The UK Prime Minister has signalled a massive infrastructure boost to help the country’s economy to recover post pandemic.
The details and plans for allocation of money are likely to be fleshed out in the autumn but in a speech at the end of last month he indicated that more than £5 billion would be spent on infrastructure projects, many of them in northern and central England as part of his pledge to tackle the imbalance between London and the South and the more deprived regions.
The projects will include spending on hospitals, roads, railways and schools, including what are called “shovel-ready” projects to help businesses and individuals to recover and address the expected mass unemployment.
Business directors should be planning now to take advantage of the proposals, especially those in the construction and tech sectors that are likely to be recipients of the government money.
I know of at least one company, supplying a unique range of thermally efficient, environmentally-friendly products to house builders, which is already well-placed to grow post-Coronavirus to supply its Passivhaus compliant insulated foundation and walling systems.
The government initiative does however highlight some issues that are associated with ambitious plans that are announced without thinking them through.
In his speech, the Prime Minister promised to simplify the planning system and regulations to speed up the process.
Unless some thought and care is put into how the infrastructure boost is carried out there is a risk that the initiative will undo what little progress has been made to reaching promised environmental targets.
For example, while improving the road infrastructure is needed in some parts of the country, it is likely to increase the numbers of vehicles on the roads and in turn will contribute to an increase in CO2 emissions and global warming.
In fairness, the PM did also promise to “build back greener and build a more beautiful Britain” with a commitment to plant approximately 75,000 acres of trees every year by 2025. He does like his promises.
It may also be the case that ambitious infrastructure plans fail to meet the objectives of creating a large numbers of jobs. It is likely that businesses will be looking to find ways of reducing their dependence on labour investing in and more automation and technology-driven ways of working.
These are points highlighted by the economist Joseph Stiglitz who argues that there are infrastructure spending risks but also acknowledges that “well-directed public spending, particularly investments in the green transition, can be timely, labour-intensive (helping to resolve the problem of soaring unemployment) and highly stimulative”.
It is clear, however, that directors will need to find innovative ways of delivering the proposed infrastructure while at the same time also promoting their “green” credentials.
#infrastructureboost #economicrecovery #construction #techinnovation
Tag: Business Recovery
The New Deal was a series of measures introduced by President Franklin D Roosevelt to help the US economy recover from the Wall Street Crash and subsequent Great Depression.
It introduced a string of measures to better protect workers from ill-treatment and the consequences of unemployment and to better regulate banks and financial institutions.
As noted in the Encyclopaedia Britannica “Opposed to the traditional American political philosophy of laissez-faire, the New Deal generally embraced the concept of a government-regulated economy aimed at achieving a balance between conflicting economic interests”.
Perhaps one of the best-known Acts was the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, which separated commercial from investment banking.
But the New Deal measures were also designed to stimulate and revive economic activity in agriculture and business, founded on the economic theory, as propounded by the UK economist John Maynard Keynes, that massive Government spending should be used to promote recovery and that spending cutbacks only hurt the economy.
Over the 20th Century the economic theory pendulum has swing back and forth between government regulation and a market driven laissez-faire economy with the later particularly being adopted by Margaret Thatcher.
The economic response to the Coronavirus pandemic and its consequences have opened the taps to flood cash into the market in a way that even Keynes would be impressed. Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s initiatives to protect businesses, employees and other vulnerable groups are similar to the measures introduced in the early days of the New Deal.
But as lockdown measures are eased what other measures might the Chancellor adopt to stimulate the economy?
Similar to that adopted in the 1930s, the Government is considering a spending spree on what are called “shovel-ready” projects, particularly the construction of infrastructure (roads, railways, internet, schools, hospitals and other projects) that will get some people back to work quickly.
Other ideas used then and being considered now are how to get consumers to resume spending, although this should be more than just re-opening retail, leisure and hospitality businesses.
With so many people losing their jobs or worried about their economic future, there is a real concern that consumers won’t spend. Perhaps despite other short-term initiatives that were not used in the 1930s such as a reduction in VAT (Value Added Tax) on consumer products, a reduction in NI (National Insurance) contributions for employers and employees, and training people for the future.
For businesses, particularly, some reduction in Business Rates, or even a revamp which has long been called for, and more flexible repayment of the Coronavirus loans (CBILS) may help but the landscape has changed and it would appear unlikely that we shall return to a pre-Coronavirus level of business. None the least due to the number of redundancies that are coming, and perhaps just as bad, the likely prospect that the purchasing power of fiat currencies will reduce significantly despite any artificial manipulation of inflation data.
While it is often said that a recession can be the best time to start a new business, as companies ranging from General Motors, Burger King, CNN, Uber and Airbnb did, it is arguable that the post-pandemic economic damage will be so severe that more even more radical New Deal-type of measures will be needed.
Given 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.
Just in time (JIT) business systems of supply for everything from supermarket stocks to manufacturing components and raw materials have been the dominant model for some years.
While it offers huge benefits, including less storage space needed and less capital tied up in stocks, the disruption caused by measures to contain the coronavirus pandemic has revealed some major flaws in the model.
When such an integrated global supply chain breaks down as has happened recently the impact on business is considerable where shortages of stock have arisen due to road, sea and air freight grinding to a near-halt.
Indeed, JIT relies on many different components arriving on time often from myriad sources such that any one item can bring all production to a halt. The current situation has magnified the vulnerability since all the different supply chains will need to be fixed before production can resume..
Systems resilience describes a system’s ability to operate during a major disruption or crisis, with minimal impact on critical business and operational processes and the pandemic has revealed that in many cases it has been sadly lacking.
While many businesses have ceased to operate as a result of the pandemic, thus reducing demand for some categories of stock, there will come a time when those that survive will need to resume, and where different business systems may need to be developed to make the production more resilient and perhaps protect it from future similar shocks.
So now is the perfect opportunity for businesses to consider how to make their business systems and models less vulnerable in the future.
Firstly, this will take a change of mindset away from profit at all costs towards sustainable profits that factor in risks and resilience rather than simply focusing on cost reduction. The profit at all costs mindset has many short comings, not just vulnerability but safety also and was a causal factor behind the Piper Alpha Disaster that led to 167 oil rig workers dying.
It is also interesting that the US investor Warren Buffet, of Berkshire Hathaway, has sold his firm’s entire holdings in the four major US airlines in the belief that the post-pandemic world is likely to be very different, saying “We will not fund a company … where we think that it is going to chew up money in the future.”
Buffet is widely respected for his investment skill over the decades, so it is worth paying heed to his decisions.
As part of the longer-term thinking about business systems, companies will also need to improve their balance sheets to help withstand future shocks like the banks have been forced to do since the Global Financial Crisis of over ten years ago.
However, business should also, in my view, consider the benefits to be gained from nurturing relationships with reserve suppliers as well as perhaps maintaining larger reserve stocks of those materials or parts they need to sustain productivity during interruptions to supplies.
It may be that this will mean larger onshore storage facilities than they have been used to, but while this might mean lower profits and lower dividends for investors in the shorter term, it will provide greater security for the business and its owners in the medium and longer term.
The so-called “new normal” is likely to be very different for businesses and economies as the restrictions on movement are gradually lifted and it is likely to be a considerable time before we get there, but arguably this is an ideal time for businesses to rethink their business systems and prepare for a more sustainable future on many levels.
It may seem premature to talk about what happens when the Coronavirus pandemic is over but SMEs need to think ahead and nurture those key relationships needed to ensure their business has a future.
Many of you have had to temporarily close your business and furlough staff due to Government restrictions introduced to try to slow the spread of the virus and many or you have seen your income plummet or cease altogether, with a devastating impact on your cash flow.
According to behavioural scientists it is natural to behave cautiously, even timidly, in the face of a threat, in direct proportion to its magnitude and to what is known about it. But amid the daily deluge of media updates, it is important to remember that we will tend to exaggerate the risk so the threat looms large in our minds.
So, it is perhaps natural to invoke a so-called “bunker” mentality in which self-protection overrides all else.
But as a business owner, no matter how dire the current situation, it is important you try to maintain a sense of perspective and remind yourselves that eventually some form of “normality” will return at which point you will want to be able to return to business profitability.
An essential element of this is what you do now, and key to it will be your relationship with employees, customers and suppliers.
In previous pandemic-related blogs I have talked about maintaining regular communication with staff, somewhat like the government’s daily briefings from No 10 to keep us all informed. This communication is key whether you have been fortunate enough to be able to carry on with staff working remotely, or whether you have had to take advantage of the Government’s furlough scheme for the time being.
Similarly, it is critical to maintain a level of marketing to stay in contact with customers and clients. They may not be placing orders now, but staying in close touch with them, demonstrating concern for their interests and wellbeing, and discussing the future will help prepare for it.
In the same way, understanding the changing needs of customers may have helped you pivot, as those like some restaurants who now provide a take-away service and offer meal deliveries. This engagement will ensure your business pick up quickly when restrictions are eased.
Another of the key relationships that you will need to nurture is that with your suppliers. You will need them if you are to remain in business where non-payment during the lock down may have been necessary if you yourself haven’t been paid but ignoring them won’t be easily forgiven.
There is a salutary lesson in the action recently taken by New Look, whose CEO last week wrote to all suppliers suspending payments to suppliers for existing stock “indefinitely, cancelling orders for its Spring and Summer clothing lines and saying it won’t pay costs towards them.
In fairness, the company had been in difficulties as a High Street retailer due to the changing nature of customer shopping habits in the previous two years and had closed many of its branches.
However, the news was devastating to its suppliers who received such a brutal message, one of whom is reported as saying the action would “devastate smaller companies down the supply chain at a time when they need help the most”. There appears to have been no recognition or understanding in the letter that suppliers would be facing cash flow issues of their own.
A little empathy would not have gone amiss when communicating such a non-payment message to suppliers who will need a level of understanding to show how important they really are despite being unable to pay them and especially when wanting to do business with them again in the future.
Perhaps you could engage with them by discussing ways to limit the damage, either by offering staged payments, if you as a business can afford it, or by reassuring existing suppliers that you value them and will continue to work with them as the restrictions ease and life gets back to normal.
No matter how focused you are on your own concerns and worries at the moment, and I am by no means seeking to minimise their significance, you should also remember that if you don’t nurture your key relationships now you could put your eventual business recovery in jeopardy.
Help is available for SMEs dealing with the pandemic at:
https://www.onlineturnaroundguru.com/coronavirus-sme-support
UK business activity is either in a woeful state, or slowly picking up speed following December’s general election, depending on who you are listening to.
Given the dire insolvency figures for 2019, which I covered in Tuesday’s blog, there is clearly plenty wrong in specific sectors of the economy.
The construction industry, High Street retail and the accommodation and food services were the worst-affected last year but it would be foolish to pretend that any business, from SME to large corporations had an easy time given the global economic slowdown and, more recently, figures revealing that the EU economy is near-stagnant.
Nevertheless, now that the withdrawal of the UK from the EU has passed its first hurdle and that the government has a clear mandate with a huge majority to implement its decisions for the next five years, there are signs of optimism.
The first Lloyds Bank Commercial Banking Business Barometer in 2020 showed a 13-point increase in business confidence, taking it up to 23% in January, the highest it has been for 14 months. The Lloyds barometer calculates overall business confidence by averaging the views of 1,200 companies on their business prospects and optimism about the UK economy.
The most recent IHS Markit/Cips manufacturing purchasing managers index (PMI), for January, showed that the sector has enjoyed its best performance for nine months. Another survey by the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) was also positive in suggesting “the biggest wave of optimism among smaller manufacturers for six years” with 45% of these SMEs reporting that they were more optimistic following the election.
In addition, the Bank of England has kept interest rates at the same level, despite expectations that they would be cut. The outgoing BoE Governor Mark Carney said: “the most recent signs are that global growth has stabilised”.
But much of this is about sentiment where the proof of the pudding will be in increased orders on business’ books and improved cash flow.
On the positive side, productivity (output per hour) increased in January, by 0.1% in the services sector and by 5.7% in construction, according to official figures from the ONS (Office for National Statistics). The results of another survey by the finance firm Together concluded that British SMEs plan to invest £1.7bn over the next two years.
It has to be said that much of this “improvement” is from a pretty low base given that the economy ended 2019 at near-stagnation point, so this is not yet really any indication of a growing economy, although it is a positive shift.
There have also been some encouraging government noises about increasing spending to address the economic inequalities between the North and Midlands and the South which could be good news for Northern businesses. Other government initiatives in the pipeline are likely to benefit the house building and construction industries.
Despite the optimism there is a long way to go before most businesses and especially those involved in farming, fishing and food export, will know the shape of any proposed trade deals, with the EU and with the USA so the short-term for them is not especially encouraging.
The Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have all in the last few days signalled a very hard line negotiating position with the EU over the shape of any agreements which the Government hopes to achieve by the end of 2020. Whether this is a negotiation tactic or a ‘die in the ditch’ strategy we shall find out quite soon.
Concerning input to the outcome there have been some reports that the Government has been ignoring requests from business bodies, such as the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) and the FSB (Federation of Small Businesses) to include their representatives in the forthcoming trade negotiations with the EU.
There are also still the unresolved issues of how the current skills shortage and migrant labour issues will be addressed.
No doubt a level of certainty for some businesses will emerge during the budget, which is due to be announced on March 11. Well at least we shall learn more about the Government’s priorities.
In summary, while it is encouraging that there has been a return to more positive sentiments from UK business leaders, there is a long way to go before we can be confident that they are matched by revitalised UK business activity at home and abroad.
There is no doubt that the construction industry has been having a torrid time in the last couple of years, especially since the collapse of the contractor Carillion with debts of £1.5bn at the start of 2018.
The most recently published insolvency statistics, for the third quarter of 2019, showed a 55% increase in the number of companies falling into administration, continuing an upward trend that had been going on all year.
There is little doubt that the political uncertainty since the UK voted in June 2016 to leave the EU has been a contributory factor to the industry’s woes, which are compounded by a shortage of people with appropriate skills. The skills shortage in the construction industry and its reliance on labour, often as subcontractors, has for several years been mitigated by the use of EU labour, particularly from Poland, but this, too, has been disrupted in the aftermath of Brexit as attitudes to migrants have become less welcoming.
But there have also been knock-on effects from the collapse of Carillion, which are being attributed to the structure of the industry, where major contractors like Carillion were focused on winning projects and managing them, relying on subcontractors to carry not only the responsibility for doing the work but also for taking the financial risk based on exposure to fixed price contracts and poor payment terms.
Indeed, when they go bust there is little left for creditors which highlights the level of credit risk.
Is the situation for the construction industry about to change?
Now that the Election is over and that the Government has a solid majority, hopefully, it will focus on the many pressing domestic issues that had been overshadowed by Brexit, not least the economic imbalance between various UK regions and London.
Indeed, the Prime Minister has already been warned that unless more attention is paid to the North of England particularly, those voters who lent him their vote, they may well withdraw their support equally quickly if they don’t see tangible investment.
In late December and again this week there were some signs that the message had been received and understood.
The Prime Minister had already promised that their trust in his government would be repaid and both The Times and the BBC were reporting that there was the prospect of changes to Treasury rules coming that would allow more cash to be allocated to projects outside of London and the South East, notably on infrastructure, business development projects and schemes like free ports.
Then, on Tuesday, when March 11th was announced as the date for the Chancellor’s first budget, the predictions of Treasury changes were again emphasised:
“In the intervening two months, the Treasury will have to work up a new National Infrastructure strategy that delivers on the plan to rebalance regional inequalities, some of which stem from decisions made nationally on, for example, transport spending.”
While doubts have been raised about the viability of the proposed HS2 rail project to connect London to the North, said to be likely to cost almost three times more than predicted, should this radical rethinking of Treasury rules come to pass, hopefully it could open up opportunities for the construction industry to work on plenty of other big projects in the North and possibly also the Midlands.
