Presse 2015
septembre 2015
Reverse Factoring et auto-facturation : un mariage prometteur!
Le Reverse Factoring se développe dans les diverses familles de l’économie française. Pourtant, de nombreux donneurs d’ordres, optent pour de tels dispositifs mais connaissent les déboires de programmes laborieux et aux succès timides.
>>> article dans son intégralité
pages 11 – 12
septembre 2015
Reverse Factoring et Auto-Facturation : un mariage prometteur!
Le Reverse Factoring se développe dans les diverses familles de l’économie française. Pourtant, de nombreux donneurs d’ordres, optent pour de tels dispositifs mais connaissent les déboires de programmes laborieux et aux succès timides.
>>> article dans son intégralité
10/09/2015
L’affacturage innove pour simplifier son offre
Le service s’enrichit pour mieux servir les petites et moyennes entreprises, avec à la fois un accès plus simple et un service plus large.
>>> article dans son intégralité
08 Aug 2015
Late payments put a quarter of small firms at risk of insolvency
The scourge of late payments continues to drive vulnerable small businesses to the brink of bankruptcy
Nearly a quarter of Britain’s small and medium-sized businesses have been pushed into financial crisis because of late payments, it has emerged.
In a new poll of 1,000 business owners, 23pc reported a brush with insolvency due to unpaid invoices.
The research, which was commissioned by electronic invoicing network Tungsten, revealed that half of all invoices owed to small firms are overdue.
The average small-to-medium-sized enterprise is owed £40,857 in unpaid invoices and £20,937 of that total is overdue.
When extrapolated across the entire UK small business community, totalling 5.2m firms, this could mean an unpaid bill of £212bn.
« An unpaid invoice can mean the difference between a successful month of trading and a dangerous financial shortfall, » said Tungsten chief executive Richard Hurwitz. « In the worst case it could lead to insolvency.”
The issue was found to be most acute in the technology sector, where almost a third of all businesses had been impacted financially by late payments from customers.
While large companies are usually criticised for paying suppliers late, the research found that the problem is widespread.
Some 22pc of those surveyed said most of their late payments were from large businesses, 11pc were owed money by medium-sized firms and 8pc identified the public sector as the culprit. 33pc of businesses surveyed said there was no clear pattern to late payments.
“It is completely unacceptable that late-paying companies are stifling growth and productivity for small businesses and potentially putting otherwise successful businesses at risk,” said small business Minister Anna Soubry in response to the research.
“Through the Enterprise Bill we will create a Small Business Commissioner to help small firms settle disputes with larger companies over late payment. We are currently consulting on these proposals and I want businesses of all sizes to give us their views.”
“The creation of the new role of Small Business Commissioner shows that the government is taking the problem seriously, » said Mr Hurwitz. « But it’s clear that there’s work still to be done to ensure that SMEs are paid in a timely fashion.”
The Federation of Small Businesses, which represents hundreds of thousands of firms, has said that late payments is one of the top 10 issues that small firms will face over the next five years.
According to the Forum of Private Business (FPB), another lobbying body, the Government should agree to “faithfully transpose” the EU Directive on late payments.
This would mean that businesses could automatically claim interest on late payments, charging a minimum fee of £36 for costs incurred.
16/07/2015 – Frédérique Garrouste
Les PME en quête de crédit court terme
La reprise de l’activité aidant, les petits acteurs vont devoir faire face à des besoins de fonds de roulement.
Comme le lait sur le feu, la trésorerie des entreprises de taille réduite fait l’objet d’une attention redoublée. Au moment où l’économie montre des signes de reprise, ces acteurs économiques aux finances souvent fragiles doivent faire face à un besoin en fonds de roulement accru.
Si la conjoncture atone a évité les tensions sur le financement jusqu’ici, la réponse du système bancaire sera-t-elle suffisante en cas de redémarrage de la demande ? « Depuis plusieurs années, les entreprises font le dos rond pour préserver au maximum leur trésorerie en limitant leurs investissements car les baisses d’activité ont entraîné une sous-utilisation des capacités de production », indique Frédérique Vernerey, directrice de l’arbitrage des risques chez Euler-Hermes France. Dès lors, la reprise de l’activité, même molle, entraînera des besoins de trésorerie pour relancer la production et toute la chaîne d’approvisionnement. Paradoxe, les entreprises devront faire face à des dangers accrus.
