Who Is Late In Paying Our #SMEs £41bn?!

In an attempt to eradicate late payments to small businesses of approximately £41bn, the government has proposed that, from April 2016, large listed companies will have to report twice-yearly on: 

• their standard payment terms;
• average time taken to pay; 
• the proportion of invoices paid within 30 days, 31-60 days and beyond agreed terms; 
• amount of late payment interest owed/paid; 
• incentives charged to join/remain on preferred supplier lists; 
• dispute resolution processes; 
• the availability of e-invoicing, supply chain finance and preferred supplier lists; and 
• membership of a Payment Code.

A copy of the simple but effective sample report is attached to the government's announcement.

Not only should this data result in the naming and shaming of late payers, but it should also further define and foster growth in the market for discounting these invoices, to help fund the growth of the affected SMEs.

8 Financial Services Policy Requests - Election Edition

If you've been lumped with the job of writing your party's General Election Manifesto, here are 8 financial policies to simply drag and drop:

1. Remove the need for FCA credit-broking authorisation just to introduce borrowers whose finance arrangements will be 'exempt agreements' anyway - it makes no sense at all;

2. Remove the need for businesses who lend to consumers or small businesses on peer-to-peer lending platforms to be authorised by the FCA - again, it makes no sense, because the platform operator already has the responsibility to ensure the borrower gets the right documentation and so on; an alternative would be to allow such lenders to go through a quick and simple registration process;

3. Remove the requirement for individuals who wish to invest on crowd-investment platforms to certify that they are only investing 10% of their 'net investible portfolio' and to either pass an 'appropriateness test' or are receiving advice - it's a disproportionately complex series of hoops compared to the simplicity of the investment opportunities and the typical amounts at stake;

4. Focus on the issues raised in this submission to the Competition and Markets Authority on competition in retail banking, particularly around encouraging a more diverse range of financial business models;

5. Re-classify P2P loans as a standard pension product, rather than a non-standard product - the administrative burden related to non-standard products is disproportionately high for such a simple instrument as a loan;

6.  Reduce the processing time for EIS/SEIS approvals to 2 to 3 weeks, rather than months - investors won't wait forever;

7.  Reduce the approval time for FCA authorisation for FinTech businesses from 6 months to 6 weeks; alternatively, introduce a 'small firms registration' option with a process for moving to full authorisation over time, so that firms can begin trading within 6 weeks of application, rather than having to spend 3 months fully documenting their business plans, only to then wait 6 to 12 months before being able to trade - others entrepreneurs and investors will stop entering this space;

8. Proportionately regulate invoice discounting to confirm the basis on which multiple ordinary retail investors can fund the discounting of a single invoice - it's a rapidly growing source of SME funding, simple for investors to understand and their money is only at risk for short periods of time.

Government Support For P2P

The authorities tend to view people sharing content as 'piracy', but fortunately when it comes to money the UK government thinks sharing is a great idea.

I've covered the Breedon Taskforce report, and the Government's response over on The Fine Print. But the most significant points for ordinary people with surplus cash and those who need it are:

• the government's support for self-regulation of peer-to-peer finance; and

• the ISA scheme remains closed to new assets, despite recommendations that it be extended.

Don't Just Move Your Money: Spread It, Recycle It.

Great to see the MoveYourMoney campaign up and running - certainly a step up from the calls for futile mass withdrawals in 2010. But there are two significant gaps in the message.

Firstly: why should we move our money?

We don't need to 'save'. That's not really an activitiy in itself. And it's only one side of a much bigger story. Where do our deposits go?

As a society, our financial challenge is to get surplus cash from those who have it to creditworthy people and businesses who need it. Quickly and cheaply. At the rate that's right for both parties.

Our financial institutions don't enable this right now. They pay very little to interest to savers. They keep too much of the interest that borrowers pay. They use this 'margin' to cover losses from their own poor investments. 

So we've had to invent direct finance services that cut the cost of connecting savers and borrowers - meaning higher returns on savings and cheaper borrowing costs. As each borrower repays, you can re-lend your money to others. Think of it as financial recycling. The banks still play a role - the operators of these new services recycle the money through segregated business bank accounts - but they don't get to use your money the same way as if you opened your own personal savings account.

But this brings us to the second gap in the MoveYourMoney campaign. We shouldn't move our money to just one place. We need to put our eggs in lots of baskets -  we need to diversify more. There are many other baskets for your eggs than those listed.

