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.

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 - Merlin hype misses the point

There has been plenty of hype this week with regards the banks seeming to miss their quarterly lending target to small businesses. They agreed to lend £76bn to SMEs this year, equating to £19bn per quarter, and the £16.8bn achieved to date leaves them 12% short http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13489884.

I am conscious of not wanting to repeat earlier rants but there are one or two points worth mentioning. Firstly, you obviously can't assume one quarter is going to be the same as the previous one, so to simply multiply by four is naive. Secondly, the agreement was only announced in February when we were already well into the first quarter. Thirdly, and acknowledging that I am repeating myself, it's nonsensical to 'force' banks to lend.

The granting of credit is based on trust that the supplier will deliver the goods, services, or funds required, and that the customer will pay in accordance with the agreed terms. Banks, just like trade creditors, need to set their lending policy and criteria in order to maximise sales and profit while maintaining risk at an acceptable level. It was lending too much to customers who were insufficiently credit-worthy that contributed to the credit crunch in the first place both at a local and global level.

The 'disconnect' between the views of the banks, government, and business organisations remains, and the media takes the opportunity to exploit the differences at every turn. I for one wish we could see a more cohesive message being delivered to business. They should be more prepared to share information about their business so that lending decisions can be better informed; they should recognise that there is often cash (debtors) sitting in their business that could be released by applying good credit management principles; and they should consider other financing options beyond a loan or an overdraft.

And as for the government - and again as I have said before - they need to stop promoting the reduction of financial reporting under the misnomer of reducing red tape. Numbers still have to be produced so red tape is, at best, a fragile argument. Less information will result in less credit. It is a simple equation.

On that subject, the ICM 30-second survey has just gone live. Please let us have your views here.

Next week will be another guest blog by CreditManagement magazine's Managing Editor, Sean Feast, and I'll be back the week after.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Sound bites aren't enough'

Amid the hype around Project Merlin and the banks last week, the announcement from BIS of four new schemes http://bit.ly/gglodF specifically to help exporters seems to have got somewhat lost in the noise.

On the face of it, all four of the schemes have merit. They are designed, in simple terms, to enable businesses greater access to trade finance and insurance against credit risk where such help may not be available from the private sector.

As always with such initiatives, the devil is in the detail which I fear the headline announcement masks. It seems the circumstances in which the schemes will be available are limited, and the benefits will - in turn - also be restricted to a few rather than the many. Previous forays by government to support exporters have not been spectacularly successful; they have tended to be overcomplicated, and as a result, under-subscribed.

Export growth is crucial in the recovery we so desperately need, and schemes like these need to be visible, understood, and used; they need to be simple and easy to apply for; and they need to be flexible so their impact is maximised. The intention is laudable, and I don't want to write these off just yet. But there is a tendency for government to fail in its follow-through, and this time they need to listen and respond positively and quickly to feedback so the objectives of driving exports and aiding economic recovery in the UK can be met.

Businesses don't grow through sound bites. Behind the rhetoric, there need to be real and tangible measures of support.