Autre sujet de préoccupation, « les taux sont exceptionnellement bas actuellement, la question est de savoir comment le système bancaire va réagir dans un contexte de politique monétaire normalisée », s’interroge un expert. Les petites entreprises sont particulièrement exposées à cette passe délicate. « Les TPE – moins de 20 salariés – sont souvent monobancaires, ce qui peut rendre les négociations plus compliquées que pour les autres entreprises, quel que soit le secteur », souligne Frédérique Vernerey. « Les TPE sont l’objet principal des tensions de financement, avec des fonds propres souvent nuls, voire négatifs, ce qui se traduit par des besoins de trésorerie, explique un observateur. Or les dirigeants sont mal formés aux questions de financement, ils connaissent essentiellement le découvert dont le taux moyen est de 9 %, et l’affacturage qui peut coûter 15 %. »
Accompagnement
Depuis 2008, les entreprises ont appris à mieux gérer leurs ressources financières et les banques se veulent présentes auprès des petites sociétés. « Nous continuons de financer résolument les entreprises et parmi elles, les PME et les entrepreneurs, affirme François Orain, directeur des entreprises chez Crédit du Nord. Nous leur proposons notamment la mobilisation du poste clients : les offres d’affacturage des banques se sont beaucoup simplifiées et permettent de servir facilement les TPE. La mobilisation de créances via la loi Dailly est aussi une excellente alternative ; ce mode de financement a été abandonné dans beaucoup de réseaux bancaires, mais nous continuons de le pratiquer. »
Spécialiste des petites entreprises, le groupe Banques Populaires a conçu une offre de crédit qui permet de couvrir les premières phases d’un regain d’activité. « Quand les dépenses d’innovation sont souvent autofinancées par l’entreprise, nous proposons de les couvrir avec du crédit, pour lequel le Fonds européen d’investissement (FEI) nous octroie une contre-garantie à 50 %, expose Christophe Descos, directeur du marché des entreprises et institutionnels chez Banques Populaires. Ce dispositif qui existe depuis deux ans permet de financer les dépenses de compétitivité et, grâce à un différé de remboursement de deux ans, peut soutenir la croissance quand l’investissement repart. » Ce type de financement a été repris par Bpifrance qui apporte sa garantie aux banques pour les crédits venant consolider les trésoreries des PME.
Pour les investissements, le groupe Banques Populaires vient de lancer une offre permettant d’améliorer les trésoreries. « Nous proposons de combiner le nouveau dispositif de suramortissement de 40 % avec du crédit-bail, ce qui permet, les loyers de crédit-bail étant déductibles de l’impôt sur les sociétés, une réduction immédiate de 13 % du montant des loyers et soulage de facto la trésorerie », explique Christophe Descos. Mais une autre façon d’alléger les trésoreries consiste à réduire les retards de paiement, sachant que 62 % des entreprises françaises payent leurs fournisseurs en retard, selon le relevé d’Au Group, spécialiste du crédit clients. Là encore, l’embellie pourrait ne pas être favorable. « Dans tout contexte de reprise, tout le monde essaie de gagner en souplesse dans la gestion de son BFR (besoin en fonds de roulement, NDLR) et de garder du ‘cash’. Il y a alors une tendance naturelle à l’allongement des délais de paiement », indique Frédérique Vernerey. « Le retard moyen est de 13 jours, sachant qu’un jour coûte 1 milliard aux PME, précise Thierry Millon, directeur d’Altares. Un niveau jamais vu depuis dix ans. Neuf entreprises de grande taille sur dix règlent leurs factures en retard. »
Le sujet se révèle problématique pour les petites entreprises. « Elles subissent les retards sans les pratiquer, n’ayant pas le temps de mettre au point des stratégies pour faire traîner les paiements », explique Thierry Millon.
Si l’Observatoire des délais de paiement est en attente d’un nouveau président pour reprendre son activité, le thème des délais de paiement ne fait pas moins l’objet d’une forte mobilisation parmi les pouvoirs publics. Le médiateur des relations interentreprises, qui estime que 100.000 emplois seraient à la clé du respect des délais de paiement, intensifie ses interventions (lire l’entretien).
