Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Banking on insurance'

There was an interesting piece in The Times on Monday talking about business lending by banks and a proposal for a Guaranteed Repayment Insurance Policy. Apparently the scheme would involve the issue of an insurance policy that could be purchased by a small business and offered to banks as security for a loan. The Government's new Business Bank is considering offering a subsidy to insurers under which it would underwrite 15 percent of the cost of any default.

The theory is that such an offering would remove one of the obstacles to business lending when the collateral demanded by the banks is so high that the taking out of a loan becomes prohibitive or too personally risky for the borrower. Small business owners would, it is thought, be more comfortable paying the premium than putting their home on the line as security.

BIS says it is only currently looking at the proposal and has made no commitment, and I agree it is right to be looking at new and innovative ways to increase the flow of money into a much needed part of the economy. I can see the attraction to a small business whose owner is fearful of losing his house if the enterprise fails but, given the paucity of cash available to businesses in their earliest days, finding additional money to pay for an insurance policy on top of all the other overheads will be a challenge.

As always the devil will be in the detail and I have no idea what the pricing model might be but I'm afraid I'm a bit sceptical. It already worries me that someone can start a limited company with no business knowledge, no awareness of their obligations and responsibilities as a director, and no capital. This scheme would, I fear, encourage the taking on of an additional expense in return for lower personal risk at a time when the business is least able to afford it. The consequence of that will be reduced profits - or increased losses - and a greater propensity for failure.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'End of term report: could do better'

Last week Professor Russel Griggs, Independent Reviewer of the Banking Taskforce Appeals Process wrote a guest blog and I'm grateful to him for sharing his thoughts ahead of the publication of his second annual report. It was an interesting blog and has prompted me to return to a theme I've written about more than once before: the need for greater awareness of the appeals process.

 

Despite the assurances I hear from senior bankers at government forums and elsewhere that the independent appeals process is being drawn to the attention of businesses who are declined loans, I hear too many examples where that clearly isn't the case. Not so long ago, I listened to a presentation by a regional bank executive who seemed unaware of the process at all and, more recently, one of our own ICM members shared his experience with me. After a 37 year relationship with his High Street bank, he was told that his overdraft facility was being withdrawn because it had decided to discontinue its relationship with all customers in that particular sector. He approached alternative banks and raised the issue with the Financial Ombudsman Service, several MPs, the OFT, and government ministers. Neither his nor the other banks, nor one of these parties pointed him towards, or made him aware of, the independent appeals process.

 

I've always said that banks must be free to make their own lending decisions and I've resisted all the voices suggesting that banks must be 'forced' to lend. I stand by that view. The appeals process was intended to create an environment in which businesses could be assured that a loan declined had been declined fairly or provide an opportunity for such decisions to be reviewed and reversed when appropriate.

 

I expect Russel Griggs' report to show the process is working well when it is used and this should be applauded, but it can't work if people don't know about it. The banks, and government, aren't doing enough to bring it to the attention of customers and the wider business, financial and political community. They must do better.

 

Weekly blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Confidence or availability'

The Government Funding for Lending programme has been launched this week. Under the scheme, the Bank of England will lend money at below-market rates to banks who, in return, will have to increase their lending to businesses and households; progress will be monitored and, if they fail to deliver, the interest rate will increase. There have been some interesting comments and opinions expressed including those who say it's just another in a long line of schemes such as the National Loan Guarantee Scheme that this one will, over time, replace to encourage the banks to lend more.

The initiative is creative and good but I have to say I'm with Jonathan Portes, Director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, who said on yesterday's Radio 4 Today Programme that making more money available at competitive interest rates is not going to fundamentally address the underlying lack of confidence in the economy. He observed that the scheme will allow businesses who want to borrow to do so more cheaply but it won't encourage the banks to lend more since they will still carry the credit risk. In other words, it will reduce the price of lending rather than increase the volume. What is needed is a boost in confidence to encourage businesses to invest and households to spend more.

Mark Hoban, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, countered that the availability of loans at a lower cost will encourage the bringing forward of projects and spending, and encourage investment that would otherwise not have happened, or at least not happened yet.

We'll see over the coming months but I don't sense any increase in confidence in the many businesses and business owners I speak to. I don't know the answer I'm afraid but it's the level of confidence we need to stimulate; when that happens, the demand problem will take care of itself.

    www.icm.org.uk www.twitter.com/philipkingicm www.twitter.com/icmorg www.linkedin.com/groups/ICM-Credit-Community-94851/about

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Fatal distraction'

So Wonga has entered the business loan market and added to what is already a fast and dramatically changing landscape.  The introduction of services such as Funding Circle and MarketInvoice have already had a big impact on how businesses can source finance and the recent Breedon Report recognised that alternative funding sources are here to stay.  Couple that with last week's Bank of England Trends in Lending report which said….. "The annual rate of growth in the stock of lending to UK businesses was negative in the three months to February. The stock of lending to small and medium-sized enterprises continued to contract….." and you can see why Wonga might sniff an opportunity.  I'm not sure Wonga is a good solution for small businesses strapped for cash but it's little different to a small business owner funding his business using a personal credit card or two, and that's been happening for years.

