Of course recent press highlighting the fact [...]]]> Do we as a general population seemingly detest Bankers and all that surrounds them simply, as many of them of claim due to an outright jealousy and a British attitude to dislike those more successful than us? Or is it a more complicated and deep routed than that?

Of course recent press highlighting the fact that even during the colossal failure of the banking system many city executives where receiving huge payouts and that so soon after the event the banks are seemingly returning to the big bonus culture doesn’t aid the levels of sympathy the general populace feels for them.

The BBC’s recent ‘Love of Money’ season and dramatisation of the collapse of Lehman Brother’s have no doubt helped re-enforce the belief that Bankers where self-indulgent, arrogant and more than happy to take, not calculated risks but clear casino-style gambles with our money.

The banking industry also appears painfully slow to take lessons from the events of a year ago in trying to build a system less exposed to the kinds of risk and foolish behaviour. Robert Peston the BBC economics editor has an interesting insight to this matter (click here to see) and it can be said that his blog on the general state of our economy makes intelligent reading (even if we don’t always agree).

Whilst the evidence against the Bankers may seem a simple open/close case, the issues and responsibility runs much deeper. Next in line are the regulators, their apparent lack of control or ability to understand what the banks where implementing is quite frightening but unfortunately nothing new. Since it conception it has appeared that the FSA has been able to have little impact on the activities of the banks and their employees.

The complication and convolution of the financial system has created an industry open to exploitation by those who are willing and perhaps lack a moral compass. At this point however it must be stated that whilst stories of corruption and misdemeanour make for popular reading. It can be said that the vast majority of people and companies in this industry are wholesome and live by the rules.

It must also be stated that whilst foolish and perhaps negligent at times not to address the actual risk or reality of the situation the action to create and sell CDO’s and other derivatives was not corrupt, and those doing it genuinely believed they where removing risk from these investment vehicles but I digress…

So the bankers, regulators and governments (as policy makers and part-regulator) all contributed to this financial folly but it might take a painful look closer to home in sharing this responsibility.

The general population exerted pressure and desire for ever increasing returns from our financial investments. We also looked for cheaper means of credit to satiate our ever growing need for consumer goods. Our love affair with the property market helped fuel this bubble even further and the fact so many of us over stretched our finances to achieve our housing dreams didn’t help.

So the Credit Crunch whilst led by bankers was able assisted by various parties and to be fair to bankers whilst we might hate them more than ever, there has never been any real great passion or liking for those in the world of finance. The roots of hate can be found much deeper than just the most recent of recessions.

Now I could be out on my own with the following opinion but here goes anyway. I believe and feel that whilst the headlines might be grabbed by the big salaried investment bankers, many of us hold a dislike for all things financial through our retail banking experiences. The problem starts with the term Retail Banking and the fact it in no way reflects retail as we know it. One bank makes a huge marketing campaign out of demonstrating their helpful side which includes having a phone number for the branch you bank at, opening on a Saturday and having the people you speak to based in the UK. Those sorts of claims will have large grocer retailers quaking in their boots I’m sure.

Dealing with banks on a daily basis can be a grinding process, foreign call centres, excessive charges, inflexible and unhelpful customer services, limited opening hours for branches and a bombardment of calls and junk mail for unwanted loans and credit cards.

Many Small Business owners know first hand of the intrinsic view banks take and their lack of compassion for people and their livelihoods when compared with their ability to look after their own bottom line. Yet in good times many would have been advised by their bankers to take credit, to leverage their business to enable growth. How quickly the hand which gives can be taken away and the bank’s general response? Those Small business owners should not have over-stretched themselves, and managed their finances more responsibly. Kettle, pot anyone?

It is this frustration that many of us feel towards banks about their inability to treat the majority of their customers actually as a people rather than a means to an end. This coupled to the on-going concern that as customers we continue to get raw deals from banks, such as high mortgage rates whilst interest rates are low, yet pittance on our saving, which I feel is really at the core of our distaste to banks and bankers. The Credit Crunch simply gives us another bullet to aim at this industry and its people.

