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 - 'The price of success'

I've written several blogs about the payday loan industry in recent months saying, in summary, that I don't believe the concept of short term loans is fundamentally wrong and that emotion sometimes over-rides objectivity. But that does not mean that poor practice is ever acceptable. In particular I've ranted about the absence of evidence that affordability tests were being carried out and said the OFT should, in its final year, focus on this particular element.

Wonga's announcement that its pre-tax profits were up by 35% and bad debts were up by 89% has brought the sector back into sharp focus and - reading reports and commentaries - two things have struck me.

The first is Ian King, the Times Business Editor, observing that Wonga is one of the good guys in an industry that has appalling practices; by way of example he cites that it will not allow its customers to "roll" their loans more than three times and observes that the interest rates they charge are, for example, far lower than those incurred by running up an unauthorised bank overdraft. In my view, being cheaper than someone else isn't necessarily justification but it's certainly true and mitigates against some of the more emotional headlines we see. Indeed, elsewhere in the paper it's reported that loans cannot be rolled over more than twice and that Wonga stops racking up interest after 60 days to prevent debts spiralling too far out of control.

More worrying though is the quote from Wonga's Chief Executive, Errol Damelin, who is reported as saying Wonga loans were too small to be a significant problem and "it's very unlikely that a £200 or a £400 loan is what gets people into a financial mess". Perhaps by itself such a loan value won't, but as part of a vulnerable financial situation it can play a key role especially if it's taken out in desperation and as a last resort. I'd like to think Wonga is an exemplar in carrying out adequate and effective affordability checks but come on, Mr Damelin, get real - £400 MIGHT NOT be a problem for you but it could well be for some of your customers and potential customers!

 

 

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Stepping out of the bath'

After the good personal news I shared in my blog last week, there's been some heartening news on the economy this week.

The CBI's latest quarterly poll shows that the services sector, which accounts for two thirds of the UK economy, is growing at its fastest rate for six years. Last week, the Office for National Statistics lifted its second-quarter estimate for GDP growth from 0.6 per cent to 0.7 per cent. The EEF, the manufacturers' organisation, said that for the first time more members were reporting that the cost of new borrowing lines was falling than those reporting it was rising. The Bank of England's Deputy Governor suggested the Bank was sending a 'clear signal' that interest rates would not be raised any time soon reiterating the commitment made early in his reign by the new Governor Mark Carney.

 

The editor of our own magazine, Credit Management, drew attention to a number of other positive indices in his column in the September issue which hit doormats at the end of last week so perhaps the CBI is right in interpreting their numbers as evidence of a further build-up of momentum. Certainly, the conversations I'm having with businesses and organisations suggest an underlying sense of confidence that was missing a few months ago.

 

Few people seem to be overly buoyant but they do at least seem to  be moving from A glass half-empty to glass half-full mentality. In the early days of this recession when the debate was raging as to whether it would be V or U shaped, I remember one economist saying it would be bath-tub shaped, with the economy bouncing along the bottom for a prolonged period. It was a description I shamelessly stole and has proved to be pretty accurate.

 

I don't think we're off the bottom yet but I think we're looking upwards now rather than constantly looking behind us, and it does feel like momentum is building. Knowing how important confidence is to achieving recovery, let's do our bit by talking ourselves out of the bath tub.

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 - '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 - 'Whistling in the wind'

If you've read the latest (May) edition of the ICM's Credit Management magazine, you'll have seen mention of a survey finding that 42% of SME respondents had never heard of any of the current Government or bank-led initiatives to support small businesses. The recent news about funding through the Business Bank and the increase in length and breadth of the Funding for Lending Scheme is great news but only if businesses are aware of the help that might be available.

 

I was pleased that, of all the schemes, awareness was highest for Start-Up Loans. Regular readers of my blog will know that I'm privileged to sit on the board of Start-Up Loans and I know how much work has gone into raising public awareness, not least by James Caan (the Chair) who has used his personal profile and networks to such great advantage.

 

There have been numerous other initiatives supporting small business in recent times such as the National Loan Guarantee and Enterprise Finance Guarantee Schemes as well as the 17 introduced by the British Bankers' Association (BBA) Task Force in 2010. But none of these serve any purpose unless businesses, banks and others are aware of their existence.