Yet we are incentivised by government not to diversify. Most of us only get basic tax breaks (e.g. ISAs) for putting our small amounts of savings in the bank or building society (or in regulated stocks and shares).  This not only discourages us from using more efficient services, but also protects banks and building societies (and managed investment funds) from competition. Worse, it encourages us to put all our eggs in a few baskets, so our holdings of surplus funds are not diversified. We're told this is 'safe' to do because at least some of our money is protected by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. But such insurance does not ultimately make these baskets 'safe' for all of us as a society. It makes these baskets expensive - because as consumers we all pay for the compensation scheme in the end. And we pay again as taxpayers when the highly concentrated risks in the financial system bring it grinding to a halt.

MoveYourMoney may not yet explain the need to get your money quickly and cheaply to creditworthy people and businesses who need funding. Nor adequately explain the need to diversify. But the government is now aware that the regulations and incentives are wrong. And organisations like MoveYourMoney should be helping us to keep the pressure on government so that these problems are actually addressed.

Submission on New Model for Retail Finance

Over on The Fine Print, I've set out both the initial summary and my full submission to the Red Tape Challenge and the BIS Taskforce on Non-bank Finance. I'm very grateful to the colleagues who contributed, as mentioned in the longer document.

Some might say that the alternative finance market is small beer at this point, and it's not worth accommodating them in the regulatory framework. But it's unrealistic to expect alternative business models to thrive amidst the dominance of the banks and while the entire financial system is hard-wired to suit them and other traditional investment vehicles (see the series of articles by Vince Heaney, David Potter and Adriana Nilsson in February's Financial World).

Others might also say that we should wait until the 'winning' business models emerge before figuring out what regulation may need to change. Yet picking winning business ideas is impossible, as Peter Urwin explains in "Self-employment, Small Firms and Enterprise". He has found that, while "entrepreneurship is crucial for economic growth... we have no idea where it will come from - not even in the most general terms."

As a result, the best that we - and government - can do is to ensure "a climate in which enterpreneurship can thrive".

Red Tape in Retail Financial Services

I'm off to Number 10 today, to talk about red tape that's constraining disruptive business models in financial services. In the interests of transparency, I've summarised my thoughts for both the legal community here, as well as below. I'll be submitting a more detailed paper in the coming weeks, both to the Red Tape Challenge and the BIS Taskforce on alternative business finance. I'm interested in any comments you may have.

In its invitation to submit evidence of ‘red tape’ that is inhibiting the developmentof ‘disruptive business models’, the Cabinet Office notes the example of Zopa, “a company that provides a platform for members of the public to lend to each other, who found that financial regulations simply didn’t know how to deal with a business that didn’t conform to an outdated idea of what a lender is…” 

Financial regulation similarly fails to deal with a range of non-bank finance platforms that share some of the key characteristics of Zopa’s person-to-person lending platform. Accordingly, financial regulation is failing to enable the cost efficient flow of surplus funds from ordinary people savers and investors to creditworthy people and businesses who need finance. In particular, the current framework: 

1. generates confusion amongst ordinary people as to the basis on which they may lawfully participate on alternative finance platforms (even though some are licensed by the Office of Fair Trading); 
2. does not make alternative finance products eligible for the usual mechanisms through which ordinary people save and invest, exposing lenders to higher ‘effective tax rates’; 
3. discourages ordinary savers and investors from adequately diversifying their investments; 
4. incentivises ordinary savers and investors to concentrate their money in bank cash deposits, and regulated stocks and shares; 
5. inhibits ordinary savers’ and investors’ from accessing fixed income returns that exceed long term savings rates; 
6. inhibits the development of peer-to-peer funding of other fixed term finance (e.g.mortgages and project/asset finance, and even short term funding of invoices); and
7. protects ‘traditional’ regulated financial services providers from competition. 

These regulatory failings could be resolved by creating a new regulated activity of operating a direct finance platform, for which the best-equipped regulatory authority would be the Financial Services Authority (as replaced by the Financial Conduct Authority). Regulation of the platform would be independent of any regulation that may apply to the type of product offered to participants on the platform (e.g. loans, trade invoices, debentures to finance renewable energy and lending for social projects). Proportionate regulation that obliges platform operators to address operational risks common to all products would also enable economies of scale and sharing of consistent best practice, and leave product providers and other competent regulators to focus solely on product-specific issues (e.g. consumer credit, charitable purposes). 

Similarly, there is no reason why products distributed via these platforms should not also be eligible for the usual mechanisms through which ordinary people save and invest, such as ISAs, pensions and enterprise investment schemes.

