Cash flow assistance for SME’s

Mar 22, 2020 | Governance, Management

Cash flow assistance for SME’s

Halleluiah

The Government has announced cash flow assistance for small businesses, turnover limit an arbitrary $50 million, impacted by the Corona virus.

Perhaps the precarious position many small businesses are finding themselves in has finally pricked the Canberra political bubble.

The assistance is intended to keep people at work, and therefore money flowing in the economy. Some of the details are in a fact sheet easily downloaded from the Treasury website. If unsure, speak to your accountant.

Industry organisations, particularly banks will play a role in ensuring the information gets out, and those eligible, are helped to make the appropriate applications.

Inevitably however, the devil will be in the detail. Governments being what they are, will without necessarily intending to do so, make it challenging to access the relief.

There will be layers of bureaucracy and miles of red tape to be navigated.

I have one piece of advice to give that might serve to reduce the disruption and stress any interaction with a government agency giving out money and assistance will create:

Start collecting the data you will need now!

Add a category to your ledgers, that captures each and every expense associated with the Corona virus. Direct costs are easily assembled, but put them in one place, and include a calculation that reflects the time people spend sorting through the debris of their employers caused by this blight. Use the total cost of employment X hours spent as the calculating base.

Assembling and reporting the numbers is something that will inevitably have to be done, so do it now, and do it in a disciplined manner, so that when the rush is on nothing gets missed, and having it organised will make the process of accessing the assistance less disruptive.

Header cartoon courtesy Tom Gauld.

The only commercial vaccine for COVID-19. Cash.

Mar 20, 2020 | Governance, Management

The only commercial vaccine for COVID-19. Cash.

When things suddenly get really tough, as we are now seeing, the priority is survival.

That simple word means many different things to different people, but the common denominator is that you need cash to do it.

If your processes do not include short term rolling cash flow forecasting, the best time to start was before the do do hit the fan. The second best time is right now. There are many templates out there, but the information required is simple:

A forecast of the cash coming in.

A forecast of the cash going out.

This is not a managed number like a profit and loss statement, it involves only what goes in and out of the bank account.

My preference for most circumstances is a 13 week rolling weekly forecast. It is long enough to give a good picture, short enough to be sensitive to the immediate challenges that arise.

As a sibling to cash flow forecasting and a little more complex, is an exercise to ‘stress test’ your business. It is in effect a model to enable you to test to see how long your cash will last given a variety of assumptions about the trading environment.

To do a stress test, you need 8 pieces of added information, some will be forecasts, others will be sourced from your trading history, captured in the P&L and ledger accounts. The importance of each will vary depending on the type of business you are in. For example, physical inventories in a service business do not exist, but there will be a work in progress number that can take its place.

Projected revenues

Margins

Fixed costs

Variable cost of goods sold

Accounts receivable

Accounts payable

Inventories.

Cash reserves and available lines of credit

You can make this a sophisticated and challenging exercise, and in a large business, it should be. However, in an SME, it should be simple enough that a competent bookkeeper will be able to create a simple spreadsheet that will reflect the impact on your cash reserves of changing assumptions about any of the variables. Even just the conversation about the weighting of variables going into the stress test model, and their underpinning assumptions, will be extremely valuable.

When you could do with an experienced outsiders input, give me a call.

Header cartoon courtesy Scott Adams and ‘Dilbert’

Canberra bubbles bumble on

Mar 12, 2020 | Governance, rant

#Scottyfrommarketing blew it again on Tuesday morning, (March 10) further demonstrating why he had to move out of marketing, where you need a modicum of common sense, into politics, where common sense appears to be a liability.

He was speaking at the Financial Review business forum in Sydney, looking at the strategic challenges that face us. Amongst his words was an exhortation for business to keep people employed, to keep temporary and casual workers on the payroll despite not having work, for the good of the nation, to help them feel like they were proper Australians.

If he had any common sense he would have known, and as PM, should have known, that those running businesses do so for reason other than patriotism, indeed, they have a fiduciary responsibility to deliver returns to shareholders.

As an alternative to his naive and fluffy exhortation, he should have pointed out the costs of rehiring and retraining employees, the hidden transaction costs, adverse behavioural impact of survivor syndrome on employers, and the opportunity costs involved in cyclical staff management. Produce a few statistics from one of the many bureaucracies tracking this stuff, accompanied by a few real case studies, and the impact would have been significant. As it was, the impact was nothing more than further confirmation that the PM is not dialled into the real world.

