Dictators & one party states have their benefits

Today’s news includes a note about Cameron’s visit to China and the possibility that China might contribute to HS2. They’ve built rather a lot of high speed rail links over the last few years.

Good infrastructure is one of the key requirements to attract investment and build an economy.

I remember watching the building of the convention centre in Hong Kong on land reclaimed from the harbour. From my office you could see the chain of barges coming in from the New Territories, unloading & returning for more. That and the building of the new airport (they demolished a mountain for that) were completed at an amazing pace.

At the same time, I was travelling at least twice a month to Sydney, where a new road seemed to take forever.

India, the world’s largest democracy, has made far less progress with infrastructure projects than China, who have a one party state.

Russian railways were built by the Tsars and the communists.

Mussolini made the trains run on time.

Perhaps a few emerging market economies would benefit (economically, of course) from a dictator for a few years?

Command & control at least gets things done.

 

 

 

 

Crowd Funding Regulation

In the Times yesterday was this headline

Crowdfunding clampdown may hit small firms hard

and below is my take on this from over a year ago

Crowd Funding & the FSA – or UK vs. the USA

Posted by Tim Luscombe at 01:00, October 3 2012.

I have been looking at Crowd Funding for one of my clients, let’s call them XYZ

Crowd Funding is where many investors pool small amounts of money to invest in a business, or perhaps to support a charity or an artist.

XYZ have a substantial user base who have paid several hundred pounds for the first generation products.

They need to raise some funding for the development of the next generation of products, so asking the existing customers to contribute £20 or even £50 (perhaps in return for a discount on the purchase of the new product) seems to make some sense. The individual risk is pretty small, the company gets to develop the next generation of products, everyone wins.

Then you look at the FSA guidance on Crowd Funding and their conclusions quoted below:

Keep in mind that almost all crowdfunds are not authorised by us and you will not have access to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) or Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) if things go wrong.

We believe most crowdfunding should be targeted at sophisticated investors who know how to value a startup business, understand the risks involved and that investors could lose all of their money.

We want it to be clear that investors in a crowdfund have little or no protection if the business or project fails, and that they will probably lose all their investment if it does.

We are also concerned that some firms involved in crowdfunding may be handling client money without our permission or authorisation, and therefore may not have adequate protection in place for investors.

I find this difficult to accept as an appropriate response to the circumstances we are considering. I can see how this guidance might apply to investors looking to back start-up businesses with substantial amounts of capital, but really? For investment of £20 or even £100 what are the FSA thinking of?

As I have previously commentated, where were the regulators when the financial crisis blew up? Where was the FSA then?

In the US, the JOBS (Jumpstart Our Business Startups) act comes into force next year. This encourages investment, regulating the middlemen and setting limits related to net worth or income for the individual investors. Why aren’t we doing something similar?

Is it Christmas yet?

Every year all the children get excited because Christmas is coming, but all the retailers get stressed because Christmas is their busiest time of the year.

In the US their busy period is from Black Friday (the day after Thanksgiving) through to Christmas.

Wikipedia tells me the name comes from the appearance of the crowds that thronged the streets of Philadelphia but the popular myth is that it is when the retail chains move into the black (into profit) for the first time since January. Don’t tell anyone, but the smart retailers make money all year round, not just in the last few weeks of the year. The dumber ones go broke in January & February when the rent bill falls due.

Is your business seasonal? Is there a distinct pattern to your sales, so that you know that some part of the year will be quieter than another? Do you look for the pattern?

Seasonality is common in many business sectors, with summer holidays and the Christmas break affecting many, but if your business is seasonal you have three choices:

A.      Match your resources and investment to the pattern of your sales. Some businesses do this through the use of temporary staff (Retailers at Christmas is a classic example of this)

B.      Use the quiet period to do jobs that have been put off from the busy period (common in the agricultural sector, and in some parts of the building trade)

C.      Find something else to fill in the gaps

One of my clients is a florist, and their seasonality is weekly, or rather at the weekends. Everyone wants to get married at the weekend!
We’ve made a deliberate decision to target other markets, moving away from weekend work to jobs that can be done between Monday and Friday, balancing out the workload across the week. It will never be perfect, but where doubling the size of the wedding floristry would require a doubling of the team, we can double the size of the business during the week just by utilising the existing team & giving them a few more hours.

Big swings in sales lead to big swings in cash flow, big swings in cash flow stress the business (and the owner) sometimes to breaking point. If your business is very seasonal, that’s not a good place to be. Remember that more businesses fail from cash flow problems than anything else.

Find another market, or another product to sell to smooth out that seasonality.

A colleague helped a client whose business was entirely winter seasonal; they bought a business that equally seasonal, but in the summer.

The same is true of orders and projects. If all you do is very large projects, sooner or later one will go wrong or be delayed & deferred. Lots of little project to fill in the gaps are a really good idea.

