Corporate Finance Associates Blog

Asset rich and cash poor, how many times have we heard that phraseology?  But what about ‘We can afford to pay it (the interest) and repay it on time but don’t have any money to put in’?  The concept of self certification mortgages has finally been put to rest and are no more, but we are still being asked to help businesses that espouse the latter scenario in that they will make good money from what they are doing, so repayments are easily covered, and will make a significant profit a short way down the line, but the lenders don’t like this approach.

The old saying about a banker is that he is someone who lends you an umbrella when the sun is shining but wants it back when the rain starts falling, very apt, but it should be remembered that is what they are, bankers, not property investors, not widget makers, not housing developers, so to expect them to take an entrepreneurs view rather than a risk takers view is wishful thinking.

Bankers want to see their borrowers share some of the risk, which is why even if a property can be bought cheaply, under what is deemed to be its market value, it is unrealistic to think that ALL of the money can be borrowed so some lenders have reverted to their ideal which is to lend a percentage of the market value or the purchase price whichever is the lower so that in every case the borrower is risking something, even if it is not cash but a charge on some other assets they own.

A good development deal is another case in point, the end profits may be good, but if the developer is taking no risk at all at any stage, even if they actually recoup it later, lenders won’t either.

Borrowing is a partnership, so put something of value on the line and you will get the support, try to do it without and the project will never happen.

The market has changed but realistic borrowers will still get the support their project deserves, they may just have to put the banker’s hat on for once.

If you have a proposition that merits investigation, do visit our contact page and get in touch, we will be honest enough to let you know what can be achieved.

Prospective clients often find their way to us as they have approached their own bankers to support their borrowing requirements and are astounded after years of loyalty to the bank concerned, their applications are being rejected.  Indeed according to the Institute of Directors “… nearly 60% of businesses seeking bank finance in 2009/10 were rejected by their bank”.

According to research from a credit reference agency often used by the banks and the Forum of Private Business (FPB), a fifth of all small business owners who have been refused a loan are completely in the dark about why they were rejected.

The most common reason given to businesses that are told why their loan was denied is inadequate security. More than 40% were given this reason but the lenders are not pursuing the government backed opportunities to get around issue.

Computer Says NO!

A further 30% were dismissed because the sector they operate in is deemed “high risk”, while 27% are let down by their credit score. 

The former is difficult to challenge because it is subjective and we have no access to the lenders own level of experience in the relevant sector, we can only rely on general business sentiment and I think in certain circumstances that is all the lender’s underwriter is doing. 

The latter is again difficult to challenge as despite what an individual business’s (or the owner’s/director’s) credit score is, the lender sets the threshold level to suit their purposes.

Martin Williams, managing director of credit reference agency Graydon UK, said: “It is vital that business owners and managers enter into a conversation with their bank in order to find out where their perceived business challenges lie. This will allow them to address these issues in future applications, considerably improving their chances of securing funding”. 

We would add here that this is an admirable approach but one often where one comes against a brick wall as your own bank contacts (the ones you got on well with before) are now so divorced from the underwriting process they are often in the dark themselves as to the thinking behind the decision as to be in a difficult position to advise.

We always suggest that some form of feedback is obtained why the refusal of support was given, and indeed we ask for it if it is not volunteered, but unless we were the originators of the application, the lenders will not tell us and it is up to the business owner themselves to get the right answers, and if they feel they are out of their depth here, we can help.

Phil Orford, chief executive of the FPB, said business owners needed to make sure they were presenting proper financial information, but also called on the banks to provide detailed reasons when loan applications are turned down.

“We have entered a new business landscape where a more collaborative approach between businesses and banks is required if the future of enterprise and the economy is to be a healthy one,” he said.

“Securing finance is the main priority of the vast majority of small businesses. Economic conditions remain extremely tough and, even when the economy does recover substantially, growth finance will be important to allow them to keep up with demand.”

Our aim at CFA is to ensure that all viable applications are presented in a format that the lender will understand, with all the background information we know will be sought and explore the options open to the applicant moving forward.  We are generally successful in obtaining a workable lending solution, but only because we have done our homework and preparation first to ensure we are painting the right picture, and of course do not waste everyone’s time submitting applications to lenders who patently have no appetite for our applicant’s business.

We can help at the early stage in preparing a robust business plan that not only looks at the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal, but goes deeper into the micro and macro opportunities and threats that need to be addressed.

If you have had a challenge, working with your existing bank, give us a call and let us see if we can help.

It appears, finally, that someone has woken up to the fact that the lenders bailed out by the UK Taxpayer are not delivering on their promises to support the SME sector with business borrowing.

I was tickled by a comment on the BBC news this morning (09/02/10) from a spokesman from Lloyds Bank claiming that they are not lending to businesses as much as they agreed because no one is applying to them.  This is wildly off the mark as our experience has proved to us with banks making it fairly difficult to submit any proposition with a better than even chance of getting past their underwriters.

I am old enough to remember when the local bank manager had authority to grant facilities and as they lived on the doorstep they had their finger on the pulse of how their branch interacted and supported their local business customers.  They understood businesses and worked with them to move forward.