The other area that is likely to benefit the industry is a massive house building initiative. While no policies have been announced, Dominic Cummings’ Alternative Civil Service may light a bonfire under planning restrictions that are often blamed as the impediment to achieving previous governments’ targets. I am also sure we shall see more financial stimulus aimed at new owners, again all initiatives that will benefit the industry irrespective of what happens to the economy.
Since the Cork Report in 1982 that led to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA86) there have been a number of initiatives that have led to legislation aimed at promoting a rescue culture in UK.
The shift was from a penal approach to insolvency one based on a belief that saving insolvent companies by restructuring offers a better outcome for all concerned than the alternative of simply closing them down.
This can be achieved by putting the company into Administration, where an IP (Insolvency Practitioner) takes over the running of the company, including negotiating with creditors with the aim of saving the company or at least saving the business by selling it to new owners. In addition to benefitting secured creditors Administration also helps save jobs.
The alternative is a CVA (Company Voluntary Arrangement) where the directors effectively reach agreement with creditors for revised payment terms such as “time to pay” and sometimes for a write down of the debt as a condition for the company surviving. A CVA is supervised by an IP but the directors remain in control providing they meet the revised terms.
There are problems with the current regime as both cases require an IP to be involved and both are enshrined in the IA86 which means that they are tarnished by the reference to insolvency. While this might be the case, it encourages a self-fulfilling prophesy and all too many companies fail again shortly after going through Administration or a CVA which might suggest the restructuring measures were not sufficient when perhaps other factors might also contribute to the restructuring not being successful.
One provision that is missing from insolvency legislation in the UK, when compared to the USA’s bankruptcy protection (Chapter 11) and Canada’s Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), is some breathing space, or moratorium, that works in practice to allow time to develop and agree a plan before entering any formal procedures.
A moratorium would provide for a temporary stay of action by creditors and suppliers while a rescue plan is devised, and it is argued, would encourage directors to act earlier when their business is in difficulties.
Indeed, there are current provisions for a CVA moratorium as a 28-day period to allow for preparing CVA proposals but it doesn’t work and is rarely used because IPs as supervisors of the moratorium have been advised by their lawyers that they could be held liable for credit during the moratorium period. It is logical therefore that IPs prefer Administration which gives them the control necessary to manage any such liabilities.
This has been ignored during the latest initiative by the Insolvency Service who, as part of efforts to improve the UK rescue culture, have consulted on proposals for a different moratorium period, presumably one that that would allow for a broader breathing space than the current CVA moratorium.
While new legislation has not yet been enacted, it would appear that the consultation has resulted in plans for a 28-day moratorium with scope for a 28-day extension. This proposal on the face of it would appear sensible but like the CVA moratorium it won’t work in practice for the same reasons: it must be supervised by an IP and it could expose IPs to liability to creditors.
Further confusion on behalf of those proposing the new moratorium relates to proposals that a business may only apply for a moratorium if it is still solvent and able to service its debts. This makes no sense, why would a business that is able to pay its debts risk damaging its credibility and ability to operate by advertising the fact that it is heading into difficulties by appointing an IP as supervisor of a moratorium that is part of insolvency legislation?
This is surely counter-productive to any attempts at saving a business since the moratorium would cut off its credit.
In my view, rescue legislation should be part of the Companies Act and if supervision is deemed necessary, then a broader range of professionals ought to be approved, not just IPs.
Furthermore, it is hard to see why an IP would not push for Administration instead of a moratorium and taking on the related liabilities; turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.
The credit for the prospective and in my view flawed legislation goes to R3 whose lobbying on behalf of IPs has captured the turnaround space and in doing so has helped kill off initiatives to develop a rescue culture.
A Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) is a mechanism for an insolvent business to continue trading by paying off its debts out of future profits over a period of time providing it has the consent of 75% of creditors.
Many CVAs are structured to run for a five-year period with monthly payments throughout that time.
Generally, they cannot be varied during the first 12 months, mainly due to a standard modification that is a condition for approval by HMRC’s Voluntary Arrangement Service (VAS).
However, there is scope for varying the original terms of a CVA by making a subsequent proposal to creditors for early termination after the initial 12 months. Like the original CVA this requires 75% approval of creditors but it can involve offering revised terms, such as less money now rather than that offered over 5 years.
If such a variation is likely to be approved by creditors the business and its shareholders will need to be in a position to raise a lump sum either by borrowing or by attracting further investors.
The benefits of an early exit from a CVA to the company
The business will benefit from paying less money as a proportion of its debt with more being written off. The effect of this will have the additional benefit of a stronger balance sheet post CVA.
Early termination will also free the company from its monthly obligation and as a result improve its cash flow.
Once clear of the CVA it will be in a better position to pursue more aggressive fund-raising and growth strategies and will be able to resume paying dividends to shareholders.
The benefits of an early exit from a CVA to creditors are mainly that they will receive cash sooner, rather than waiting for a longer period and receiving their money in small increments. They also avoid the risk that the CVA might fail.
The question is why more businesses do not take advantage of the option for an early CVA exit. One possible explanation is that the Insolvency Practitioner (IP), who may have been an adviser prior to the CVA, becomes a supervisor representing creditors and therefore is no longer an adviser. Another may be that early termination stops the supervisor earning their fees.
We believe that IPs who take formal appointments such as acting as nominee and supervisor of a CVA should be independent throughout and therefore should not act as advisers to the company since they are required to represent the creditors. Furthermore, they should insist companies have independent advisers who are best placed to assist on matters such as considering options for the early termination of CVAs. In this way IPs can avoid a conflict of interest.
John Lewis boss Andy Street’s comments on France may have offended French sensibilities, provoked the ire of its Prime Minister Manuel Valls, and extracted an apology, but the episode raises serious questions.
No, not about the state of the French economy which is plainly in some difficulty, but there is a wider issue here.
Nobody would condone many of the examples of offensive language and opinions to be found on social media, for example.
But if distaste for such extremes on social media were to shift the general consensus so that people become less tolerant, will public figures become fearful of expressing opinions with any force or honesty?
We already see this among politicians, who rarely these days say anything meaningful or definitive in public and invariably have to resign if private remarks become public. Arguably that has led to disenchantment with all mainstream politicians and the rise of extreme parties less afraid to express themselves.
But if this concern starts to infect all society’s leading figures, isn’t there a risk that we may lose sight of reality, we may be ignoring the elephant in the room?
Fear becomes the driver of collective dishonesty where no one is prepared to speak out, let alone address unpalatable truths.
In such an environment who will deal with our economic, social and business problems?
How can we have a meaningful exchange of ideas or constructive debate without genuine, honest and fearless dialogue?
Who is going to tell the King his suit isn’t made of cloth?
As if risk averse lenders were not problem enough UK businesses have long complained that there is too much short term thinking stifling any chance of recovery.
Increasingly we have career politicians with little or no experience of business or life outside Westminster and with little incentive to think beyond the next election, so we get tinkering with taxes and regulation on businesses without a long term strategic vision.
The financial Industry, too, is more concerned with short term rewards (dividends, gains and bonuses) than in long term investments in industries that make stuff or have innovative ideas.
Shareholders and investors have been focused on short term dividends or income rather than investing in the longer term.
We need to encourage money to be invested in the right places and for the long haul.
It seems, some are beginning to agree. At a conference in London on Friday, May 10, called Transforming Finance, academics, campaigners and financiers will gather to develop ways for building a better banking system. http://tinyurl.com/cxnvyyr
Among them will be Catherine Howarth, CE of Share Action, a lobby group which will be emphasising the point about the need to think over the longer term.
December marks a “pinch point” for many businesses, particularly for the high street retailers.
The quarter day – when quarterly rents to landlords fall due – is on December 25. About then most businesses will be facing their next pay run of salaries for employees and possibly of payments to additional temporary staff who have been taken on to cover the festive season. Then there is a VAT return with VAT to pay on the Christmas trading.
If all has gone well the seasonal stock will have been run down and there will be a lot of cash in the bank from the Christmas trading.
The question is what will the banks do at this point? Are they lining up to pull the plug on businesses at the point in the year when their clients have most cash? Or the point when their clients have significantly reduced the overdraft? Arguably Christmas is the best time for a secured creditor, such as the bank, to call in its loans, or reduce the overdraft. The banks don’t even need to pull the plug, they can just take the cash to offset a loan or simply reduce the overdraft facility.
With banks seeking to repair their balance sheets and the uncertainty ahead, are we likely to see a sudden upsurge in insolvencies immediately after the Christmas period?
It is estimated that 160,000 businesses are classified as ‘zombie companies’, defined as those who are surviving by only servicing interest with little prospect of ever repaying the loans. Since the start of the recession it may not have been in the interests of the banks as secured lenders to pull the plug, however Christmas can be the best time for them to consider such an option.
Companies who are just servicing interest ought to be concerned. They ought to be seeking advice before the bank swoops.
The plethora of Government initiatives designed to stimulate lending to small enterprises and StartUps, seem to have mainly sunk without trace as the economic meltdown continues.
From Project Merlin, via the National Loan Guarantee Scheme and others including the latest initiative, Funding for Lending, they have largely been ignored by both banks and companies.
Throughout the downturn the banks have said they are willing to lend, and most commentators have claimed there is no shortage of finance, however business lending has continued to decline.
There seem to be two main issues that have caused the decline, firstly the banks are more cautious and want both security for the loans and business plans that demonstrate they will be repaid, and secondly companies remain uncertain with few applying for loans unless they are in financial difficulties.
Similarly investors have been somewhat absent from the market. Many have already been wiped out leaving those with cash very wary.
Despite the tax relief incentives offered under the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS), and for StartUps, the Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme (SEIS), there has been little interest. This lack of appetite can be explained by the stringent pre-qualifications. In the case of StartUps, SEIS investors may qualify for 50% tax relief on up to £100,000 however the HMRC guidance notes may help explain why no one is excited: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/seedeis/index.htm
There has however been much excitement over a newer funding alternative called “Crowd Sourcing” or “Crowd Funding” since the launch of the UK version of the US enterprise Kickstarter on 31 October 2012.
While Crowd Funding may prove to be a good option for many firms, StartUps in particular should do their research. Kickstarter, for example, is restricted largely to creative projects that have a defined beginning and end and its website clearly states: “Starting a business …does not qualify as a project.”
This innovative type of funding is becoming more common. There are already several finance providers each with its own criteria and the number is likely to grow as investors and lenders put up more cash.
The Crowd Funding providers appear to have one common factor that makes them attractive to firms seeking cash. They make it simple to apply for finance, whether debt or equity.
Despite government rhetoric, evidence continues to pile up that the banks are still not lending to Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs).
We are hearing that when companies apply for any lending the banks are only considering loans or overdrafts secured on tangible assets, with most also demanding personal guarantees from the directors in addition.
Total net lending by the UK’s five main banks fell in 2011 and they missed their lending target to small firms, whose use of bank overdrafts and loans has also declined over the past two years.
The FSB reports that of 11,000 SMEs just one in 10 obtained a bank loan in 2011 and that 41% of applicants had been refused loans in the three months to February 2012. The FSB believes the UK banking system is not geared up to lower end loans of less than £25,000, because “there’s no money in it”.
Business Secretary Vince Cable has warned that recovery is being imperilled by the “yawning mismatch” between bank lending and SME demand for finance and at the end of April economists at Ernst and Young predicted that they expected lending to reduce further this year by 6.8 per cent, to £419 Billion.
Meanwhile invoice discounting and factoring have increased significantly, though banks are seemingly no longer offering these facilities, leaving the door open for independent companies such as Bibby, Close, Centric, SME, Ulitmate and the new British bank, Aldermore.
Are the banks struggling or are they simply withdrawing from the SME market?
We think the banks are being deceitful. Whatever the rhetoric, they are using PR tactics to report new loans, which are in fact not really new lending but the refinancing of existing facilities such as turning an overdraft into a term loan or a factoring facility.
This is piling even more pressure onto small businesses because there is a net decline in the flow of money into SMEs, and furthermore any new money is being provided at a very great cost in terms of fees and interest. While high rates of lending may be justified by the risk when it is unsecured, it is not justified when the loan is secured.
K2 would be very interested to hear from SMEs that have managed to secure a bank loan.
Accountants often advise clients to use directors’ loan accounts as a device to help minimise their personal tax liabilities. However, be warned, they only work when the directors are also shareholders and the company is making profits.
Essentially they involve the directors borrowing money from their company and drawing only a minimum salary through their company’s payroll. The loan account is paid off by declaring a dividend and this is a legal way for directors to minimise their personal tax and it avoids having to pay employee and employer NI contributions.
This is fine when a company is profitable but it can become a problem if the company does not have sufficient profits as distributable reserves that can be used to clear the loan.
We are coming across increasing numbers of companies that have not made a profit and where the loan cannot be cleared, leaving the directors effectively owing money to the company.
This can be a serious problem if the company is hoping to reach a Time to Pay (TTP) agreement with HMRC to defer payment of corporation tax, PAYE or VAT because HMRC generally stipulates that such loans are repaid as a pre-condition of approval.
Similarly, when proposing a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) or when a company becomes insolvent, the appointed administrator or liquidator will most likely ask the director(s) to repay the loan. Before approving a CVA, experienced creditors particularly HMRC also tend to demand repayment of directors’ loans.
It is often forgotten that such attempts to reduce tax carry the risk of creating a huge personal liability. To avoid it, we recommend that such dividends are declared in advance so as to avoid a loan or at least regularly to avoid building up a huge directors’ loan account. This avoids the normal practice of waiting until long after year end when the annual accounts are prepared, during which time the company may incur losses that mean dividends cannot subsequently be declared.
A further note of caution relates to any directors’ loan account outstanding at the company year end, which will be highlighted to HMRC in the accounts. Despite any intention to reduce the tax liability, tax legislation seeks to limit the benefit by imposing a section 455 CTA 2010 tax liability (under Corporation Tax Act 2010, formerly s419 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988). While this tax can be recovered when the loan is subsequently repaid by the director, whether in cash or as a dividend, it triggers a significant tax liability on the company.
Following on from the flexible business model that we developed to ensure the perpetual survival of businesses it makes sense to explore how growth can be achieved with flexible marketing without ‘betting the farm’.
The principles of flexible marketing are similar to those of survival as they involve tight cash management and being aware of the fixed nature of many contracts for promotion initiatives that either don’t work or become a financial burden.
Marketing can be complicated and there are lots of alternative ways to achieve marketing objectives where it is often difficult to measure success in terms of ‘return on marketing spend’ or ‘bang for buck’ when developing a marketing plan.
Marketing activities can serve a number of purposes which makes measurement even more difficult. The model that works best will be different for every business, but when markets are so uncertain and cash is tight marketing can make the difference between failure, survival or growth. The key is to understand then manage the relationship between cost and return for different marketing activities. Flexibility reduces the cost of switching between activities which in turn reduces the cost of getting it wrong.
Possible marketing objectives include generating new sales leads, selling different products or services to existing customers, launching a new product, persuading potential customers to buy from you, or reassuring clients by building a reputation, particularly for those firms selling advice or professional services when they want to set up or move into a new geographical market.
Having established your purpose and defined objectives you need to consider various marketing initiatives, affordability and how they might be measured in terms of cost and outcome. Essentially flexible marketing is based on a process of trial and error where you can afford to get it wrong.
Simply placing a single advertisement can work for some firms even if it is expensive, providing the results justify the cost.
Affordability versus flexibility can be an issue especially when payment is spread over a period of time. While flexibility is likely to cost more, most initiatives can be easily trialled and measured without the need for a long-term commitment to test whether they work, e.g. pay per click such as Google Adwords, internet banners, leaflets, posters, adverts on print, radio or television, redemption vouchers, point of sale promotions, text based promotions, stands at trade fairs and even short-term rent or pop-up shops.
Less easy to measure are longer term marketing initiatives such as publishing articles in online media to generate visits to a company’s website. Similarly public relations and press releases to relevant media can generate press interest that raises awareness but may not produce immediate sales. These are more speculative, need not be expensive and can help establish a reputation for the business as an expert in its field. They offer longer term benefits since they tend to be picked up by search engines and therefore have a long life. Using such methods will depend on whether the business firstly can afford to invest the money and secondly is looking to a longer term return than immediate sales or orders.
