Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Square pins and round holes'

I attended a board meeting of the Start-Up Loans Company this morning. It's always an invigorating experience and today was no exception. The scheme has now issued over 5,000 loans and recently been extended to Northern Ireland. Work to test the feasibility of extending loans to those aged over 30 is progressing, and I'm hugely proud to be involved with a project that is delivering opportunities to create businesses by providing access to funding that wouldn't otherwise be available.

One of the discussions today reminded me of a book I read some years ago - 'Now, discover your strengths' by Marcus Buckingham and Donald Clifton. It made a big impression on me at the time and the board meeting debate, although in a different context, reaffirmed the principles.

 

I'm sure I'll get some of the details wrong so apologies in advance to Messrs Buckingham and Clifton but the central theme of their book is that we all have innate strengths which we should cultivate and on which we should focus rather than spending too much time on areas in which we are inherently weak. It proposes this approach from a personal perspective and when recruiting and managing staff. Organisations spend too much time (through appraisals and such like) in identifying weaknesses in people and trying to improve them. Surely, the book argues, it makes more sense to identify what we (or people) are best at and devote time to getting even better than to invest that time in moving from poor to mediocre in something. Using a football analogy, you wouldn't coach a good goalkeeper to become better at scoring goals, you simply drive him to become a better and better goalkeeper. Yet how often do we fall into the trap of wanting a square pin to fit better into a round hole?

 

Why, continuing this theme, do we focus our energies on the poorer performing organisations and want them to deliver more, when we should be devoting our energies to the best. If we did, then so much more could be achieved: 10% improvement from the best is always going to be more, by definition, than a 10% improvement from the worst.

 

Someone said this morning - and it was a timely reminder - that we should commit our resources to the biggest opportunities that will deliver the greatest benefits, not always be driven by numbers and absolutes. Time is a limited resource and we all have to make choices about how we use it. Where it can deliver the most and move us closest towards our goals seems a good guiding principle to me.

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 - '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 - 'Testament of Youth'

There was an interesting article in the Financial Times about youth unemployment on Monday. Hot on the heels of the recent revision by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) that has cast doubt on last year's UK double-dip recession, it served as a timely reminder of how dangerous it can be to rely on statistics or to accept them at face value.

 

Both the OECD and the United Nations have recently warned that the spiralling rates of youth unemployment across many advanced economies will have severe consequences following the latest reported figures showing that nearly a quarter of European under-25s are now unemployed. A truly terrifying statistic, particularly in Greece and Spain where the figure is over 50%, and Italy and Portugal where it is 40%, until we get beneath the headline, and let me quote the FT's Kate Allen in explaining.

 

"Youth unemployment figures are meaningless without understanding what proportion of a country's young people are economically active."  "Unemployment figures only reflect the proportion of the population who are economically active ­ i.e. looking for a job, but unable to find one."

 

'Youth' in this context is defined as young people aged 15-24 and inactivity rates can be expected to be very high with many in education or training.  Taking this into account the FT calculates the true youth unemployment rate in Spain to be marginally over 20%, Greece about 17%, Portugal 15%, and Italy 11%.  Indeed, on this basis the unemployment figure for European young people is fewer than 10% rather than the reported almost 25%.

 

There are conflicting opinions about who originally said "lies, damned lies and statistics" but, whoever it was, we should bear their words in mind when we read or hear numbers being quoted in support of a view or argument. Context can be all-important!

 

 

 

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.

 

Guest Blog by Professor Russel Griggs OBE - 'Leave to appeal'

Twelve months ago I published a report as the independent external reviewer of a Banking Taskforce initiative into the new ‘appeals process’ – a process by which small businesses (up to a turnover of £25 million) could appeal if declined lending from their bank.

 

In the first year of the process there were 2177 appeals and 39.5% of decisions were overturned. (An overturn is where the bank and the customer reach a satisfactory conclusion to a lending application.) This does not mean that the business has received exactly what they asked for initially, but that they have reached a lending agreement with which both parties are satisfied.

