So what will 2010 mean for business? Yesterday, in the first day of trading this year, the London stock market moved strongly up with the FTSE reaching 5,500. This buoyant mood was apparently driven by new optimism about the strength of the economic recovery, which seemed to be backed up by a number of positive economic indicators. Two examples of this were manufacturing activity, which accelerated in December, and unemployment, which is now forecast by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development to peak at under 3 million. Even CFOs appear to be in a confident mood. Then yesterday came the news that John Lewis and Next had achieved impressive trading performances over the Christmas period.
Anything that creates a “feel good” factor and improves business confidence can only be good for business prospects. However this optimism has to be tempered by the opening salvos (for this year at any rate) in what is likely to be a very long drawn out election campaign, with all the uncertainty that brings. Whatever politicians might promise, and whoever wins, there is going to be an unsustainable gap between government income and expenditure, which means tax increases and spending cuts are inevitable. Even the star retail performers above are preaching caution in their outlook for 2010, something which the disappointing figures from Marks and Spencer seems to bear out.
We remain of the view that businesses will not be able to be rely on economic recovery to achieve better results in 2010, and will need to put in place their own plans and initiatives if they are to move forward. However, good news can only help, so let’s keep looking for it and highlighting it wherever we can.
Thursday, 7 January 2010
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Of course we are lending! Oh no you’re not!
Like the heading? Well it is Panto time of course (ours went very well since you ask) and it is nice to be seasonal occasionally, even if at times there is not much to smile about.
One area that is definitely causing frowns to form in a number of places is the subject of bank lending. “Banks must lend more” cry politicians and business organisations. “We want to lend and we are lending” say the banks. “Oh no you are not”, comes back the reply (see, this Panto lark is catching). And so the circle of claim and counter claim goes on.
So what is the truth? I recently went to a Surrey Chamber of Commerce event, where four representatives from each of the main high street banks braved the local professional services community for an enjoyable question and answer session. What became clear during the discussions was that there was a definite flight to quality, and businesses boasting good management teams, strong security and organic growth potential in attractive sectors were the ones they were looking to develop long term relationships with. There was an admission that there was limited appetite at present for smaller deals.
Although cash flow based lending was had been substantially reduced, banks were now looking to ensure they understood the cash flows in the business. There was a definite move away from traditional loans and overdrafts towards more asset based lending products, such as invoice finance. Covenants would be tighter, and these would be regularly monitored. They claimed that they had used the recession to get a lot closer to their clients.
The banks emphasised that they did want to lend, as that is their business. However they were finding that many of their clients were reluctant to borrow, even if offered a good opportunity, preferring where possible to pay down debt. Much of their recent “new” lending activity has often been refinancing and restructuring. However they said that the new Enterprise Finance Guarantee Scheme (EFG) was being used more widely than its predecessor, the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme (SFLG).
On the thorny issue of pricing, they said that it was inevitable that spreads would increase, particularly compared to the current low Bank of England base rate, not least because the banks’ own funding costs were higher than this. Other factors currently influencing pricing were scarcities caused by the withdrawal of many foreign banks from the UK market, regulatory requirements, such as Basle II, and more focus on risk based pricing models.
The banks have been at pains to emphasise that their lending criteria have not changed and that they remain open for business. Anecdotal evidence however suggests that it is still extremely difficult to get money out of a bank for anything other than a “sure thing”.
This is not a “bash the bankers" piece as, in the main, the banks have been much more supportive of businesses battling the recession than they have been given credit for. Also, we probably don’t want to go back to the “cash machine” mentality that existed in those halcyon pre credit crunch days. However a little more pragmatism in bank lending in the current climate would be nice.
One area that is definitely causing frowns to form in a number of places is the subject of bank lending. “Banks must lend more” cry politicians and business organisations. “We want to lend and we are lending” say the banks. “Oh no you are not”, comes back the reply (see, this Panto lark is catching). And so the circle of claim and counter claim goes on.
So what is the truth? I recently went to a Surrey Chamber of Commerce event, where four representatives from each of the main high street banks braved the local professional services community for an enjoyable question and answer session. What became clear during the discussions was that there was a definite flight to quality, and businesses boasting good management teams, strong security and organic growth potential in attractive sectors were the ones they were looking to develop long term relationships with. There was an admission that there was limited appetite at present for smaller deals.