Les contrôles dans les entreprises vont être multipliés et le secteur public sera lui aussi mis à contribution. « Le médiateur des marchés publics est très efficace pour accélérer les paiements, les administrations ont mis en place la facturation électronique, note Thierry Millon. Les délais restent longs dans la santé mais ont baissé pour les Epic (établissement public à caractère industriel et commercial, NDLR) et les collectivités locales. Ils ressortent à 40 jours dans l’administration, pour 60 dans le privé. »
Les entreprises peuvent aussi jouer sur les processus de traitement des opérations pour améliorer leur fonds de roulement. « La génération de trésorerie passe par la qualité et le timing de l’encaissement et du décaissement. Le sujet moteur pour les PME est la qualité de l’encaissement et sa sécurité, déclare Laurent Rouillac, président-directeur général de Syrtals. Sepa (Espace unique de paiement en euros, NDLR) favorise cela, dans une logique de dématérialisation qui permet un traitement fluide de la facture et de son règlement. » De nouveaux services sont proposés en financement par les acteurs du paiement. « La Carte Business American Express est une carte à débit différé qui permet au dirigeant d’étendre son délai de paiement jusqu’à 58 jours après l’achat, explique par exemple Christophe Brouttier, vice-président du marché des professionnels et TPE chez American Express Carte-France. Ce service est destiné aux professions libérales et aux petites entreprises de moins de 3 millions d’euros de chiffre d’affaires. »
Prêt interentreprises
Autre piste, le financement interentreprises progresse. Certes, le projet de texte en cours d’examen en France ne sera pas une révolution. « Seules les S.A. et les S.A.R.L. pourraient faire crédit, sur une maturité inférieure à deux ans, explique Laurent Mion, associé de CMS Bureau Francis Lefebvre. Le projet prévoit des conditions de fond comme l’existence de liens économiques entre prêteurs et emprunteurs. L’activité de prêt interentreprises doit en tout état de cause rester occasionnelle et il y a fort à parier que le décret devant venir préciser le dispositif légal impose des limites complémentaires, visant à éviter que les entreprises fournissent des prêts hors ressources disponibles. »
Le reverse factoring semble davantage privilégié (lire l’entretien). Encore récente, cette technique se répand, comme en témoignent les deux projets de fonds sur ce thème que vient d’annoncer Acofi Gestion, en partenariat avec le spécialiste Corporate LinX. De quoi intéresser les investisseurs aux besoins de trésorerie courants des entreprises.
09/07/2015 – Frédérique Garrouste
Acofi va lancer deux fonds de « reverse factoring »
Spécialiste du financement alternatif, la société de gestion va faire refinancer par le marché des factures approuvées par des grands groupes.
Acofi étend le champ des actifs proposés à la désintermédiation. La société de gestion prépare le lancement de véhicules qui seront investis dans des actifs peu connus encore du marché, des créances commerciales objet de «reverse factoring». Cette technique consiste à financer des factures d’un grand groupe faisant bénéficier ses fournisseurs de sa qualité de signature: il leur propose de faire refinancer par un tiers ses factures à payer dès qu’il les a approuvées. Les fournisseurs trouvent là un financement à meilleur prix qu’avec l’affacturage classique puisque le prix est calé sur le crédit du donneur d’ordres. Les investisseurs, eux, trouvent là un risque de bonne qualité. «A partir d’un actif constitué de créances commerciales par nature de durée courte, l’investisseur a accès à une prime de structuration», précise Thibault de Saint Priest, directeur général d’Acofi Gestion. Le rendement attendu de tels fonds variera logiquement en fonction de la qualité de crédit du donneur d’ordres.
Acofi va lever sur ce thème deux fonds en forme de FCT (fonds commun de titrisation) d’environ 150 millions d’euros chacun, avec un grand donneur d’ordres par fonds. Le lancement est prévu au quatrième trimestre et les fonds devraient avoir une durée de vie de 4 à 5 ans. La société de gestion s’est associée à Corporate LinX, spécialiste de reverse factoring et qui se charge notamment, via son portail informatique, d’organiser les flux d’informations sur les factures entre les partenaires commerciaux et financiers. «Les structures montées en collaboration avec Acofi prévoient un ‘reverse factoring’ à grande échelle, qui financera non seulement les plus gros fournisseurs mais aussi les petites entreprises souvent délaissées dans ce type de montage, déclare Fabien Jacquot, président de Corporate LinX. Nous entendons favoriser un lien de financement durable entre donneurs d’ordres et fournisseurs.»
Les montages de ce type sont encore peu répandus et Acofi confirme ainsi son approche de la désintermédiation du financement des entreprises. Le gérant privilégie les sous-jacents originaux et décorélés, où la concurrence entre investisseurs est moins forte. Il s’intéresse en particulier à des postes figurant à l’actif du bilan des entreprises, plutôt qu’au passif, comme par exemple des créances en leasing industriel et des créances d’entreprises sur l’Etat au titre du Crédit impôt recherche.
juin 2015
Votre société traverse une mauvaise passe ou votre société se porte bien: faites du Reverse Factoring!
Volontairement provocateur, ce titre aux situations antinomiques permet d’évoquer la versatilité du Reverse Factoring. Non, ce dispositif n’est pas réservé aux sociétés aux trésoreries fragiles, pas plus qu’il n’est l’apanage de sociétés en bonne santé financière. Cet instrument dans la relation interentreprises ne mérite pas l’étiquette générique dont on l’affuble trop souvent car il permet de couvrir un large spectre d’entreprises dans des situations différentes et qui s’avèrent à chaque fois des cas particuliers. Voyons de quoi il retourne.
>>> article dans son intégralité
mars 2015
Reverse Factoring:
do it, benefit from it, talk about it!