 

What worries me more is the suggestion touted in the media and elsewhere that solutions like MarketInvoice are a cure for late payment.  They're not.  MarketInvoice allows a business to sell invoices to a network of institutional investors and it can release the capital tied up in those invoices in real time.  In the short term it can therefore address the cash-flow problem caused by late payment but it's not a cure.  Payment still has to be obtained and, if the invoice is not eventually paid, the amount will have to be refunded to the investor.

The problem as I see it is that – having obtained funding against the invoice(s) - the business owner has removed the immediate cash-flow hole caused by non-payment and can focus attention elsewhere.  The problem hasn't gone away though, and if there is a fundamental problem preventing payment it still needs to be resolved.  Let's not forget, and let's make sure that small businesses don't forget, that the best way to avoid late payment is to get the basics right: knowing your customer, agreeing payment terms in advance, invoicing correctly and promptly, and chasing payment immediately it becomes overdue.  Anything that slows that process, or distracts from it, could lead to far more serious problems; timing is all-important in the management of cash-flow and collection of amounts due and, while attention is elsewhere, the slow-paying customer could fail and become a bad debt rather than just a late payer.

Cashflow keeps business in business and good credit management is vital to maintaining that cash-flow. Mixing messages is not helpful.

http://www.creditmanagement.org.uk/bisguides.htm

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

My contribution this week is going to be short and sweet, or perhaps not quite so sweet, and it's about a payday loans company. But I'm not adding to the many column inches and hours of airtime devoted to the subject in recent weeks. Indeed, the OFT's announcement a couple of weeks ago that it has launched a review of the sector makes me think it's best to wait until the outcome of that review is known - and the dust has settled from the publication of the BIS Select Committee's report this week - before adding my two pennyworth to the debate.

My comments relate instead to a story in The Times on 17 February after Cash Converters UK had issued its results for the six months ended 31 December 2011. It said that 'it's nascent lending business had shown a big rise in bad debts' rising from 9% to 11% between 30 June and 31 December. The company said: 'The UK business reviewed its lending criteria in November 2011 and as a result has made certain adjustments to their procedures. This action, combined with the appointment of a new collections manager, should reduce the bad debt percentage going forward. Over time, as the new business matures and our customer information database improves, we would be targeting a significant decrease in the level of UK bad debts.

'Cash Converters appears to have discovered what many of us already know: that tightening lending criteria, having better customer information, and appointing a new collections manager reduces bad debts. While it seems to be stating the obvious, I'm pleased it reinforces my view that professionalism is vital and adds real value. When good practice is applied to policy and process, and good credit professionals are employed, then businesses can only benefit. This is the message at the heart of everything the ICM stands for and drives.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Never underestimate the value of good credit management'

The Bank of England published its Credit Conditions Survey for quarter 4 of 2011 last week. In summary, it said that although lenders expected a small increase in overall credit availability in the coming three months, it will be impacted negatively by factors such as the economic outlook and tighter wholesale funding conditions. Furthermore, a key determinant of credit availability will be developments in the euro area and their impact on banks' funding conditions. It noted that demand was down across all areas but most significantly from small businesses where it fell sharply. I guess a succinct way of distilling the 17-page report down to a few words would be: a stagnant economy where lack of confidence is stifling demand to spend or invest, and where external factors could have a major effect!

I'm often reminded by our members - and I in turn remind government in meetings - that trade creditors lend more to businesses than the banks and - just as bank lending decisions impact on the ability of the economy to grow - so do the credit decisions of credit professionals. When they decline or accept an order or contract, they impact on the whole trade cycle for themselves, their customer, their customer's customer and so on either negatively or positively. That in turn impacts on the economy and its capacity to grow. In isolation of course, an individual transaction is probably not material, but cumulatively the impact is immense.

In my blog last week, I talked about showing and being proud of our professionalism - that professionalism is manifested in the decisions we reach throughout all credit management activity. Getting them right, whether we're dealing with multi-national corporations or individual consumers, is vitally important and we shouldn't underestimate the impact we have, not only on our own organisations but on the wider economic well-being.

Please click here to complete the ICM UK Credit Managers' Index - it only takes 2 minutes.

If you haven't already signed up to participate in the ICM UK Credit Managers' Index, please join the panel that commits to complete it quarterly and contribute to this influential and important industry benchmark. The results are widely publicised in the trade and financial press, and on the ICM website, and all participants will automatically receive access to the results and summary prior to general release.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Merlin loses its sparkle'

Vince Cable has apparently, and allegedly, admitted that Project Merlin has failed. The Merlin agreement with the major banks guaranteed that lending to small businesses would increase to £76bn in 2011 but his acknowledgement that 'new mechanisms' would have to be considered is a tacit recognition that Merlin hasn't worked. The Chancellor's announcement last week of his 'credit easing' plan of a new credit line for business is further evidence.

