Guest Blog by Nigel Fields, Director of International Credit at Twentieth Century Fox - 'Who the hell is Nigel Fields'

I thought, as this is my first ever Blog, that I should first start by letting you know; Who the hell is Nigel Fields?

 

OK, here I go, I think I am incredibly lucky!  In fact I feel life has been really kind to me, from being with my fantastic wife, Jackie since age of 13, (hey, I was not married then) rolling on to 32 years later with our two great kids Harry and Sally, who kindly make sure I never have any money to worry about and can continue to train and practice for myself the art of ‘Debt Management’.  I have met so many fantastic friends along the way.  And today I am working with, what I consider, to be one of the greatest businesses of all, ‘The MOVIE Business’ and in particular Twentieth Century Fox where I sit in Soho Square, London which is also probably the coolest, friendliest place in London.

 

I have been at Fox for 13 years now, and have established my role at Fox as Credit Director working with all countries outside of the USA and Canada.  Here’s a summary of what I get up to.

 

- Oversee Fox’s international risk management providing clarity of Fox’s objectives for risk and financial control to territories.

 

- Identify and monitor “at risk” customers within territories.

 

- Make recommendation for the mitigation of any risk gaps using best available and most cost effective solutions e.g. Credit Insurance, PUT options etc. and provide recommendations for doubtful debt provisions as required.

 

- Provide consolidated reporting of international Accounts Receivable.

 

- Assist Subsidiaries with debt recovery strategies.

 

- Best Practice reviews, improvements & enhancements.

 

- Provide the business with technical expertise in all areas of credit management and make best practice recommendations to territories for a structured credit management framework to improve cash flow where possible.

 

- Responsible for Credit vendor management.

 

 - Privileged to be a Member of the Institute of Credit Management and sit on the ICM Editorial Panel and Think Tank.

 

- Having to attend Premiere’s, meeting film stars and personalities, attending Awards e.g. Bafta’s, travelling the world and watching loads of films.  This makes it all so very hard.  It is a great business and I never ever get bored.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'The majority are micro'

Ed Davey issued a discussion paper last week - "simpler reporting for the smallest businesses" and I make no apology for using my blog this week to readdress some of the issues raised in the press release we issued immediately after the discussion paper was received.

The paper considers whether micro businesses should be allowed to file a simplified trading statement, statement of position, and annual return in place of the current profit and loss account, balance sheet, and annual return. So far so good; making reporting easier will surely reduce the burden on smaller businesses.

But wait. What has the EU defined as a micro business? Micro businesses are those who do not exceed two of the following criteria; a net turnover of Euro 500,000 (£440,000) a balance sheet of Euro 250,000 (£220,000), and an average of ten employees during the financial year. 60% of companies registered at Companies House meet these criteria so it isn't a 'small minority' by any measure.

The paper raises a number of interesting questions and I am looking forward to receiving feedback from ICM members when we launch a survey seeking their views. The move to a trading statement prepared on a cash accounting basis which would remove the need to account for, among other things, stock, changes in working capital, and changes in the value of fixed assets raises a number of questions in my mind (although I'm always prepared to admit that I might be out of date).

My biggest gripe, however, is with the definition of users of accounts which, among the six categories, doesn't even mention creditors except under the quaint term of "other trading counter parties". It is this that suggests to me a complete lack of understanding of the role of credit. A business turning over £440,000 is typically going to make sizeable purchases and, for the majority, these will be on credit terms. Credit professionals provide by far the biggest proportion of cash flow funding to business and, to make good decisions, they need good information.

The discussion paper and survey will be with you shortly; please look out for it and give us your feedback. We need to make sure our ability to support economic recovery is not undermined.

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 - 'Save us from madness'

Last Friday, Vince Cable announced that small firms will no longer have to produce independently audited accounts in a measure that he believes will save 42,000 businesses £40 million per year. I've always respected Vince Cable and have no doubt of his commitment to helping small business, but such a move demonstrates a naivety that verges on madness.

I agree with him when he says that 'one of the barriers to growth is the burden of regulation...it takes up time and stops busines growing and that means our economy does not grow'. That is why the ICM has indicated its support for the Daily Telegraph's 'red tape campaign'.