The question is will this situation ever change? In the short term it looks unlikely, banks are colossal in size and clout, the regulators seem relatively weak and politicians who have now blown the budget need financial institutions on-side. There is no real need or desire from the existing banks to break the mould or over-invest in developing a truly customer led retail operation.

Change will only come through a step change in policy, giving the FSA true power in holding banks accountable and by a new entrant to the marketplace bringing pressure to the incumbents. A Tescos or Sainsbury’s bank could deliver this, but a background of a retail price war probably isn’t the right time. Until then the general population and media will continue to hate the bankers.

Share/Save

For those who watch the [...]]]> For many small business owners and entrepreneurs external investment is required to help them develop their business and whilst gaining that investment may not take on the appearance of that seen in the BBC program now in its seventh series. You can certainly take some key lessons from the show.

For those who watch the show the criteria the Dragons are looking for in potential investments are very clear and more importantly consistent.

Here are the top 4 things to consider when looking to raise investment straight from the Dragon’s mouths…

1. Know your business – Understand how your business works or will work, know your numbers – turnover, profits, margins. Be able to communicate what your business does clearly and succinctly. If you can’t explain what your does does in 30 seconds you don’t have a business.

2. Don’t stick your finger in the air when valuing your business – Your business valuation should be be based on sound reasoning; sales performance, comparisons to similar companies and products. Don’t use the 1% rule or £1 million, both just highlight the lack of research and planning you have done and will scare investors off from the start.

3. Give the investors some thing to get excited about – Demonstrate why your expertise or your product are different from the competition and why you are better placed to be successful. Maybe its your experience or a list of achievements you have made, or maybe its a patent you have secured on the design of a new product.

4. Give them a clear exit strategy – At the end of the day all Investors want to make money out of their investments and if you provide a clear plan for them to make their money back (and then some) within 3-5 years they’ll much quicker to invest.

Share/Save

If the company you are looking at is [...]]]> We’ve listed a few of the quick financial measures you can run on your customers (or suppliers) to check their business health. We’re sure you’d agree that in ths current economic climate any insight into the long term viability of your customers and suppliers is fairly useful.

If the company you are looking at is listed on the stock exchange you should be able to access these measures through a number of financial websites online without needing to employ any maths, (our favourite is www.advfn.co.uk) but don’t worry if the company isn’t listed as you can work these measures out with just the company’s annual reports logged at Companies House (for those based in the UK) and a calculator.

Current Ratio

Current Assets (CA) Divided by Current Liabilities (CL)

Current assets divided by current liabilities i.e. the ability (in theory) of a company to meet its short term debt on demand, for instance, if it went into receivership.

Strictly speaking this ratio should be greater or equal to 1, although in practice a much lower value is widely accepted (one of the effects of Just-In-Time).

Quick Ratio (acid test)

Current Assets (CA) – Stocks Divided by Current Liabilities

Current assets less stocks divided by current liabilities.

The rationale here is that stocks cannot be quickly converted into cash in order to meet short term debt on demand, and hence they are deducted from current assets.

In theory, a company’s quick ratio should be greater or equal to 1, or it is insolvent. However, a much lower figure is generally accepted today, provided that the company is considered to be financially stable.

Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) %

Net Profit before taxation x 100

Fixed Assets (FA) + Current Assets (CA) – Current Liabilities

Net profit (profit before taxation) as a percentage of the capital tied up in the business i.e. the company’s profitability.

The higher the ration the more profitable the company. Relate this to net margin and capital turnover.

The percentage return must be compared with alternative investment opportunities, such as returns offered on bank accounts.

If investment in the bank can yield a guaranteed 7 per cent plus (depending on interest rates at the time), a company should show a return of around 20 per cent in order to justify using those funds at a higher level of risk.

Debtor Period (days)

365 X Debtors Divided by Turnover

The average number of days credit given to customers i.e. how long it takes the company to get its money in.

Share/Save