Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Catching the bus'

It's been a busy news week. I was interviewed on Jeff Randall Live on Sky News on Monday evening about the government's proposals to cap the cost of Payday Lending.  A bit like buses though, news stories of interest tend to come in twos and threes, and I had a view on the three main news stories the programme was covering.

Firstly, the Lawrence Tomlinson report containing allegations that RBS had pushed healthy small and medium-sized businesses into administration to strip their assets and then buy them back cheaply to make a profit.  As the MP Mark Garnier said in his interview: "I'm not a lawyer, but these allegations, if true, look a lot like fraud to me." How many credit professionals are looking back at bad debts incurred where they thought their decision to supply had been reasonable based on their assessment of customer risk only to be caught with a bad debt when the customer went in to insolvency and wondering if the allegations might be true?  Apart from the obvious impact on the businesses forced into insolvency, what might the wider impact on their suppliers and the economy be?

Secondly, the government was selling £900m of student loans to a debt management consortium for £160m. The loans had been taken out by students who started courses between 1990 and 1998.  Part of the reaction to the news was that debt collection companies would act irresponsibly and aggressively in recovering debts that have so far not been collected.  The Student Loans company doesn't have the best record in managing its loan book and particularly the older elements of the portfolio.  We're told the terms and conditions of the loans are not going to be changed as a result of the sale and, if engaging third parties increases the recovery of funds to the public purse, then I'm all for it.  Perhaps the debt collection companies will just apply good credit management principles and collect money that is overdue from people who can - and should - be repaying it.

Thirdly, the Chancellor's announcement that government will impose a duty on the FCA to cap the cost of payday lending.  Setting on one side the suggestion that the announcement is one of political expediency, there are bigger questions to be answered. How will the cap level be determined?  The quoting of the Australian model with its cap of 4% per month seems to overlook the 20% arrangement fee that can be charged, and the punitive penalties for late payment that can be applied.  And the last thing we want is for the cap to make short-term lenders flee the market forcing borrowers to use loan sharks instead.

I'm not averse to the principle of restricting overt profiteering that can exploit the most vulnerable but let's not forget that payday lenders aren't the only guilty parties here.  As I said to Jeff Randall, I went online and looked at what £100 payday loan for a month would cost.  I'd have to pay back £137.15. If I took an unauthorised overdraft on my current account with a High Street bank the cost would be £5 per day, capped at £95 in a month.  On another current account I looked at, the cap would be £150, and both of these accounts would also charge transaction fees on top.  On this comparison, charges of £37.15 sound a snip!

Equally big issues with payday lenders are the opportunity for borrowers to take out multiple loans with multiple lenders, the availability of repeated roll-overs, and - as I've said in this blog before - the failure of lenders to carry out adequate affordability checks ahead of granting loans.

Back to my buses analogy, I guess next week will be devoid of any significant news and we'll be back to following the exploits of celebrities and their social lives!

 

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Mixed Fortunes'

The last week and a half has been pretty amazing. I returned from a great two-week break touring the Scottish Highlands, I've had my 57th birthday, and my first grandchild has been born! The North West of Scotland has breathtaking scenery and it was brilliant to spend some quality time relaxing with Mary, my long-suffering wife. Apart from one afternoon looking at late payment issues and talking to a Financial Times journalist, I genuinely avoided emails and voicemails and it made a pleasant change. I'll skirt round my birthday since I've had so many of them now that there's not much to say!

The really exciting news is the arrival of my grandson which has brought back all the emotion that accompanied the arrival of our own children 29, 26, and 21 years ago, and has reminded me of the miracle that childbirth represents. My blogs aren't often personal but I couldn't let this event pass by without a mention, although I won't pick up my phone and start imposing pictures on you as I might if you were here!

On my office desk when I returned to ICM HQ was the StepChange Debt Charity Statistical Yearbook for 2012 and it brought me back to the real world with a bump. On average across the year, someone sought help from the charity every 78 seconds either online or by phone and we have to remind ourselves that StepChange is just one route for debt advice. There are numerous organisations offering support, help, and advice and – looking at the most recent Credit Action debt statistics – I see that Citizens Advice Bureaux in England and Wales dealt with 7,824 new debt problems every working day during the year ending March 2013. Worse still, the letter accompanying the StepChange report reveals that, for about a quarter of the clients they advised last year, they were unable to suggest a way forward because the client lacked the means to cover essential living costs while insolvency was inappropriate for their circumstances.