But please can we understand that producing accounts is not 'administration' and neither is it unnecessary red tape. Without numbers, a business cannot know how it's doing, it cannot manage its cashflow and it is far more likely to fail; without audited numbers that can be trusted, banks, creditors and financiers will not support the business and again it is far more likely to fail; and without audited numbers and the ability to access finance, the economy will not grow. Quite the opposite; it will shrink.

The Government is explaining its position by telling us that the rules for small business in respect to auditing and accounts are stricter in the UK than is required by EU law. They tell us also that for micro businesses, those with less than 10 employees, they will push for exemptions to remove the requirement to produce two sets of accounts.

And that's not all. They intend 'helping' medium sized businesses by pushing for EU restrictions to be lifted so that they no longer need their accounts independently audited and will look at relaxing the audit and accounts rules for subsidiaries.

The ICM is going to lobby vigorously against these steps and against the Government's insistence on delivering mixed messages to business. Credit fuels business. Access to credit comes from greater access to information, not less. Why is such a simple statement of fact so apparently difficult for the Government to understand?

4th Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM: EU - support or overkill?

The European Union agreed new rules last week to update the existing EU Late Payments Directive. The agreement now needs to be approved by the full Parliament and is likely to be put to a plenary vote at the October session in Strasbourg.

Four key points were settled in the negotiations. The first placed a 60-day cap for public authorities; only in exceptional circumstances can the payment period be longer than 30 days and never beyond 60. The second fixed the statutory interest rate for late payment as the reference rate plus 8% and fixed a sum of 40 Euros as compentation for recovery costs.

For public entities providing healthcare, it was agreed that Member States may choose a deadline of up to 60 days, and finally that the verification period for ascertaining that the goods or services comply with the contract terms is set at 30 days.

I have no argument with making things as simple as possible and I have always said that arbitrary imposition of extended payment terms on small suppliers by large organisations in unacceptable and unethical, particularly when retrospectively applied. But whilst the EU may be pleased with its negotiations, I find a number of questions appearing in my head. For example:

• What happens when I have some obsolete stock to clear and giving very extended terms would have persuaded a customer to take that stock and sell it over time?

• What happens when I'm negotiating particular contract details and either I or the other party has some specific requirements where longer - or shorter - payment terms might have been one of the areas on which flexibility would help deliver a solution?

• What happens when an invoice is disputed and remains unpaid either justly or as a means to avoid payment?

• Will businesses that fail to meet invoicing requirements - or delay invoicing - be any better off?

As always the devil will be in the detail but I've watched with interest the introduction in France of the Modernisation Law in the last year and - anecdotally at least - I don't get the sense that there has been a huge positive impact. Credit Managers I speak to seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time trying to manage through the bureaucracy and confusion about what terms apply when and to whom.

I'd be the first to agree that the current situation is poor but I need to be convinced that this will be the panacea that's being suggested by Barbara Weiler and others. Good credit management practice can resolve many of the issues that arise and I fear we might end up with overkill that - with the best of intentions - stifles free enterprise.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/052-82070-256-09-38-909-20100913IPR82069-13-09-2010-2010-false/default_en.htm

3rd Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - Pointless Bank Activity

In the Daily Telegraph on Tuesday, the Telegraph Business Club Editor James Hurley reported on a move by some of the major banks to have the creditworthiness of their business customers independently profiled in an attempt to defuse the row over small businesses' access to finance.

Now I'm generally supportive of banks. I don't want them to lend money to businesses that aren't creditworthy (that is, after all, how we got into this mess in the first place), and I understand the obvious dilemma of being under pressure to repair balance sheets AND lend to small businesses.

This though is disingenuous. Historically, the ICM has always fought against the raising of thresholds for modified accounts. But we all know that most small businesses file modified, abbreviated, or unaudited accounts as it is. Indeed some of them fail to file any form of accounts at all, so the outcome of this exercise is inevitable. The businesses banks won't lend to have poor credit ratings so their decisions can be easily justified!

What would be far more beneficial is if the banks spent time and energy in helping to educate and encourage small businesses to provide management accounts more readily so that more genuine, better informed decisions can be made. Transparency will, of course, be essential, and honesty on both sides would be welcome.

As I told the Daily Telegraph, I'd rather the banks were campaigning for provision of information rather than embarking on what to me seems a pointless and futile exercise.

If you'd like to read the full article click: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/yourbusiness/8000675/Report-on-bank-small-business-lending-decisions-a-pointless-exercise.html