A Good Year For Innovation In SME Finance

Source: Bank of England

As the headwind for UK banks stiffened today, we have news from MarketInvoice, the UK-based online invoice discounting platform, that it has enabled SMEs to raise £2 million against their invoices since February 2011, with £500,000 raised through the platform in August alone.

"Buyers" of each firm's invoices are institutional investors (such as asset managers and private investment funds) - who we know have plenty of cash in search of a home. They bid against each other on the platform to ensure some competition to provide cheaper funding. The types of deals done to date, and how the process works, are described here. In effect, this puts the traditional invoice discounting, or 'factoring', process online.

Of course, MarketInvoice is not alone in providing small businesses with alternatives to bank finance. Funding Circle, the peer-to-peer platform for small business lending, has also reported healthy interest. And Crowdcube facilitates equity investments.

So far, each of these new entrants has chosen to innovate around a specific funding instrument or process. No doubt other alternative providers, and further innovation, will emerge while the banks remain in complete disarray. Necessity, as they say, is the mother of invention.

Late Payments Directive And SME Trade Finance

The Late Payments Directive should produce a rush to implement reasonable supply chain finance arrangements for any private or public sector customers who want to try to insist that payment terms exceeding 60 calendar days are not "grossly unfair to the creditor".

That's all very well if the financing package is big enough to interest the usual suspects, but alternative models are needed to finance the early repayment of invoices on a smaller scale, and this bodes well for online social finance platforms.

Further Boost To Non-bank SME Finance

Last week, The Receivables Exchange secured $17 million in funding from Bain Capital Ventures.

I've been watching these guys since I learned of their launch in a response to my post about Zopa's trade finance efforts in November 2008. The coincidence was striking then, but even more so when they announced their integration with Ariba Network, the spend management services provider, in December '09.

Here's the video on how the Receivables Exchange works.

The key feature about this form of trade finance is that credit risk can be tied firmly to the buyer, rather than the supplier listing the invoice for 'sale'. There are various ways to understand and mitigate that risk, depending on the size of the buyer and whether it's listed/rated. I'll spare you the detail. Interestingly, the UK Treasury has just launched a consultation on how the government might support non-bank business finance, focusing on corporate credit assessment and transparency.

Of course, the primary challenge is one of marketing this model to enough time-starved small business owners to build 'critical mass' (an expresson I have come to fear and loathe) - hence the $17 million.

Definitely a space to watch.

E-invoicing Integrated With SME Finance Platform

Alternative trade finance for small businesses is beginning to snowball - at least in the US. Early this month, the Receivables Exchange announced its integration with the Ariba Network, a leading provider of spend management services.

The press release says the integration will enable SMEs "to seamlessly transfer their invoices from the Ariba Network to the Exchange’s proprietary trading platform for auction. Leveraging a cash optimizer tool embedded in the latest release of the Ariba Network, suppliers can calculate their cash needs as compared to their eligible outstanding invoices and select the invoices they want to sell to help them optimize their working capital management and improve their cash flow."

This is virtually the same model Zopa and various collaborators took to potential UK clients and partners in 2008. Marketing was the only (major!) hurdle, and we were in talks with someone very big and friendly to support it. But, as is often the way with these types of services, there were simply too many interim integration steps competing against higher core priorities for the service to go into development.

Full credit to the Receivables Exchange for getting this launched - although I still think they need a bigger brand name that is already well-known to all SME's if they are going to get real traction against the established sources of trade finance. I wish them luck.

Maybe it's a signal that Zopa and its partners should dust off their plans...

Mezzanine CoCo Means Even Fatter Banking

Two recent funding initiatives not only fail to introduce openness and transparency in the credit markets, but also add complexity, shroud risk and perpetuate the enormous fees and bonuses inherent in the 'fat banking' model that many are complaining about.

Of course, I'm referring to the new form of 'contingent convertibles' or "CoCos" issued by Lloyds Banking Group and the 'mezzanine' product to be offered by the "Growth Capital Fund".

The £7bn worth of new "CoCos" issued by Lloyds Banking Group pay interest, but convert into equity if the bank's core tier one capital ratio falls below 5%. The tier one capital ratio is itself under a cloud, given its lack of predictive value in 2007 and recent analysis by Standard & Poors that "every single bank in Japan, the US, Germany, Spain, and Italy included in S&P's list of 45 global lenders fails the 8pc safety level under the agency's risk-adjusted capital (RAC) ratio." Furthermore, the ABI says it doesn't like these CoCos being included in bond indexes, because this would "effectively require some bond investors to buy these instruments and subsequently to become forced sellers if and when they convert into equity." It's worth noting that the UK government has had to invest £5.7bn (net of underwriting fees) just to avoid dilution of its 43% shareholding amidst the wopping £13.5bn in new shares. That underwriting fee must be enormous, no doubt made more so by the complexity of the new instrument.