Although cash flow based lending was had been substantially reduced, banks were now looking to ensure they understood the cash flows in the business. There was a definite move away from traditional loans and overdrafts towards more asset based lending products, such as invoice finance. Covenants would be tighter, and these would be regularly monitored. They claimed that they had used the recession to get a lot closer to their clients.
The banks emphasised that they did want to lend, as that is their business. However they were finding that many of their clients were reluctant to borrow, even if offered a good opportunity, preferring where possible to pay down debt. Much of their recent “new” lending activity has often been refinancing and restructuring. However they said that the new Enterprise Finance Guarantee Scheme (EFG) was being used more widely than its predecessor, the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme (SFLG).
On the thorny issue of pricing, they said that it was inevitable that spreads would increase, particularly compared to the current low Bank of England base rate, not least because the banks’ own funding costs were higher than this. Other factors currently influencing pricing were scarcities caused by the withdrawal of many foreign banks from the UK market, regulatory requirements, such as Basle II, and more focus on risk based pricing models.
The banks have been at pains to emphasise that their lending criteria have not changed and that they remain open for business. Anecdotal evidence however suggests that it is still extremely difficult to get money out of a bank for anything other than a “sure thing”.
This is not a “bash the bankers" piece as, in the main, the banks have been much more supportive of businesses battling the recession than they have been given credit for. Also, we probably don’t want to go back to the “cash machine” mentality that existed in those halcyon pre credit crunch days. However a little more pragmatism in bank lending in the current climate would be nice.
Monday, 7 December 2009
Breakfast with Bankers
I went off to a breakfast with Clydesdale Bank in Richmond last week to hear the views of Tom Vosa, who is the National Australia Banking (NAB) Group's Head of Market Economics, Europe. As NAB is one of the few remaining AA rated banks in the world, clearly they have been doing some things right, and it was a good opportunity to hear what one of their senior economists had to say, as well as renew acquaintances with our Clydesdale contacts, and meet other local business people.
Tom has a refreshing approach to all matters economic, and it is testimony to his communication skills that not only did a 72 slide presentation packed with detailed economic statistics and analysis seem to fly by, but we were all able to leave the room fully understanding what his views were for the economy in 2010 and beyond, and how they might affect our businesses and those of our clients.
In essence he believed that the recovery in 2010 would be patchy and would most likely resemble a W in shape than any of the other letters or symbols that have bandied about. While each quarter would show some growth, it would not feel like a recovery. There was still a significant wholesale funding gap, which along with the regulatory tightening that was taking place, would continue to limit the availability of finance. Unemployment and earnings would hold back any real increase in consumer spending, and the need to close the gap in the public sector deficit, through spending cuts and tax increases, would also be a dampener on recovery. Nonetheless, there would be a recovery in 2010, mainly led by the public sector activities currently in force, with the real economy taking up the slack in 2011.
In short the deepest recession since the 1930s, would be followed by the weakest of recoveries. London itself would remain the engine room for national recovery, not least because of the Olympics in 2012, although as with most Olympic cities, there will be a negative reaction in the following year.
Clydesdale very kindly makes available much of its research, which you can look at by clicking here . However, the presentation reinforced our view that businesses will have to create their own recovery stories rather than wait for any pick up in the economy.
Tom has a refreshing approach to all matters economic, and it is testimony to his communication skills that not only did a 72 slide presentation packed with detailed economic statistics and analysis seem to fly by, but we were all able to leave the room fully understanding what his views were for the economy in 2010 and beyond, and how they might affect our businesses and those of our clients.
In essence he believed that the recovery in 2010 would be patchy and would most likely resemble a W in shape than any of the other letters or symbols that have bandied about. While each quarter would show some growth, it would not feel like a recovery. There was still a significant wholesale funding gap, which along with the regulatory tightening that was taking place, would continue to limit the availability of finance. Unemployment and earnings would hold back any real increase in consumer spending, and the need to close the gap in the public sector deficit, through spending cuts and tax increases, would also be a dampener on recovery. Nonetheless, there would be a recovery in 2010, mainly led by the public sector activities currently in force, with the real economy taking up the slack in 2011.
In short the deepest recession since the 1930s, would be followed by the weakest of recoveries. London itself would remain the engine room for national recovery, not least because of the Olympics in 2012, although as with most Olympic cities, there will be a negative reaction in the following year.
Clydesdale very kindly makes available much of its research, which you can look at by clicking here . However, the presentation reinforced our view that businesses will have to create their own recovery stories rather than wait for any pick up in the economy.
