Archive for the ‘Banking’ Category

Small Business at the Top of the U.S. Senate Banking Hearing

Wednesday, May 20th, 2009
Blowing In The Wind

Blowing In The Wind

Today, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner testified before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee. I watched the hearing in its entirety and was amazed that 80% of the questions the senators put to Mr. Geithner concerned small business lending. The senators made it clear that this was a major issue of concern to their constituents. Committee Chairman Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut opened the session by asking what could be done to “catalyze more small business lending”. On the one hand, I was heartened to see that the senators clearly got the message that their constituents were outraged about the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”), the bailouts of large, irresponsible financial institutions, and the choking off of credit to the small business sector, which creates more than half of all employment in the U.S.

But at the same time, the federal government appears to be at odds with itself and is pursuing measures that can undermine its stated policy goal of unblocking credit to the small business sector.

Consider the opening statement of Secretary Geithner (the text of his remarks is available on the website of the U.S. Treasury) in which he announced that Treasury policies, including raising the amount of guaranteed loan principal to 90% and reducing or eliminating fees, raised weekly loan volumes of the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) by over 25 percent since March 16. In fact, loan volumes on March 16, or at any other date in 2009, were anemic. This is not the right baseline for comparison and suggests that the Treasury Secretary is attempting to manage public perceptions rather than confront the problem.

Another concern is that the Treasury and the SBA appear to be on a different timeline than the small business owners reporting their “frustration” (Chairman Dodd’s term) to their elected representatives. Secretary Geithner reported a start in the small business emergency loans that Congress had authorized in February’s stimulus bill. The SBA has been working since then to draft guidance for this program to distribute to the banks by June 8. They intend to accept loan applications starting June 15. Cashflow is critical to a business and an economic disaster is not terribly different from a natural or other man-made disaster. Consider that after the 1993 bombing in the World Trade Center, of those small businesses that could not resume operations and cash flow within five days, 90% of them were out of business one year later. The fact that the SBA took four months to develop guidance to disburse loans enabled by legislation passed in February suggests that it doesn’t have a sense of urgency.

Another issue that Secretary Geithner raised in his testimony was that guarantees on SBA loans had been raised from 80% to 90%. The most recently reported default rate on the SBA loan portfolio was 12%. Now the taxpayer will be on the hook for a higher amount of bad loans. Presumably, bank executives are sufficiently savvy to know how the public will assign blame for that. If you don’t want to be on the other end of the pitchfork, intertia is a sensible response to the government’s various initiatives.

How Not to Help Small Businesses Access Loans

Tuesday, May 19th, 2009

Harder to FindIn a recent address to a conference of community bankers, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner invited them to participate in the federal government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”). Geithner’s stated reason for offering TARP funds to community banks, those with less than $500 million in assets, was to expand the pool of capital available to underwrite small business loans. Expanding access to capital for small businesses is one of the stated reasons that the federal government is offering the bailouts to large financial institutions. I wonder whether the government is sincere in this effort, and fails to appreciate the unintended consequences of its policy decisions, or if this is cynical pandering to the small business constituency.

Consider the idea of including community banks, which have generally been friendlier to small business borrowers than the big banks receiving TARP funds. Last fall, when certain banks were rumored to be takeover targets, small business owners transferred their accounts to other banks perceived to be more stable. While the protection of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation would make depositors of failed institutions whole, the relief is not instantaneous. Customers of the failed IndyMac, for example, had to wait several days or longer than a week for reimbursement. Many small business owners, out of an abundance of caution, transferred their accounts out of IndyMac upon hearing the concerns of Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y) of the Senate Banking Committee.

The reason is simple: small businesses cannot weather the disruption in their cash flow if they have funds tied up in a failed bank. Small businesses generally cannot defer their obligations. Laws vary from state to state, but generally employees must be paid their salaries within two weeks of their having performed the work. Failure to meet this obligation is one of the few instances in which the corporate veil can be pierced and the small business owner exposed to personal liability. In addition, small business owners often have to provide personal guarantees for many of their commitments. If small business owners continue to behave as they have in the past, they will likely withdraw accounts from TARP-participating banks. It would be a shame if community banks, which have been pillars of small business support, failed to appreciate the consequences of public perceptions of TARP and institutional stability.