I noted, ‘again’, in the opening sentence for a reason. It was not the failed responses to the fires, wooden recognition that there might be a problem emerging from climate change, or the astonishing revelations emerging from the shallow end of the pork barrel pool. It was driven by the stupidity of turning away from the opportunities offered by the rapid evolution of the world economy from fossil fuel to renewables.

Australia has plenty of space for mass solar panels, the resources required to produce batteries for storage, and the opportunity to be at the forefront of developing Hydrogen as a renewable energy source. It has just been too expensive in the past, and requires a lot of energy, to date supplied by fossil fuels. It will not be so in the future. But unfortunately, our scientific resources have been decimated, and what is left, directed elsewhere by ideologues and ‘flat earthers’.

Having sent brickbats in his direction, it is fair to be even handed.

This morning the PM announced the expected response to the virulent growth of the Corona virus. To me it appeared to be measured, sensible, and appropriate, and to be fair, again, the PM appears to be in front of the game this time. Perhaps #scottyfrommarketing is finally listening to those with some expertise in the arena he intends to flap his gums about.

Header cartoon courtesy Mark David and Independent Australia

How to think about your business

Mar 2, 2020 | Governance, Leadership, Management

Business is simple, in principal.

Sell something for more than it cost you to produce or acquire it, recognising that the buyer needs to understand that the value they will derive from the product is greater than the cost they incur in buying it.

Simple.

Einstein said everything should be as simple as possible, no simpler, and his E=MC2 is the simplest equation that explains (somehow) masses of complicated stuff. It is the best example ever of Occam’s Razor, named after William of Ockham, a 13th century philosopher which encourages decision making to the broken down by progressively removing those outcomes that are based on beliefs and ideas rather than facts. When you have all the beliefs removed, you are left with the facts.

Often however, not so simple after you go one or two levels down the burrow to figure out just how you go about that process of removing all the biases and beliefs that masquerade as facts.

Charlie Munger, offsider to Warren Buffett in creating billions of value for Berkshire Hathaway shareholders over 50 years spoke about Mental Models in a speech in 1994. His premise was that you need a ‘lattice’ of mental models that apply to the different perspectives that apply to any question being faced in order to distil the ideas and wisdom that applies to your situation.

I agree absolutely with the idea.

It is simple, but as complex as you choose to make it.

As someone who helps small and medium manufacturing businesses improve the economic performance, there are numerous mental models at work simultaneously.

Strategic models: There are many strategic frameworks or models for business planning. Porters 5 forces, Boston consulting’s 4 quadrant, game theory, the old favourite SWOT, and many others. Profoundly important and often missed at this point, is consideration of the business model being employed.

Operational models: Lean thinking, 6 sigma, shift sequencing, the mix of technical, support and operational staff, deployment of technology, interaction of technology and those at the work face, on and on, you have the opportunity to use the wisdom of others to sort the relevant from the not so relevant.

Financial models: the standard accounting forms of cash flow, P&L, and balance sheet, together with a break even analysis, and decisions about the type of costing models to be used, ratios to be calculated, and formats in which the information will be communicated. To properly understand the operational mechanics of a business, you need more than the standard financial reporting. Their limits are a view of what has happened to the money, little about why and how it happened, and certainly very little about what may happen in the future.

Marketing and sales models: where do I start? Ideal customer profiles, value proposition, digital Vs analogue, differentiators, marketing toolbox and the multiplicity of tools to deliver leverage, ROI of marketing investment, Account based selling, selling models such as BANT, sales funnel, conversion rates, anchoring a negotiation, and thousands more.

How do you sort all these options into a few that will deliver results that are worth the investment?

You start with the end in mind, the strategic and commercial objectives, the why. I call this process ‘hindsight planning’
You break down the challenges into sequential ‘chewable chunks’

You focus on the important more than the urgent.

Behavioural models: These usually emerge as a group of expected behaviours, collectively called ‘Culture’. The best example I can think of is the 10 commandments, common to the 3 Abrahamic religions (Islam, Christian and Jewish) that sets a wide framework of the few things you must not do, leaving the rest up to you. Together, in their own environment, they provide a ,macro framework for behaviour, which we then break down further into the components that we seek to live by in a community.

When you need some help sorting this out, call me.

How to make better decisions, more often.