Reverse Factoring and Supply Chain Finance are of interest to the majority of financial management departments in terms of numerous benefits and advantages to be gained from them. However, having only just been awarded a level of prestige which has been hard won in the area of innovative projects, some are determined to tarnish this reputation and one can read comments here and there in opposition to them and dressing them up as worse problems in themselves. Let us be clear about this, the supporters and the detractors are all right, these types of facilities are not a cure-all or a magic bullet for all Supply Chain problems. Let us look therefore at the leeway that can be created by this type of scheme and also at the tangible advantages in an overall view, allowing everyone to have an opinion. Abusive extension of payment periods Certain recent articles in the press show the practices of certain groups which offer Supply Chain Finance to their suppliers in return for a significant extension to the contractual time limits for settlement These extensions can go as far as a doubling of the settlement terms asked of suppliers who, if they are not members of the scheme which we are saying is imposed, can suffer negative effects if they refuse to be a part of it. We are thus observing the practices of certain groups who wish to impose supplier payment terms ranging from 60 to 120 days and this merely on the basis of one convincing letter. In this case, the bank writes the dreaded missive in the name of the party placing the orders with the suppliers. Why such a backwards step to these ruthless practices of extension of time limits? Are we saying that the European directive is no longer applied everywhere in order to limit the contractual time limits to 60 days and also that the controls of this are not systematic. Certain countries have simply not advised or legislated concerning any maximum limit. On the other hand, those who are placing orders are advised by financiers with an interest in financing credit risk over as long a period as possible and thus they prefer … long settlement terms. Thus upon going from 60 to120 days (or more) the financing of invoices on a good credit risk would appear to be a nice financial transaction. Nevertheless, on the other side of the Supply Chain, the suppliers and sub-contractors can suffer from these practices, in particular those who are already in a delicate financial situation with respect to their own banks These practices can only give a bad press to Supply Chain Finance whose original objective was not in any way to twist neither the arms nor the pens of suppliers. Furthermore the objective when attained reverses in as much as the results can prove disastrous except… for the project financier. These practices will only accelerate the desire of the legislator to intervene (or to intervene again) in a union which has however to date existed without any intermediaries, which is the order placing party – supplier relationship. Negotiation with suppliers Let us start from a simple axiom: the success of a Supply Chain Finance initiative does not depend only on the advantages it can derive from the order placing parties and the suppliers respectively. In fact the financier associated with a fast settlement benefits from a long-term situation and from a significant steer concerning transactions. However, we have come to agree that these extensions could be toxic within the Supply Chain, therefore why go back to them? Well, our experience shows that optimisation or harmonisation of payment periods is not effective in the case of all parties who place orders. It is therefore often possible to do better while still complying with local legislation. There is little doubt about the advantage of proposing that the supplier revisits the contractual time limits for payment while still remaining within the framework of what is legal while at the same time giving him access to favourable conditions for early settlement. This is, as we say nowadays, a “win – win” scheme. The supplier has to be able to determine what he will offer which is also in line with his requirements. To try to force his hand will only lead to an increase in tension in the Supply Chain. In addition the BRF (working capital requirement) advantage of the party placing the order could be impacted by the supplier who, being constrained by the conditions imposed, will not fail to reflect the less favourable conditions in their prices. Furthermore the party placing the order who wants to see his Supply Chain scheme succeed has to ask himself what motivation the supplier will have to keep to this. Constraints imposed on suppliers do not produce lasting positive effects, but rather negative press coverage. The SCF collaborative tools can offer a range of services to suppliers, thanks in particular to information shared on-line, about invoices which are good to be paid or those which are in dispute due to the reason they have been raised, requests for assets, specific projections concerning collection etc. It is therefore better to prepare one’s scheme with the aim of ensuring it has the success it merits and therefore to give it all the added value that can be offered to suppliers by collaborative tools. Preparation of a Supply Chain Finance scheme Nothing should just be improvised, especially when supplier relationships are at stake and therefore also one’s own Supply Chain. Thus each organisation will have to define its objectives before structuring such a scheme. Without wanting to sing the praises of Corporate LinX, this point is of prime importance in our approach to our clients. Don’t do anything unless you know why you are going to do it! This preparation takes into account the need to ask about the management of supplier postings in these chapters: purchases, supplier accounts and finance: Are conditions of purchase optimised and does a little glance over the supplier portfolio for a year reveal uniform payments and allow one to set a course which is easily achievable? One has to define the ambitions concerning possible negotiation with the suppliers by providing for scenarios which allow options to be retained. Supply Chain Finance: