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.
 

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 - 'A positive route to growth'

So the latest Project Merlin figures have been released and they show that, in the third quarter, new lending to business was £57.4bn, of which £18.8bn was to SME's. Let's remember that the full-year targets are £190bn and £76bn respectively with £157.7bn and £56.1bn being achieved so far. Simple arithmetic tells me, assuming nothing much changes, that the total lending target will be achieved and the SME target will probably fall a trifle short. Not surprisingly, the data has generated the usual and expected clamour for banks to be forced to lend more to small businesses.

Regular readers will not want me to reiterate my view with regards the fallacy of 'forcing' banks to lend, and they will have seen my blog last week talking about some basic errors made by start-up businesses. I believe my observations then support my contention that lending decisions should be based on rational - rather than political or emotional - criteria.

I was privileged to be a contributor to the BIS/UKTI-organised UK Growth and Finance Fitness event in London last Thursday, and the subject of SME growth and finance was a recurring theme in Lord Green and David Cameron's opening speeches. Vince Cable also took up the theme in his address, as did Doug Richard, and early Dragons Den guru and an angel investor, who expressed his views clearly and articulately.

The reality of course is that not all SMEs want or need to borrow; indeed a recent SME Finance Monitor report showed that 47 percent never use external funding ('never' defined as neither now nor in the past five years). What we need, therefore, is an environment in which SMEs want - and feel confident - to grow, and one way to achieve that would be through a growth in exporting.

Two statistics in David Cameron's speech struck me in particular: firstly, only one in five SMEs export but if that figure was increased to one in four, Britain's trade deficit would be wiped out; secondly, Britain exports more to Ireland than to Brazil, Russia, India and China combined; the BRIC countries therefore represent a huge potential market.

So why don't more SMEs export, and, perhaps connected, why don't more SMEs want to obtain external funding? I've said in a number of forums with government and others that the key to SME growth is less about obtaining funding, and more about building confidence. Increased confidence would deliver more willingness to introduce new products and services, more willingness to enter new markets either at home or overseas, and more willingness to take on additional staff.

I've also expressed my view that many SMEs don't consider exporting because they see it as a 'dark art' and are afraid of the unknown. I'm delighted ECGD announced at the event that it is changing its name from 'Export Credits Guarantee Department' to 'UK Export Finance' and is going to work much more closely with UKTI. I believe that even such a cosmetic change will make SME's less apprehensive or uncertain as regards what the former ECGD does - and the help it can provide.

A recurring theme also came from the panel of small businesses who are successfully exporting. They started exporting because they were in a desperate situation and it was their last hope of keeping the business alive...and it worked. What we need is more businesses embracing exporting as a positive route to growth rather than a last resort and act of desperation.