Categories
Business Development & Marketing Cash Flow & Forecasting Finance General Insolvency

Potential Coronavirus pandemic business winners and losers

winners and losers in business after lockdownGiven the slight easing of Coronavirus-related restrictions a week ago, some businesses are in the very early stages of preparing to return to “normal” but which businesses are likely to emerge as the winners and losers in the future?
The Insolvency Service is now publishing its figures monthly and the April figures were released last week. They reported that “numbers of companies and individuals entering insolvency in April 2020 broadly returned to pre-lockdown March levels for most insolvency types” and their figures showed that total company insolvencies in April 2020 had decreased by 17% when compared to April 2019, with a total of 1,196 company insolvencies of which the majority were CVLs (Company Voluntary Liquidations). These numbers suggest no influence in insolvency from Coronavirus yet.
The figures come with a warning, however, that the operation of courts and tribunals had been much reduced, HMRC had reduced enforcement activity and there were likely to have been delays in documents being provided to Companies House by insolvency practitioners.
There is some illuminating data from Cebr (Centre for Economics and Business Research) which showed lost output figures, which include 50% in construction, 58% in wholesale and retail, 79% in accommodation and food services, and 81% in arts, entertainment and education. Communication and information, however, is down just 7% and professional and scientific activities are down just 10%.
Perhaps worse are the UK Composite PMI figures which are an indicator of health for manufacturing and service sectors and reported 13.8 in April, down from 36 in March which in turn were down from 53.3 in January. A reading of above 50 represents expansion and below 50 represents contraction where the lowest figure in the last three years was 49.2 in July last year when industry was gloomy about Brexit.
Of course, there is a long way to go before the picture becomes any clearer and the above is just a snapshot at a specific point in time.
Nevertheless, there are some clues to possible future businesses winners and losers and some of this depends on how deep-rooted the changes are in people’s behaviour as we emerge from the crisis.
Clearly, the lockdown has particularly affected the travel, holiday, retail and hospitality sectors as well as theatres, cinemas and the like. The question is whether these will be able to survive for much longer despite the various financial support packages, especially when they still have rents and other overheads to pay.
Similarly, commercial landlords may be affected as it has become clear that many businesses can operate with employees working remotely. According to the BBC last week “Many companies are struggling to pay the rent with 63% collected within 10 days in March and early April compared with 94% a year ago.” It also reported “Office and retail landlord Land Securities has said less than 10% of its office sites are being used as people work from home. This is unlikely to lead to a closure of 90% of offices but it highlights scope for huge cost reduction by businesses
In the meantime, such a rent burden is a major factor for the survival on many businesses and most likely will result in many companies going bust.
Another potential longer-term loser may be the cruise industry. Will people feel comfortable taking holidays on a large ship in a confined space in close proximity to hundreds of others?
While there may eventually be some recovery in the travel and holiday sectors once countries open their facilities and airlines are permitted to resume operations, the question is whether they will ever return to their pre-pandemic volumes since this will dependent on consumer confidence as well as affordability given the likely increase in travel costs and the fact that many people will lose their jobs.
To an extent, also, there is a question mark over the viability of airlines if they have to introduce some social distancing measures and cannot cram their cabins to maximum capacity.
The weaknesses that have been exposed in the global supply chain may also have a negative impact on freight transport.
But this last gives a clue to potential future winners among the business winners and losers.
It is possible that manufacturing may be brought back to UK and more stock will be stored here as a result of the exposed supply chain issues, which may well boost various types of local production and by extension the construction industry which will have to build the greater capacity that will be needed. Indeed, this in turn may benefit those parts of the country that were devasted by the closing down of industry during the Thatcher years.
Similarly, the UK’s pharmaceutical industry and research may become a winner as the search for a Coronavirus vaccine continues, not to mention worries about its availability if one is ever devised, and the Government has already announced £93m to help speed up the construction of a not-for-profit Vaccines Manufacturing and Innovation Centre in Oxfordshire.
The lockdown has also exposed the amount of pollution that had been generated previously and may bring an upsurge in greener energy production.
According to the Guardian last week, “Britain’s biggest green energy companies are on track to deliver multibillion-pound windfarm investments across the north-east of England and Scotland to help power a cleaner economic recovery.”
Another loser is likely to be the car industry as I cannot see as many cars being needed in a future if more people work from home and unemployment rises.
Finally, given the exhortations for people to find alternative ways of getting to work, such as cycling or walking, as lockdown is eased it is possible that another winner could be bicycle manufacture and the retail outlets that provide both bikes, accessories and aftercare.
There will undoubtedly be business winners and losers but the scale of fallout will only emerge when the future becomes clearer. The above are just some preliminary suggestions.
 

