Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Growing Responsibility'

It's the time of year - just pre-holiday season - when we normally expect to see a flurry of papers and consultations being issued by government to keep us occupied over the summer. This year is no exception and the last week has seen a bulging inbox.

To name but a few BIS has issued a call for views on its Corporate Responsibility paper, and produced a discussion paper entitled 'Transparency & Trust', and the Insolvency Service has published the report from Elaine Kempson's review into Insolvency Practitioner Fees, the terms of reference for the long-heralded review into Pre-pack Administrations, and its Annual Report for 2012-13.

The Institute will of course be considering these and submitting responses in due course but, having spent several hours over the last few days scanning the contents of papers, the longest of which is 89 pages, I do have a few initial thoughts.

The BIS Corporate Responsibility paper is looking primarily at what has more traditionally been called Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). It seeks to define exactly what CSR is and how it can be encouraged, developed and reported on. One section looks at supply chain management
and I hope one of the issues identified is that of prompt payment and treating suppliers fairly. Given the impact of late payment on suppliers and, as a consequence, the wider economy this seems a very obvious way for businesses to be seen as acting responsibly. Conversely, making life difficult for suppliers and deliberately exploiting them is nothing short of irresponsible.

The BIS Transparency and Trust discussion paper (or perhaps tome is a better descriptor!)  covers a broad range of issues focusing on two primary themes: enhancing the transparency of UK company ownership, and increasing trust in UK business. The latter theme embraces a number of specific areas but includes insolvency through suggested changes to the disqualification of directors regime and the introduction of financial redress for creditors where directors have acted fraudulently or recklessly. I'm also encouraged by the suggestion of education for directors. I've had a long-held view that the ability for people to gain the privilege of limited liability without putting up any capital nor having to demonstrate any understanding of their responsibilities and obligations is unhelpful and leads to wide-ranging issues. The ICM's press release welcoming the discussion can be found here: http://www.icm.org.uk/statement-following-publication-of- transparency-and-trust/

The Transparency & Trust paper which can be found here also refers to the imminent review of pre-packs and the report from the Review into Insolvency Practitioner Fees and we'll await the Insolvency Service's response in due course with interest.

I'm encouraged that the government is looking at these areas. The provision of credit across all sectors always involves trust so the title of this paper, 'Transparency & Trust', puts it squarely in our space and I look forward to hearing the views of ICM members when we go out for their
input and views shortly.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Reading, writing and credit management'

Back in February the government announced a new draft National Curriculum for England that would see financial education embedded in both mathematics and in citizenship education, making financial capability a statutory part of the curriculum for the first time. The draft programme of study for citizenship would include the functions and uses of money, the importance of personal budgeting, money management and a range of financial products and services in Key Stage 3, and wages, taxes, credit, debt, financial risk and a range of more sophisticated financial products and services in Key Stage 4.

 

This week, following a period of consultation, Michael Gove published the revised Curriculum and the financial education has been further strengthened by the inclusion of 'risk management' into Key Stage 3 and 'income and expenditure, credit and debt, insurance, savings, pensions' at Key Stage 4. Recognition is due to pfeg for its work in pushing for this enhanced content.

 

Providing education that allows children to leave school with financial literacy can only bode well for the credit profession in the years ahead if it means consumers are more financially aware. None of us wants to see people in financial difficulty through ignorance because they weren't sufficiently aware or informed.

 

In my blog last week I called for the OFT to ensure that affordability tests were genuinely being carried out by payday lenders to avoid the vulnerable being caught in a vortex of indebtedness. An interesting discussion has unfolded in response on the ICM Credit Community LinkedIn group (you can find it here) I don't agree with all the comments - simply outlawing payday lending could carry serious unintended consequences involving a growth in back street loan sharks, for example - but action in the short term is needed and, for the longer term, education will also play its part. Now we need to make sure teachers are provided with adequate tools to deliver the proposed curriculum content.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'The need for speed'

My blog on 21 March referred to the OFT's Payday Lending Compliance Review and I said that the proposed investigation by the Competition Commission made sense. I was pleased to hear confirmation at the weekend that the investigation is going to take place. It will take about twelve months for the investigation to be completed so, not surprisingly, there is a clamour for more urgent action to be taken. A banning of payday loan adverts and capping the amount of money that can be made from an individual loan are among the suggestions.

 

I was sorry I was unable to attend the Summit chaired by Jo Swinson, the consumer minister, on Monday which brought together lenders, regulators, charities and consumer groups but I hope that it will deliver more than just Words.

 

I said previously that one of my biggest concerns was the apparent absence of adequate affordability assessments ahead of the granting of loans. This must surely be the biggest issue: if loans are being made to people who don't have the capacity to repay them then the only outcome will be misery. In the interim, this is one key area that can be fixed. The OFT report earlier in the year said that "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."

 

Alongside its other tactical measures, the OFT should focus on this by insisting on evidence of affordability tests being carried out, raise the bar in terms of the depth and frequency of its compliance testing, and take action when there is evidence of failure. Let's see it use its teeth to good effect and throw out the bad apples in the sector; the worst possible scenario is for the world to sit on its hands while the Competition Commission carries out a thorough but painfully slow investigation.

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!