To help some of these clients StepChange has launched a new 'token payment' service, an interim measure of short-term relief allowing clients time to get their affairs in order where there is a reasonable expectation that their circumstances will improve in the reasonably short-term. Token payments, of course, are not new but this approach to their administration is, and it coincides with a pilot 'Sustainable Debt Advice Project' run by AdviceUK which is now being rolled out more widely.

Just as we all have cause to celebrate from time to time, so we all face problems and many customers get into financial difficulty because of a sudden or dramatic change in circumstances. We want to be paid what we are owed, and solutions giving customers who want to pay some temporary breathing space are to be welcomed, especially if the longer-term prospects are improved as a result.

Finally, it would be remiss of me not to thank Charles Mayhew, Sue Chapple, and Sue Kettle for their excellent guest blogs while I was away. I appreciate their support and enjoyed their contributions.

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 - 'Painting a grim picture of Payday lenders'

I've been inundated with government papers over the past few weeks such as the Insolvency Practitioners Fees Review, the Review of Pre-Pack Administrations, the Simpler Reporting proposals for Micro Businesses, the Money Advice Service proposals to improve the quality of Debt Advice, HMRC and DWP debt management strategies, the Treasury and FSA consultations on the transfer of consumer credit regulation from the OFT to the FCA, the proposed EU Data Protection changes, and a host more.  As a result, I've been a bit tardy in getting to read in detail the OFT's Payday Lending Compliance Review.  Its contents are shocking.

 

Let me make it clear from the outset that I am not in the 'outlaw all payday lenders' camp; I believe that such products have their place and when offered, and used, sensibly can be useful to a good many people.  But that doesn't excuse the findings in this review.  Among the highlights, or perhaps I should call them lowlights, the review reports that 28% of loans issued in 2011/12 were rolled over at least once, with at least a third of lenders actively promoting rollover at the point of sale and a number agreeing to rollover loans even after a borrower has missed a repayment.  By way of example, staff in two large high-street firms were told that rollovers were regarded as 'key profit drivers' and that staff were encouraged to promote them. In one case, this was even written into the training manual!

 

Equally worrying to me though is the absence of affordability checks.  Most lenders asserted that they undertook affordability assessments at the initial loan stage yet the vast majority were unable to provide satisfactory proof that they had applied such assessments in practice.  Only six of the 50 lenders visited were able to provide documentary evidence that they assessed consumers' likely disposable income as part of their affordability assessments.

 

The basic premise of credit management, whether the customer is a multi-national business, a small trader, or an individual, is to determine whether the customer is 'good' for the amount of credit being extended and whether it can afford to repay in accordance with the agreed terms. Furthermore, in the case of consumers, assessing creditworthiness is a requirement of the Consumer Credit Act and OFT guidelines.

I know the majority of the inspections were carried out before revised industry codes of practice and the sector-wide Good Practice Customer Charter came into force but the revelations of the report paint a wholly unacceptable picture.  The enforcement action already started and the 12 week deadline to address all areas of non-compliance is welcome, the proposed investigation by the Competition Commission makes sense, and the expectation that the FCA will take a more rigorous approach when it takes over consumer credit regulation next April is encouraging.

 

In the meantime I hope the OFT will live up to its promise that it will not gradually fade away but will continue to act vigorously in the period until it is replaced by the FCA.  A year is a long time in the consumer credit market.

 

I'll be welcoming a couple of guest blog writers over the next two weeks. Charles Wilson, Managing Director of Lovetts Solicitors, an ICM Fellow, and a member of our Technical Committee will be writing next week, and our own Debbie Tuckwood, ICM Director of Learning & Development, the week after.  I'll be decorating over Easter so will be looking forward to returning to normality thereafter!

 

 

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Measure for measure'

The Government has this week published its response to the BIS Select Committee's report on Debt Management published in March and it makes interesting reading.  The original report contained 23 recommendations and the government responds to each one in turn. The document can be found here and what pleases me is the measured and proportionate nature of the responses.

 

The timetable for the planned review of the regulatory framework, including the transfer of regulatory powers from the OFT to the FCA, is set out with the final transfer expected to take place by April 2014.  Having a clear timetable and plan including expected consultation dates is helpful.  The more interesting aspects, however, relate to payday loans and debt management companies.

