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 - 'Shooting the phoenix'

I sat on a panel at an Insolvency for Creditors event last week and there was, not surprisingly, some vigorous discussion about Pre-Pack Administrations.  There were equally strong feelings expressed at the ICM Think Tank this week when the subject came up again, and I expect to hear similarly robust views when I attend a Round Table chaired by Norman Lamb, the Minister responsible for the Insolvency Service (IS), this week.

Pre-Packs are an emotive subject but what seems to raise temperatures even higher is the issue of phoenix companies where the same directors seem to be able to acquire their previous business for a very low valuation and continue running it – often with only a slightly varied name – but without the burden of previous debts.  Often they leave unsecured creditors with a legacy of unpaid debt and the emotional reaction can hardly be a surprise.

Two sentiments were expressed at last week's event.  Firstly, Insolvency Practitioners need more power to be able to take action against directors who have clearly abused the privilege of limited liability and, secondly, the Insolvency Service should disqualify more directors.  Some in the audience were probably surprised to hear that 1,200 directors were disqualified last year and, of these, 125 were banned from holding a directorship for 10 years or more.  I accept it could be argued that these numbers should be higher but I am more concerned that there was little awareness of them.  If the credit professionals attending were surprised then so would current company directors be and the disqualification activity cannot be acting sufficiently as a deterrent.

Details of recent Insolvency Service press releases can be found here http://insolvency.presscentre.com/ and I would urge the IS do more to promote their disqualification activity.  Plenty more could and should be done, but getting this message out would be a good start.

Guest Blog by Bill Dunlop, Managing Director of Tower Associates - On the edge of a precipice'

The ICM joined forces with P&A Receivables, Experian, AON, and Tower Associates to run an event in London last week looking at practical implications of the Eurozone crisis. I thought - since this was so topical - I'd ask Bill Dunlop, Managing Director of Tower Associates to share his thoughts, and here they are:

"Since early December 2011, I have been working with partners to facilitate a series of workshops to examine the effects of single or multi-country exit from the Eurozone. The purpose of the workshops was to best acquaint our clients with economic, political and social events as they unfolded and what impact country exit would have on operational credit management for businesses having outstanding debts in those countries. They were also to afford the opportunity of considering the areas of operational concern and develop the template of a plan to be implemented in the event of exit occurring.

Despite these workshops being informative, well attended and generating intelligent debate, I am extremely concerned that the rapid deterioration of the economic, political and social situation is not being matched by heightened company awareness, planning and creative thought in response. Since December, the balance of economic prediction has shifted from probable Greek recovery to likely Greek exit within 12 to 18 months. In my opinion the combination of social and political unrest will accelerate this exit and we will be faced with the immediate and predicted 50 to 60 percent depreciation in the new currency. The effect of this on companies trading in Greece will be significant but, possibly because of the size of its economy, in most cases may be manageable. However, many of the pressures faced by Greece are closely mirrored in Portugal, Spain, Ireland and Italy. My greatest fear is that the Greek exit will create contagion to such a level that some or all of these other counties will follow and operate their own currency or effectively create a two tier Eurozone; either way, we will be faced with considerable depreciation of their respective currencies in those.

The effect of this on operational credit management would be close to catastrophic and there are compelling questions, as professionals, we would have to give consideration to before the event -

* Are we likely to be asked for debt forgiveness to the value of the depreciation? Most probably yes!

* How do we quickly 'stress test' our account portfolio to establish that it remains economically viable?

* How do we structure our bad debt provision in response?

* Could our customers invoke 'force majeure' to avoid payment of existing debts?

* Where possible, how do we operate more effective control over our stock in term of repatriation of existing stock or enhanced protection of future stocks?

* What future instruments of security or insurance may be available?

* Does our existing insurance cover this eventuality? Most probably not!

* Should we or can we be considering converting older debt to long term debt or customer loans?

Hopefully, I'm being overly pessimistic, but I think it's better to address these questions before the hypothetical event, rather than after the actual tragedy."

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'A case of the tail wagging the dog'

Ed Davey announced last Thursday that the Government is not going to seek to introduce new legislative controls on pre-packs at this time because it is not convinced that the benefit of new legislative controls presently outweighs the overall benefit to business of adhering to the moratorium on regulations affecting micro-businesses.

It's hardly surprising that the announcement has caused a furore and been presented as a victory for the insolvency profession and a massive blow for creditors. Indeed, there was a blog over the weekend that drew attention to my comments and those of Frances Coulson, President of R3, as epitomising the two positions. To be frank, this suggestion misses the point. My anger and frustration is not at the decision not to introduce legislative changes, even though I think they had some merit.

I am not fundamentally opposed to pre-packs and I believe they can be of enormous benefit when used correctly and appropriately. What I am fundamentally opposed to, however, is the abuse of pre-packs and the phoenix situation when the same directors continue what is, to all intents, the same business, but without previously incurred debts, leaving creditors high and dry. Two of the key benefits of the proposed changes were the notice period that would allow creditors to communicate with insolvency practitioners and bring what might be important and relevant information to their attention (a notice period that the Court could agree to be waived in certain circumstances), and the requirement that the IP should make a declaration in advance that he believed the pre-pack to be the appropriate solution in the circumstances; psychologically, so much more powerful than making that statement after the event as part of the SIP16 process.

But perhaps what really frustrates me is the obvious waste of time, resources and effort, and the justification for the decision that has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. A consultation launched in March 2010, and the subject of numerous meetings with stakeholders, papers, and discussion, has now been kicked into the long grass (as I feared it would) with an assertion by Ed Davey that he has asked his officials "to undertake an urgent review in conjunction with stakeholders of how the existing controls on pre-packs have been working.......". Surely that 'urgent review' could and should have been carried out as part of the consultation process? I am all for cutting regulation and red tape, and I am encouraged by the Government's ambitions and success in reducing bureaucracy through the work of the Better Regulation Executive under Lord Curry, but when the regulations argument justifies policy decisions, it feels too much to me like the tail wagging the dog.

I certainly do agree with those who, in the debate since last week, have suggested that suppliers might - and should - pay more attention to credit risk management in order not to be in the frame (or at least to control their exposure) when a pre-pack, or any other insolvency, happens.