Credit Crunch for Small Business Cardholders

Saturday, May 16th, 2009
Complex and Interconnected

Complex and Interconnected

At the end of last year, Advanta Corp. was the 11th largest U.S. credit card issuer with approximately $5 billion in outstanding balances and the only major credit card company focused on the small business segment.  More than one million of those small business customers are searching for new sources of credit as Advanta will stop lending against credit card accounts on June 10, 2009. The stated reason for this action was that uncollectible debt reached 20% of the total outstanding, according to public filings of the company. Advanta has set aside $1.4 billion to buy back securitized credit card loans at 65 – 75 cents on the dollar.  Advanta finds itself caught in a squeeze: it has been unable to sell its receivables for cash in the asset-backed securitization market since June 2008 and rising unemployment rates suggest further deterioration in their credit card receivables. William Dunkelberg, chief economist of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, questioned how many business owners depend solely on their Advanta credit card and noted that credit is harder to find than ever before.

As I had advised in Prepare for the Worst, Plan for the Best: Disaster Preparedness and Recovery for Small Businesses (Wiley, second edition, 2008), mitigate your risk of third party failure by diversifying your suppliers. Never rely on a single provider, unless it is absolutely unavoidable, which was certainly not the case with U.S. credit card issuers.

Global Similarities, Part Two

Monday, May 11th, 2009
An Uphill Battle

An Uphill Battle

In an earlier blog posting, I wrote of the difficulties small businesses in the United Kingdom were experiencing with respect to access to credit, even in obtaining loans from banks that had received government assistance. It isn’t just the Anglo-Saxon countries where the flow of credit to small businesses is blocked. Zwanzig Minuten (a daily newspaper, the title means “Twenty Minutes”) reports that the Swiss government is establishing a loan fund to aid small and medium enterprises throughout the country with loans of up to CHF 40,000.  We tend to think of the large corporate enterprises as dominating employment in Switzerland, particularly the banks and pharmaceutical companies. In fact, in Switzerland, as in the United States, small businesses account for more than one-half of all employment. The Swiss economy is also in recession, with economic contraction of 2.2% projected for this year. Switzerland also had its version of a government bailout: UBS (Union Bank of Switzerland) accepted government assistance, Crédit Suisse did not. And, consistent with the trend we have seen, Swiss small businesses are also struggling with issues around access to credit. I lived as an ex-patriate in Zurich, Switzerland; this photograph is the famous Matterhorn, perhaps symbolic of the tough obstacles small businesses everywhere face.

Across the Ocean, Things Are Much the Same

Saturday, May 9th, 2009
Global Similarities

Global Similarities

In earlier postings, I wrote of the possible appearance that the small business stimulus appears to involve substantial, undisclosed risk to the taxpayer and that the SBA loan program to emerge from the stimulus bill has limited benefit for small businesses. This appears to be a universal theme.

In the United Kingdom, the Treasury Select Committee, a group of politicians representing each of the political parties, produced a 121-page analysis of the collapse of the banking sector. The analysis relied on interviews with government ministers, including Treasury Minister Alistair Darling and bankers. Not surprisingly, the report was critical of the failure of regulators to prevent the collapse of the largest banks in the U.K. including Royal Bank of Scotland. The Committee also noted that they were “very concerned” about the lack of credit for small businesses that also faced higher charges and arrangement fees. Specifically, the report stated “We deplore the behavior of a number of those banks who have received so much public money and behaved in such an insensitive manner particularly to established customers”. The Committee demanded that banks that received had taxpayer funds provide more disclosure as to their loans to the small business sector.

The findings of the Treasury Select Committee contradicts a report published one week ago by the British Bankers’ Association which claimed that lending to small businesses rose 5%, or more than £270 million, year-on-year. The British Banking Association further stated that small business lending rose in each of the three months of the first quarter of 2009.

As small business owners, irrespective of where we are, we face similar issues in dealing with big businesses and with big government. In writing Prepare for the Worst, Plan for the Best: Disaster Preparedness and Recovery for Small Businesses, I tried to be a inclusive as possible, to serve the needs of a global small business audience, while also offering specific, actionable advice. There were fewer than five pages of the book in which I discussed information unique to an American audience; specifically, the programs of the U.S. Small Business Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. But I had hoped that there, too, the information would have broad relevance as, while policy specifics may differ from country to country, the underlying risks inherent in dealing with government agencies are the same. I had hoped that readers outside the U.S. would also find the lessons helpful and applicable to their specific circumstances. I hope to see Prepared Small Business build a global network of resilient small businesses as we have much to learn from one another, whether in dealing with access to credit or other issues.

Unlimited Risks or Empty Gestures?

Wednesday, May 6th, 2009

In an earlier posting, I wrote of the complications of the Small Business Administration’s new loan program. New details have emerged that the risks may be greater than the public appreciates. SBA loans were the main topic at a recent town hall meeting at which President Obama noted that the annual volume of loans backed by the Small Business Administration was trending below $10 billion, down from $18.2 billion last year and $20.6 billion the year prior.