On payday loans, the Government refers to the work it has been carrying out with the four main trade associations representing over 90% of the payday loan market to improve consumer protection in their codes of practice.  These improvements together with the OFT’s review investigating levels of compliance with the Consumer Credit Act are, in my view, the right approach before any more stringent measures are considered.  Furthermore, the codes include measures to address the issues of rollover loans, affordability assessment, and continuous payment authority, and the Government has undertaken to review how best to include high-cost credit transactions in credit files.

In summary, close engagement with the trade associations to introduce enhanced consumer protections into their codes of practice and their commitment to publish a common industry-wide Good Practice Customer Charter setting out in a clear, concise and user-friendly format what customers of payday and other short-term loans should expect from their lender is positive and encouraging.  One can never condone poor practice but I believe payday loans have their place in certain circumstances and meet a particular need.

With regard to Debt Management companies, the Government is working with stakeholders to develop a Protocol of best practice for debt management plans which will cover transparency of fees and costs (particularly where they are upfront), misleading advertising, and safeguarding client accounts.  Again, in my view, working with the industry and trade bodies makes absolute sense before considering legislation and heavier regulation.

 
It's worth also noting that – in both cases – the approach being proposed will deliver faster results than would be achieved by the introduction of legislation.  Finally, as an aside, I have to mention again my particular soapbox that Debt Management Plans should be reported in the insolvency statistics so that the published numbers are a true representation of personal insolvency levels.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'A journey into the unknown'

I seem to have been reading and reviewing an endless stream of lengthy reports and consultation documents recently, including the 150 page Ministry of Justice 'Transforming Bailiff Action' consultation over the past weekend, but more of that later (and please respond when the Institute issues its consultation survey questionnaire in the not too distant future). Some of the documents have been more interesting than others but let me mention two reports relating to consumer debt and advice.

The first is 'Debt Advice in the UK', the final report produced by London Economics for the Money Advice Service. The Money Advice Service, which was initially set up by the Government, is funded by a charge levied on the financial services industry and collected by the Financial Services Authority. It replaced the Consumer Financial Education Body in April last year. In 2012/13 the Service will use a budget of £46.3 million to deliver against its money advice targets, and a separate budget of £40.5m to coordinate the delivery of debt advice across the UK. Credit professionals working in the sector will be keen to see that the financial services industry's levies are put to good use!

The report concludes that 'Overall, the desk review of the existing literature and information on the debt advice sector and the consultations with stakeholders show that, while there exists a fair body of material on individual debt advice providers or programmes, very few analyses take a more holistic approach, covering the debt advice sector as a whole or, at least, large segments of it. Notable information gaps relate to: estimates of the actual and total demand for debt advice; the volume of debt advice provision by form and channel for the sector as a whole; the needs of actual and potential debt advice seekers; and the comparative effectiveness in the short and longer run of the different forms and channels of debt advice provision.'

I may be being cynical here, but to my simple mind it seems that the report tells us more about what it can't tell us than about what it can!

The second is the 'Consumer Debt and Money Report' launched by the Consumer Credit Counselling Service as the first in a series of quarterly reports based on research carried out by Cebr. This reveals: that households are spending 24 percent of their discretionary income - £199 per month - on interest payments; that the demand for debt advice is forecast to remain high and peak in 2014 as unemployment rises across the UK; and that middle-aged and older people will be increasingly affected by debt problems severe enough for them to need to seek help, highlighting the challenging financial situation that older households face. The report predicts that CCCS's share of clients over the age of 45 will rise from a historic 28 percent in January 2005 to a projected 47.6 percent by December 2014.

I was privileged to chair the ICM's Credit Industry Think Tank last week - it's always great hearing the views of leading experts from across our industry - and, during the forum, we were reminded that personal insolvencies are falling, with 2011's figure of c120,000 representing a fall of about 15,000 over 2010. Good news perhaps, but let's bear one thing in mind: no numbers are collected for debt management plants arranged through the advice sector and these do not appear in the official published insolvency figures (another piece of missing but vital data!).

I hope at least some of the Money Advice Service's £86.8m will be used to identify the real size of the problem and the effectiveness of solutions. Without knowing where we are, it's hard to plan the route to a better place!