 

At the time I was quite satisfied with the numbers, given that the process was still in its infancy. I said then that banks and all other parties and bodies involved in working with SMEs needed to do more to ensure that their business customers knew that the right to appeal was available, and that the true effectiveness of the scheme would be apparent only when the process had been more widely promoted. I said also that the banks needed to make sure that those who lend are properly qualified and trained to do so, and that the reasons why a loan may be declined need to be properly communicated and understood.

 

Next month I will publish my second Annual report and while further progress has undoubtedly been made, there are clearly still issues with the extent to which the appeals process is being promoted, both externally and within the banks themselves.

 

The ambition with the process was to encourage and engender a better dialogue between customers and the banks, and my report will show to what extent this is now being achieved. My report will also look at the key reasons why loans are being declined – both through credit scores and issues of ‘affordability’ – and what progress is being made to better understand the banks’ scoring system and the role of external credit reference agencies.

 

The ultimate objective is to make the lending environment for SMEs operate as smoothly as any lending environment ever can or has. We will soon see how far we have travelled in reaching this objective.

 

Professor Russel Griggs OBE

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Going for growth'

Lord Young published his Growing Your Business - A report on Growing Micro Businesses on Monday and it's a good read with some insightful views. I've spent some time with Lord Young as part of my involvement on the board of the Start-Up Loans Company, and I never cease to be amazed at his enthusiasm and energy. I'd love to think I will be so sprightly when I am 81! 

 

The report can be found at the link above and three things strike me in particular. Firstly, the proposals regarding public sector procurement starting on page 19. Whatever government might say, or intend, the reality is that many small businesses find procuring for public sector contracts bureaucratic and daunting. Their perception is that large organisations will be favoured in the process and - whether they're right or wrong - we all know that perception is, for them, reality. The removal of the PQQ system for contracts below €200,000 makes very good sense, as does the 'single passport' proposal allowing pre-qualification data to be entered once and then - after approval by one authority - apply to all bids across multiple authorities.

 

Secondly, the recognition that "Few small firms understand the importance of cash flow particularly when applying for a first bank loan." I guess the fact that the ICM/BIS Managing Cashflow Guides have been downloaded more than 450,000 times since they were launched in 2008 and are seeing regular and substantial monthly increases reinforces this point.

 

Thirdly, the recommendation that the upper age restriction be removed from the Start-Up Loans scheme. Originally set at 18-24, then in January changed to 18-30, this latest suggestion would allow anyone to benefit from what has been a hugely successful initiative. Almost 4,000 businesses have been started, receiving loans totalling nearly £20m, and the creation of a private company to manage the scheme is a radical and

 

innovative alternative to previous government propositions. The businesses receiving funding, support and mentoring have the chance of a real kick-start towards their entrepreneurial vision and aspirations. At the start of 2012, micro businesses (0-9 employees) accounted for 32% of private sector employment and 20% of private sector turnover. Growing the contribution of such businesses can only be good news for the economy and add to the increased confidence that is starting to emerge.

 

The report's 54 pages contain much more, including the proposal for Growth Vouchers encouraging businesses to obtain support and advice, and just as I am proud to have been engaged on the Start-Up Loans Company Board since its inception, I am also proud that the ICM is listed as one of the organisations with which Lord Young engaged in the writing of the report.

 

Finally, it would be remiss of me not to mention the fact that the Institute of Credit Management won another PR award last week. The press release announcing the win can be found here and I'm delighted at the recognition of what we, together with our PR agency Gravity London, have achieved in raising the profile of professional credit managers and the vital role they play in supporting the economic recovery.

 

Next week, I'll be standing down from my blog-writing responsibility for a week and we'll be publishing a guest blog by Professor Russel Griggs OBE who is Lead reviewer of the banks appeals processes and Chair of the Scottish Government’s Regulatory Review Group ahead of the publication of his second annual report in June.