To stimulate the flow of credit to small businesses, the administration endorsed provisions in the stimulus bill. The legislation attempts to unblock the flow of credit to small businesses by temporarily raising government guarantees from 80% to 90% on the SBA’s flagship loan programs. In addition, it’s temporarily waiving SBA loan fees to reduce the cost of capital.

The Treasury now requires the 21 largest banks receiving funds under the Troubled Asset Relief Program to report their small business loan volumes on a monthly basis. Other banks receiving TARP funds must report this information quarterly. Treasury advised banks not participating in TARP that they too should make every effort to increase their small business lending. This push suggests that after the banks repay their TARP obligations, Treasury will continue to take an interest in SBA loans.

Critics of SBA programs charge that SBA loan guarantees create a moral hazard in incentivizing lending that’s harmful to U.S. taxpayers who must bear any losses. The most recent default rate reported on the SBA loan portfolio is 12%.

Further compounding the moral hazard risk is that some of the 21 largest banks have limited experience with small business lending. With the SBA principal guarantee on loans increased to 90% from 80%, taxpayers could potentially be underwriting a steep learning curve for the banks. Bank executives presumably appreciate how the public would likely assign blame for loan losses requiring additional taxpayer support.

This raises the question: is this a sincere effort to unblock the flow of credit to small businesses or an empty political gesture?

 

Delays in the SBA Stimulus

Sunday, May 3rd, 2009
Pushing Pencils, It Seems

Pushing Pencils, It Seems

In a previous blog entry, I expressed skepticism about the Small Business Administration’s forthcoming emergency credit facility, tentatively named “America’s Recovery Capital (ARC) Loan Program”.  The legislation enabling this program, the stimulus bill, requires the SBA to create a new “business stabilization” program to back loans of up to $35,000 to small businesses “experiencing immediate financial hardship”. Now there is another reason to question the value of this program.

A recently released  Government Accountability Office report announces that the Small Business Administration will be a few months late installing some new regulations meant to revive SBA lending, which has dramatically declined over the past year. Two changes mandated by Congress, including eliminating loan fees and raising loan guarantees for borrowers, were enacted in the required 15-to-30-day period. But the SBA failed to increase guarantees on secondary market real estate and equipment loans and to issue regulations involving “systemically important” broker-dealers in the secondary market in a timely manner. SBA officials stated that it was too complicated to enact such rules in the short period required by Congress and that they hoped to have these matters resolved by June.

Diversify Your Banking Risks

Friday, May 1st, 2009
Watch Where You Put Your Money

Watch Where You Put Your Money

In Prepare for the Worst, Plan for the Best: Disaster Preparedness and Recovery for Small Businesses (John Wiley & Sons Inc., second edition, 2008), I advised readers about the disaster category of third party failure. This is the risk of failure of the provider of a product or service upon which your small business depends such as, for example,  your Internet service provider or your telephone service. In the context of the banking crisis, a particularly relevant example was presented in the pages of the Wall Street Journal this week.

The Journal reported the story of a depositor who, eight years ago, put her life savings of nearly $600,000 into accounts at Superior Bank of Hinsdale, Illinois. Approximately one month after this deposit was made, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) seized Superior as a result of allegations over improper financial and accounting practices in its sub-prime business. The FDIC limits deposit insurance to $100,000, with the result that this depositor lost much of her money, as did hundreds of other customers of Superior Bank.

One way to mitigate the risk of third party failure is to diversify your suppliers. Your small business should have, for example, a primary Internet service provider and a secondary, unrelated, Internet service provider which you can use if the primary provider’s service is disrupted. The same is true of your banking services. This depositor would have benefited by making deposits  in separate accounts of no more than $100,000 each in at least six different banks. Then, when Superior was seized by the FDIC, she would have had immediate access to the other $500,000 deposits in the other institutions, while she waited for the FDIC insurance to make restitution for the $100,000 she had deposited with Superior.

Of course, since this event occurred, the FDIC raised its insurance limits to reassure depositors of the safety of our banking system during this difficult time. Even so, as a small business owner, if my liquid cash were, let’s say, $50,000, I would not deposit it all in a single bank, even though the entire deposit would be covered by the FDIC. Why? Because I have a business to run and that depends on immediate availability of funds. I cannot have my small business experience even a short period of illiquidity while waiting for a benefit from the FDIC. So I re-assert the advice I had previously given: think redundancy of suppliers. This depositor learned a lesson the hard way; make sure that your small business does not.