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.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM -'Kill or cure the zombies'

On Monday the Financial Times ran a story with the headline "Institutions urged to kill or cure the zombies" which talked about "zombie" businesses, to describe those that can pay interest on their debts but has no viable means of repaying the principal over the long term. The article highlights the fact that many businesses are passed the point of no return but are staying afloat because of low interest rates, HMRC's discretionary Time to Pay arrangements, and/or banks keeping businesses in "intensive care" rather than allowing them to fail. It is little comfort to see a respected newspaper making the very same arguments that I have been saying for at least the last two years in my public assertions that there is a spike of corporate insolvencies waiting just round the corner. I recognise that it has taken longer to reach the corner than I anticipated but I continue to maintain that we are going to see a substantial increase at some point. Too many businesses are in a state of denial and it is only going to take a change in one factor to push them over the edge, be that the rent quarter day this week, a negative response to a request for an extension to the HMRC Time to Pay arrangement, an increase in interest rates, or another factor such as a large customer failing or failing to pay sufficiently promptly.

If you watched Dragons Den this week you might have seen the director of a twenty year old business seeking £100,000 investment to help his business grow. Upon questioning, it became apparent that the business had been loosing money in three of the last four years, had a very low balance sheet net worth and, if current forecasts were met, would be technically insolvent at the end of the current financial period. The argument that sales next year would be much better and would see a return to profit seemed to have little substance and, not surprisingly, there were no takers among the dragons. It's obviously difficult to see the whole picture from a few edited minutes on TV but the scenario of a business thinking tomorrow will be better without realising the reality of its financial situation today is not uncommon.

In the FT article, Christine Elliott, Chief Executive of the Institute of Turnaround said "she would like to see institutions that have potentially viable businesses under their care change their mindset. They should either recognise non-viable businesses and deal with them through insolvency or put in place a transformation plan to achieve their potential". We credit professionals have a very similar task: to recognise viable businesses and help create profitable sales for our own organisations, and to recognise non-viable businesses and ensure exposure is minimised. Sometimes we to have to decide whether to kill or cure the zombies.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - What would convince you?

A few weeks ago, in the light of an Insolvency Service consultation, I started making noises through my blog, the pages of Credit Management magazine and the ICM Briefing to gauge the depth of our Members' feelings. I also started a discussion on the ICM Credit Community LinkedIn group http://linkd.in/iF2Q0b asking a simple question: Do you engage in insolvencies after you suffer a bad debt?

The fundamental issue for me then and now is how we get credit professionals to engage more actively in insolvency procedures to ensure they get the best outcome, and so that they are better able to monitor the activity and efforts of the IP. I sought to find out what might encourage our Members to engage more, or whether they simply saw it as a complete waste of time and effort. The responses have been most interesting, with some clear themes emerging.

One of the themes is that credit professionals who understand insolvency procedures understand that engagement delivers tangible benefits. They are better able to ensure the best outcome for their business (even though that outcome is rarely, if ever, likely to be particularly good and merely the best of a bad job!): sometimes, knowledge and engagement can identify options that might not otherwise have been considered.

A further theme is that credit professionals who do not understand insolvency currently will very much need to in the future. I'm glad to say these are still very much part of the ICM qualification pathway; they are included in our short-course menu, and are often the subject of debate and discussion at our regional and branch events.

The one question that wasn't really answered was what would encourage those credit professionals who consider involvement a waste of time and effort to do so. We might not have all the answers just yet, but the ICM has started to work more closely with organisations like R3 and the IPA and is increasing awareness of the key issues with a regular column in the magazine. It is a start, but there is much more to be done if we're going to convince the unconverted!

www.icm.org.uk

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'we have to do more than just watch'

The Insolvency Service consultation on reforming the regulatory framework for Insolvency Practitioners has been much on my mind lately.

Before Easter, I had a number of meetings with insolvency organisations and the Insolvency Service, and the survey of ICM Members prompted a tremendous reaction; this week I've been working on the ICM's response to proposals that could significantly impact credit professionals.

The consultation has three elements: the establishment of an independent complaints body; setting clear objectives for the regulatory regime; and detailed amendments to particular regulations.

One of the key and overriding objectives is to better protect the interests of unsecured creditors. The ICM will be supporting the idea of a new complaints body and other measures to improve and enhance transparency, and it will be encouraging clearer objectives and a regime that achieves the best possible outcomes for those losing money when a customer goes bust.

