The value of “experiences”……

The truly depressing statistic that emerged from unemployment figures  released last week was that the level of unemployment for 16-24 years olds had almost reached one million. This growing number of NEETs  (Not in Education, Employment or Training) is a national tragedy in a number of ways.

For the hard pressed Generation Xer  though, struggling with pressures of family responsibility, job insecurity and collapsing pensions, the trials and tribulations of Generation Y  may seem of little concern, especially when they are constantly told it is down to them to adapt to the values of this generation rather than the other way round.

Indeed it is fashionable to claim that school and college leavers and graduates attempt to enter the world of work with little or no concept of what is required regarding skills, discipline and timeliness, and with more interest in what the job can do for them rather that what they can do in their job. There are glib suggestions that a haircut and a makeover are all that is necessary to turn things around.

All this is extremely unfair on young people. They are not stupid.  Many are very entrepreneurial in their own way. They recognise trends. They can react quickly. They often start their own businesses. They can think the unthinkable. They may suffer from lack of conventional “experience”, but the most tech savvy generation ever already have a wealth of “experiences” to draw on.

The growing NEET problem is clearly not all down to employer attitudes. Young people do need to be more aware of the challenges facing their elders. Family environments and educational establishments have to do a lot more to encourage the right sort of thinking and attitude. Initiatives such as Surrey Young Enterprise , which are excellent ways of engaging young people with business and commerce, need to be strongly supported by business and government alike.

Yes, it is not easy in a world where it seems more and more people are chasing fewer and fewer opportunities, but opportunities are often created in adversity, and finding ways to tap into the talents of an increasingly forgotten generation is surely as good a place as any to start.

AIM – Not enough liquidity, but plenty at Grocers Hall

Off to Grocers Hall  in the City for the Growth Company Awards where we sip champagne in a beautiful red velvet room adorned by paintings of well known grocers of shopping days past, including er…. Lord Carrington. I’m not sure what his connection is; perhaps like me he worked at Sainsbury’s while he was a student (though somehow I doubt it).

The Awards are sponsored by Sharemark,  promoting its leading alternative share-trading platform which allows small businesses to raise liquidity (even for businesses already quoted on another exchange). These events can become a bit indistinguishable from each other especially after plenty of liquidity of the bubbly kind and so it was good to see that Gavin Oldham, the founder and CEO of Share plc, Sharemark’s parent company, was the headline speaker to kick the evening off.

Mr Oldham always has something memorable to say, based on his many years in the City and having set up not only Share plc but also Barclays Stockbrokers. He is a fierce advocate of private shareholder rights and not afraid to point his finger at the City when he feels it appropriate, and that was what he did this evening. He had taken part in a breakfast seminar with a dozen CEOs of AIM companies and all were questioning the benefit of staying on the market; not surprising when you consider that 257 companies delisted from AIM last year.

The thrust of his talk was that too often companies are taken down the IPO route onto AIM or PLUS but that thereafter they get little support from advisers in making the most of their listing, and become “stranded”. The problem is often that too few companies focus on liquidity or get support from advisers on managing liquidity. This in turn is usually due to the IPO process almost invariably being satisfied by a placing to institutional shareholders and having too few retail shareholders on board. He suggested that City brokers should get retail brokers involved so the company has more private shareholders on its share register. These are the people who provide liquidity through frequent trading whereas institutional shareholders tend to hold their shares and not trade frequently and sometimes the shares stagnate due to minimal trading.

You can’t fault Mr Oldham’s logic but equally looking at this commercially from a City brokers point of view, it’s much easier to just talk to a few institutions and get the placing done rather than deal with tens or hundreds of private shareholders. Of course, Mr Oldham would point out that Share plc can handle this nightmare for City brokers, but this is too rational an argument; the City, despite its dynamic image, is actually quite slow at changing its ways whatever those ways are. Hence, Mr Oldham’s rallying call that this area requires a change of attitude from corporate advisers.

An excellent evening overall, and a good point made by Mr Oldham, but I was left wondering why something called the Growth Company Awards only has two of its nine awards for growth companies and the remainder for City advisers. Surely shome misthtake as they say after too much fizzy liquidity.

Business planning – up in the clouds or down to earth……?

The two major news items of the moment, Nick Clegg’s apparent triumph in the televised election debate and the volcanic cloud that is currently playing havoc with the skies have brought to mind Harold MacMillan’s alleged quote when asked what was most likely to blow a government off course.
 