Whatever initiatives are deployed, the marketing mix needs to be continuously reviewed and refined in exactly the same way as applies to using a flexible, cost sensitive business model.
Add a flexible marketing model to a flexible business model and you can both ensure perpetual survival in a difficult economic climate and perpetual growth.
While businesses might be concerned about a eurozone Armageddon, whatever the outcome they will need to ensure survival for the period of austerity that is likely to characterise the next decade.
Although growth is desirable, and has been the purpose for many businesses, a more realistic objective in times of uncertainty is to stay in business for the next five years.
Arguably the best way to achieve perpetual business survival is to avoid running out of cash. This involves examining all cash commitments and where possible turning fixed costs into variable ones so as to reduce the breakeven level of sales necessary to cover overheads and fixed obligations.
Long-term fixed obligations include fixed-term rents, hire-purchase or lease agreements, repaying loans, servicing interest, supply contracts and staff employment. Common examples of where companies have taken on such commitments tend to relate to: offices, plant and machinery, IT equipment and software, vehicles, signage, furniture, printers and photocopiers, mobile phones and telephone systems.
Most companies also fail to cancel or at least review contracts that automatically renew, such as: IT equipment and plant leases, life insurance, medical policies, employee benefits, subscriptions and membership, servicing and maintenance, office and window cleaning, sanitary towel and waste removal, portable appliance testing (PAT), health, safety and fire extinguisher inspections and so much more.
The key message is to review every payment and check whether it is necessary and you are not being overcharged.
While it sounds counter-intuitive, businesses often make more money by reducing sales. It is worth looking at the quality of contracts and the quality of customers. The benefits from focusing on only those contracts and customers that provide an adequate profit, that pay well and pay on time can be considerable. Gross profit margins are increased, overheads are reduced by not having to chase payment and less cash is needed to fund pre-sale payments and post-sale credit. The flexible business model means that you no longer need to take on unprofitable work.
All too many companies are too focussed on chasing sales (and tails) to review costs and find ways to reduce them so reviews should also look at other ways to cut spending. Huge savings can be made on travel and communications costs by using internet-based phone and video conferencing facilities like Skype or VOIP services, for example.
The flexible business model is based on a principle of not having to pay out cash if there is no cash coming in. It needs leadership and teamwork but a focus on improving profitability, on reducing costs and on converting fixed overheads into variable ones means that a business can achieve perpetual survival.
Optimism has been in short supply as 2011 comes to its end and businesses will need to be even more innovative and proactive if they are to survive and grow in the face of the gloomy economic predictions of stagnation for the next few years.
The ONS says industrial production fell by 0.7% in October in contrast to a rise of 1.7% in October 2010. The OBS downgraded its growth forecast for this year from 1.7 per cent to 0.9 per cent and from 2.5 per cent to 0.7 per cent for 2012 and the OECD predicted that the eurozone economy will shrink by 1% in the fourth quarter of 2011 and then by 0.4% in the first quarter of next year.
By contrast to the above, HMRC’s latest figures for UK exports show non-EU exports grew in September by £0.4 billion (3.4%) more than August while exports for the EU increased by £1.6 billion (13.4%). September’s non EU exports were worth £11.3 billion and the month’s exports to the eurozone were worth £13.6 billion.
Although both figures show a slight improvement on August 50% of UK exports go to the eurozone. Given the ongoing turmoil in the eurozone it would be foolish for UK business to continue to rely so heavily on Europe being able to continue taking such a large share of UK exports, let alone support any growth.
Currently the UK imports more than it exports and the trade gap with areas both inside and outside the eurozone is increasing both monthly and year on year.
Investing in UK businesses has become too much like bank lending. Instead we need a culture that rewards risk-taking and celebrates those who profit from risking their own capital. Most people in the UK want to invest in land and property as a long-term safe haven for their capital. Neither the culture, nor the tax incentives encourage us to invest in exciting business ventures. We are not encouraged to be adventurous for the future of UK plc. Ideally set up some meetings before travelling but you really do need to get on a plane if you want to find new customers.
UK businesses in both manufacturing and service sectors have become too reliant on the domestic market and need to look overseas, well beyond Europe. We should revive some of the spirit of our Victorian forefathers.
In an echo of former MP Norman Tebbitt’s famous advice to the unemployed to “get on your bikes” K2 says businesses should “get on a plane”.
We need pioneering Business Heroes prepared to explore foreign lands and open up new markets to sell our goods and services to countries that have potential for real economic growth. Are we still hoping that business will come to us? The world has changed and we must go out and start finding it.
Regime change in North Africa and the Middle East offers some terrific opportunities, while elsewhere, such as the BRIC countries, people are thirsting for the standard of living that we take for granted.
To those readers who are saying “yes, but…” to this argument, the reply is: “our forefathers conquered the world. They took risks and it’s time we started taking some ourselves. We need to rediscover our spirit of adventure.”
Calls for measures in next week’s Autumn Budget Statement to stimulate the economy are growing louder by the day.
Sadly, the news has been unrelentingly gloomy since October, when Public Sector jobs cuts showed a reduction of 110,000 between March and June, the rate of cuts five times higher than the OBR’s prediction, while job creation in the private sector was only 41,000.
On 14 November, the CBI’s latest employment trends survey found that 47% of employers were relatively optimistic, predicting their workforces would be larger in a year while 19% predicted they would be smaller, a positive balance of +28%.
But then, on 16 November against the background of the Eurozone debt crisis, the Bank of England revised down its growth estimate to stagnation until mid-2012 and only 1% growth for the year as a whole.
The ONS unemployment and employment figures on 19 November showed unemployment at its highest ever total of 2.63 million. From July to September a record 305,000 employees had gone from the economy and in the same period 100,000 people became self employed making a record high total of 4.09 million.
Are these people with a burning ambition to start their own business or have they simply given up on the increasingly fruitless search for employment and set themselves up as freelance sub-contractors or consultants?
As lending conditions continued to tighten, particularly for the country’s SMEs, Project Merlin again undershot its target and companies continued to pay down debt rather than investing.
By 20 November, the CBI, too, had had a rethink, reporting that firms were now reviewing investment plans after a “sharp fall” in confidence with 70% of senior business leaders now less optimistic about the future and two out of five freezing recruitment or laying off staff.
This does not suggest that the private sector is either in the position or the mood to create the additional employment that the government hoped would mop up the public sector job losses.
While not wishing to contribute further to the doom and gloom, it is difficult to find anything positive to say about the current picture and therefore this post adds to the growing calls for a “plan A-plus” to stimulate some growth. What business desperately needs is some stability to restore confidence.
Our wish list includes measures to encourage small businesses to build capacity for growth by making it easier for them to employ and train people. Initiatives such as a NIC holiday for new employees, or young employees, training grants and relaxing termination obligations will make it easier for employers to justify taking on staff.
We also need measures to encourage export, particularly to areas outside the Eurozone, such as export trade credit, marketing support, trade delegations and export tax credits.
Finally small businesses need to be able to fund their investment in growth via a level of credit easing. The Government initiative of demanding that banks make loans to SMES under Merlin, while at the same time requiring them to reduce risk, is a farce. There are a number of possible initiatives but the Enterprise Finance Guarantee scheme hasn’t worked and the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme (SFLGS) that it replaced did work. We advocate a reintroduction of the SFLGS.
Commercial landlords are coming under pressure from all sides in the current economic climate.
The plight of those landlords in the retail sector has perhaps been the most widely publicised as more and more empty shops appear on the High Streets where retailers have either ceased trading or moved out of expensive and badly performing outlets.
The problem for landlords is the double pressure of receiving no rent for their empty properties while still being liable for paying expensive business rates, calculated at approximately 40% of estimated annual rental value, a considerable burden.
Recently Dixons, owner of Currys and PC World, revealed that it had agreed with some of its landlords, to pay rent of just £1 a year in exchange for Dixons continuing to pay the business rates. Dixons is not the only retailer with business rate only deals with landlords.
Problems are not only in retail, however. Many commercial landlords are struggling as their tenants downsize, restructure or go out of business altogether, leaving empty industrial and office units for whom new tenants are hard to find. They still have to service their own loans as well as securing their empty premises and paying rates.
Added to this is the change in attitude among lenders towards property companies. Property loans are generally provided by banks who are now asking for much more equity and much better tenant covenants with evidence of a secure income when considering new or renewal of commercial mortgages. Banks themselves are already overloaded with vacant and distressed property assets.
The confluence of pressure is leaving many commercial landlords completely boxed in and adding to the problem is the amount of commercial property on the market.
A related issue is the number of businesses that cannot be sold because of an existing lease obligation. Buyers often want to downsize and therefore are seeking to renegotiate lease terms before purchasing the business.
There are formal and informal restructuring options that can be used to help commercial landlords who are dealing with vacant and loss-making properties but restructuring property portfolios is a complex process and every single situation is different. This is a situation that requires the knowledge and skill of an experienced restructuring adviser.
Recently released insolvency figures show relatively little change year on year, suggesting that the debate about whether the recession would be a V-, U-, W-, or an L-shape Is now over.
It is four years since the economy collapsed and the evidence is piling up that it is flatlining. Whatever the technical definition for coming out of recession may be (ie two successive quarters of growth), a growth of 0.2% for the UK economy means it continues to bump along the bottom of an L-shaped economic decline, whether it is called a recession or not.
Had the recent decline followed the pattern of previous ones the numbers of insolvent companies would by now be climbing noticeably, as they are generally held to do when an economy is on the road to recovery.
However, the latest CBI quarterly survey shows a sharp decline in confidence among small and medium sized businesses, reporting flat domestic orders in Q3 and export orders down by 8%. They expected domestic orders to fall by another 4% in the final quarter, no growth in exports and were indicating intentions of reducing their stock holdings – hardly suggestive of any optimism there.
Perhaps the most interesting feature of the just released quarterly insolvency figures is the noticeable increase in the number of Company Voluntary Arrangements (CVAs) relative to the numbers of companies in Administration as going concern formal insolvency procedures. Compared to the same quarter last year, CVAs rose by 29.6%, while Administrations rose by only 6.3% perhaps reflecting the adverse publicity over the use of Pre-Pack Administrations.
Many commentators are predicting a lot of insolvencies lining up for the end of Q4. Since a rise in insolvencies traditionally indicates the emergence from recession, perversely, this suggests that they are being optimistic rather than pessimistic.
But if the economy doesn’t recover and there is a rise in corporate insolvencies, this will be truly damaging for the UK. There is a huge difference between insolvency to restructure a business to prepare it for growth and insolvency to close it down.
Continuing low interest rates and no discernible evidence of banks or other creditors really piling on the pressure, nor any sign of the restructuring that normally indicates the bottom of a recession, plus the plummeting confidence of the country’s SMEs, suggest that the economy will bump along the bottom Japanese-style for the foreseeable future at best or will decline further at worst.
The magazine publishing industry has been on a roller coaster ride for many years as print advertising revenues have plummeted, driven partly by a shift to online advertising but more recently by the drop in marketing budgets during the ongoing economic crisis.
This year alone, Sky has discontinued all its magazine titles, each of which had a circulation of £4 million. BBC Worldwide has sold 34 titles to a private equity company. Future UK closed eight titles in July, citing a decline in revenues particularly in the US, and the UK-based B to B publisher Schofield closed its US operation completely, allegedly because the US division’s bank withdrew its finance.
Publishers have been suffering from a triple whammy, of diminished advertising revenue, increased newsprint and ink costs, while simultaneously trying to service residual debt taken on during the good times.
Yet some publishers remain up beat. London-based B to B publisher Centaur Media has announced that it will double the size of the business in three years by focusing on buying up exciting new businesses, paid-for subscription services and events. Centaur restructured into three divisions in June and says that by 2014 it will double its revenue, the proportion of money it makes from online media and its operating margins. It also plans to reduce its reliance on advertising and shrink the contribution of printed media from 43 percent to 16 percent.
The question is whether it will succeed. We know of one publishing company currently going through a restructure that had been growing over the last two years. It has a defined circulation B to B market with publications funded by advertising revenue. However, despite its current profitability it is carrying huge liabilities built up over two years of loss making while the business was growing. The sad fact is that this publishing company was undercapitalised and as a result its suppliers have funded its growth and are now exposed as unsecured creditors.
The raises the issue of growing liabilities in an industry where revenue is declining and supplier costs are rising. The potential for a publishing house to drag a lot of suppliers down with it is huge. Restructuring such companies is also difficult since cutting editorial costs has an impact on quality and relevance to readers.
Clearly the industry will need to be much more innovative if it is to survive and prosper. One obvious tactic, as illustrated by Centaur, is to shift some titles to being online only. Others are making some online sections accessible by subscription only and charging for special reports and in-depth industry information. Other innovations could include experimenting with outsourcing writing overseas, outsourcing sub editing and page make up and printing abroad.
Readex, which regularly surveys attitudes among B to B readers recently reported that 74% wished to carry on using print versions of the titles they read so there is plainly life in the B to B publication market. Professionals will always need to keep up to date with their industry’s developments and the activities of competitors.
Nevertheless, the print side of the industry is likely to decline. Publishers will need to be more innovative and change their business model, most likely embracing alternative media that does not rely on printing and physical distribution.
Once again retailers have blamed the weather for stagnant sales, only this time it was a couple of weeks of unexpected sunshine in September rather than the three weeks of snow that were blamed for dire pre-Christmas sales last year.
Both politicians and retailers are still in denial about the High Street. Most initiatives are aimed at stimulating consumer spending whether discounting or sales, talking up the recovery and promoting spending or window dressing by Mary “Queen of Shops” Portas.
The fact is that consumers in the UK are undergoing a huge change in their approach to consumption and credit. They are spending less on unnecessary goods and this in turn is having an adverse impact on retailers.
Over the last thirty years our excessive consumption has driven the UK economy, creating the illusion of growth while all the time we became ever more dependent on the retail sector. Our consumption based growth was fuelled by ever more debt, not just personal debt but national debt, creating an ever increasing huge balance of payments deficit. This combined debt, consumer, corporate and national borrowings, represents 466% of UK GDP.
However the debt has to be repaid, and we have finally faced up to this harsh reality, paying back a net £200 million in September according to the British Bankers Association.
Companies like JJB Sports, Jane Norman, TJ Hughes, Walmsley and Alexon with its 990 shops all recently joined a growing list of struggling companies going bust, while the Home Retail Group, owners of Argos and Homebase, has reported pre-tax profits down 72%.
We need to challenge the notion that all these high street retailers should survive. If we are going to consume less, can we sustain the current number of retailers?
In addition to adjusting their UK retail business models some, including Debenhams and Argos, are focusing on international expansion.
As turnaround specialists we are arguing that we need a vision, we need export oriented manufacturers and services to effect a transformation if we are to become a producer economy with a balance of payments surplus.
The ongoing economic crisis continues to take its toll on the construction industry with the sad news that a high profile company that was more than 100 years old has gone into administration.
KPMG have been appointed as administrators of London-based Holloway White Allom, which recently completed a refurbishment of the Victoria & Albert Museum, for which it won a conservation award.
The company, founded in 1882, was known for high profile contracts including the refurbishment of the Bank of England in the 1930s, the construction of Admiralty Buildings on Horse Guards Parade, of the Old Bailey in the early 1900s and the fountains in Trafalgar Square.
Although the company was undergoing a turnaround and restructure, following a cash injection earlier in the year from private equity firm Privet Capital, it is understood that it was forced into administration by late payment for one large project.
This latest high profile casualty comes as the construction industry faces increasing pressure. ONS figures show that output on public housing was down by 5.3% and on other public projects by 7.5% during the three months to August 2011 compared with Q3 last year, and accountancy firm Deloitte reports that the number of property and construction companies that went into administration in Q3 2011 rose by 11% to 117 compared to 105 in the same period last year.