revolution or evolution? In order to reassure those who are most anxious putting in place a SCF scheme does not mean any sort of revolution within the company. It is more a matter of planning for a sustainable evolution in supplier relationships and to prepare and start up the work involved in a defined order. No Big Bang, no revolution, just a shared vision of the course to be charted between Purchasing, Accounts Payable and Treasury. Furthermore, the gains obtained rapidly by the SCF will allow the financing of a suppliers’ campaign, automation of accounts processing, etc. The management of Suppliers often remains the point to which the company has dedicated the least amount of effort. The nomination of a staff member responsible for supplier credit will be able to allow a company to better monitor the financial health of suppliers, knowing that certain shortcomings or delays in making a supply can have negative consequences for client turnover figures. Who should you turn to if you want to set up SCF? Nobody knows or can master your supplier relations better than you ! Associate yourself with partners whose sole mission is to define and defend your interests as a specialist provider. Stay vigilant to ensure that you do not disintermediate the relationship with your suppliers. Let us remember that SCF schemes will only be successful if your company has defined and remains able to check that the results have been attained. A scheme with exclusively financial connotations, abusing a positon of strength will only have detrimental consequences in your Supply Chain. In addition, merely for the sake of simplicity do not discriminate and restrict such schemes to those suppliers who offer a discount. Extend the process to others with different discount variants. And above all give careful consideration with your provider to ensuring that the supplier finds his account in the proposed process. The success of your process will make you valued by your suppliers, giving you a competitive advantage in your sector, and at national level enhancing your reputation as being concerned for the financial health of your suppliers! So, why not take advantage of having a discussion about SCF? Do it, benefit from it, talk about it ! Those companies which have properly established Reverse Factoring or Supply Chain Finance schemes will reap the rewards at different levels as pointed out earlier. By way of advantages may be mentioned conditions of purchase, settlement terms, new sources of revenue and margins and in particular ……… “Happy Suppliers!”. Benefit from this new situation in order to communicate well about your scheme and its advantages. Let us take another axiom which is that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The SCF will have strengthened the supplier chain and this care in handling the management and anticipation of the risks in the supply shows a strategic vision which extends over the whole of your organisation. Why not detail the Reverse Factoring or the SCF in your annual report and describe its objectives and the KPI’s for attaining these? Your investors, your shareholders, your banks, your parent company will be indebted to you for reinforcing the frontline of your concern and in fact for making it less vulnerable to supplier failure while giving a better assurance with regard to revenue forecasts. To summarise If Reverse Factoring or the SCF cannot be improvised because the risks of failure have consequences for supplier relationships taking such a step can bring about a lasting change in the relationship between your organisation and your strategic partners. Care should however be taken to ensure that one does not merely set up the generic processes which are often brought in and promoted by the banks. You company is unique and above all it has to conserve the supplier relationship without entrusting this to external intermediaries who will have access to confidential information. Choose a partner who is dedicated to your interests and to your supplier relations while jealously guarding control of the scheme. Invite financiers to take part in your scheme and not the reverse. This will ensure you have more chance of maintaining the facility in commercial debt. In addition new forms of alternative financing allow one to offer competitive and long-term financing to your suppliers without having to touch your bank credit facilities if you are reserving these for other transactions. Go!
|
février 2015
Reverse Factoring :
faites-en, profitez-en, parlez-en !
Le Reverse Factoring et le Supply Chain Finance, intéressent la plupart des directions financières tant les opportunités et les avantages à en tirer sont nombreux. Pourtant, tout juste auréolés d’un prestige âprement gagné sur le terrain des projets innovants, d’aucuns sont déterminés à émailler cette réputation et on peut lire des commentaires ci et là qui en disent pis que pendre en les affublant des pires maux.
>>> article dans son intégralité
02 février 2015 – Marianne Rey
Loi Macron: le crédit inter-entreprises fait son retour
Sorti du jeu en commission spéciale, le crédit inter-entreprises revient sur les bancs de l’Assemblée, a priori ce mardi 3 février. Il pourrait permettre de renflouer les caisses de PME en mal de trésorerie. Côté fonds propres, la solution de la réouverture de bourses régionales se profile.
La partie n’est pas perdue, pour les partisans du crédit inter-entreprises. A l’occasion de l’examen du projet de loi Macron, Jean-Christophe Fromantin, qui n’avait pas réussi à faire adopter en commission spéciale son amendement sur le sujet, le représente en séance. « L’idée est qu’une entreprise puisse proposer à une autre, un crédit courant sur moins de deux ans, à condition que toutes deux entretiennent une relation commerciale, explique le député UDI. Une PME pourrait prêter à une PME, mais le dispositif pourrait surtout être utilisé par les grands donneurs d’ordre voulant aider leurs sous-traitants présentant des difficultés de trésorerie. Le crédit fournisseur n’est souvent pas suffisant. » Sûre d’assurer un certain volume de commandes à son partenaire, la grande entreprise ne courrait aucun risque à accorder un tel crédit court-terme.