 

One of the BBA initiatives was the creation of an independent appeals process for when loan applications were declined. Russel Griggs, who chairs this, has done good work and his reports show the effectiveness of the idea but I've seen recent examples demonstrating clearly that awareness is woefully inadequate.

 

I heard in the last few days from a business that had thrown in the towel after its current bank had withdrawn facilities despite a 37 year positive relationship, loan applications to other banks had been declined, and engagement with the Financial Ombudsman Service, MPs and numerous others had failed to have any impact. What astounds me is that at no point in this whole process was the business pointed towards the very appeals process that might have helped, or at least allowed it to understand the various banks' position.

 

Surely some of the parties involved would have heard of the appeals process and could have signposted to it? Not long ago I was at a presentation by a senior regional manager from one of the major banks and he was totally ignorant of it, so perhaps not!

 

In this age when we can communicate in so many different ways, and when instant communication is the norm, I find it sad and strange that getting important messages communicated and understood is so difficult. I guess it's incumbent on all of us to ensure we are well informed and up to date with what's going on in the business world and that we play our part in passing important messages on to those who might benefit from them.

 

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Making the headlines'

Notwithstanding the Chancellor’s Autumn statement, and the undoubted noise that will follow, I’d instead like to reflect on a couple of reports I've read recently.

 

The first is the SME Finance Monitor (Q3 – 2012) produced for BIS that was published last week. I was struck by a couple of things. Only 46% of SMEs were aware of any of the Business Finance Taskforce initiatives with 22% aware of the Enterprise Finance Guarantee Scheme, 18% aware of the National Loan Guarantee Scheme, and 21% aware of the network of business mentors. Given the amount of publicity and airtime generated during their launch in 2010, these statistics are disappointing.  Even more interesting was the lack of confidence SMEs have in availability of finance.  Overall, only 33% were confident that their bank would agree to their request for finance (the lowest level seen in the six surveys to date), and yet the outcomes are markedly better.  The success rates for renewal applications are c90%, compared to 53% who were confident ahead of the application and, for new applications, the success rates are c56% against a confidence level of 21%.  Both of these aspects show how much more needs to be done in raising awareness.

 

The second is a report written by Duncan Cheatle, who I've met through my involvement on the Board of the Start-Up Loans Company.  Duncan is CEO of Prelude Group and has authored; 'The Unsung Heroes of Business'.  This report tells the story of seven entrepreneurial businesses and analyses their tax accounts.  It shares the views of their owners about taxation, their attitude to it, and their recognition of the value they add to the economy and society through the contributions of their businesses.  The foreword talks about ‘the perpetuated myth that successful business owners are the sole and selfish beneficiaries of the fruits of their business's output’ and delivers the message ‘that we need to do all that we can to encourage and support the relatively small cohort of business innovators who drive value into our economy and make such a significant and mostly overlooked contribution to public finances in the UK.

 

It's a refreshing read at a time when Starbucks, Amazon, Google and others are in the headlines for all the wrong tax reasons.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Making business add up'

I've been catching up on reading that accumulated while I was on holiday and had a look at the SME Finance Monitor over last weekend; the full document can be found here: http://www.sme-finance-monitor.co.uk

 

A few interesting statistics struck me: 43% SMEs are using external finance, compared with 51% a year ago; 34% of loan and 21% of overdraft applications were declined; banks offered alternative funding or pointed to alternative sources of finance in just 9% (loans) and 13% (overdrafts) of cases; 70% of those declined felt the advice they received from the bank was poor and 25% were not given reasons for the decline decision. Almost more alarmingly, only 8% (loans) and 14% (overdrafts) of declined applicants were aware of the appeals process even though it's been available for well over a year now, and just 47% were aware of any of the Government's lending initiatives, of which the National Loan Guarantee Scheme is but one example.

 

So we still haven't fixed the problem that banks (and the Government) aren't communicating adequately with the SME community, and the message persists, particularly from the media and some business organisations, that banks remain reluctant to lend. But we do also need a sense of balance.