However, some sectors of the industry are faring better than others. Bellway, for example, this week posted a 50% annual increase in pre-tax profits, smaller construction companies focusing on repair and refurbishment are also surviving well and commercial construction activity has increased for the 19th month in a row.
Those companies that took steps to restructure their business to focus on what is likely to survive in a declining market and to deal with indebtedness early in the recession have done well.
This suggests that those companies with a bad debt or over-indebtedness due to historical loans should consider restructuring their businesses before they run out of cash. It is not too late for them, but they are likely to require a restructuring adviser to help them.
Many businesses are overburdened with debt and desperate for ways to deal with pressure from banks, HMRC and other creditors. All too often they are prepared to pay off old debt by taking on new debt which leaves them vulnerable to unscrupulous lenders.
Prior to 2008, interest-only loans and overdrafts were a common method of funding, and were reliant on being able to renew facilities or refinancing.
Like many interest-only loans, an overdraft is renewed, normally on an annual basis, but it is also repayable on demand. What happens when the bank doesn’t want to renew the overdraft facility? With the economic climate continuing to be volatile and uncertain and banks under intense pressure to improve their own balance sheets, they are increasingly insisting on converting overdrafts to repayment loans and interest-only finance is disappearing.
This has created a vacuum for alternative sources of funding to enter the market where distinguishing between the credible salesman and the ‘snake oil’ salesman can be very difficult. Desperate businesses are desperate often try to borrow money and become more vulnerable to what at first sight seem to be lenders that can offer them alternative funding solutions that the banks cannot.
Generally the advice is to beware, as the recent eight-year prison sentence handed to “Lord” Eddie Davenport illustrates. The charges related to a conspiracy to defraud, deception and money laundering, also referred to as “advanced fees fraud”.
The court found Davenport and two others guilty in September. Meanwhile a large number of businesses had paid tens of thousands of pounds for due diligence and deposit fees for loans that never materialised and left victims even deeper in debt. The case only became reportable in October, when restrictions were lifted.
Many businesses just want to survive and are trading with no plan or in some cases no prospect for repaying debt. In such instances they should be considering options for improving their balance sheet by reducing debt. Options might include swapping debt for equity, or debt forgiveness by creditors or setting up a CVA (Company Voluntary Arrangement).
August may traditionally be the “silly season” but last month the news did not stop rolling with turmoil on the world’s markets, the A level results and furious debates about the causes and consequences of the UK riots.
We argue that it is time for some joined-up thinking, as there is a connection between the three.
First, the markets: growth, even in the EU’s so-called engine of growth, Germany, was revealed to be near-stagnant in Q2 and UK Growth has been near stagnant for the last three quarters. The UK unemployment figures for the same quarter rose by more than 38,000 and the youth unemployment rate rose to 20.2%, from 20%. All this has prompted fears of a double dip recession, a return of pessimism among UK employers and turmoil on the markets.
Economic recovery is supposed to depend on manufacturing, exports and crucially growth in the UK’s small business sector. However, a new British Chambers of Commerce survey of 2,200 SMEs employing fewer than 10 people, has revealed that while more than 55% were actively recruiting, they were held back by a lack of sufficiently skilled applicants and only 22% said they would feel confident that a school-leaver with A-levels or equivalent would have the necessary skills for their business.
Secondly, following the A level results, it was revealed that approaching 200,000 candidates were seeking a university place through clearing and only an estimated 30,000 places were likely to be available. What happens to those who are unable to get a place?
Finally, the riots and their causes: as the culprits have been wheeled through the courts it has become clear that the overwhelming majority have been under the age of 25, half of them under age 18, and all living in some of the most deprived areas of the country, young people who are unlikely to go to university but, worse, have little hope of acquiring the skills they need to get any kind of job.
K2 argues that the focus of successive governments on pushing more and more young people through university has devalued both the degree itself and the more practical vocations and trades on which economic recovery depends.
According to the REC although more than 250,000 apprenticeships were created in the last financial year this figure includes a big increase in short-term apprenticeships – often taken up by those already in employment and a greater number of these positions have gone to the over 25s. training and being used as a source of cheap labour.
Career advice for young people has also all but disappeared. New figures published by the public service union UNISON showed only 15 out of 144 councils still run a full careers service after implementation of government cuts.
The most crucial need is to restore the pride and aspirations of those young people who perhaps would not benefit from a university education so that they believe that they can both earn a living and use their practical skills to contribute to economic recovery and growth.
It is a natural reaction in tough economic times for businesses to look at their various activities and identify costs that can be cut back.
One area they traditionally prune is the marketing budget but this can be counter-productive for small businesses that need to protect their sales revenue, retain existing customers and keep the orders coming in.
A business rescue adviser brought in to help a company in difficulty will closely examine spending and in the process help develop a new business plan which will include innovative marketing aimed at generating sales at a lower cost.
In situations where a number of businesses are failing a small business also has to think carefully about remaining visible or risk potential and actual clients assuming that it has ceased trading and look around for an alternative supplier that has remained visible.
There is some evidence that small businesses are becoming highly innovative about their marketing. Instead of employing an in-house marketing team, for example, they are outsourcing their marketing and buying services only as and when they need them.
Joining a business networking club is one example of a cost effective trend that has been growing for some time. But it is not a short term fix and many businesses leave it too late, joining only when they realise they are in trouble.
Networking needs commitment and it takes time to get to know the other businesses represented and understand exactly what they do. It works on the truism that ‘people buy from people’ and there needs to be trust as well as synergy. This is unlikely to happen in less than six months of becoming a member of a club.
Too often people frantically try to sell their services rather than listening and learning about the other businesses in the club. It is vital to follow up with every member once you have joined and learn more about each other even if you can’t immediately see any synergy.
The sub prime mortgage crisis that precipitated the 2008 global recession led to plummeting property prices, very limited mortgage lending, repossessions and to a dramatic slump in the housing and commercial property markets.
Estate agencies were among the first businesses to feel the effects of the crisis. By December 2008 an estimated 40,000 employees had lost their jobs while around 4,000 estate agency offices -approximately one in four – had closed.
The smallest agencies, of perhaps four or five branches or less, were worst affected particularly if they depended solely on property sales.
So is the worst over now for the estate agency business? Not if the most recent information on the housing market is any indication.
Gross mortgage lending declined to an estimated £9.8 billion in April 2011, down 14% from £11.4 billion in March and the number of mortgages approved for house purchases hit a new low in April, at 45,166, the lowest April figure since records began in 1992.
The Council of Mortgage Lenders predicts that the numbers of homes repossessed will rise from 36,000 in 2010 to 40,000 in 2011 and 45,000 in 2012 and the online housing company Rightmove reports that average unsold stock rose from 74 to 76 properties per branch, reaching the highest ever level for May.
Although the housing market varies significantly in different parts of the UK, with London booming and East Anglia holding steady while the north suffers there is also evidence that the demand for rented property and buy to let property is rising along with rent levels.
None of this suggests that the business of estate agency is likely to be any more secure for a few years yet. If the High Street agents are to survive they need to revisit their business models, diversify their activities into letting, make use of online marketing and be sure they are up to speed on all the regulations governing landlords’ and tenants rights’ and other property letting regulations.
The figures for January to March showed a shortfall of 12% against the £19bn that represents a quarter of the annual £76bn target agreed with the government under the Project Merlin scheme for lending to smaller businesses.
Only 16% of FSB members had approached banks for credit and 44% of those had been refused, including some seeking credit to fulfil firm orders.
Growing businesses need working capital to fund the goods, materials, marketing and staff for new growth. While some of that can be obtained by borrowing against the sales ledger (through factoring and invoice discounting), the banks are seeing them as too high risk.
This is actually a reasonable response by the banks where businesses have been clinging on by their fingernails since the 2008 recession and, having used up most of their working capital on paying down old loans, are therefore according to the bank models seen as at high risk of insolvency.
It is a vicious circle. Less working capital means businesses neither have sufficient funds to buy materials to fulfil orders nor are they adequately capitalised to justify new loans. This is why it is very common for businesses to go bust when growth returns following a recession.
Once banks are realising that a company with outstanding debt is in difficulty, they are providing for the bad debt by adjusting their own capital ratios to cushion against increased risk and in anticipation of the new Basel lll rules requiring bank Tier 1 capital holdings (equity + retained earnings) to rise from 2% to 7% to be phased in from 2015 to 2018.
The result is higher fees and higher interest rates to businesses and it is no surprise that some companies already seen as a bad risk cannot borrow money, even when orders are rising.
Businesses that have used their land and buildings to secure loans or mortgages may also face huge risk related costs due to the bank’s exposure because banks already have so much commercial property as security that cannot be either leased or sold. The bank will therefore impose penal fees in a bid to recover the provisioning costs.
It has never been more urgent for businesses to mitigate this catch 22 by calling on expert help to look at fundamental solutions and recognise they will not be able to borrow money to limp along as they have been for the last two years.
Many people dream of owning their own business and in the current economic climate are finding themselves pitched into starting up perhaps before they are quite ready.
A franchise often comes with an established brand, support in training, promotional materials and advice so it is tempting to see buying into a franchise as a safer option than going into business completely independently.
But sinking savings or redundancy payments into any kind of business is a risk and a franchise is no different.
The big danger in taking on a franchise is getting a false sense of security that someone else is responsible for your business. They aren’t and a business plan is as important for a franchisee as for an independent trader.
Also, while the franchise provides support, it may also impose limits on independent action in order to protect its brand and reputation. The most successful franchises have tested their business model and methods and incorporated these into the package. It can happen that a franchise has failed because the franchisee has failed to follow the advice.
In a recent case of a franchise business in difficulty one of the biggest issues was that the franchisor declined to take any legal steps to protect its intellectual property or its franchisees’ rights.
The franchise model offered complete geographical coverage and each local franchise unit’s success depended on the whole network‘s efficiency, but there was nothing to stop people who had gained privileged knowledge within the franchise from setting up in competition.
It is essential when setting up any business to scrutinise any legalities required, take advice and to negotiate. Until comfortable with the terms do not buy into a franchise.
Essentially, yes, a franchise can be a very good business opportunity but it does not eliminate much of the risk inherent in setting up a business and needs the same preparation work as for any business start-up.
When borrowing against current assets, such as the sales ledger using factoring or invoice discounting or against fixed assets like plant and machinery or property, there seems to be a widespread misunderstanding among businesses about business funding and, in particular, working capital.
While credit is the most common form of finance there are many other sources of finance and ways to generate cash or other liquid assets that provide working capital. Understanding these is fundamental to ensure a company is not left short of cash.
Businesses in different situations require finance tailored to their specific needs. Too often the wrong funding model results in businesses becoming insolvent, facing failure or some degree of painful restructuring. In spite of this, borrowing against the book debts unlike funding a property purchase is a form of working capital.
Tony Groom, of K2 Business Rescue, explains: “Most growing companies need additional working capital to fund growth since they need to fund the work before being paid. For a stable business where sales are not growing, current assets ought to be the same as current liabilities, often achieved by giving and taking similar credit terms. When sales are in decline, the need for working capital should be reducing with the company accruing surplus cash.”
Restructuring a business offers the opportunity of changing its operating and financial models to achieve a funding structure appropriate to supporting the strategy, whether growth, stability or decline. Dealing with liabilities, by refinancing over a longer period, converting debt to equity or writing them off via a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA), can significantly improve liquidity and hence working capital.
While factoring or invoice discounting, like credit, are brilliant for funding growth, businesses should be wary of building up liabilities to suppliers if they have already pledged their sales ledger leaving them with no current assets to pay creditors.
The last couple of months have seen a significant increase in the numbers of Winding Up Petitions (WUPs) being filed in the High Court.
K2 Business Rescue has been monitoring the number of petitions and notes that since April 2011 they have significantly increased.
Weekly averages of 100 WUPs were filed during February and March and have increased to 150 per week in April and May. This compares to a weekly average of 92 during the last quarter of 2010
Many companies in difficulty have been hanging on by their fingernails while hoping their sales will pick up.
While the picture and possible explanations are unlikely to be clear until the quarterly insolvency statistics are released, the increase in the number of petitions is likely to have been influenced by the enduring lack of cash with businesses trying to collect in their overdue debts.
A WUP is normally only filed after efforts to collect payment have been exhausted or more often ignored where the petition is a last resort, the result of frustration. This is certainly the case with HMRC who file most of the petitions.
In view of the rising numbers of compulsory WUPs it is possible that they may overtake the previously historically higher numbers of voluntary liquidations as creditors run out of patience.
Retail pain continues with the news that Mothercare is to close a third of its 373 UK stores.
JJB Sports has just announced losses 0f £181.4 million for the year to 30 January 2011, three times the previous year’s loss of £68.6 million and plan to close 89 of their 247 stores over the next two years.
And HMV has just had to sell Waterstone’s for £53 million to pay down some of its £170 million of debt. In addition, they also propose to close 40 stores.
Oddbin’s too, has gone like most other wine retail chains, following its failed attempt to agree a restructuring plan with creditors, which was rejected by HMRC.
Plainly there is a major earthquake taking place on the High Street, and it is not all about cutbacks in consumer spending. More importantly retail purchasing is changing. Consumers are becoming sharper shoppers by looking elsewhere, not just in the High Street. They are visiting dedicated retail parks combining shopping and leisure to offer an experience, entertainment and convenience in one place and are also increasing their online spending.
The government has recently asked Mary ‘Queen of Shops’ Portas to take a look at the country’s High Streets and come up with suggestions for rescuing them, clearly hoping to find a way of rejuvenating this part of the UK economy.
She may well conclude that the competition from shopping and leisure centres with their easy access via car and public transport is too much and that the High Street can survive but only if it offers something different.
Locals still like to buy from local shops that provide a personal service, ideally selling local produce such as farm-sourced. This ought to support retailers like the grocer who lets you taste a piece of cheese before you buy, independent butchers who will advise, trim or even marinate meat and local bakers. Pubs, restaurants and cafes that cater for families, young people, the elderly all play their part in supporting community, even the self-help run library. But for the High Street to avoid further decline, everyone needs to work together and this will require leadership.
You never know, the High Street may be once again be a place where shopping is an enjoyable experience, but what will it look like?
Britain lacks self confidence and suffers from inadequate education, risk averse bureaucrats and unimaginative politicians trapped in the Westminster bubble outside the real world.
Former CBI chief Lord Digby Jones identifies all these as obstacles to rejuvenating UK Plc in an extract from his book Fixing Britain. It’s a picture K2 recognises.
“Too much of Britain is focused on repaying debt and not on investment in growth,” he says. “Too many companies are servicing debt and existing for the benefit of the banks when they should be cramming down debt and pursuing a clear strategy.”
Lenders, more interested in loans being repaid than on growing their customers, are stifling businesses with potential by soaking up surplus cash to service and repay their loans.
In our view companies should return to being run for their shareholders and employees rather than for the benefit of lenders. Rescue advisers can help companies with debt restructure by renegotiating loans and interest, converting debt to equity or using a CVA to cram down debt.
We need to create a market-driven and investment culture, where profits are reinvested and appropriate tax incentives to encourage business investment.
The UK cannot compete as a low-cost manufacturer with countries like India or China and therefore businesses need to focus on high value goods and services requiring specialist knowledge to justify a premium. This is why high calibre education of young people and apprenticeships are needed.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported recently that in 2010 real household disposable income fell by 0.8%, its first drop since 1977.
A plethora of profit warnings from major high street retailers is therefore no surprise. JJB successfully agreed a new Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) for repaying debt, just two years after its last one. Oddbins’ attempts to agree a CVA were rejected which led to it going into administration.
Meanwhile travel company Thomas Cook announced a 6% fall in holiday bookings from the UK. Dixons announced that it was cutting capital expenditure by 25%. H Samuel and Ernest Jones, Argos and Comet all report falling sales. Mothercare is to close a third of its 373 UK stores and HMV has just sold Waterstones for £53 million to pay down some of its £170 million of debt.
Falling consumer confidence, the Government’s austerity measures and rising commodity prices have led to a steady erosion of disposable income. An April report indicated an increase in retail sales, up 0.2% on February’s, but this was attributed to non-store (internet) and small store sales and probably conceals a continued decline in High Street sales.