Cette mesure portant sur un crédit inter-entreprises « de gré à gré » sera en concurrence, sur les bancs des députés, avec un autre système, privilégié par le gouvernement, qui a d’ailleurs fait adopter en commission un amendement l’autorisant à procéder par ordonnance sur le sujet : l’octroi de bons de caisse par des entreprises présentant une trésorerie excédentaire, en faisant intervenir des plateformes de financement participatif pour l’intermédiation.
Le retour des bourses régionales
Autre cheval de bataille de Jean-Christophe Fromantin, appuyé par le gouvernement cette fois-ci, le retour des bourses régionales, supprimées il y a vingt-cinq ans. Objectif : créer en local des circuits courts de financement pour les PME et PMI, en actions ou en obligations, et « mutualiser des emprunts notamment en partenariat avec l’Agence France Locale », l’agence de financement des collectivités créée fin 2013. Evidemment, ces bourses 2.0 n’auraient plus rien à voir avec leurs ancêtres.
Places de marché dématérialisées, régulées par l’autorité des marchés financiers, elles seraient animées par les collectivités locales (régions et métropoles) où elles seraient implantées, et également par la Caisse des dépôts et Bpifrance.
Une rencontre entre PME et habitants d’une même région
Reste à savoir si les PME, qui sont pourtant légion à manquer de fonds propres, se bousculeraient pour ouvrir leur capital. Si l’on prend comme baromètre Place d’Echange, la bourse lyonnaise qui a vu le jour mi 2014, sur un modèle un peu similaire, le doute est permis. Deux opérations sont annoncées pour bientôt, quelques candidatures sont à l’étude. Mais, concrètement, seule l’entreprise Euroglass est aujourd’hui valorisée. Loin d’un démarrage sur les chapeaux de roue.
Côté épargnants, en revanche, le « produit » pourrait bien séduire en masse. « Les emprunts obligataires lancés par les régions rencontrent un grand succès car les gens aiment investir dans la proximité, affirme Jean-Christophe Fromantin. Les bourses régionales susciteront le même enthousiasme. Il est toujours réjouissant de savoir que l’on va aider une entreprise de son territoire, que l’on va stimuler l’économie locale. »
26 janvier 2015 – Graham Ruddick
Diageo ‘threatens backbone of economy’ by squeezing supplier
Guinness and Johnnie Walker owner is latest high-profile company accused of putting pressure on suppliers
Diageo, the owner of Guinness and Johnnie Walker whisky, has warned suppliers that it plans to take three months to pay its bills, making it the latest high-profile company to put pressure on its supply chain.
The Telegraph has seen a letter from the FTSE 100 company to suppliers that says from February 1 it will extend the number of days it takes to make payments from 60 days to 90 days on all new contracts and tenders.
The Forum of Private Business (FPB), which uncovered the letter, said it was “very concerned” by Diageo’s actions and would complain to the Government. It warned such behaviour “threatens to break the backbone of the British economy – small businesses”.
Diageo joins a list of high profile companies accused of squeezing their suppliers, including Mondelez, Mars, Greencore, Debenhams and Halfords.
In Diageo’s letter to suppliers, the company said it needs to “improve our cash flow and drive out costs”.
It said: “Diageo continually looks for ways to enable us to invest in the growth of our great brands. This activity supports the long term sustainability of our business and yours.
“In addition, we have significant investment projects underway across our operations in Scotland and Ireland and like any business, to support our investments we need to improve our cash flow and drive out costs. »
The company said it would offer its supply chain access to a supplier financing programme with Santander to support businesses affected by the new terms.
However, the FPB accused Diageo of using the finance scheme as a “cover” to extend payment times. Diageo has been criticised by the FPB before after doubling payment times to 60 days in 2009.
Phil Orford, chief executive of the FPB, said: “We are very concerned, but sadly unsurprised, to learn that Diageo is yet again extending its payment terms, a practice that is hugely damaging for small businesses.
“We are consulting with the Institute of Credit Management and Department of Business Innovation and Skills to challenge Diageo’s status as a signatory to the Prompt Payment Code and will call for their removal.
“The practice of big businesses using a supply chain finance scheme in order to extend payment terms and protect their own cash flow is a worrying trend that is spreading across sectors and industries. At a time when the economic outlook remains uncertain it is fundamentally unfair that small businesses are being used as a line of credit for larger organisations and propping up big business.
“This is yet another example of the supply chain abuse that threatens to break the backbone of the British economy – small businesses. The need for assertive action from policy makers to fix the broken big business ethics culture in the UK is self-evident.”
In a statement, Diageo said: “We value our suppliers and look to have open and fair relationships.