The best sales graph is one that has a smooth upward curve – how can you smooth out your sales?

A system set for failure

The surprising thing from reading the news about the misbehaviour of RBS is that a structure where RBS have their own property business was not seen to be a recipe for trouble if not disaster.

If you have a business, or a department or a division, they need objectives and targets. You can guess that in this case the property business had a set of targets to maximise returns from the properties in their portfolio.

If that’s the case, you have the bank’s internal property company competing with the property companies who are borrowers from the same bank.  It’s not that much of a stretch to see that the internal company, incentivised only to maximise returns, would influence the lending teams to turn over any business that even began to struggle. Someone undoubtedly misbehaved, but the system was setup to encourage that bad behaviour.

One of my clients had a problem with their collections; very long days outstanding, and it wasn’t getting any better. When we drilled into it, the credit control team were doing their best but sometimes had to go back to the customer service team.

The customer service team’s incentives were all around speed of customer response and satisfaction  and had nothing to do with credit control, so of course the requests for help from the credit controllers were very low priority.

We made the credit control team a “customer” for the objectives of the customer service team; many of the problems were cleared up and the debtor days were greatly reduced.

When you set your departmental objectives, do you make sure they align with the overall business objectives?

Keeping a customer is easier than finding a new one

I was reminded of this yesterday by discussions in an all-day meeting planning the future of the organisation.

We’re taking a new direction, investing some additional funds and resources to increase and re-shape our marketing so that we can win new business. The meeting yesterday focused on the strategy in the morning, then the tactics in the afternoon – a very productive day.

Towards the end of the day we turned to the subject of customer retention, and realised there was a possibility that some of our new activities, unless carefully communicated, could disappoint and disillusion our existing customers.

We chose to forego some of the whizzy new stuff to keep the existing customers happy. It does not mean we will not do it – just not yet – and the cost to us is minimal. There’s an opportunity cost, to be sure, but it is pretty small.

If you lose 10% of your customers in a year, you’ll need to add 11% just to stand still.

If you break down your revenues by customer, and then by order size you get a formula that looks like this:

Total Sales = Customers x Sales per Customer

Sales per Customer = No of Orders x average order value

So to grow your total sales, you can either increase your number of customers or you can increase the sales per customer.  One of those is much harder than the other!

To increase your sales per customer, you can either increase the number of orders (the frequency with which the customer shops with you) or you can increase the average order value.

So, how much of your marketing effort is devoted to your existing customers?

Strategy or Tactics?

Many business advisors bandy around the words “strategic” and “tactical” but for me, the only real difference is the timeframe.

There will be times when you have to take a decision to solve today’s problem, but it comes back to haunt you at a later date.

It’s a bit like buying something you can’t really afford on a credit card. If you are not careful, you end up paying for it twice over (or more) by the time you’ve paid the interest.

A client of mine has been approached to sell his business, and I am helping him through the process and we are providing information to the buyer.

One piece of (quite important) information is the share structure and ownership of the business.  The MD and his wife are the majority owners, but two key employees (Nick & Bob) were given a small shareholding many years ago.

When the MD declared the shareholding, he included Nick & Bob as owning 5% of the business each, but when I looked at the accounts there were far more shares that he had declared.

Several years ago, when bidding for a large contract, a director’s loan was converted into share capital so that the business could obtain finance. 

The MD had forgotten all about that transaction. It had to be done at the time, his money was already committed to the business, and it didn’t matter to him.

But Nick & Bob don’t own 5% of the company each, they own 0.05%.

This business will sell for about 5 million pounds; Nick & Bob will receive a few thousand pounds instead of the £250k they would be entitled if they still owned the 5%.

If my client wants to do the honourable thing and give Nick & Bob the difference (I am sure he will) then taking into account the various tax implications he will be about 500k worse off.*

If, after taking the undoubtedly short term decision to convert that loan to share capital, the MD had thought through the implications for Bob & Nick in the longer term, there would have been a way to make sure they still had the 5% he had promised them.

So when the answer to the short term problem is obvious, and you just get on and do it, try to take a step back every so often & ask yourself the question

 “How will that affect me / us / the business in 3 years’ time?

*(Now I think I have a solution for this problem – I just need the corporate lawyer to check)

Business Valuation

Valuing a business is much more of an art form than a science, simply because value, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

A business that has immense value to one potential buyer may have very little value, or attraction, to another.

Your business manufactures and sells blue widgets. Your competition only has yellow widgets.

If the prospective buyer doesn’t care what colour the widget is, the two businesses can be directly compared, but if the buyer only wants blue widgets, your business is worth far more than the manufacturer of yellow widgets!

The over-riding principle is that in 90% of cases a business is bought for the future profits it will make, and the valuation calculation is an attempt to place a value on those future profits.