 

I've just started listening to Jonathan Moules' book 'The Rebel Entrepreneur'. Jonathan has been Enterprise Correspondent at the Financial Times for several years and he makes the point in an early chapter that, although the banks may seem reluctant to lend, there is a balancing argument that says the current economic situation is in part due to banks lending when they shouldn't have done so, and on terms that were unsustainable. He argues that many businesses do not merit being lent to, and gives examples of very successful businesses that achieved their growth by managing in the early days on a shoestring and refusing to incur debt that could sooner or later become a millstone. If the banks don't impose sensible lending policies, we'll be in danger of repeating the cycle all over again.

 

I'm an avid follower of Dragons' Den and it's hard not to be frustrated by entrepreneurs who clearly have a brilliant business idea but cannot remember, or worse do not know, the salient financials on which their request for funding is based. If someone cannot say how much the business turned over or made/lost in the recent past, then why would anyone have the confidence to risk their own capital? Talking to bankers I hear many examples of businesses who seek funding based on a business case that is at best unrealistic and, at worst, simply doesn't add up (literally).

 

Just as businesses have to help themselves by applying basic credit management principles, so they need to think through their plans and ensure they put together a business case that is realistic and believable before they ask for funding. The more information they provide, and the better it is, the greater their chance of success. 

Guest Blog by Josef Busuttil, Director General of Malta Association of Credit Management - 'A Credit Management View from Malta'

The small market economy of Malta has been strong enough to resist and manage the economic and financial turmoil that hit the World, in particular, Europe. Thanks to the Maltese regulators, the financial services sector has remained significantly strong and the banks are still enjoying growth and increase in their profits. 2011 was also a record year for tourism, a sector on which the Maltese economy greatly depends.

This does not mean that all is rosy and that the sun shines 365 days-a-year over this rock. It also rains in Malta! Malta does not live in a vacuum. It forms part of the European Union and the Euro-zone, and it exports its products and services worldwide like any other developed country. Hence, what happens offshore affect the Maltese economy to a certain or greater extent!

One of the factors that has hit the Maltese business community is surely the rationed credit facilities from the foreign principals/suppliers. However, from a local credit perspective, Malta has made stark improvement during the recent past. Since MACM - Malta Association of Credit Management - was established in 2001, it has worked and lobbied for a better credit environment and Maltese businesses have witnessed improvement in a number of pertinent credit areas. This includes the number of dishonoured cheques that has gone down remarkably, the credit-related legal framework which is now in place, the judicial system which is more efficient, and business organisations are today adopting more the credit management practices, tools and systems provided by MACM in order to protect their cash flow and secure their long-term profit.

Nevertheless, MACM is aware that late payment is still a major concern for the Maltese businesses. It believes that authorities should do more to enforce legislation that would help creditors in their cash flow management. MACM suggests that the enforcement of court judgments should not only be efficient but also effective. Besides, MACM still notes that some local firms may not be deploying the proper credit management practices when granting and managing credit. These are some of the challenges that MACM is currently addressing.

In fact, MACM advocates that in today's business, a credit practitioner should do more than crunching numbers. The role of the credit practitioner should focus on how to gain and sustain competitive advantage in the market, whilst protecting cash flow and securing long-term profit. This requires up-to-date credit information and skilled staff supported by their top management team and assisted by the appropriate tools and systems in their day-to-day duties.

To support its members, MACM provides credit information which is updated on a daily basis. This information assists Maltese businesses to identify the most significant 'warning signs', which include:

*history of dishonoured cheques and overdue accounts;

* history of court judgements and executive warrants;

* history of court orders and court notices;

* customer changing banker/auditor;

* companies' information and accounts;

* changes in payment pattern;

* lack of filing of accounts as required by the Registrar of Companies (in case of companies);

*other databases that help businesses to identify their prospective customers.

MACM has also invested to provide education to the people working in the field of credit management. Thanks to the ICM Accreditation, Maltese credit practitioners have the opportunity to read the ICM Diploma in Credit Management and to sit for the relative examinations in Malta.

Credit Management is a peoples' function and having skilled and educated credit practitioners would result in better cash flow management, enhanced long-term customer relationship and improved business perception in the market, which are all required to gain and sustain competitive advantage and market share - which is the name of the game in such a changing global environment.