There is, however, a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed: too many credit professionals fail to engage in the insolvency process. Their position appears to be that they've already suffered a bad debt so why spend more time and effort in what follows? Whereas I understand such a position when there are conflicting priorities - and it makes sense to focus on tomorrow's opportunities rather than yesterday's problems - if we don't play our part in the insolvency, we can't really complain about the outcome and the activity of the Insolvency Professional who is acting on our behalf, can we?

Visit http://www.icm.org.uk/icm-consultancy/government-consultation to view our consultation responses

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Change the insolvency landscape'

I've spent a good deal of time over the last few days reading and reviewing the Insolvency Service's 'Consultation on Reforming the Regulatory Framework for Insolvency Practitioners' which has been produced following the OFT Market Study into Corporate Insolvency published last June.

It's large document (c90 pages), so not an easy read but nevertheless vitally important for credit professionals. Indeed the press release that accompanied the launch highlights a principal objective of the consultation in considering ' the three main issues to address the problems associated with the weak position of unsecured creditors.'

When I'm out and about, our Members and those in the credit community frequently complain to me about the insolvency process and how they lose out. This then is our opportunity to influence the insolvency landscape of the future. If we ignore it, we do so at our peril, and to this end the ICM will shortly be issuing a survey that will enable anyone interested to give their opinion and comment on aspects of the paper that are relevant to them. Please take the time and trouble to allow us to take your thoughts and feedback into account when we produce our final response to Government.

Elsewhere I see that David Kern, Chief Economist at the British Chambers of Commerce has reacted to the recently published minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee http://bit.ly/h77WrS. He's absolutely right when he says '...the factors pushing up prices in the short-term are outside the MPC's control...' Raising interest rates now would be too soon and would damage the prospects for recovery.

Finally, I'm writing these words ahead of the ICM's Regional Roadshow at the National Motorcycle Museum in Birmingham which has the highest number of registrations yet for our Roadshow programme. To find out more about our Roadshows and when we're going to be near you visit: http://www.icm.org.uk/default.asp?edit_id=1286-56

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'More mixed messages'

The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) released its latest Quarterly Economic Survey this week and at best the messages were mixed.

Business confidence, for example, remains high, with most expecting an upturn in their fortunes - and turnover - in the coming year. The manufacturing sector, specifically, is looking stronger but the performance of the service sector has weakened and there are concerns about the sustainability of the recovery. There are concerns also about the problems in the Eurozone, and the potential impact on UK exporters.

My take on this is that there is little consensus on where the economy is, or where it's heading, and the prospects for the year ahead are almost impossible to predict. Nevertheless, every piece of good news serves to build positive expectations and that can only be a good thing.

The BCC survey, of course, only focuses on the private sector. So what about the public sector?

I had a really interesting hour on Monday discussing public sector issues with an ICM Member who holds a senior position in one of the Inner London Boroughs. He confirmed much of what I already knew in terms of pressure on costs, more effective use of resources, and the need to drive efficiency savings. But he also raised some issues that I'd not previously considered in so much detail.

How each local borough decides to cut costs over the next four years, for example, will vary significantly depending on the colour of the party calling the shots. Then there is the impact of specific plans, such as the proposed caps on housing benefit. Some tenants will face a shortfall between their rent and the capped benefit levels, which means they will have to move to a property or borough where rent costs are within - or closer to - the cap. As a result, Private landlords who provide social housing will lose tenants and there will be an increase in empty housing stock and pressure on buy-to-let mortgage repayments, particularly at the small scale landlord sector. If this isn't bad enough, the effect will be exacerbated by the changes to calculation of the Local Housing Allowance (used to determine housing benefit payments) which in the future will be calculated on the basis of cheaper rents.

The inter-relationships between public and private sector are deep and complex; perhaps that explains exactly why it's so difficult to predict the short - and longer - term future. We're going to need our wits about us as reality unfolds throughout coming months!

'Storm clouds brewing' - Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM

It has been yet another busy week, starting with the award to Geopost of its QiCM accreditation, an accreditation that the team had to work hard to achieve. In these challenging times, when good credit management is needed more than ever, it is pleasing to see (and present the award to) a team that is so focused, so enthusiastic, so organised and so committed and - as a result - is delivering real value to the organisation.