After a few years of expansion fuelled by debt, it is entirely logical that the marketplace is now facing a sharp contraction as consumers spend less money while they are concerned about their job security and repaying their huge levels of personal debt.
Many companies need to contract and reduce their cost base if they are to survive. For the High Street retailers this means concentrating on profitable stores and reviewing strategy.
Growth is likely to involve developing experience based retail outlets in dedicated shopping environments or direct sales such as online. The High Street has failed to reinvent itself and the recession has accelerated its decline.
The most recent inflation rates show that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) has risen to 4%, a surprise drop of 0.4% from February and the Retail Price Index (RPI) to 5.3%, also a fraction less than February’s 5.5%.
If times were normal these figures would nevertheless trigger a rise in the interest rate to 7 % to 8%, about 2.5% above the RPI.
However, times are still clearly not normal following the financial “tsunami” that was the 2008 Great Recession. Many businesses are still struggling to survive and grow in the face of reduced spending by consumers and clients and cope with soaring materials and commodity prices and volatile oil prices because of uncertainty over events in North Africa and the Middle East.
As a result the fear that an interest rate rise might push the economy back into a recession has led to interest rates being decoupled from inflation. Inflation is a form of currency devaluation. It means that every £1 buys less than it did when inflation was lower. Interest rate rises help to correct this.
I would argue that currently many businesses are operating with huge levels of debt and not doing all they could to reduce even though they can only survive because interest rates are currently so low. But this current situation is only temporary.
While a viable business should be able to build a surplus of cash in this situation to provide itself with a cushion once interest rates start to rise again, a business in difficulty will not have this option. It therefore needs to think ahead and revamp the business model and restructure to survive and be ready for to what will happen when things are more “normal”.
Pressure on UK businesses is already intense as a result of the Government’s austerity measures designed to cut the UK budget deficit.
Already facing changes to NI payments, rising prices for raw materials as well as January’s increase in VAT from 17.5% to 20% and the dilemma of how much of these additional costs to pass on to consumers, now upheavals throughout North Africa and the Middle East are adding enormous uncertainty. Oil prices have soared to their highest levels for two years, with impacts on all areas of the economy.
But it is not only oil prices that could add to business instability. The UK is Egypt’s largest investor at around £10 billion, with around 900 UK companies involved, in
Tunisia exports from the UK in 2009 totalled £153 milliion, while imports were at £406 million, and trade with Libya is estimated to be worth £1.5 billion. British exports of goods to Libya were worth an estimated £1.29 billion in 2010.
The impacts will be felt on the UK travel industry, UK construction involved in building and infrastructure projects in Egypt and Tunisia but also on domestic services, for example Libyan-funded education in the UK of more than 6,000 students on undergraduate and postgraduate courses, worth an estimated £160 million.
I believe that, while businesses should try to hold their nerve, even those businesses that have survived so far without getting into difficulties might be wise to not only pay close attention to cash flow but also to revisit their business plans to put themselves in the best possible shape to be able to cope with the continuing uncertainty.
With the latest inflation figure showing an increase to 4.4% and a lower amount of tax collected in February, both announced the day before the budget was due, arguably the Chancellor had little room for manoeuvre.
There were some small comforts for smaller enterprises though the bulk of George Osborne’s measures are likely to benefit big corporations the most.
Cutting fuel duty by 1p per litre, and delaying a planned 4p per litre rise to April 2012 along with scrapping the fuel duty escalator was welcome particularly to hauliers, couriers and other companies that depend heavily on transport.
Keeping personal tax at its current level and increasing the personal tax allowance next year will also moderate any pressure on wage inflation, which is in any case not great given the current uncertainty over employment.
The money for apprenticeships, the new enterprise zones, the relaxation of planning laws and the new decision deadline should also make life easier for businesses.
However, I believe most of the budget’s measures are likely to benefit larger corporations, rather than the smaller, UK-focused businesses.
Overall this is a budget that doesn’t load yet more pressure on struggling businesses but the real concern among businesses is the prospect on interest rate rises which will squeeze those who are struggling to survive and precipitate a significant increase in the number of formal insolvencies.
Factoring and invoice discounting (borrowing money against invoices) can be a helpful tool for funding the working capital of a business.
While it used to be regarded as a means of borrowing by businesses in financial difficulties, it is now a common source of finance for managing cash flow and has the additional benefit of imposing discipline on the collection of outstanding sales invoices.
The service charge fee is pre-agreed with the finance provider and generally relates to the level of service provided. Fees for factoring are generally at a higher rate of between 0.8% and 3%, than for invoice discounting because the factoring service charge includes debt collection.
However, hidden in the small print are usually contingency fees that can be triggered by a default. These fees are sufficiently large to justify some lenders looking for reasons to trigger them.
There are many examples of companies in financial difficulties where the factor or invoice discount provider pull the plug on a facility and collects in the outstanding debts to recover funds loaned as well as their retaining the default and recovery fees.
Typical default fee are 10% of the ledger held plus recovery fees which are generally not specified. Such is the scope for earning fees that advisers to lenders might be persuaded to recommend the exercising of rights under a default knowing that they, as advisers, can be paid out of the recovery fee clause as well as repaying their lender client the loan and default fee.
Such self interested behaviour may swell the coffers of lenders but it doesn’t help preserve businesses or improve the reputation of the finance community.
Evidence is emerging that HM Revenue and Customs is adopting a tougher approach to PAYE, VAT and tax arrears and increasingly using its powers of distraint to take over control of the goods, stock and assets of businesses.
In one example this week, just two hours after K2 was appointed by a company in difficulties, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) officers appeared at the premises and levied distraint on all the company’s assets and stock. There are similar stories from other turnaround and restructuring professionals.
The issue of a distraint notice (a C204 notice, also called a distress or walking possession notice), under HMRC powers allows it to take control of everything seized and while it does not necessarily remove property at that point, it means that the company cannot continue trading and is effectively put out of business because it is prevented from using its stock and cannot either sell or give away anything that has been distrained. It normally has just five days to comply.
This walking possession is used rather like Winding Up Petitions (WUPs) when HMRC has exhausted attempts to communicate with the company. Most companies are shocked when HMRC follows through with the actual action because it appears to come as a surprise, but when they review their correspondence they should not have been.
If the company does not pay or come up with alternative proposals, HMRC or an appointed agent can then take everything away for sale.
This hardline change of tactics comes after figures, published end of January, showed that the HMRC rejection rate for Time to Pay (TTP) arrangements had climbed from 2.7% in 2009 to 5.8% in 2010.
TTP is a very real solution for companies that cannot pay. While for the last two years HMRC has supported government policy of providing a light touch approach to businesses in difficulty, it is responsible for collecting arrears and not for saving businesses.
If a company receives a notice of intention to either wind up or distrain it should not delay in seeking the services of insolvency or turnaround advisers.
With so many companies in financial difficulties will many companies be able to take out further loans as a result of the new agreement known as Project Merlin?
The government last week announced that it had reached agreement with the UK’s four biggest banks to increase the amount of new lending to business in 2011 to a total £190 billion, of which £76 billion would be for small and medium sized businesses (SMEs). The SME portion is an increase of 15% on 2010.
The lending to businesses will be on commercial terms that reflect the reduced number of lenders in the market. With bank base rates being so low, currently 0.5%, companies are being charged a huge premium with interest rates being set as 8 – 9% above the base rate. In addition, huge arrangement fees are also being applied, where fees representing 5 – 10% of the loan are not uncommon.
Many balance sheets are so decimated carrying huge liabilities to creditors such as HMRC, suppliers and asset based lenders (often at over value) that many businesses will not be able to justify a loan.
Business advisers, who see the effects of policy on the ground, say that one effect of Project Merlin will be for the banks to convert short term revolving facilities, such as overdrafts renewable daily, monthly or quarterly, into medium term loans. These will almost certainly be categorised as new loans in the quota reports but won’t actually represent additional, new funding. The banks continue to run rings around the politicians.
Converted loans are increasingly repayable on demand and therefore are being agreed on terms that allow the bank to keep all its options for essentially demanding immediate repayment.
Andrew Cave, of the Federation of Small Businesses, commented that the majority of small businesses were not seeking finance from the banks at the moment because the cost of existing and new borrowing is increasing and David Frost, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, also cast doubt on whether the agreement will make any difference because of what he called the banks’ poor and opaque decision-making and over-centralised processes, with a lack of good frontline relationship managers locally in the banks.
Figures from the UK Insolvency Service just released on 4 February 2011 for the last quarter of 2010 (Q4) show a decline in compulsory and voluntary liquidations, continuing a downward trend.
The total number of compulsory liquidations and creditors’ voluntary liquidations for the quarter to 31 December 2010 was 3,955 in England and Wales, a decrease of 0.2% on the previous quarter and a decrease of 11.3% on the same period a year ago.
However, closer examination of these numbers reveals that there were 1,200 compulsory liquidations, up 5.8% on the previous quarter but down 9.9% on the corresponding quarter of 2009, while 2,755 creditors’ voluntary liquidations (CVLs), are down 2.6% on the previous quarter and down 11.8% on the corresponding quarter of the 2009.
Compulsory liquidations are therefore showing a very slight upward trend after the previous two quarters, when they were down 3.2% on the previous quarter and in Q2 were down 9.9%.
A more interesting and perhaps pertinent comparison is with the figures from the last recession.
Either directors are doing a fantastic job of restructuring their companies to remain profitable with positive cash flow, which is unlikely when the word is that advisers from the insolvency and restructuring professionals are not busy.
The other possibility is that “companies are just hanging on in there” with support from creditors, including HMRC and banks, adopting a very light touch on struggling companies.
Companies should bite the bullet and undergo restructuring to survive as viable businesses. Until then, they will continue to “hang on in there”.
The majority of businesses in the UK are defined as small and employ fewer than 50 people while only one per cent of UK companies employ more than 1000 people.
Small businesses would generally be defined as having fewer than 50 employees, assets worth less than £5 million and a turnover less than £5 million, yet they account for two thirds of the UK’s private sector.
The Government is pinning its hopes of recovery on dramatically and quickly reducing the country’s budget deficit with a combination of cutbacks, including making an estimated 330,000 people in the public sector redundant, a figure revised downwards in November 2010 from its estimate of 490,000 the previous June.
This revision, albeit in human terms still a large number of people, is based on its forecast for growth in the economy in 2011 of 2.1% for all of which it relies on the private sector – the majority of which is made up of small businesses.
Economists and politicians are both emphasising that the opportunities for growth lie largely in increasing exports on the grounds that there is a burgeoning middle class in the fastest growing economies, like China, India, Brazil and Russia (the BRICS) with a growing appetite for sophisticated technology and household products.
But while this might be an option for businesses involved in manufacture it does not help those many small businesses providing services and products to local businesses and consumers in the UK only.
The UK manufacturing sector currently accounts for 26% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the Government’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) published a White Paper proposing to expand adult apprenticeships by up to 75,000 by 2014-15 and to set up a new £50 million Growth and Innovation Fund, with financial support to SMEs to co-fund the costs of training for lower skilled employees.
Help with skills training by 2014-15 is hardly much use in 2011 and in any event growth will depend on being able to both increase sales and availability of finance from the banks to fund the additional working capital needed to support them.
Businesses and the UK economy are under pressure from inflation thanks to increased taxes, such as VAT, and commodity prices and also pressure due to declining sales thanks to the reduction in consumer spending.
The current situation is as there has been a considerable amount of wage restraint in the marketplace with employees more concerned about keeping their job than earning more. This fear of job loss however does not apply to all staff, where retaining certain key employees is crucial as their loss would have an adverse impact on the business.
This is a common problem for restructuring advisers who need to solve it when dealing with companies in financial difficulties. When a business is in financial difficulty management often seeks to reduce staff costs such as by asking employees to take a pay cut in order to help the company survive and to keep their jobs.
Many attempts at restructuring insolvent companies fail due to flawed restructuring strategies and an inability to get the support of staff for a realistic solution. In the case of the Rover car company the opportunity was there to restructure the company using the £500 million dowry from BMW. But management failure and a lack of ownership of the problem by staff and their union representatives contributed to the company failing five years later when all employees lost their jobs.
Employees tend to be more concerned about the survival and future viability of their jobs than most other stakeholders. Banks and lenders tend only to be interested in the security of their outstanding loan, and shareholders often sell their shares or just ‘hang on and hope’ without further investment.
Involving employees in the development of a restructuring plan instead of imposing decisions on them can bring about solutions such as real cost savings and flexibility.
This notion of giving employees a greater say in their future exists in other countries, notably in Germany where employees’ representatives sit on the board of directors, and in the USA where unions like the Teamsters often hold shares in their member companies and are actively involved in strategic decision making.
British banks have until 31 January 2012 to pay back the money made available to them by the Bank of England since April 2008 through its Special Liquidity Scheme, the support that was provided following the temporary public ownership of Northern Rock in the UK, the collapse of Lehman Brothers in the US and the onset of the global economic recession.
Where is this money is going to come from? The likely answer is from businesses and customers. While banks are likely to borrow some money via issuing corporate bonds in the marketplace it is unlikely there will be much inter-bank lending.
So it is reasonable to assume that banks will make up the difference by withdrawing money from the marketplace, that is from businesses and individuals from repayment of loans and overdrafts. In addition to reducing existing loans, it will be difficult for banks to find new money for lending and businesses and other borrowers will find it harder to agree loans, and even if they are successful will find that repayment terms will be stricter and more costly.
The amounts involved are almost too big to imagine. The amount due to be repaid is £185 billion which is similar to the combined value of the UK’s four leading banks (LloydsTSB, Barclays, HSBC and RBS).
At the same time the banks know they face tighter regulation on lending and capital reserves under new regulations, called Basel III, from the world’s banking regulator. Meeting these new requirements will require banks to raise substantial amounts of fresh capital placing further burden on the lending market.
At the same time the Government has now introduced a series of measures, including a rise in VAT, higher National Insurance Contributions and public sector cuts, aimed at reducing the country’s budget deficit. The bulk of businesses on which the economy depends are small traders and entrepreneurs and if they are experiencing a combination of higher costs and tightly restricted lending they cannot plan for growth and increasing the profits they would need to be able to expand and in fact should be focusing on cash management and cash flow in order to survive.
It is difficult to see how a long gentle decline can be avoided in these circumstances, when the fact is that the banks must find the money for repayment somewhere. Double dip recession?
It is not being much talked about in the marketplace but it is becoming increasingly common for HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to reject Company Voluntary Arrangements that would previously have been accepted.
In the past HMRC has appeared to be a great supporter of CVAs, but recently they have been rejecting a number of CVA proposals that they would have approved in the past.
While there are no published statistics on the numbers of liquidations resulting from failed CVAs, historically a large percentage have failed. Business rescue advisers and insolvency practitioners believe that the failure rate of CVAs post approval is somewhere between 60% and 70%.
HMRC website guidelines to case officers indicate that they should attempt to get arrears repaid within 12 months with longer periods being the exception. This may explain why HMRC is now rejecting more proposals.
A CVA can be used to improve cash flow quickly in order to keep trading while paying off its debts in a manageable way. It is a legally binding agreement between an insolvent company and its creditors to repay some, or all, of its historic debts out of future profits, over a period of time.
For a business in difficulty a low level of contributions in the early period of a CVA allows it to get back on its feet in the short term while refocusing the business on survival and increasing profits, thus enabling it to pay higher contributions later in the CVA. This increases the chances of the business being able to maintain its payments throughout the CVA period and reducing the risk of failure. High repayments required in the early stages will mean it cannot do this.
However, many CVAs are drafted by insolvency practitioners with a view to the proposal being approved, and as a result many of those being approved today are offering significant contributions to creditors, some exceeding 100p in the £.
While the greater contribution improves the chances of a CVA proposal being approved by creditors, the lack of realism about a company’s ability to achieve the commitments is the reason for such a high failure rate post approval.