Categories
Banks, Lenders & Investors Finance General Rescue, Restructuring & Recovery

Toothless regulators and unrepentant 'too-big-to-fail' banks

"too-big-to-fail" banksIt has to be said that since the 2007/8 Financial Crisis from which several of the “too-big-to-fail” banks had to be rescued by the central banks, SMEs have struggled to obtain loans and funding facilities from them.
There appears also to have been little in the way of retribution for those that caused the banks to collapse, although banks have since been forced to increase their capital reserves in an attempt by the regulators to avoid having to bail them out in the future.
Take RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland), which had to be bailed out and taken into public ownership, where it still partly remains.
There has been the emerging scandal concerning its treatment of SME customers who were transferred to its restructuring arm, GRG (Global Restructuring Group), with approximately 16,000 ending up insolvent and having to close down. No bail out for them!
After intensive lobbying starting in 2013 this situation eventually became the subject of a lengthy inquiry by the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority), which earlier this year published a summary of its findings, and “recommended” that the turnaround units in all banks be reviewed, and also the relationship between banks and insolvency practitioners, who generally act as their advisers when dealing with clients in difficulties.
The FCA only published its full report in February 2018 following pressure from the Treasury Select Committee. And then in July it announced it not taking any action against RBS or its senior managers over GRG’s behaviour “because its powers were very limited” and “there were no reasonable prospects of success”.
It also announced in early September that banks will face no further action over the interest rate swap mis-selling that contributed to the collapse of many SMEs and the financial difficulties experienced by many clients who had been duped by their banks.
More recently, despite assurances to the Treasury Select Committee given by RBS CEO Ross McEwan that he was not aware of any allegations of criminal activity, in late July it was announced in the Times that a former GRG banker was being investigated by Police Scotland over allegations that RBS had demanded “tens of thousands in cash” from SME owners in exchange for forbearance on their debts.
SMEs have also been advised to get on with any claims they wish to make against GRG before a deadline of 22 October 2018. According to business news website Bdaily, so far £10 million has been paid out in compensation out of a £400 million fund and there have been 1,230 complaints from a potential 16,000 SMEs.
It is little wonder that the CMA (Competition and Markets Authority) has found in a survey of business customers that RBS was rated Britain’s worst bank overall.
Yet despite all this, ahead of a briefing to challenger banks this week on a contest for £833 million of funding, provided by RBS to boost banking competition, Ross McEwan has been quoted as saying the challengers will struggle to compete against the Big Six in the face of their recovery from the consequences of 2007/8.
But this is not all about RBS.  Yesterday’s Financial Times reported on the behaviour of Lloyds Banking Group:  “Not only did the bank seek to obstruct Thames Valley Police’s inquiries into the £1 billion HBOS reading fraud, it also prevented access to the key “whistleblower” Sally Masteron, author of the critical Project Lord Turnbull report, and then fired her because of the inconvenience of her report’s message.”
It seems clear that unless regulators like the FCA are given much more robust powers to take action against the banks, not only RBS, but all ‘too-big-to-fail’ big banks will continue to feel they can act with impunity.
How much longer before they precipitate another, albeit different, calamitous financial crisis?