Feb 13, 2020 | Governance, Management, Strategy

A decision is a choice, made in the face of a problem.

Problems, at their core, have only two sources:

Uncontrollable events.

Flawed processes and their application.

These two sources have entirely different paths to a solution.

Flawed processes need to be subjected to some sort of continuous improvement program, resulting in a clearly articulated process that can be taught. This improvement process can become a normal part of activity, given the appropriate leadership and focus. A key part of the improvement process is the application of critical and creative thinking. Having a highly optimised process is not the same as having a truly effective one.

Uncontrollable events are entirely different, by their nature, are very difficult to unable to be forecast. They emerge with little if any warning, generally from the outside of an enterprise, so the solutions need to be arrived at in an entirely different manner.

Two factors contribute to the options facing us as we set out to address these random events:

People put far more weight on the problem directly facing them, than even a much more serious problem that has little short term impact. It is also true that most people have a better idea of the dimensions of a problem that directly impacts on them, than others that may carry more corporate clout, but are do not directly affect them.
We can only deal with a very few problems at once, we simply do not have the cognitive bandwidth to deal effectively with a number at the same time.

Therefore, considering these two factors, it makes sense to democratise the manner in which we deal with problems. In other words, enable those who face the problems to deal with them by giving them the resources and responsibility to do so, within clearly understood boundaries.

Two mental models to consider.

The first is a pyramid, full of problems. If the only person who has the power to address the problem, is the one or two at the top, only a few will be addressed at all. Democratising the power to address them enables others at lower levels to address those problems they directly face, so it follows that many more will be addressed. There may be some stuff ups on the way through, but overall the outcome will be beneficial. However, most corporate cultures make this very challenging, built as they are on a hierarchical structure.

The second is also a pyramid, but turned on its head. In this case, the base of the pyramid is facing outwards, towards the customer and various elements in the supply chain with whom the operating personnel have contact. This is where most of the operational problems occur, so give them the resources and power to fix them.

Do these seemingly simple things, and those usually seen as the bottom of the hierarchy have the opportunity to address the emerging problems as they are molehills, before they turn into mountains. It does however necessitate the devolution of power from the top of the organisations structure, and all the way down through and across the functional silos. This may be a scary prospect for most, but it enables the enterprise to be agile and efficient.

The impact of this sort of culture shift cannot be underestimated. It does however take a special and unusual strength of leadership to enable the change to evolve.

US general Stanley McCrystal achieved stunning results in Iraq with one of the most rigidly hierarchical of organisations, the military, so you should be able to do it. General McCrystal’s experience is recorded in his book ‘Team of Teams’ which is a compelling account of a culture being turned on its head.

How do you reconcile conflicting statements by geniuses?

Feb 10, 2020 | Governance, Strategy

‘If you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it.’ Peter Drucker.

‘Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.’ Albert Einstein.

How can both be true?

The first is half true, the second is absolutely true, which leaves us with a problem, if it is not measured, how can we manage it?

A lot of things cannot be measured, good parenting, the enjoyment you get from watching a great game of football, business culture, the likelihood of a new product succeeding in a non-existent market.

Take that game of football, the statistics tell one story, the game as watched may tell another entirely. The stats do not reflect the quality of the game.

What about the future, how do you measure that?

Tough call.

You cannot measure what has not happened, but you can draw inferences from all sorts of variables, quantitative and qualitative.

Digital has driven a bias towards quantitative, all we hear about is A/B testing to the point where we feel diminished if we do not do it. However, this mad reliance on the quantitative is a nasty illusion, a mirage, leading many astray. Qualitative has a huge place in telling the future, it is a way to fill in the behavioural blanks, to imagine what may happen in a given situation.

Qualitative research can be an aid to the intuition born of experience, and domain knowledge, factors not able to be quantified. It is also a great way to surface the questions that need to be asked in a following quantitative process, which is useless without the questions that go to the heart of the drivers of the behaviours being quantified.

Qualitative research when done well, and unfortunately I have seen it done poorly more often than well, digs into the psychological and motivational aspects of behaviour. Not just what we do, but why we do it, and what might we do in the future.

The missing ingredient in most ‘future-telling’ exercises, usually called ‘forecasting,’ is the wisdom born of experience. Frederico Fellini once quipped that ‘experience is what you get while looking for something else’.

It seems to me that wisdom, and the insights that emerge from that wisdom, come from a lot of experience.