The support and co-operation of its stakeholders can be crucial to the success or failure of the efforts by a business in difficulty to restructure and survive.
Stakeholders are all those people who have an interest in the business and are likely to be affected by its activities and most crucially by its failure, and they include shareholders, investors, creditors, the bank, suppliers, landlords, employees (and their union representatives) and customers or clients.
Plainly, when a business is in difficulty and has called in a rescue adviser to review its activities, costs, business model and viability, any actions it may need to take as a result will be more likely to succeed if its stakeholders both understand the situation and support the proposed solutions.
While there is one key interest that all hold in common, which is that all have an interest in the business surviving if they want to continue to receive income from it, it is probable that the interests of some stakeholders will conflict with those of others.
Employees will be most concerned about keeping their jobs and their co-operation in any restructuring is likely to depend on whether they feel the management is considering their concerns as well as involving them in the changes that may need to be made. If there are unions involved getting them on board can be the key to persuading employees to co-operate.
Creditors and investors, on the other hand, may just want to be paid what they are owed and whether they are prepared to forgo or renegotiate payments or finance in the short term will depend on how much confidence they have in its future.
The bank’s primary concern is to ensure loans are secure, safe and will be paid and will want to be kept informed as well as being given evidence that the business has been properly looked at by a specialist adviser, shown to be viable and any proposals are realistic and have a good chance of achieving the desired results.
It is crucial that the rescue adviser is involved in the management of the stakeholders thus ensuring that their concerns are understood. This will go a long way to ensuring stakeholders’ co-operation.
Traditionally UK retailers expect sales in the fourth quarter of the year(Q4) to be significantly boosted by pre-Christmas shopping and by year end sales.
However, according to figures released on January 21 by the Office for National Statistics retail sales volumes dropped 0.8% in December compared with November. It was said to be the weakest annual performance for any December since records began in 1988.
Among those that have already reported sales drops are Clinton Cards, with sales down by 2.1% in the last five weeks of the year, and Mothercare posting a drop of 4%. HMV reported falls in December sales of 10% in the UK and 13.6% in Ireland and issued a profit warning. Next said it had lost £22 million in Christmas sales.
Many blamed the three weeks of December snow that seized up the UK’s transport system and even online shopping options were no help because many distribution services were unable to guarantee pre-Christmas deliveries.
Sainsbury’s, however, reported sales up 10.1% for the four weeks to December 25, compared with the same period in 2009.
The Q4 figures and further retail results may show that there has been some late-December cheer as consumers rushed to beat the January 4 VAT increase, from 17.5% to 20%.
But it is looking as if the end of year boost the retail sector traditionally relies on may not have quite materialised for most and may have left them less well placed to face the difficult trading conditions expected in 2011.
The most difficult issue facing retailers will be maintaining their profit margins. Margins may have been propped up in December-January by the rush to beat the VAT increase, especially on the larger items but commodity prices on basics like cotton, wheat, rice, maize and sugar are expected to continue to rise thanks to global financial speculation.
Without a fundamental examination of the business, cost cutting (wages, premises, equipment etc) may not be sufficient for survival in current conditions.
Perhaps a high street retail presence is no longer sustainable and more fundamental and innovative solutions, such as moving the emphasis to online selling, may be the only way some retailers can survive.
Profit and turnover are, of course, important measures of business performance but when times are as difficult as they are at the start of 2011 and many businesses are finding themselves in difficulties the main focus must shift to cash.
Cash flow is the most immediate indicator of the way a business is performing and can also provide a warning signal that action needs to be taken to prevent a slide into insolvency.
Close attention to cash flow should give a clearer picture of the immediate state of the business but while it may be possible to adjust to strengthen incomings against outgoings this is only going to be a holding operation.
The business must also look at its business plan and business model, preferably with the help of a turnaround adviser. An objective outsider working as part of the business team to secure its medium and longer term future may identify fundamental weaknesses that undermine the ability to control cash flow.
The first step in managing cash is to construct a 13-week cash flow forecast to help identify risks and actions that can be taken to reduce them. It should include income from sales and other receipts and outgoings, both to ongoing obligations such as rent wages and finance and to creditors.
The business also needs to control cash on a daily basis, with payments made on a priority basis with purchases approved by an authorised person who is aware of their impact on cash flow. This will avoid the risk of returned cheques. It is also advisable to talk to the bank and keep it aware of what is being done to keep things under control.
Tight control of cash coupled with a thorough look at the business model and a realistic business plan will go a long way to help a business survive in difficult trading conditions.
One of the greatest worries in the predicted difficult conditions of 2011 for both businesses and consumers is price inflation thanks in part to the increase in VAT from 17.5% to 20% from January 4 but also to the rise in commodity prices including basic foods and oil.
Coupled with rising energy prices and public sector job cuts, this is expected to lead to a drop in consumer spending on non-essentials.
Businesses therefore need to protect themselves to ensure their survival and consider whether to concentrate on profits in the short term rather than longer term growth.
A high inflation rate makes it difficult for businesses to set prices. Normally when the inflation rate is climbing too quickly or remaining consistently high, interest rates will be increased in an attempt to bring it under control and eventually reduce it.
However, in an interconnected global economy, where most countries are subject to the same external pressures from such things as commodity price speculation on basic foods, speculation on futures in oil and minerals that are the raw materials used by manufacturers, it is being argued that this will not work now.
Financial engineering is being carried out well outside the influence of the government and beyond any attempts by the Bank of England to use interest rates to bring inflation down. The question is whether in fact inflation is something to be worried about in current circumstances.
A UK business trading only in the UK will face a tougher time than a UK business focused on export, which can target the emerging BRICs with expanding middle classes that provide capacity for economic growth.
UK focused businesses in 2011 are therefore likely to be caught between a rock and a hard place and it may be that businesses should consider carrying out a thorough review to identify any cost savings they could make before the going gets any tougher.
Recently uploaded guidelines for HM Revenue and Customs case officers dealing with requests from businesses in difficulty for time to pay arrears of VAT, PAYE or tax, reveal the detail of what questions will be asked before the request for a Time to Pay arrangement (TTP) can be considered.
Applicants must be able to show that they have tried to raise the money they owe by other means beforehand. Individuals, which includes sole traders and the self employed, may be asked to show that they have approached their bank or asked friends or family for a loan or that they cannot pay the debt via a credit card.
However, the advice to case officers also states that for individuals “it is unacceptable for us to insist that a customer has made every effort to secure a loan before agreeing TTP” because it would contravene Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidelines.
Both individuals and larger businesses may also be asked whether they have any assets that can be easily converted into cash or any savings that they could use to settle the debt, even if early withdrawal might incur a payment penalty. This also applies to endowment or life insurance policies, although the HMRC cannot insist that these are cashed to pay a debt.
The HMRC distinguishes between debts below £100,000 and debts above that amount and for larger businesses HMRC would want to see evidence, usually a letter from the bank, that the company has approached their bank and discussed borrowing facilities beforehand as well as exploring options for raising money from: shareholders, Directors, book debt factoring and invoice discounting, stock finance, sale and leaseback of assets or venture capital providers.
The case officer will also consider the applicant’s previous history of paying on time, whether they have had a previous TTP and previous difficulties will weigh heavily in the final decision and whether the business is viable.
It would make sense, therefore, to have a thorough business review and the support of a rescue adviser or insolvency practitioner to assess the business viability and explore all these options and to document them before approaching HMRC.
As businesses face continued tough trading conditions in 2011 a new series of guidelines has appeared on the HM Customs and Revenue (HMRC) website on the arrangements for paying arrears of tax, VAT and PAYE, known as Time to Pay (TTP).
Although the guidelines are aimed at those working in the revenue they are equally useful for businesses in difficulties in outlining the questions and conditions businesses will need to be prepared for if they are in arrears with revenue payments and looking for a manageable way to spread the repayments.
Firstly, in all cases the repayment period to be set will be as short as possible and usually no more than a year unless there are “exceptional circumstances”. However long the arrangement, interest will be charged while the debt remains outstanding.
There is no entitlement for a business to be granted a TTP. HMRC officers must consider the timescale being requested by the “customer”, their previous payment history and the amount outstanding.
Businesses must meet two further conditions and they are that the applicant must have the means to make the agreed payments as well as the means to pay other tax liabilities that become due during the TTP period.
Finally, the guidelines make it clear that the preferred method of dealing with TTP requests is by telephone, because it allows for detailed questioning of the viability of the business, and as part of the assessment of whether the situation is a “can’t” or a “won’t” pay.
The amount of detailed information that will be requested from the applicant will vary according to the level of the debt, divided into three categories, for debts below £100,000, from £100,000 to £1 million and for more than £1 million.
Whatever the level of arrears, for a successful TTP to be achieved any business in difficulty is strongly advised to be honest with itself and its advisers about all its outstanding debts and liabilities if it is to be able to stick to any TTP arrangement.
It is crucial that before the telephone conversation the applicant has all the required information on income and expenditure prepared and ready so that they can remain calm throughout what can be a stressful situation.
A Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) is a binding agreement between a company and those to whom it owes money (creditors).
It is based on a proposal that will include affordable, realistic and manageable repayment terms. It normally allows for repayment to be spread over a period of three to five years and can also be used to offer to repay less than the amount due if this is all the company can afford.
The proposal is sent to the Company’s Creditors along with an independent report on the proposal by an insolvency practitioner acting as Nominee.
Creditors are invited to respond to the CVA proposal by voting to either accept it, or reject it, or accept it subject to modifications that the Creditor proposes as a condition of their vote for acceptance. The votes are counted by value of claim where the requisite majority for approval is 75% of the votes cast. This is subject to a second vote to check that 50% of the non-connected creditors approve the proposals.
A CVA can only be used when a company is insolvent but it can be used to save a company rather than close it when creditors are pressing including when a debt related judgement can’t be satisfied or a creditor has filed a Winding Up Petition (WUP).
In addition to proposing terms for repaying debt, it helps to include details of any restructuring and reorganisation along with a business plan so that creditors can assess the viability of the surviving business. The proposals must be fair and not prejudice any individual or class of creditor including those with specific rights such as personal guarantees. These include trade suppliers, credit insurers, finance providers, employees, landlords and HM Revenue and Customs, the latter often being key in view of the arrears of VAT and PAYE that many companies have built up.
A CVA should only be used when the company’s directors are willing to be honest with themselves and face up to the position the company is in, preferably with the advice and guidance of an insolvency practitioner or experienced business rescue advisor but used properly it can improve a company’s cash flow very quickly by removing onerous financial obligations and easing the pressure from creditors.
Many directors are afraid of terminating contracts and agreements when their companies are in financial difficulties normally out of a concern that termination will lead to a cancellation payment that the company cannot afford.
If a company is experiencing fewer orders or lower sales, for example, generally it will need fewer staff but the worry is that terminating contracts of employment will trigger costs, particularly where senior staff are involved.
Similarly, a reduction in orders may mean that the company only needs two of the five fork lift trucks it has where terminating a hire purchase, hire or lease arrangement ahead of the agreed contract period will trigger a termination settlement or a contract termination liability.
Equally it might now no longer be able to afford the 12-month advertising contract it agreed six months previously. Even terminating contracts with advisers can be expensive.
A company in financial difficulties does not have the surplus cash to meet these obligations. But while it puts off terminating arrangements it no longer needs it continues to bear the costs.
It is often better to cut the cash flow if this reduces costs that mean the business is viable: profitable with positive cash flow. There are remedies that can be used if necessary to deal with the crystallised liabilities when a company cannot afford them.
Negotiating terms for informal arrangements with creditors is sensible. It may involve negotiating terms of payment, such as a Time to Pay (TTP) arrangement with HMRC for PAYE or VAT arrears, which have been very effective in helping companies out of insolvency.
Many companies leave it far too late to reach informal arrangements that would have allowed them to terminate contracts before the company finally runs out of money.
But there is a solution that allows companies to terminate contracts and not pay for them immediately on termination. A Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) avoids liquidation of the business and closing it down. It allows for paying the contract termination out of profits.
Insolvent Liquidation involves a formal process to close a company. It happens when a company is insolvent, which means it does not have enough cash or liquid assets to pay its debts and the directors have concluded that continuing to trade will be detrimental to creditors.
There are four tests (set out in the Insolvency Act 1986) any of which can be used to establish whether a company is insolvent. The tests don’t necessarily mean that the company will have to close down, although often directors assume that it must. However, there are remedies that could save the company if at this stage it calls on a licensed insolvency practitioner or business turnaround adviser, who would carry out a review of the accounts, the assets including property, stock and debts and the liabilities. With help from the adviser, the company can develop realistic plans for it to survive and trade out of insolvency.
Once it is decided that the company is insolvent, and cannot be rescued, it should be closed down in an orderly fashion which means via a liquidation process. This involves the company’s assets being turned into cash and used to pay off its debts to creditors.
There are two types of liquidation, one compulsory and one voluntary and both are legal processes.
Voluntary liquidation through a Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation (CVL) is when the directors of the company themselves conclude that the company can no longer go on trading and should be wound up.
Normally they would engage an insolvency practitioner to help guide the directors through the formal procedure, which involves a board meeting to convene shareholder and creditor meetings.
The nominated liquidator normally sends out notices to shareholders and creditors having obtained their details from the directors and helps directors prepare the necessary formal documentation that is legally required.
The nominated liquidator must be a licensed insolvency practitioner who provides his consent to act which must be available for inspection at the meeting.
If the directors have left consulting too late they can then find themselves facing the court winding up procedure rather than having the option of a CVL.
Compulsory liquidation is triggered by a creditor formally asking the courts to have a company closed down by submitting a Winding Up Petition (WUP. In this case the court decides whether or not to support the petition by ordering that the company be wound up (compulsorily liquidated).
Upon a winding up order being made, an officer called the official receiver is automatically appointed to take control of the company to oversee the process of closing it down. The official receiver may, if he/she wishes, appoint a liquidator to assist in dealing with recovering and selling any assets.
The large number of companies in financial difficulties is swamping the banks and as a result there is a lack of experience in banks when dealing with companies in the process of restructuring.
If a company is subject to a Winding-up Petition (WUP) the bank can be held liable for any funds that are paid out of its bank account once the Petition has been advertised in the London Gazette. As a result banks tend to freeze the accounts of any company with an outstanding WUP as soon as they become aware of it. The only way for a company to free up money in a frozen account is via an application to Court for a Validation Order.
When attempting to save a company where there is no WUP, however, the lack of experience among banks means that in some instances they are behaving as if there were a WUP and this is getting in the way of attempts to restructure because banks do not understand the distinction between the various restructuring tools.
An example of where this is happening is when a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) is being proposed. The process of agreeing a CVA involves notifying creditors of the intention and allowing time for a meeting to be set up for creditors to approve the CVA proposals. Usually there is a hiatus period of at least three weeks between notification and the meeting, which allows creditors to consider the proposals and make any comments or request adjustments before the meeting.
However, banks’ inexperience of CVAs is leading some of them to freeze company accounts during the hiatus period and this has an adverse effect in that the company is no longer able to trade. While banks generally do not have the right to freeze their clients’ bank accounts unless there is either a WUP, an order by the Court or a breach of contract, they may take precautionary action out of fear when they don’t know what is going on. Concern about fraud can always be used to justify such an action.
It therefore makes sense for a company to talk to its bank beforehand to let them know what’s going on. Where the company is overdrawn clearly the bank is a creditor and should be notified of any restructuring proposals, in particular where there is a CVA.
When a company is insolvent the duties of the directors as its officers move from a primary duty to shareholders to a primary duty to protecting the interests of its creditors.
Shareholders’ liabilities are limited to the value of their equity and are protected from liability to creditors under what is known as the “corporate veil”.
However, if the shares are only partly paid for and the company enters formal insolvency the creditors can, via the appointment of a liquidator, demand that the shares be fully paid in order to discharge the creditors’ liability.
