement the planned changes to accounting thresholds.  The accompanying BIS press release heralded the fact that allowing 36,000 more companies to choose not to have an audit "will help save UK companies millions every year and free them up to expand and grow their business, which ultimately benefits the entire British economy".

 

How frustrating it is to see the Government fail to grasp a fundamental principle of trade credit and business. Suppliers make credit decisions based on the information available to them; the more information, and the more reliable it is, the better will be the quality of the decision.  It follows that, where the information supports it, credit will be more readily available to the business requiring the goods or service.  Most likely, 36,000 companies will now follow the implicit steer from Government and leave potential suppliers struggling to justify the granting of credit.  Will that aid economic growth? I think not!

 

We should remind ourselves what audits do.  Formally, they ensure the accounts represent a true and fair view of the company's financial situation giving suppliers confidence in the status of the business they're being asked to support through the provision of goods or services on credit.  But they do much more besides.  Very often, they highlight errors in the business's accounting system, records or processes, they identify any gaps or omissions that could be attributable to inefficiency or, worse, fraud, and they provide an independent and objective view of the business.  A good auditor can be very useful to a business; I know the ICM's auditor takes a real interest in its business and our discussions go far beyond the accounts and the numbers.

 

Interestingly, only this week, I saw a draft article for a European magazine by a university academic referring to the positive impact of the changes in 2006 that obliged German companies, especially small and medium-sized ones, to disclose financial statements and the resulting increased transparency!

 

I understand the thinking behind the changes and I have no problem for micro-businesses with very low turnover where accounting is cash-based and simple, but we're talking here about businesses with turnover up to £6.5m and 50 employees.  When an error eventually comes to light and the company fails because it's too late to do anything about it, there will be impacts on the business, its suppliers, its employees and the economy.  The suggestion that something that can be so invaluable is an unnecessary regulatory burden is misguided, naive, and unhelpful.

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!