“We have written to all our key manufacturing suppliers to make them aware that from February 1, 2015, we are moving to a different procurement process for future tenders. This will allow them to be fully aware of our procurement terms and to allow them to factor that into future tenders.
“We have not changed the current payment terms with these suppliers. We also offer a supplier financing programme which enables them to benefit from early payment, in advance of normal payment terms giving suppliers’ assistance with their cash flow requirements.”
24 janvier 2015 – Graham Ruddick
Cadbury owner caught up in supplier row
Mondelez and Greencore have become embroiled in a controversy about suppliers.
The owner of Cadbury and one of Britain’s biggest sandwich makers have been dragged into the growing political row over the late payment of suppliers.
The Telegraph has found examples of Mondelez and Greencore imposing payment terms of up to 120 days on suppliers, despite business groups warning that delays of that length are a “scandal” that it is threatening Britain’s economic recovery.
Mars, maker of the famous chocolate bar and dozens of other brands, has also extended payment terms from 60 days to 120 days for some suppliers.
The Federation of Small Businesses has estimated that £40bn is owed to small and medium-sized business as a result of late payments and said it is “genuine abuse” for large companies to effectively use smaller businesses as a source of finance. The Institute of Directors said companies were “inviting regulation” from the Government by behaving in such a way.
The latest comments come following several incidents over the past two years where suppliers were put under pressure by companies asking to delay payments or apply new charges. Companies found to have put pressure on suppliers include Premier Foods, John Lewis, Halfords, Home Retail Group and Debenhams.
Mars is understood to have asked suppliers last year to extend payment terms from 60 to 120 days, while also offering the option of being paid a reduced amount within 10 days. One supplier said they were delisted by Mars after declining to sign a letter outlining the agreement and describing it as “fair and reasonable” when “taking into account the overall commercial terms and context of our relationship”.
Mondelez is understood to have asked to extend payment terms from 60 days to 120 days on some contracts, while Greencore, which supplies Marks & Spencer, has increase terms from 60 to 90 days.
The Forum of Private Business, another trade body, plans to launch a new campaign about supply chain abuse, in which it will name and shame businesses.
Phil Orford, chief executive of the FPB, said: “We feel that our members are saying they are no longer willing to tolerate this.”
Mars, Mondelez and Greencore insisted they were working closely with suppliers.
Mondelez said: “In the UK, Mondelez International pays its suppliers in accordance with the agreed payment terms, those who have 60 day payment terms are paid within 60 days. In fact, we have a large number of suppliers who are paid within 30 days. As many other businesses have done, we have negotiated with some of our larger suppliers extended payment terms within the relevant UK legal parameters.”
A spokesman for Mars said: “For some suppliers, Mars has introduced extended payment terms together with a supplier financing program, which allows suppliers to receive payment earlier, improve cash flow and reduce administrative costs, among other benefits. This programme is being introduced gradually for suppliers in the packaging, raw materials and indirect sectors. We are not imposing new payment terms on all suppliers. Mars will always work with each of our suppliers individually.”
Greencore said: “As contracts have ended and either been put out for tender or renegotiated there will be instances where a supplier has agreed to longer terms.
“The terms are clearly detailed on our requests for quotation and are always agreed prior to formally contracting. There are also instances where shorter terms are agreed, either as part of a commercial negotiation or if there is a specific requirement to support a supplier.”
24 janvier 2015 – Graham Ruddick
The inside story of how suppliers are feeling the squeeze
Companies pressured by food makers are staging a fight-back, reports Graham Ruddick.
As the boss of a company that supplies major food manufacturers, Steve Jones is used to his customers trying to drive a hard bargain. However, even he was shocked by a shock ultimatum that was received last year.
A FTSE-listed food producer demanded that Jones’ company allow it to settle its bills within 90 days rather than 60. That was a surprise in itself, but so was the justification for the request.
“They told us that they had a lot of debt and we were cheaper than the banks,” said Jones, who asked for his name to be changed for fear of retribution.
Eventually, despite the strain on its cash flow his company “had to agree”, because the food manufacturer threatened to stop dealing with them.
It was one of several demands that Jones has faced in the last year, with Mars also extending its payment terms from 60 days to 120 days.
Given that Jones has to pay his own suppliers every 30 days, this has placed an enormous strain on his business.
This story is being repeated across the UK. As profits and margins come under pressure in the retail and grocery industry, businesses are leaning on suppliers to protect their cash.
Other companies caught putting pressure on their suppliers in the last two years include Premier Foods, Halfords, Debenhams, Home Retail Group, Morrisons and even John Lewis.
One homewares retailer has become renowned for an “annual dash for cash”, according to sources, while allegations about Heinz and AB InBev, the brewer, have been reported in the last few days.