It is also possible that a company’s shareholders might have given a personal guarantee at some stage during their involvement with the company. It might be that at start-up for instance, particularly when a family member has started a small business, or when the company subsequently entered a contract such as a lease, some or all of the shareholders personally guaranteed the contract and then later forget about it, especially if they are no longer directors or officers of the company as they may have been in its early days. It can also be an issue after the shareholders have sold their shares but not discharged their personal guarantees.
Directors, on the other hand, can be held to be personally liable under the Insolvency Act 1986 for money owed to creditors. They must not sell any assets under their market value. They must not pay some creditors and not others in a way that seeks to prefer those being paid. The fiduciary duty imposed on the directors of an insolvent company leaves them with personal liabilities that are not imposed on shareholders.
However, it is often the case with small companies that the director and shareholder are one and the same and in those situations the director must remember that he or she wears different hats as director, shareholder, employee and also as a creditor, if they have lent money to the company. This is in particular an area where repaying director loans can attract a charge of preference referred to above.
It therefore makes sense to get outside help from a business turnaround or rescue adviser if you are involved in a business as both a shareholder and as a creditor. It is in the advisor’s interests to offer realistic solutions to help restructure the company.
Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation is a process by which the directors of an insolvent company can close it down in an orderly fashion without involving a court procedure. There are four tests of insolvency laid down in the Insolvency Act 1986.
Insolvency does not necessarily mean that a company should be closed down, but depends crucially on whether or not continuing to trade will enable the company to emerge from insolvency and will improve the position for creditors.
If the company does continue to trade, the directors should seek professional advice as they have a legal obligation to act in the best interests of the company’s creditors and if the company eventually does have to be closed down they will need documented proof of this or they risk becoming personally liable for the company’s debts.
The CVL procedure is defined by the 1986 Act and involves a board meeting at which the directors formally agree that the company should cease to trade. The next step is to seek shareholder consent. At least 75% of the shareholders must approve the directors’ proposal and at least 50% must approve the nominated liquidator. The shareholders may disagree and wish to appoint new directors to save the company.
Documents must be prepared including Statutory Information on the company, a history of the business, historical financial information of the company, deficiency account, a statement of affairs and a list of creditors.
A creditors’ meeting is also convened to confirm the nominated liquidator or appoint the creditors’ own nominee, who will need approval by at least 50% of the creditors. All nominated liquidators must be licensed insolvency practitioners who have provided consent to act, which must be available for inspection at the meeting.
The liquidator’s duties include dealing with assets which are normally sold, accessing creditors’ claims and distributing surplus cash to creditors following a strict order of legal priority. They must also investigate the accounts and activities of the company and in particular look at the transactions prior to the company being placed into liquidation. Having done this they report to the Insolvency Service on the conduct of the directors.
A CVL is a very efficient procedure with the liquidator taking over responsibility for dealing with creditors and closing down the company. It also demonstrates that the directors were responsible in carrying out their duties by closing down the company in an orderly manner when they believed it should cease to trade.
In the current economic crisis company directors are cutting their drawings and foregoing their salaries in order to save their companies still hoping that the market will recover.
As a result they are retaining costs that their companies cannot afford by sacrificing their personal drawings on the company today.
For how long can, or should, directors sacrifice their income and dividends in order to retain the company’s capacity for growth in the hope the order book fills up?
Once a company’s creditors are affected by a worsening balance sheet then there is a risk that the directors could be held personally liable for the increasing debt if they do not take decisive action to get the situation under control, for example by consulting a business turnaround adviser.
In any event no company can continue in a situation of insolvency for long in the hope of an upturn in the market without taking some measures to try to move it back to profitability.
At the time of writing it is estimated that there are more than 370,000 Time to Pay arrangements between businesses and HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Such a huge number suggests that a lot of directors have sacrificed their drawings in order to prop up their company to keep it going in the short-term by deferring payments rather than restructuring the business for long term survival. This highlights the need for a lot of companies to change their business model and significantly cut their costs.
Doing so would benefit a company’s directors, who could then start to pay themselves once the company resumed profitability.
While it may be easy in such circumstances to cut your drawings, pension contributions or health insurance this can only ever be a short term measure.
Without a proper review of the company or the ability to make profits you may be prejudicing your personal futures.
It is a very rare company that does not need to review its business model from time to time, and it may also be that there is a viable core business buried under the current problems that an objective but supportive turnaround adviser may be able to identify and help the directors to nurture.
Most forecasting is generally done for lending, fund raising or other investor related purposes and therefore with hope of future growth built into the forecast. Such forecasts show how loans will be repaid and investors will achieve a return on their money. Such forecasts are often more about hope than reality.
On the other hand, a turnaround forecast must be achieved and ideally exceeded and is more oriented towards improving cash flow than making future profits. Low expectations are set so that the business does better than forecast, especially if the business is looking for support from the bank or additional finance that tends to have expensive penalties for failure. Therefore turnaround forecasting will deal with a level of detail where a turnaround business plan is essential.
So the turnaround forecast is used to show the pre-turnaround business model, and then the costs of implementing the turnaround and then the post-turnaround business model. To illustrate this take the situation of a company recently helped by K2 Business Rescue, that has shrunk and no longer needs two factory units and is looking to consolidate into one to reduce premises costs.
The less expensive but ideal unit needs three-phase electricity installing to operate the heavy equipment that is in the second unit, but the electricity supplier has switched off the power in that unit due to an overdue account. The cost of reinstating the existing supply, however, is similar to the cost of installing the new three-phase supply.
K2’s turnaround forecast showed a significant cash saving if the move was brought forward by investing in the three-phase installation which both cut premises costs and saved the cash that would otherwise have been needed to pay to reinstate electricity as well as install the three-phase. The focus on cash helped make this decision, the profit and loss benefit helped justify it. And the electricity supplier liability was bound in a CVA (company voluntary arrangement).
It challenged the orthodoxy that not spending money is going to save money whereas investing a little now could save a lot later.
The essential point is to distinguish between short term and medium turn benefits and a turnaround forecast is looking at cash flow in the short and medium term rather. It is dealing in reality rather than hope and incorporated into the medium term is the effects of what fundamental change is being made in the short term.
If a bank takes action to freeze a company’s bank account it is an indication that the bank is nervous and under its bank facility terms and conditions has exercised its right to not release funds.
A bank’s behaviour is monitored by its facility people and triggering action to freeze does not imply any expression of judgement or opinion on the business itself.
There are two other circumstances that can trigger a bank account freeze.
The first is when a winding up petition is advertised in the London Gazette, which is a legal requirement before a petition can be heard in the High Court. In this situation the bank is required to freeze the business account because the bank can be held to be liable for any funds paid out of the account.
A second situation that can trigger a bank account freeze is when there are not sufficient funds in the account, which makes it effectively frozen, even if it hasn’t been done formally by the bank.
It is most likely to happen because the company is not paying money into the account, possibly because its factoring company is not remitting funds to the bank.
A company’s relationship with its bank is aggravated if the company fails to take steps to deal with this situation, putting the bank in the embarrassing position of having to return cheques or direct debits.
Payment returns can also cost a company a great deal of money, adding to the pressure on its cash flow by charging fees but it also causes the bank to more actively monitor the account because the company’s directors are failing to manage it within the facility that has been agreed.
In a situation like this when there are insufficient funds but the bank account is not formally frozen, the directors need to take prompt action, including stopping the release of cheques, cancelling all standing orders and direct debits and taking control of the cash to manage all future payments. This creates a hiatus period during which cash is only released if there are sufficient funds.
During this hiatus period when survival is in jeopardy, directors must manage the company in the best interests of creditors. Payments are only made to meet ongoing costs and those crucial liabilities that need to be paid for to keep the business going.
If, however, the bank account has been formally frozen the directors can only make payments either with the bank’s approval or with an order from the courts.
The structure of a business is crucial to its success and often it can get in the way of growth.
If a business needs to build another factory, say, then if the funding is not in place to do so that will get in the way of growth. This should be factored into the business model.
Often, in order to correct this kind of issue a business needs to be restructured to give itself the flexibility it might need to survive and grow.
Ideally a regular look at the business structure would be part of the process of continuous improvement to ensure a business is in the best possible shape to meet short term problems, like an economic downturn and a consequent drop in orders, and to enable it to thrive, grow and expand long term.
Restructuring more often is carried out as a consequence of a business struggling to survive and is one of the tools available to business rescue advisers called in to help a company in difficulties.
An example of what a restructuring adviser can do is the case of a company K2 was involved with that had a break-even point of £3.5 million and whose turnover had declined from £5 million to less than £2.5 million.
In this situation it was clear that, although viable, significant changes were needed. They included closing a factory, getting rid of onerous financial arrangements, terminating some employment contracts and reducing other fixed costs. The outcome of these actions was to reduce the break-even point to £1.8 million.
A reduction of sales to just under £2.5 million then became a healthy profit rather than a significant loss.
It meant that the unit cost of production was also reduced once it was free of the burden of the finance drain on the equipment.
It might seem that this should have been obvious to those running the company, but it is possible to be too intimately involved in the day to day running of a business, especially one under this kind of stress, and to be unable, therefore to stand back and look at the elements in the structure of the business that are impeding a solution to its changed circumstances.
There are essentially three phases to a business turnaround which are the first, emergency phase to try to ensure survival, followed by stabilisation, which includes a thorough look at any fundamental changes needed to achieve a viable business and finally the growth phase to secure its future on solid foundations.
It is important that the main objectives of each phase are achieved before going on to the next one. This needs a clear understanding from all those involved of the objectives of each phase. The focus of activity changes throughout the process from hoarding cash, terminating contracts and limits on spending while trying to survive in the emergency phase is very different to funding marketing activities, new processes, training and other efficiency related initiatives during a stabilisation phase.
The turnaround process differs from the insolvency process in that the aim of turnaround is to achieve a viable company that can survive whereas insolvency is aimed at putting a business in the best shape to sell the assets and liquidate the company.
The first phase can be likened to triage and is similar to the actions usually carried out by a paramedic at the site of a traffic accident. The paramedic’s job is to stabilise the situation so that the injured can be moved to the surgeon (if needed) who would carry out the second phase of dealing with the damage.
Company doctors are the business equivalent of the paramedic, taking quick decisions to optimise survival, and the surgeon, focussed on becoming cash positive as quickly as possible by only paying essential suppliers and liabilities.
Once the adviser has had a detailed look at the accounts and the business operation to establish the essentials they can then also put together a proposal for ensuring that there is sufficient cash flow to deal with the immediate situation in a way that will allow the business to continue trading while a strategy is being prepared for the next phase.
It will depend on the state of each individual business what the adviser will suggest to stabilise the situation but there are a number of tools that can be used.
A rescue adviser works as part of the company’s team and even if some of the proposed “medicine” seems unpalatable it is worth keeping in mind at all times that their interest is in helping you to survive and that the big advantage to you is that they are able to bring a new and more dispassionate eye to problems within the company to which you may be too close to be able to identify.
Any successful business would be expected to be constantly monitoring its activities and modifying them where necessary to improve the efficiency and its various offers.
Continuous business improvement does two things: it optimises existing processes and keeps them optimal by continually updating them.
But on its own, especially when there are significant challenges in the wider economy, such as the current global economic downturn, continuous improvement may not be enough.
Such unexpected challenges can plunge a business into difficulties where its survival may be at stake and this may mean looking at a fundamental change to the way it operates.
Too often businesses struggling to survive, are characterised by hard work and trying to improve the existing business model before they fail. Business improvement is all about laying foundations, tweaking the system and improving.
In my view fundamental change is a more radical look at the whole operation but it also needs care to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater by looking hard at the business and what needs to be preserved in order to survive and grow in the future. However, if a business tries to grow before bedding in new foundations following fundamental change it will reinforce problems that had not been sorted out.
For example in a downturn it is an understandable reaction for a business to trim its costs when it may be better to have an in-depth look at its business model and be open to more radical changes.
This can all seem too much when a company’s directors are struggling to keep a business afloat at a difficult time. It is possible to be too close to the problem, however, and a combination of worry and a sense of urgency is not ideal for taking an objective look at the whole business model.
This is where calling on a business turnaround adviser could make all the difference between success and failure. The adviser is motivated to help a business succeed and will expect to work with committed managers and staff, but they are not so immersed in the day to day minutiae of the operation and can therefore look at all aspects of the business, identify what is viable, what processes are draining the company and what actions can be taken.
I have approached a number of UK trades unions with a view to forging a collaborative approach to dealing with companies in financial difficulties.
In my view, currently, employees are rarely involved in the decision-making when a company’s survival is threatened, but a successful business turnaround relies very much on the support of its employees.
Unlike formal insolvency procedures, turnarounds are consensual. Leadership, teamwork and communication are key to implementing change. Engaging with staff and involving them in the business introduces accountability and responsibility to a business and is crucial to its success. This is even more so with a turnaround where change is necessary.
Historically turnarounds have been co-ordinated by banks as secured creditors, or by new investors who drive change from a purely financial perspective, oriented towards achieving single stakeholder objectives. What gets measured, gets managed.
Many stakeholders have compromised their credibility with employees by this pursuit of short-term objectives of repayment of their investments with little interest in a company’s survival.
So who is really interested in the employees let alone securing their employment for the future?
The trades unions are still believed to be the true representatives of employees’ interests and while the relationship between management and union representatives has in some instances become polarised this is not helpful when trying to save a fragile business. It is rather like the surgeon fighting with his medical team when a patient’s life hangs in the balance on the operating table.
This new initiative to collaborate with trades unions is based on developing a mutual respect and understanding of each other’s objectives outside the constraints of a turnaround situation.
Union input can be valuable when considering the thorny problem of how to reduce staff costs, where hard choices might have to be made between cutting numbers, wages, hours, or benefits. Their involvement helps remove fear among staff by reassuring them that their interests have been taken into account when developing the turnaround plan.
In April 2009 the retailer JJB successfully proposed a CVA designed to save 250 stores and 12,000 jobs. It has become the model for subsequent CVAs in the retail sector.
The proposal included closing 140 unprofitable stores but made available a fund of £10m for the landlord creditors of these premises, equating to a payment of approximately six months rent and JJB also made a significant compromise in bearing the substantial costs of the business rates of the unprofitable stores.
No leases were ‘torn up’ by the CVA and it was left to individual landlords to decide whether they wished to accept a surrender, consent to an assignment or forfeit the lease. The landlords as a group recognised that there was a substantial risk that JJB would go into administration, with a loss of their payments of rent or business rates for the closed stores and appreciated being consulted in a transparent process and being offered a genuine compromise.
It often happens that the core of a struggling business is viable and it need not go into administration if it can be restructured to focus on the parts that are profitable.
That can be beneficial to the creditors too, because they will then see some return on what they are owed, as the above example illustrates. In many cases the creditors will include landlords who own the property or properties from which the business is trading.
The forced termination of a lease can only be done by a liquidator following a company’s liquidation. If a company goes into administration and is sold the Administrator can also force termination of those leases no longer required.
However, in the JJB illustration negotiation with the landlords to terminate some leases was made possible by proving to them how much they would receive in the event of a liquidation and showing that the alternative offer set up using a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) was better than liquidation.
Forcing a change in the terms of a lease is extremely difficult and the courts will want to test whether or not a landlord has been treated fairly as a creditor in a CVA, regarded as vertical and horizontal tests.
A company can be said to be insolvent on any one of four tests: the cash flow test, balance sheet test (negative asset value), an unsatisfied judgement (usually a county court judgement) or an outstanding statutory demand.
Of these four, the most crucial is the cash flow test which looks at whether a company can pay its liabilities as and when they fall due where late payment of creditors indicates that a company is suffering cash flow problems.
Running out of cash is the cause of most business failures and it happens chiefly for three reasons: the bank freezing the company account, a restriction in the company’s ability to draw down funds possibly due to the lack of available credit and thirdly, a sales ledger issue where the company can’t draw down funds from factoring either because invoices have not been logged, or because of declining sales, or overdue or disputed invoices.
If the company’s relationship with its bank is under pressure then the causes and effects must be examined. Banks generally would prefer not to close down businesses and only usually start to get tough if a business consistently tests its overdraft limit, company cheques cannot be honoured and the business does not communicate or provide sensible financial information if asked for.