The other 10% of business purchases are for bought for lifestyle choices, a passion or an interest (think football clubs) or for egotistical purposes.

There are many different technical tools and calculations used to try and estimate value, but the real challenge is to identify the right strategic buyer and see the business from their perspective.

 

How easy is it for your customer to pay you?

One business I advised had succeeded in winning business in the Ukraine, and this was turning into a significant opportunity. The sales team were getting very excited!
The finance team were getting worried – payments were erratic, and very slow.

The Ukrainian government had imposed currency controls – you could not pay in “hryvnia” outside the Ukraine, and to pay in US Dollars you needed to get finance ministry approval for each payment.
That wasn’t easy for our customers, and was hampering our business growth. We established a subsidiary company in the Ukraine, so our local customers could pay us in the local currency. Business boomed and the customers were paying much more frequently.
Have you ever tried to buy something on-line, and noticed that your preferred payment method isn’t available? I’ve certainly gone elsewhere when that has happened to me.

Another client was having trouble collecting money from his US customers. We worked with the banks, and setup a special account, in the US, to take wire transfers from US customers. They didn’t have to make international payments….

How easy do you make it for your customers to do business with you, and how easy do you make it for them to pay you?

Quarterly Economic Update – Sept 2013

This is my personal view, based upon many years researching and reviewing the work of others “standing upon the shoulders of giants”

This commentary seeks to provide guidance over a 3 -5 year timescale.

Europe

The European situation is not getting much better.

In France president Hollande appears weak, pandering to vested interests and his socialist leanings. There’s little to suggest a significant economic stimulus or recovery, and in a country of traditionally high levels of taxation and regulation proposals for new taxes and president Hollande’s failure to address the social security system (in particular the retirement age) are attracting negative publicity.

In Germany, the other key driver to Eurozone growth, all attention is focused upon the upcoming elections and there’s unlikely to be any change of direction, as it seems very likely that Angel Merkel will still be in charge.

In southern Europe, Italy, Spain and Portugal have all suffered from political infighting. To me the row over Gibraltar instigated by the Spanish government looks like an attempt to disguise problems with corruption allegations closer to home. In Italy, which is still a significant economy in world terms, it is not clear what Silvio Berlusconi is planning. Will he bring down the government? Does he have that much control over his party? There’s a lot of uncertainty.

It seems very likely that Greece will need another bailout soon.

It seems reasonable to assume that the Syrian crisis (and that across the Mediterranean in Egypt) will have relatively little effect on Europe as a whole. Turkey will struggle with the influx of refugees but that is likely to be contained within Turkish borders.

My forecast is unchanged as below:

Over the forecast period, the Eurozone as a whole will probably show modest growth rising to perhaps 3% in year 2016, but individual countries will perform at markedly different rates. All of the Latin countries will be subject to further political instability and potentially further investor / lender shocks. Germany is likely to be more stable, with growth gradually improving from 2013 – 2015/6, perhaps to as much as 3.5%. France may well be in steep decline by 2014 but that is heavily dependent upon the political situation; I do not see significant upside potential.

Italians are used to weak / no government and growth of 1.5 – 1.8% should be achievable in 2014 with gradual improvement through to 2016.

Smaller countries, particularly those in Eastern Europe, offer real potential for growth. Ireland appears to have weathered the crisis and has a positive outlook, and general acceptance of their fate (albeit still with some political upheaval) is appearing in Spain, Greece & Portugal.

UK

The new governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, has brought a fresh approach and that includes longer-term guidance for the markets, indicating that interest rates will stay low until there is a significant impact upon unemployment rates.

Businesses considering investment welcome such certainty, and that will be good for the economy.

Service sectors businesses and manufacturing are showing signs of real growth; the financial services sector is a very large part of our economy, and is by no means out of the woods. I would not be surprised to hear of another scandal in the next few months, as new management and new transparency continue to uncover the sins of the past.

The economy will also be boosted by the confidence engendered by rising house prices supported by the chancellor’s actions in providing government funding. There’s a real danger of history repeating itself – one of the causes of the 2007/8 credit crisis was an unsustainable boom in US house prices fed by lax lending. Tapering the “Right to buy” and similar schemes will be necessary, and it’s worth noting that Mark Carney has issued some comments on this already.

USA

The big question over the US is related  to world politics; if action is taken by the US against Syria will that lead to an economic backlash from Syria’s supporters, notably Russia and to a lesser extent China?  My view at the moment is probably not, I think we will hear lots of bluster but the US economy is too important a market.

It’s notable that the US presidential election cycle has commenced and that may be an influence over the coming quarters, as Obama will be keen to play up any economic success to support the ambitions of the Democrats.  Will he be able to leverage the emerging bi-partisan support for Syrian intervention into support for some business friendly measures? The economy and business does not appear to be high on this president’s agenda.