Such practices in the supply chain have been brought sharply into focus by events at Tesco. The £263m accounting scandal at Britain’s biggest retailer was linked to income that the company was booking with suppliers, shining a light on the murky world of supply chains. Anyone who thought that retailers simply paid for products from their suppliers then sold them in their stores has had a rude awakening.
The pressure is cranking up so much that Begbies Traynor, the corporate restructuring firm, has warned that more than 100 food and drink manufacturers are at risk of collapse because of the brutal price war being fought between Britain’s major supermarkets.
Meanwhile, Atradius, one of the world’s biggest credit insurers, has said suppliers in the industry face a “perfect storm”, with the risk of being delisted and having their payment terms extended as retailers try to shrink the number of products they sell and try to ease the pressure on their cash flow.
However, many suppliers and small businesses are now beginning to fight back. The Forum of Private Business, which has led the way in highlighting bullying in the supply chain, is to launch a “business ethics hall of shame” – naming businesses found engaging in bad practices – as the centre of a new campaign.
Phil Orford, the chief executive of the FPB, said: “We feel that our members are saying they are no longer willing to tolerate this. Someone has to stand up.
“It always seems to be the supply chain that gets battered. The same issues that I had when I started my business in 1983 are still here today. No one organisation has been prepared to stand up and say ‘this is not acceptable’. Well, that is what we are going to do this year.
“I don’t think this [campaign] is anti-business. This makes sense for Britain’s economy and for UK plc.”
Orford, the FPB and fellow trade body the Federation of Small Businesses, have identified a number of practices that they want to clamp down on [see box].
Many casual observers will shudder at the idea that these practices are allowed, but the relationship between businesses and their suppliers remains relatively unregulated. The FSB estimates that the cost of late payments has jumped from £18bn in 2008 to £46bn last year, with £40bn owed to small and medium-sized businesses.
In 2008, the Government backed a new scheme called the Prompt Payment Code to try to introduce some kind of standard. Signatories promised to abide by the terms in their contract and not change them retrospectively. The Government also backed a European directive on late payments that recommended private companies take 60 days to make payments and the public sector 30 days.
However, just 1,700 businesses have signed up to the code, which is a relatively small number in the UK as a whole. The scheme is considered to be fairly toothless, with suppliers fearful about the repercussions if they come forward about the breaches.
Within the retail industry there is more hope for the new Groceries Code Adjudicator, led by Christine Tacon, which has drawn up a groceries supply code of practice.
“A major part of what we are doing is boosting awareness with suppliers,” says Tacon, who wants to encourage suppliers to come forward. “The moment they push back [against companies trying to enforce new terms] is when we get the best results.”
A survey by the GCA found that eight out of 10 suppliers had come across a breach of the supply code of practice in the last year, a number which Tacon describes as “ridiculously high”.
She has the power to arbitrate in disputes between retailers and suppliers, launch formal investigations, name and shame companies found to be in breach of the code, and issue recommendations to guilty parties.
“I think these are significant powers,” she said.
However, perhaps the GCA’s biggest weapon remains on the shelves. The Government has yet to approve a measure that will allow the body to issue fines to companies breaching the code. Ms Tacon said the body wants the fines to act as a “total deterrent”, and it is understood to want them to be the equivalent of 1pc of the guilty company’s revenue.
“I have no doubt they [the Government] will do it, I just hope they get on with it,” Tacon said.
David Cameron gave Tacon hope last week when he told the Commons during Prime Minister’s Questions: “It is time to make sure that the organisation has the power, if necessary, to levy fines so that it can get its will obeyed.”
However, until then, the GCA risks being seen as just another toothless attempt to clamp down on supply chain bullying. Tacon says that, on average, the organisation is being contacted by just one supplier a day.
Nevertheless, she is making her presence felt by holding talks with board members at the leading supermarkets and meeting the chairmen of audit committees.
The GCA was able to prevent Morrisons charging suppliers £2,000 to list products on its new website. When it got wind of the scheme, it went public and the FTSE 100 supermarket almost immediately halted it and refunding the 67 suppliers that had already charged.
Similarly, Premier Foods, the owner of Mr Kipling, was forced to back down from its “pay to stay” scheme after suppliers went public. However, while these examples show that public pressure can help to overhaul supply chain practices, the chief executive of Premier, Gavin Darby, is unapologetic about the scheme, apart from some aggressive emails that were sent to a particular supplier in Devon.
“It is not a question of regret,” he said. “We set out transparently that we would reduce our supply base by half.”
Darby said it was normal for a business to seek the best price from suppliers. “When you go to a car dealer do you only go to one garage and say ‘whatever is the price is the price’. Of course you don’t,” he said. “I would be surprised if consumers act like that, and surprised if business acts like that.”
The battle may just be getting started.