Times changed as the business lending function was centralised and faceless individuals made all the decisions and the idea of the old “Bank Manager in the Cupboard” (Midland Bank ads back in the 70/80s) went out the window.  It was at least starting to revert to the local Business Development Manager (BDM) having a much more hands on approach to local lending, when the common complaint at the time was that these people just got to the point where they understood your business and they were moved on to greater things and you have to tell your story all over again to someone new.

Then came the Credit Crunch (as we have all decided to call it now) and gradually the banks slimmed down their BDM teams and took any small link between small business and the bank decision makers away as EVERY transaction now has a tortuous task through the underwriting process.

We have always aimed to answer these faceless underwriter’s questions before they even get to ask them and that does mean having to garner much more background information from the client than was ever needed in the past, and these decisions being made about supporting small business are being left to individuals who firstly have never ever run a business in their life (I have always thought it would be a good idea for bankers to be seconded to industry for a portion of their development to see how the other half functions) and rarely if ever would lose their roles by saying no to an application.  After all they are only “protecting the Bank’s shareholders”.  The skill is in saying yes, and this skill is not being exercised as often as it could be.

The claim is that they are indeed still lending but at what price?  Definitely higher margins of at least 200bp above previous norms, double the fees, 40 – 50% shorter terms, much lower LTV’s and it is only the very good companies that can live with these.

My argument is that providing serviceability can be assured with a reasonable amount of headroom and the applicant is clean and paid for, the lenders should be looking to do everything in their power to help and deliver on the commitments made to the Government when they were bailed out in the first place.  They are in the risk business after all, and the rewards are very good now.

It just reminds me of Mark Twain’s apt definition “A banker is a fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is shining, but wants it back the minute it begins to rain”, well it has been raining but the sun is coming out again so let’s start sharing those umbrellas as promised.

The following was posted on Commercial Introducer.com

Fitch Ratings says that it expects European banks’ commercial real estate (CRE) exposures to remain a material credit issue through 2010, and refinancing will be a particular concern in 2011 and 2012 when a high volume of property loans fall.

This may lead to further negative rating action on European banks relating to their commercial real estate exposure, though action is likely to be limited in scope.

Gordon Scott, Managing Director in Fitch’s Financial Institutions team, says:“Many banks have not yet reported substantial losses on their CRE portfolios, despite significant declines in asset values in certain markets and segments. This is partly due to timing and serviceability, as long as loans are being serviced banks are unlikely to report the loan as non-performing.

“However, with a large proportion of loans in negative equity, Fitch expects pressure on borrower cash-flows and increasing loan covenant breaches to result in further losses.”

Corporate defaults typically peak after economic contraction ends, suggesting that loan losses (which themselves will lag default) may not peak until into 2010. Lenders may be protected to varying degrees by their underwriting standards, particularly those whose exposure is in good locations, with good quality tenants, and longer leases.

Loans written prior to 2006-7 at lower loan-to-values (LTVs) will be better placed to withstand additional pressure. A prolonged period of economic weakness and/or further asset value declines could result in a significant rise in defaults.

Scott says:

“Banks are adopting a more conservative approach in terms of new underwriting and pricing of commercial property loans. Many banks are also under significant pressure from regulators, shareholders, politicians and other market participants to de-risk their balance sheets, which has potential to reduce the overall supply of credit to the sector.

“All of these factors will severely limit borrowers’ refinancing options for the wave of European property loans with high LTVs that mature in the four years from 2010.”

Irish banks’ commercial property exposure remains very high relative to tier 1 capital, and they are particularly exposed to development finance. In the UK, exposure has risen sharply since the early 1990s and is high relative to tier 1 capital at the two state-backed banking groups (Royal Bank of Scotland Group and Lloyds Banking Group, both rated ‘AA-’/Outlook stable) though recent capital-raising initiatives will reduce this.

Spanish banks’ CRE lending has quadrupled since 2002. Most medium and large sized cajas (regional savings banks) and medium sized universal banks have high exposure to the property sector (around 30% of total lending) making them vulnerable to further adjustments.

In Germany, CRE exposures also represent a high proportion of tier 1 capital at many Landesbanks and specialist property lenders. Exposure to the most stressed markets – the US, the UK and Spain – may pose a serious challenge for individual banks’ asset quality. More than 40% of German banks’ CRE exposure is international, according to Fitch.

Rating action is possible for banks that Fitch considers to be most exposed to downside risk from continued adverse market developments, particularly if in the agency’s opinion loan impairment reserves appear inadequate and/or capital appears to lack sufficient buffer to deal with potential problems.

It should be noted, however, that many of the European banks most exposed to CRE already have low or weak Individual ratings; while their stronger Issuer Default Ratings are driven by support. This is likely to limit the number of potential negative rating actions.

The report, “Banks’ Exposure to European Commercial Real Estate,” is available at www.fitchratings.com. Fitch is undertaking a more detailed bank-by-bank analysis and will provide further commentary as more data is available.