As I said at the time, the idea that commercial banks could be 'forced' (as some commentators described it) to lend seemed farfetched at best. Commercial banks have a responsibility to ensure that their lending risks are justified and their lending policies are sound. We've all seen spectator examples in the press of where they may have got it wrong but receiving much less publicity are the numerous cases where they've declined to lend and have been right to do so.

I won't pretend to fully understand the concept of 'credit easing', the detail of which has yet to be made clear, but Phil Orford, the Chief executive of the Forum of Private Business asked three very sensible questions in a recent blog about a scheme which it would appear would require Treasury officials, or officials of an agency specifically appointed for the task, to have a start making judgments on lending taxpayers' money to private sector firms:

• How will they decide which companies deserve a loan from the taxpayer?


• How will the money be channeled to the businesses that need it?


• If these businesses are safe bets, why aren't private lenders already lending to them?

All will become clear in due course and I'll be fascinated to see exactly how it will work.

The other issue that needs to be addressed is how to encourage those business with outstanding debtors to use best practice in credit management to release that money and therefore reduce their external cash requirements. It might even save them having to look for working capital funding at all, but more of that next week by which time I'll have met with two MPs - one Conservative and one Labour - and discussed such matters.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Can we influence?'

Last week I mentioned the petition the ICM has launched urging the government to rethink its plans to exempt micro-businesses from filing accounts. Although broadly welcomed with the number of signatories growing by the day, there have been a few dissenting voices on our LinkedIn discussion group (http://linkd.in/ozIELu). One said that we have no chance of impacting the decision because it is an EU Directive; another that it should be a matter of choice for the micro-business determined by their appetite for credit. If they want credit, then they should file accounts and if they don't there is no need for them to do so.

On the first question, this is only a proposal at present and would require ratification before it could proceed and allow Member States to implement locally. More importantly, from what I hear, several countries are resisting it (notably France, Italy and Belgium) while Germany and the UK seem to be the main champions for change. Influencing the UK's stance is therefore a worthwhile exercise, hence the petition. I believe we can influence the thinking of politicians and therefore the progress of the proposal.

As regards the argument that micro-businesses have a choice, I concede there may be many small businesses that do not seek credit and may well never offer credit either; for them, this might save a bit of hassle. But they still need to produce accounts for tax purposes and if they ever want bank facilities, then accounts will be required. Similarly if they tender for a contract with a public sector body (or a large private sector organisation) financial information on the business will be sought, and they need to know how the business is doing and whether it is solvent and profitable. It is true that you can do all of this without filing accounts at Companies House but making financial information a matter of public record has always been the price of limited liability (limiting your personal liability to your £2 issued capital can be very attractive) and online filing means the filing process is getting easier and easier.

Perhaps just as importantly, the filing of accounts allows credit reference agencies to report on small limited companies and many checks are carried out on potential suppliers, customers, and partners that might lead to a lucrative business relationship of one form or another, sometimes without the subject company even knowing. Credit professionals have bemoaned the absence of information on sole traders and partnerships for all of my 33 years in the industry and we're in danger of putting micro-businesses into the same category. Is this proposal going to drive economic growth or stifle it? I know which camp I'm in and - if you agree - then I urge you to sign the petition here: http://t.co/WEZbqw6

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Forced lending - no, no, no!'

So Britain's largest banks have finally signed up to a series of pay and lending reforms http://tiny.cc/sbhgo, and whilst I don't especially want to add to the exhaustive comments made before and since the announcement, I was rather captivated by the interview with Vince Cable on Radio 4's PM.

The interviewer, Eddie Mair, was making the point forcibly that the Government has no real power as a result of the agreement and still won't be able to 'force' the banks to lend to small businesses. We know ourselves that the banks' record at supporting businesses is not as good as it is claimed to be, and getting the top level thinking down to local management is similarly not as effective as it might be. We know also that SMEs are not as good at producing credible business plans to support requests for funding as they should be, nor as good at collecting cash due to their businesses as they need to be.

But more than this: we know that the Government doesn't deliver initiatives in a way that makes them easily understood by business, and its follow-through is usually poor; and there is a disconnect between the views of the small business organisations and the views of the banks about the reasons and causes of the funding availability issues.

And yet despite all this, please don't tell me that the banks should be forced to lend to small businesses.

Yes, encourage them to understand their small business customers better and provide them with best advice. Yes also be supportive and imaginative in the help they can provide. But force them to lend? NO, NO, NO

I have seen several examples where a bank's refusal to lend appears to lack logic, and they have made unreasonable and unacceptable demands of their customers. But I have also seen small businesses that are clearly in terminal decline, blaming the banks for their woes when it's obvious that lending more money would only have delayed the inevitable insolvency.

Please let's make sure we don't forget the basic principles of good credit management - you don't lend more than a customer can afford to repay and you drive profitable sales while protecting your business against unnecessary and avoidable risk.