Monday, 30 November 2009
The wonder of a Woolworths administration – part three
Further to our recent blog on the challenges facing insolvency practitioners (ISPs) in the current business climate, it now seems that the corporate insolvency market is to be the subject of an Office of Fair Trading (OFT) enquiry .
Some of you will find it hard to have any sympathy for these under fire ISPs, reasoning that as they must be so rushed off their feet at present, a squeeze on their fees would not seem out of order. However it is not all sweetness and light in the world of insolvency. Yes, there may be rich pickings at the top end of the scale, which deserve to be scrutinised (Lehman Brothers anybody?) but at the lower end the picture is much less rosy. Due to the reluctance of the banks and HMRC, the two organisations most likely to put a business into insolvency, to pull the plug on businesses, ISPs, while busy, are not that busy.
Also, as so many businesses now operate on a virtual basis, there are very few, if any, realisable assets available. These barely cover the costs of insolvency never mind leave anything left to pay out to creditors.
I still have my doubts about the way the Woolworths administration was handled, but somebody has to clear up the mess that poorly managed businesses leave behind, and in that regard the insolvency profession in general still does a pretty good job.
Some of you will find it hard to have any sympathy for these under fire ISPs, reasoning that as they must be so rushed off their feet at present, a squeeze on their fees would not seem out of order. However it is not all sweetness and light in the world of insolvency. Yes, there may be rich pickings at the top end of the scale, which deserve to be scrutinised (Lehman Brothers anybody?) but at the lower end the picture is much less rosy. Due to the reluctance of the banks and HMRC, the two organisations most likely to put a business into insolvency, to pull the plug on businesses, ISPs, while busy, are not that busy.
Also, as so many businesses now operate on a virtual basis, there are very few, if any, realisable assets available. These barely cover the costs of insolvency never mind leave anything left to pay out to creditors.
I still have my doubts about the way the Woolworths administration was handled, but somebody has to clear up the mess that poorly managed businesses leave behind, and in that regard the insolvency profession in general still does a pretty good job.
Friday, 20 November 2009
That’s football isn’t it?
Thierry Henry is a cheat. A fantastic footballer, and for all I know a pleasant and charming individual, but on the evidence of this week’s World Cup qualifying play off second leg match in Paris between France and the Republic of Ireland a cheat.
Football and sport are often used as metaphors for business, mainly in terms of teamwork and people management. However there is also a belief that the spirit in which any game is played is as important as the skill level, and this is another ethos that can be applied to business, as in other walks of life.
There is a way of doing things that is honourable and that does not involve using an unfair advantage to get ahead. You can of course have endless debates as to what is fair or not, but deep down most of us know what is right and what is wrong in business.
Listening to Ronnie Whelan and Alex McLeish two experienced professional football people who were on Sky Sports after the game, both said that while it was clearly heartbreaking for the Irish team, they understood why Henry had done what he’d done, and therefore the Irish had to accept it and move on. “That’s football” seemed to be their message, to which the only possible reply is “Well it damn well shouldn’t be!”
Football and sport are often used as metaphors for business, mainly in terms of teamwork and people management. However there is also a belief that the spirit in which any game is played is as important as the skill level, and this is another ethos that can be applied to business, as in other walks of life.
There is a way of doing things that is honourable and that does not involve using an unfair advantage to get ahead. You can of course have endless debates as to what is fair or not, but deep down most of us know what is right and what is wrong in business.
Listening to Ronnie Whelan and Alex McLeish two experienced professional football people who were on Sky Sports after the game, both said that while it was clearly heartbreaking for the Irish team, they understood why Henry had done what he’d done, and therefore the Irish had to accept it and move on. “That’s football” seemed to be their message, to which the only possible reply is “Well it damn well shouldn’t be!”
Thursday, 19 November 2009
The wonder of a Woolworths administration – part two
Rumblings persist concerning the way that the administration of Woolworths was handled, something that we raised in our blog back in December 2008. Indeed Woolworth’s former management have now added their voices to those who believe that more efforts could have been made by the administrators, Deloittes, to keep the giant store group afloat questioning whether there was a conflict of interest in their provision of advice to the company’s banking syndicate prior to their appointment as administrators. Not surprisingly Deloittes have robustly defended their actions, pointing out that the business simply ran out of money, and that they had been called in with the management’s blessing.
Nobody is pretending that Woolworths was the best run company in the world. However the negative impact of its closure on many high streets up and down the country, and the fact that newly established imitators such as Alworths and Wellworths have seemingly thrived, indicate that the general public placed more value on Woolworths than the financial community apparently did.