It may be that the company is forced into an onerous factoring arrangement that will benefit the bank but can reduce funds available putting further pressure on cash flow.
If the sales ledger system is not being kept up to date accurately or there are issues with suppliers over invoices then the system needs to be looked at thoroughly and a more robust set-up may need to be put in place.
In terms of cash outflow, there are two main tensions that can result and they are the inability to pay outstanding bills and the inability to pay future bills. In this situation prioritising payments becomes essential. This is critical if a company has decided it is insolvent because it must act in the best interests of its creditors and needs clear principles for making payments to avoid personal liability.
In these circumstances unless a company is familiar with this sort of situation it would be advisable to take advice from a specialist restructuring adviser, who will have a number of strategies available to help and it may be that at its core there is a viable business waiting to be unlocked.
A cash flow crisis is an alarm bell sounding that should indicate that the business needs to be properly assessed with experienced outside help.
There are a number of options for companies who find themselves in financial difficulties, but a real challenge is finding someone to help.
It’s made more difficult if the directors/owners take the view that they know their business better than anyone else and infer from this that if they don’t know the solution, then no one else will.
A second issue is trying to solve the situation alone, via a self-help route. It may be that research has revealed a number of options and in a situation of financial difficulty there is a temptation to latch onto the cheapest or first solution. Indeed, you are likely to think you can’t afford help and as a result persuade yourself that the cheap solution is the right one. It is no surprise that a lot of companies fail having not sought any advice.
In either situation eventually a squeeze on cash flow or pressure from creditors tends to be the catalyst that galvanises action and you are likely to start looking for a solution.
Who do you turn to for help when feeling as boxed in as this? What’s needed is a business rescue adviser, but how do you go about the process of finding one from among the insolvency, turnaround, accounting and consultancy advisers?
Carry out a thorough vetting process to confirm they have suitable experience and offer a rescue process rather than selling only one rescue solution. The rescue process should involve a thorough business review to identify a viable business that can emerge from the process, then developing and implementing an operational reorganisation and financial restructuring plan. One aspect of the financial restructuring plan will be how to deal with all the company’s liabilities.
In addition to bank and trade creditors a key creditor is likely to be the HMRC (Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise). Too often companies are advised to enter a Time to Pay arrangement with the HMRC to deal with tax, VAT or PAYE arrears or to enter a Company Voluntary Agreement (CVA) to deal with debts without a realistic assessment of the other demands on the company’s cash.
The first thing to find out, therefore, is whether the adviser is selling something or has a vested interest in the company pursuing a particular solution. Having established they are truly independent, the adviser will conduct a review to establish the core issues.
Support from business rescue advisers with broad commercial experience, not just insolvency, will help manage the process while at the same time helping find a realistic solution.
Companies struggling to survive a severe economic downturn like the current one often consider ways to reduce their overheads.
Generally one of the biggest costs on a business is the payroll and looking to redundancies as a way to reduce them is a common response to a recession.
The reasons used for making employees redundant are generally economic, technical or organisational. This can be that new technology or a new system has made a job unnecessary, the company needs to cut costs or that the business is closing down or moving.
However, making staff redundant is closely regulated and there are rules for the steps that a business must follow if it chooses to go down this route. These can be extremely expensive and if not managed properly could actually leave the company insolvent rather than achieving the desired objective.
Firstly, many companies consult employment specialists to ensure that it complies with the rules and carries out the process correctly and this in itself can involve paying substantial fees.
If an employer is making fewer than 20 employees redundant in one establishment it must consult individually.
For more than 20 employees being made redundant within a 90-day period it becomes a collective redundancy and the employer has a duty to consult with representatives of the potentially affected employees. If the employer does not consult then the employees can apply to an Employment Tribunal claim for a protective award. This is an award of up to 90 days’ pay.
Rules about employees’ redundancy entitlements are laid down by the Government. The calculation is based on how long the employee has been continuously employed, their age and their weeks of entitlement up to a certain limit (£380 per week current allowance).
Failure to carry out a redundancy operation can also result in employees taking the employer to a Tribunal with a claim of unfair dismissal. In certain circumstances this can also add to the employer’s costs, not only if the Tribunal rules in favour of the employee but also, in some specific circumstances Tribunals now have the power to award costs of up to £10,000.
A better option for cost reduction before going down the redundancy route could be to call in a business rescue adviser to carry out a thorough review of the business to assess the business viability, look at its accounts and business model, identify any underlying weaknesses and suggest a restructuring plan.
As a consequence of the global financial crisis it is reasonable to assume that the numbers of companies in financial difficulties serious enough to precipitate insolvency would be increasing.
However, figures for the second quarter of this year released by the UK Insolvency Service in August show that there were 2,080 companies in England and Wales that were placed into liquidation.
These are made up of compulsory liquidations and creditors voluntary liquidations and showed a 0.5% increase on the previous quarter but a decrease of 19.1% on the same quarter in 2009.
Compulsory liquidations were down 9.9% on the previous quarter and 21.0% on the corresponding quarter in 2009, while creditor voluntary liquidations were up 5.4% compared with the previous quarter but down 18.3% compared to the same quarter in 2009.
It would be tempting to infer from these figures that the economy is beginning to recover and the pressure on companies is easing.
It is possible, however, that the decline in liquidations is concealing the number of companies in financial difficulties because of a lack of pressure from creditors other than the HMRC (Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs ), the only active creditor currently seeking winding up orders in the courts.
The Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review in October may reveal the full impact on UK insolvencies.
Even if the UK avoids a double dip recession, there is a risk that the UK economy could develop a twin track economy, with public-sector-dependent industries facing higher levels of financial distress than sectors which are less directly linked to government spending cuts.
Some commentators argue that while Corporate insolvencies are still well below the numbers that would normally be expected at this point in the cycle the slight quarterly rise in the number of liquidations may signal that conditions are starting to turn against UK companies once again.
The lower than expected number of insolvencies is ascribed to a variety of proactive measures, HMRC Time to Pay arrangements and bank forbearance, together buying time for companies to deal with their financial situation. However, this may perhaps have only delayed the inevitable for others that are less robust or those that fail to use the time by taking remedial action to reduce costs or implement other steps that ensures survival.
There are hundreds of thousands of businesses struggling to meet their financial obligations to the Exchequer.
Businesses, especially smaller enterprises, have been reporting that in the current difficult economic climate they are struggling with cash flow issues as customers and suppliers try to stretch out the time they take to pay invoices. That means they may not have enough liquidity to pay the tax they owe.
While the majority of these tax monies are repaid, the HMRC (Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs) has reported that 10% of expected revenues are outstanding.
The UK’s Time to Pay (TTP) scheme was introduced in 2008 and allows businesses to pay overdue tax bills over a certain period of time. The scheme is administered by the Businesses Payment Support Service.
According to the HMRC website, arrangements are tailored to the ability of the customer to pay and are typically for a few months although they can be longer.
TTPs lasting longer than a year are only agreed in exceptional cases. Most arrangements involve regular monthly payments being made but in exceptional cases may involve a short period of deferral.
All businesses seeking a TTP of £1m or more need to pay for an Independent Business Review (IBR) to be carried out by an approved firm, normally an insolvency practitioner, and a total of 13 firms have been approved by HMRC to carry out IBRs to establish whether the business can pay back their deferred tax bill.
When the restructuring plans are ready, a business rescue adviser would normally expect to bring in an HMRC approved firm that they already know. The IBR would assess the company’s ability to eventually pay back any tax deferred by HMRC based on a review the proposals prepared by the adviser. These would be prepared with view to demonstrating a viable business.
The most recent statistics issued by HMRC are from March 2010 when it was revealed that 300,000 businesses have entered TTP arrangements since the end of 2008, deferring at least £5.2bn in business taxes. That equates to an average of 4,500 a week.
Concerns have been raised that it is getting tougher to join the scheme, and there have been some predictions that it would eventually have to close. However HMRC has insisted the TTP is still available and the eligibility criteria have not changed. The UK Coalition Government’s Business Secretary Vince Cable, speaking at a recent Institute of Directors event, reinforced this by saying that his department’s instructions to HMRC was to still make it “easy” for applicants to agree TTP arrangements.
Owing HMRC (Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs) more than £150,000 for overdue VAT and PAYE when your turnover is less than £3 million is not uncommon in 2010.
The leniency of HMRC, whose light touch approach to collecting Revenue arrears since the recession began has helped the cash flow of many companies, has also made it easier for them to accrue both VAT and PAYE arrears. But the lack of a recovery has left companies in arrears burdened with debt they can’t easily repay.
Companies in this position have a number of options, but a real challenge is when to do something about it. If ignored, the liability can build up and the underlying business problems can escalate to a point where the company can find it more difficult to recover.
While directors are normally aware of the problems, and in particular of the liability in respect of Revenue arrears, they may not be aware of their options, assuming: “I know my business better than anyone else and if I don’t know the solution, then no one else will.”
Consider three financial solutions when dealing with HMRC arrears. They are immediate payment, a Time to Pay (TTP) arrangement or a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA). However, all too often one of these is implemented without considering other issues that perhaps need to be addressed at the same time.
The build up of PAYE arrears and VAT arrears is an indicator that the business is no longer profitable or that it doesn’t have sufficient working capital. The underlying issues can be identified by a business review and preparation of forecasts. It is obvious that an unprofitable company cannot achieve a payment plan while also covering ongoing payments. Less obvious is the restructuring and reorganisation that may be needed to achieve a viable business, one that is profitable with adequate working capital and positive cash flow.
Surviving the pressure of PAYE and VAT arrears generally involves more than just fixing the financial problem. the underlying issues need to be identified and workable solutions put in place.
In early 2010 HMRC (Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs) served notice for a Winding up Petition against a small trading company. The company had ignored HMRC for three years and had not submitted accounts for three years, not since 2007. A director attended the winding up hearing in court unrepresented. He said he was trying to reach agreement with the Revenue and was granted 3 weeks stay of execution.
During the three weeks the company sought our help and experience of turnaround and insolvency, to advise on restructuring options, help develop and implement a rescue plan and also help manage the court process.
After a business review, we concluded that it was possible to buy some time to allow the company to be restructured. We first recommended that a barrister should represent the company at the adjourned hearing. The barrister successfully sought a six-week adjournment to give time for a rescue plan to be put in place, including proposing a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) for approval at a meeting with creditors. This strategy was achieved and at the third hearing the petition was dismissed.
Winding-up petitions are generally used for two purposes:
They may be used as a final attempt by a legitimate creditor to force the debtor company to respond following previous failed attempts to contact them to try to agree payment terms for the outstanding liability.
They are also used to bully a debtor company into settling an outstanding liability, whether disputed or just to get paid before other creditors.
This second reason is often an abuse of process, where the courts are easily deceived. Procedure in court is often key, especially when experienced creditors who know how to play the court ‘game’ use barristers to deal with innocent directors doing their best to represent the company without expert advice.
Winding up petitions in themselves don’t mean that a company is insolvent but they do indicate underlying issues that have not been addressed. The issues can include a lack of cash to pay bills on time, being unaware of legal process, or a dispute that has been ignored or spilled over into frustration.
The courts are aware of this and tend to be lenient towards directors who ask for time to resolve the petition by granting an adjournment. However, their attitude hardens if, at the adjourned hearing, it is shown that the director has failed to fulfil the undertaking given at the earlier hearing.
A CVA (Company Voluntary Arrangement) is a powerful tool for restructuring the liabilities of an insolvent company, but it does not, in itself, save the company unless the business is viable.
It is an agreement between an insolvent company and its creditors. Therefore a thorough business review is also needed to support the CVA by establishing that the business can be profitable in the future.
The arrangement is a legal agreement that protects a company – essentially giving it some time or a breathing space by preventing creditors from attacking it.
It allows a viable but struggling company to repay some, or all, of its historic debts out of future profits, over a period of time to be agreed, and allows the company’s directors to stay in control of the company.
CVAs allow a company to improve cash flow quickly, by removing pressure from tax, VAT and PAYE authorities and other creditors while the CVA is prepared. They can also be used to terminate employment contracts, leases, onerous supply contracts with no immediate cash cost. It is a relatively inexpensive process.
A company can be protected from an aggressive creditor while a CVA is being proposed and constructed. It can stop legal actions like winding up petitions. In case law, providing a creditor has less than 25% of the overall debts of the company then they can be required to consider the proposal even when a winding up petition is issued.
Ultimately it is also a good arrangement for creditors as they retain a customer and receive a dividend on their debts, which might otherwise be written off in the event of liquidation.
However, it is not a do-it-yourself option for a struggling business but should only be entered into with the help and guidance of an experienced business rescue adviser with the tools and knowledge to help turn around struggling companies.
Pre-pack Administration is a tool for saving struggling businesses that are in severe financial difficulties but are potentially sound. Pre-packs allow the business idea to be preserved, retaining customers, suppliers and goodwill, without all the start-up costs normally associated with a new business.
Essentially it means “selling” the business to a new company immediately upon appointment of an Administrator, the preparation for sale being carried out prior to appointment. The sale requires additional scrutiny if the directors and shareholders of the new company are the same as in the previous company to prevent any abuse.
Insolvency practitioners use pre-pack administrations to achieve the swift sale of a business where it is not appropriate for them to trade the business as a company in administration. This way the business can continue to trade without disruption.
Reasons for not trading a company in administration include avoiding the administrators’ costs and the risks of trading a company in administration. It is often argued that key stakeholders such as customers, staff or suppliers will not remain loyal to a company in administration.
A pre-pack is only one form of administration. In normal administrations there are a number of possible outcomes including return of the company to the control of the directors, such as following a restructuring or a Company Voluntary Arrangement, or the administrator can sell the business and assets ahead of liquidation. In the pre-pack form assets are sold immediately on appointment of the administrator, who does not then trade the company.
Pre-packs also have huge advantages in allowing the new company to trade without the burden of the previous company’s debt, almost without disruption keeping valued staff and equipment, contracts, relationships and customers.
While a pre-pack is often regarded as controversial because the creditors are faced with a done deal, the counter argument is that a swift sale of the business assets is the best opportunity to preserve value and therefore ensure the best possible return for the creditors who might otherwise get nothing or very little.
However, to prevent abuse, especially as the creditors do not get a chance to object, before a company can use this method it must show it has taken advice from an insolvency practitioner who must ensure the business and assets are independently valued and not sold below their value.
A Winding Up Petition is a legal application to the High Court or another appropriate court by a creditor asking that a company be closed down.
If granted by the court, the official receiver is appointed to oversee closing down the company and may then engage a licensed insolvency practitioner as approved liquidator.
The purpose of winding up a company is generally to remove control of a company from its directors so that its affairs can be dealt with properly. At the end of the process the company is dissolved and ceases to exist.
The petition must be properly served on the company, normally by personal delivery at its registered office and also it must be advertised in the London Gazette. The advertisement is intended to notify the public but in practice this is normally how banks and other institutional creditors learn of the petition.
Directors, on receipt of the petition, should be aware that the company’s bank account is likely to be frozen when the bank learns about it. They should also be aware that any further trading after the date of receipt may mean that they can be held personally liable for any company debts accrued after that date if, when their actions are investigated, they are found not to have acted in the best interests of the company’s creditors.
If the directors wish to continue trading in order to save the company then they should seek help from a business rescue adviser if the company is insolvent. If they believe that trading on as a managed workout would benefit creditors through recovering assets, then they should seek help from an insolvency practitioner who might well be introduced by the bank or another secured creditor.
Although the petition is very serious and should not be ignored it does not mean that the company is doomed to closure. With proper representation based on a credible plan to deal with the company’s difficulties it is possible to have a winding up petition dismissed.
A WUP is often used as an action of last resort initiated out of frustration following attempts by a creditor to agree terms for repayment of money owed or after repeated attempts to contact the company have been ignored. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) regularly uses the petition when its repeated written reminders and requests for repayment of outstanding PAYE, VAT or tax have been ignored.