CoCos are a type of convertible bond and are not really new. They started life as bonds that paid interest, but converted into equity if the issuer's share price hit a certain number. Apparently they were first issued by Tyco in 2000. They were popular because CoCos were not included in the diluted earnings per share calculation. However, their favourable treatment was removed and they more or less died out. Some also expressed concern about adequate disclosure of the risk that the contingency would occur, and the future impact of the conversion into equity... seems nothing has changed.

Meanwhile, Messrs Brown and Mandelson have also welcomed the recommendation for new "Growth Capital Fund" to allow medium sized businesses to publicly offer "mezzanine" debt - lending that is often unsecured, and ranks behind bank debt but ahead of equity on insolvency. Apparently, this product "would help address demand side aversion to pure equity, and provide a return above regular bank lending to reward investors". You can guess the reason for the premium to regular bank lending, and why it ranks behind banks. The Growth Capital Fund is designed to plug a "permanent gap" existed for up to "5,000 businesses" looking to raise between £2m and £10m in growth capital." It is noted that "neither banks nor equity investors were likely to fill this gap in the near future." They know that where you rank in an insolvency without security is largely academic, and there remains the very real issue as to how to effectively monitor the ongoing creditworthiness of a mid-tier company. Perhaps the proposed 'single fund manager' might find a solution. But I'll bet it will just sit there gathering money and sending statements to forlorn investors confirming the steady deduction of its fee as a percentage of gross funds under management. Already, Lloyds bankers say they are interested, no doubt hoping to recover some of their recent underwriting fees.

So it's clear that neither of these relatively complex instruments do anything to promote openness and transparency in the financial markets, but instead continue to funnel investment opportunities to intermediaries who can rely on their privileged regulatory position to charge enormous fees.

There are alternatives. At Zopa, for example, we helped figure out an invoice discounting process that is an easily understood, low margin alternative for SME trade finance, open to all - as is the Receivables Exchange. The challenge is marketing such low cost alternatives to busy SMEs amidst all the noise of the usual banking and investment marketing. Low margin financial services providers can't afford fancy advertising campaigns or to arrange open endorsement by Messrs Brown or Mandelson. Yet, to put an end to 'fat banking' and concentrated, poorly understood risk, we need to promote such open investment marketplaces, using instruments that are more easily understood and widely accessible.

Surely that's a challenge the government could help address, rather than lining bankers' pockets.

Early Payment of SME Invoices

Today the FT reports that "88 per cent [of traders surveyed] reported bigger companies not paying on time – a factor that 72 per cent said had a serious impact on their business."

Early this year I was involved in discussions about a way for individuals with surplus cash to enable SME's to get their invoices to big corporates paid early - and at rates that are competitive with SME's current financing options, represent a great return on people's spare cash, and allow big corporates - and the public sector - to extend their payment terms. This would be additional to SME's current financing options, rather than interrupting or replacing them.

The parties required to implement the necessary process agreed how it should work in detail. Their remaining challenge was finding the SME-facing brand necessary to market the service effectively. Early discussions with the perfect brand yielded some progress, but ultimately launch depended on another of their initiatives progressing.

One way it could work, in basic terms, is that the supplier offers to assign the invoice to Zopa or a collection agent for the benefit of the Zopa members who chip in to pay it early. Notice would need to be given to the corporate buyer to pay the invoice amount to the Zopa members' account. Someone at Zopa would also need to call the corporate buyer to ensure it was happy with the arrangement and confirm the date the buyer is promising to pay. That promised date could go on the invoice listing. Zopa members could then study the listing and decide what discount rate to offer (credit reference data would be available for those that want it). There would be an auction, so pricing would be very transparent.

There's another model that would work in reverse, with buyers posting invoices it's prepared to pay - with a promised payment date - to suppliers' accounts. The suppliers could then hit a "Pay Me Now" button that takes them to the Zopa site where their invoice could be listed etc. While that model is certainly technologically possible now, I suspect that it would follow once people got the hang of the supplier-driven process.

At any rate, if you're a supplier to big corporates who's frustrated by their extended payment terms, why not contact Zopa and say you're interested in either model I've described?

Maybe the continuing explosion of the late-paying problem, coupled with falling savings rates on people's spare cash, will hasten the implementation of this solution.