Prospects in the US are positive, largely powered by shale gas (pardon the pun) but also by the corrections to spending, borrowing and taxation implemented by the fiscal cliff. Clumsy as those corrections are, and awkwardly implemented, they are moving to addresses the imbalances in the US and with a stable (if ineffectual) government combined with a young well educated population, prospects for growth are good, and we could see growth of 3.5 to 4% in 2015/6

BRIC

Brazil & Russia are benefitting from significant natural resources and will show good growth in the mid to medium term. The longer term depends upon political stability and the willingness to develop infrastructure and eliminate corruption.  Both economies suffer from the disadvantage of a large population speaking a language other than English, which is now and will remain the defacto language of business and the internet. Neither country has a culture of educational achievement, or an educational establishment to support the development of a highly skilled graduate level workforce.

India benefits from both the education and the use of English as the language of business / commerce, but is hampered by poor infrastructure and a bureaucratic legal and administrative system. The infrastructure problems are compounded by a complex political system with national and regional bodies operating in their own interests.  Investor confidence has just been shaken by some poor statistics in the most recent quarter, which resulted in a rapid depreciation of the currency.  My words from the last version of this still seem appropriate:

“All 3 economies are still economies of promise, but not yet of delivery, and that seems set to continue for the foreseeable future. Growth rates could easily be in 5% or more, but subject to shocks and upsets.”

China is the powerhouse that is going to drive the world economy in this timeframe. There are significant stresses, both social and political, but the central government is making the right noises and very careful to cool the economic growth when it appears to be getting out of hand.  The social stress most likely to cause problems is the move of the populations, especially those of working age, from the country to the city. Parallels can be drawn with England in the mid-19th century and America in the early 20th and the rise of the urban poor. China appears to have learnt some of the lessons of history and is making great efforts to provide the infrastructure to improve mobility, including the development of new cities in less populated areas.

Growth rates of 7-9% are most likely

“Greater China”

I’m loosely defining this area as the countries surrounding China & supplying Chinese demand, from Vietnam and Thailand /Malaysia /Singapore right though to South Korea. These countries have generally good prospects, decent infrastructure and well educated populations. They cannot but benefit from rising demand in China and most have the political stability to take advantage of it.

The glaring exception is of course Myanmar, the former Burma, but even there the path to democracy seems to be the chosen road. That road appears less smooth, with considerable racial / religious disturbance reported.

The political risk in this area is conflict with North Korea, which would heavily affect South Korea.

Growth rates could be exceptional at up to 10%

Japan

When I wrote this

“Japan is often ignored / written off in the commentaries but is still one of the world largest economies. Good opportunities exist in many sectors, but overall growth rates will be hampered by legacy issues, much as in Europe.”

I did not intend the reference to be to the Fukushima nuclear plant, but that seems likely to be the leading business news story for some time to come.  From an economic perspective this has exposed Japan’s reliance upon ageing (and unsafe?) nuclear power plant, and that is a significant infrastructural weakness. It’s difficult to do business when you can’t keep the lights on.

MENA

The main stories in this region are of course Syria and to a lesser extent Egypt. Both economies are collapsing, and refugees fleeing Syria (in particular) are impacting on surrounding countries. Factor into that mix the long standing Sunni – Shiite divide where it seems likely that Syria is a proxy for Iran’s ambitions to become the dominant player in the region.

The Gulf States have significant natural resources, but Middle East oil & gas is becoming less important to the world economy as Shale Gas, improved efficiency and new discoveries reduce the world’s reliance on the region.

It is difficult to be optimistic for prospects in this region.

Australasia

The story of the moment is the Australian election but I don’t see that making a significant difference. There is perhaps some upside in a significant decline in the value of the AUD against the US Dollar over the last 3-4 months, making Australian resources more competitive, but that probably still has some way to go. My comments from the last edition still stand

I suspect the story can be summarised as “the party is over” at least for now. Australia has benefited greatly by shipping commodities to China, but that seems to be cooling off, perhaps as a result of Chinese investment in Africa’s mines. Growth rates of 1-2%

© Tim Luscombe September 2013

Why aren’t the banks lending more?

I hear from business owners and advisors how badly the banks are behaving towards the small business sector, how little money they are prepared to lend and how tough their credit committees are on new applications.

Banks are being told to rebuild and strengthen their balance sheets, but on the other hand to increase their lending. One way to strengthen the banks’ balance sheet is not to lend so much….

Banks don’t make much profit lending money to small businesses.  Let’s say the bank can borrow at 3% and lend to the small business at 7% so they will make 4%.

Over the course of a year, on £100k of lending, the bank will make £4k.  That means an awful lot of good loans are required to make up for one bad loan, and it is no wonder the banks are cautious