With an upsurge in insolvencies expected in 2010, insolvency practitioners will face even more challenges in deciding how terminal the decline of such businesses is, and how far they can go in keeping them alive, whilst not being seen to reward poor management. I wish them all the luck in the world – they are going to need it.
Nobody is pretending that Woolworths was the best run company in the world. However the negative impact of its closure on many high streets up and down the country, and the fact that newly established imitators such as Alworths and Wellworths have seemingly thrived, indicate that the general public placed more value on Woolworths than the financial community apparently did.
With an upsurge in insolvencies expected in 2010, insolvency practitioners will face even more challenges in deciding how terminal the decline of such businesses is, and how far they can go in keeping them alive, whilst not being seen to reward poor management. I wish them all the luck in the world – they are going to need it.
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
Non-execs – pain without the gain?
One of the biggest questions to emerge from the current banking crisis is what were the non executive directors doing while top banking executives were running their companies into the ground. Indeed this has been a question asked after a number of corporate failures in the past 10 years, such as Enron and Worldcom.
Some of the arguments advanced as to why these non execs were so ineffective in preventing what occurred include lack of accountability, insufficient knowledge of the businesses they were directors of, the fact that they were not selected from a wide enough pool of candidates, and the implication that their high levels of remuneration had compromised their independence.
This view on payment levels was expressed forcefully in last Sunday’s Mail on Sunday. And yet, when one takes into account the risks associated with being a director, the time and effort required to do the job in a way that discharges the legal duties of a director as well as satisfies the requirements of external stakeholders, and the knowledge and experience required to carry out the role properly, the question moves towards not whether non-execs are paid too much but are they actually paid enough to ensure that the right calibre of individual undertakes the role.
That is not to say that independence argument does not have merit, because it clearly does, but surely one of the reasons that a non executive is brought on board is for their ability to think and act independently, something that can obviously be established during the selection process. It is also difficult to establish what level of remuneration is excessive, in that £30,000 for some individuals would be a considerable sum whilst for others it would be pocket money.
We at Orchard have always been big fans of non-execs for all companies, and have had our own from the start. Good non-execs add considerable value bringing experience and knowledge to the party as well as providing a vital sanity check for executive directors and managers, and standing up for the interests of outside shareholders. One of the reasons that we have a strong relationship with the Non Executive Directors Association (NEDA) is the desire to promote good corporate governance through a strong non executive presence on company boards.
We all want knowledgeable, experienced, independent, diverse non executive directors in big and small companies who are willing to stand up to and challenge executive managers where necessary. We also expect these non execs to make available the necessary time to undertake their role, and to take full director risk and responsibilities when carrying out their role. We therefore cannot be surprised when they start to demand remuneration that reflects their skills, their time and the risks that they take.
Some of the arguments advanced as to why these non execs were so ineffective in preventing what occurred include lack of accountability, insufficient knowledge of the businesses they were directors of, the fact that they were not selected from a wide enough pool of candidates, and the implication that their high levels of remuneration had compromised their independence.
This view on payment levels was expressed forcefully in last Sunday’s Mail on Sunday. And yet, when one takes into account the risks associated with being a director, the time and effort required to do the job in a way that discharges the legal duties of a director as well as satisfies the requirements of external stakeholders, and the knowledge and experience required to carry out the role properly, the question moves towards not whether non-execs are paid too much but are they actually paid enough to ensure that the right calibre of individual undertakes the role.
That is not to say that independence argument does not have merit, because it clearly does, but surely one of the reasons that a non executive is brought on board is for their ability to think and act independently, something that can obviously be established during the selection process. It is also difficult to establish what level of remuneration is excessive, in that £30,000 for some individuals would be a considerable sum whilst for others it would be pocket money.
We at Orchard have always been big fans of non-execs for all companies, and have had our own from the start. Good non-execs add considerable value bringing experience and knowledge to the party as well as providing a vital sanity check for executive directors and managers, and standing up for the interests of outside shareholders. One of the reasons that we have a strong relationship with the Non Executive Directors Association (NEDA) is the desire to promote good corporate governance through a strong non executive presence on company boards.
We all want knowledgeable, experienced, independent, diverse non executive directors in big and small companies who are willing to stand up to and challenge executive managers where necessary. We also expect these non execs to make available the necessary time to undertake their role, and to take full director risk and responsibilities when carrying out their role. We therefore cannot be surprised when they start to demand remuneration that reflects their skills, their time and the risks that they take.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