The source of the ex Conservative prime minister’s comment “events dear boy, events” has never been properly substantiated, but nonetheless, it is probably haunting his would be successors now, as all their months of meticulous election planning have had to be put to one side, to deal with these two unexpected events.
 
Many businesses, not least those involved in air travel, are also having to come to terms with the impact of the Icelandic eruption, which threatens to wreak more havoc on the UK economy than the collapse of the Icelandic banking system. Whether it is key employees being stranded, or the disruption of key transport connections, or the impact on customers and suppliers, companies are having to find solutions to the problems that have emerged.
 
It is moments like this where the merits of business planning tend to be questioned. “How can you plan for this?” is a common jibe, dug up whenever somebody has the temerity to suggest that their organisation might need some sort of business plan. A lot of this stems from the corporate or government approach to planning, which in many organisations means a political exercise designed to promote or preserve the position of senior executives or civil servants.
 
The reality is that planning is not just about plotting a single course. It is about preparing for the unexpected. It is about creating a culture within which uncertainty can be recognised and dealt with. Above all it is about producing a framework within which quick decisions can be made to deal with a range of scenarios.
 
Businesses with robust planning processes will have already started to look at the risks and opportunities that the current situation presents. They will be aware of the resources that they have available to manage these, and will be working out how to deploy them to maximum advantage. In short they will be much better prepared and much more able to survive than businesses that don’t have such processes.
 
As for the politicians…..

Feeling good – for now…..

The latest business trends survey released this morning by BDO , the accountancy firm, reveals that business confidence  has reached its highest level for four years.  This pretty much fits with much of the anecdotal evidence that I have gleaned from clients and contacts over the past few months, and is a welcome antidote to the gloom and doom that has been prevalent for the last year or so.

But anybody who takes this as being the end of the recession and the beginning of a glorious sustained recovery is being a tad naïve. As the survey itself says, much of the boost in output has been down to companies deciding to re-stock after letting their stock levels run down during the recession, and that a significant, and as yet unidentified, increase in private sector investment is needed to keep any recovery on track.

Many businesses that have cut things back to the bone in response to the downturn are now having to get their stock levels back to a least a reasonable level.  Building maintenance and basic equipment upgrades can only be postponed for so long.  But like the VAT reduction and quantitative easing, these are only going to be one off boosts to economic activity.

UK economic growth is driven by public sector spending, consumer demand, business investment, and export activity.  It is the latter two that are likely to lead the way out of this recession, and given the comments above regarding investment and the fact that global demand is still not exciting enough for there to be a strong expansion of exports, the situation remains fragile.

Add to this the fact that businesses are understandably not believing any pre election pledges about what the parties intend to do, and are waiting for the reality of the post election economic situation and the actions that will be necessary to deal with that, you can understand why I am still cautious about the immediate future.

I still believe that it will be up to businesses to make their own recovery in 2010 (and maybe even 2011), and that the basics of business planning and financial management that many companies have had to revisit during the recession will play a key role in any success they hope to achieve.  There is still a long way to go.

Job Creation vs Job Preservation…again…

It is jobs stupid! As the official election campaign finally gets underway and we prepare ourselves for a month of claim and counter claim, promises and pledges, and of course the obligatory carefully staged photo opportunities, the economy is likely to come under renewed scrutiny as the political parties endeavour to persuade us that they have all the solutions.

It does not require the powers of Nostradamus to foresee that unemployment and job creation are likely to be at the forefront of the electorate’s current list of concerns. However, as touched upon in a previous blog, it remains clear that politicians still do not really understand the difference between job preservation and job creation.

Take the recent car scrappage scheme that has just ended. A great success it seems, in that it apparently saved 4,000 jobs. However this scheme appears to have had a budget of about £400million. Being an accountant, I am obviously not very good at maths, but I calculate that, on this basis, each job preserved has cost the government £100,000.

And there is no guarantee that the 4,000 jobs mentioned above will still remain in the future. As manufacturers and car retailers downgrade their sales expectations for the coming year it is hard to believe there will not be job losses in the sector. All that seems to have been achieved by the scheme is some short term job preservation.

It would have been more worthwhile to have given 4,000 SMEs approximately £100,000 each to see how they would have used the cash. Some no doubt would have squandered to the money (perhaps on a new car or two), but I would like to think that those that did use it wisely would have ended up creating more than 4,000 jobs, and, more importantly, that those jobs would have been sustainable and longer lasting. Perhaps they might even have further boosted the anticipated “green jobs bonanza”.

Anyway that’s my suggestion. The perfect combination – job creation with green credentials. The election’s already in the bag….

Antony Doggwiler
ajd@orchardgrowth.com