It has also been a week of much discussion, from the analysis of the ICM Technical Committee into the latest consultations and technical issues that affect credit professionals on a practical and day-to-day basis through to the round table with Bacs, agreeing - and disagreeing - about the issue of late payment and how it can best be addressed.

There was a similarly healthy debate at an event hosted by Hays where I was able to share my passion for all things 'credit management' with about 70 professionals eager to listen, discuss and share about issues that affect their everyday working together to create a single credit 'community'. I know I've said it before but this community is a really important element of what we do.

Finally I note that new figures suggest insolvencies and personal bankruptcies are falling - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11701334?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter on the face of it this is good news, but I'm not changing my long held - and often stated - view that we're still in a lull before a horrible storm. I remain convinced we're going to see a surge in corporate insolvency, for a number of reasons including: the tightening up of the HMRC deferred payment scheme is going to leave businesses having to find cash; as the economy starts to recover, the need for cash is going to increase and, historically, insolvencies have always risen as we've come out of a recession; and lastly that the impact of the public sector cuts (as previously discussed here) is going to be far worse than many realise.

5th Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - Musings from China

I am currently attending, and presenting at, the 7th China International Credit & Risk Management Conference in Nanjing, and it is interesting to note how the topics of debate have shifted since my last visit 12 months ago. There is much more discussion, for example, around the move to open account payment terms rather than letters of credit for international trade, and the move towards alternative sources of finance such as factoring - a conversation that mirrors our own experiences back in the UK.

It is noticeable, also, that there is increased availability of credit ratings within China on Chinese companies, and a clear desire for skills to support selling into the West rather than skills and knowledge simply for use in the domestic market.

We know that there is a rapidly expanding middle class in China, and this is placing increased demand on the trade and availability of expensive consumer goods. What is interesting, however, is that there are no personal insolvency rules or procedures in China, leading me to think about the OFT's recent warning to 129 debt management firms in the UK: http://oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2010/101-10

The report makes salutary reading and the paid advice sector evidently needs to do considerably more to clean up its act. We have ourselves spoken to the Debt Resolution Forum which is working hard to drive improvement. I sit on its Complaints Committee and there have been very few complaints. It is important that bad practice is highlighted, so remedial action can be taken.

Some ICM Members are asking me why the firms shouldn't be publicly named and shamed. The reason is simple: they can't, under part 9 of Enterprise Act 2002. That does not mean that we will never know their identity, however. If they fail to improve, and the OFT decided to take formal licensing action, then their names will be published for all to see.

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

2nd weekly blog of Philip King, CEO of the ICM - skills and risk

A few days ago, Rebecca Smithers, consumer affairs correspondent of The Guardian wrote that British manufacturing is at risk of 'collapse'. The reasons she cited included a worsening skills shortage that will leave thousands of hi-tech jobs unfilled over the next five years. More recently, a leading academic also stated that it is not just in the high-tech industries that skills are missing. He warned that all areas of business need the right, relevant skills to be successful, and this includes skills in credit management.

It is comforting to know, I hope, that there are organisations out there - the ICM foremost among them - who take such warnings seriously. The successful and ongoing development of our qualifications, and our work with employers, practitioners, and industry is aimed at ensuring the industry becomes more professional, and that the right skills are available to help Britain through the recovery.

The property and environmental services giant Connaught has collapsed into administration, putting thousands of jobs at risk. In June, the company warned that public spending cuts, designed to reduce the government's budget deficit, would impact 31 projects, reducing its revenues by £80m this year. This hit, it said, "would push the company into the red." Public sector cuts are going to hit businesses across all sectors, and many of those will be our customers.

In another annoucement that links closely with this theme, I note that the "time to pay" scheme has now reached its peak as HMRC appears to be rejecting an increasingly large number of applications to take part in the initiative. "Time to pay" allows businesses to defer tax payments during the recession. Syscap, an independent finance provider, says that in the last few weeks, a good many businesses have been in contact to secure loans to meet tax obligations either becuase HMRC has rejected their application to the scheme or because they have taken a business off the scheme. Perhaps this should not come as a surprise, but credit professionals are going to see their customers under greater cashflow pressure as a result, and the number of insolvencies is likely to rise as I've been predicting for several months now. Knowing our customers - and their customers in turn - is going to be more important than ever in the months ahead. Close monitoring of risk will enable creditors to take action to avoid or at least minimise potential bad debts.