A Private Equity Blog

A vignette into the aberrant thoughts of a private equiteer

Banks are destroying small businesses

Most of us are to blame for the recent global economic unpleasantness. We all overindulged and we all borrowed way too much money. But, rather than use our collective mistakes to learn from, the banks are using them to punish us. And, rather than picking on businesses their own size, they’re targeting small businesses, clearly because they’re the most vulnerable. Yes, these are the same small businesses that underpin our economies and give employment to the majority of people on this planet.

shutterstock_40954186During the period of excessive gearing, we all signed up to relatively strict debt terms because, a) we had little choice, b) we had high hopes for the future, and c) these terms still allowed some room for movement. Then, the GFC hit and the usual multiplier effect of diminishing markets kicked in: sales fell, margins fell, earnings fell, free cash flow fell, and, we started to breach covenants. As a result, we all went into panic mode and tried to do everything possible to keep our heads above water.

So, what are you thinking if you’re a bank? How about, “let’s look at our lending book commercially; that is, we’re more likely to get our money back if our customers survive”? Or maybe, “as long as they pay our interest invoices, let’s be reasonable as a sign of good faith for our customers loyalty”? No, what they’re actually thinking is, “this is a perfect time to cash in on all of these breaches by increasing our margins, charging infringement fees and making our terms more burdensome.”

You may be thinking, “what’s wrong with that; they’re a business with shareholders and their customers agreed to these terms”. Well, that’s true, and technically they’re well within their rights to do this, but as I’ve posted ad infinitum, there’s more to business than the immediate bottom line. What this stringency is really doing is creating a GFC aftershock of similar magnitude to the real thing.

Let’s say you’re running a small business. You’re doing absolutely everything you can to survive. Even, laying off workers, taking short cuts and reducing service levels; all pretty risky stuff. Then, you get a letter from your banker (many of them lack the courtesy to call or visit). And, as if you’ve committed some heinous crime, in large letters it mentions the following:

you’ve breached covenants, your margin is doubling, you must pay a fee of $300k for the breach, you now have to report to the bank monthly until they’re satisfied, and, you must engage an accounting firm of the bank’s choice to perform an exploratory investigation of your accounts. Oh…and if you fail to do any of this, the entire facility may be called and you’ll have 14 days to repay the principal.

Do you remember that whole notion of just keeping your head above water? Well, drowning looks like paradise compared to what’s on the horizon. The increase in your interest expense alone is as if you’ve doubled your workforce, but of course the new recruits refuse to do any work. Then of course there’s the fine, which you simply don’t have the spare cash to pay. There’s the half a million dollars (and endless nights) to fund the bank’s criminal investigation. There’s the downtime for most of your crew to deal with the new demands. And, there’s the lost sleep from knowing failure is imminent.

You know, if we were all held at gunpoint and made to choose someone to blame for this whole GFC saga, we’d have to firstly choose ourselves. But, in a very close second place would come the banks. Now, to think they’re instigating this aftershock… well, it just smacks of the same insanity that caused this mess in the first place.

Then again, how many of you have let an investee off the hook come earn-out or equity-ratchet time? (Let’s just pretend I didn’t say that.)

Image: Thanks Banks [source: Shutterstock]

  • Yes, it was a little tongue-in-cheek. I brought up the point about giving leeway to vendors at earn-out time, but your suggestion to add more equity into the mix is just as provocative.

    It reminds me of the old argument that says, if a business owner wants to take on a private equity investment, he/she is obviously a savvy entrepreneur with a solid strategic mindset, hence why we want to do business with him/her. However, if they don't want us on board, obviously they're deluded and immature and hence, we wouldn't want to do business with them anyway.

    The same goes here, banks (or credit teams) that provide lots of debt for us to gear our businesses obviously have an appreciation for capitalism and the value we private equiteers add to society. However, those that demand us to put in more equity, or don't let us pay special dividends, or are too harsh when we breach, obviously don't have our country's (or the world's) interests at heart. They're obviously trying to destroy the global economy.

    I hear this stuff every day.
  • Alex
    Come on it's a bit of a sob story isn't it? I mean there is an alternative - god forbid that the Shareholders should actually inject sufficient additional capital to put the business on a sustainable footing going forward!

    Of course that's murder for the IRR, and of course it has implications for the same game happening across a wider portfolio - but it's what a responsible long-term investor would do, whether in the case of a listed entity or private family enterprise.

    PE evidently still wants banks to be taking equity risks for historic low debt returns. But the balance of power has shifted and the bank knows it can take the company down and still recover most/all of its debt... the same cannot be said for the PE boys that have to keep the play alive for as long as possible for the equity to come back...
  • @Matt: good points. On your first point, the government also allows the sale of cigarettes, but most of us choose not to smoke. I know that's a flaky argument, but we need to take responsibility for our actions. Then again, maybe we're just not responsible enough for free markets.

    @Jordan: yes, I know it's unfair to blame them (hence, my last sentence about the likelihood of private equiteers providing leeway to founders when it comes to earn-outs and ratchets.) However... I don't think they're aware of the fallout they are creating by not thinking through their responses to covenant breaches. It makes no sense to employ investigators whom mostly profit from bankruptcies. They are conflicted and motivated to give bad reports since they'll likely win the work to manage the bankruptcy if the business fails. It's just like doctors receiving commissions for selling certain drugs; it's a conflict we want to avoid from the beginning.

    You know, private equiteers are generally very tough when it comes to negotiating earn-outs and ratchets, which are somewhat similar to these covenants and their repercussions. So, maybe we don't deserve any generosity. But there's a bigger issue here. A global economic issue much bigger than the banks themselves.

    As an aside, there is a world outside the States. A world where banks haven't failed, where they're profitable, very profitable in fact. I'm not talking China either, I'm talking about developed countries. As I said earlier... we need to be honest with ourselves. The financial system in the States may be diverse and competitive, but it's an absolute mess. We're all to blame, not so much for greed (like people like to blame the States for), but for ambition and initiative. You can't have the ups without the downs. Other countries took it a little easier and they're doing much better for it. In this case, they may have benefited from conservatism, but it's not always the case. Such is life.
  • Jordan
    I think that this post is a little unfair to banks and more than a little self-serving considering that as a PE professional you are basically trying to offer an alternative to the banks. And I say this as an MBA and fellow PE professional who would like nothing more than PE funds to succeed. Despite recent trends towards bank consolidation the US still has the most diverse and competitive financial system in the world (that's based on a comparative study of degree of market concentration of the banking industry country by country), so no one forced you to choose the particular bank you are working with or to sign your loan agreements. While I'm not claiming the banks are innocent I agree with Matt that most of them are scared to death of insolvency or getting shut down by the Fed for failing to meet capital adequacy requirements, so you have to understand their perspective before you condemn them.
  • Matt
    Interesting, and I see your points. Well-constructed. But I think you are leaving out a responsible party, perhaps more responsible for the destruction of small businesses than banks themselves. In the first place, isn't it the government that encouraged us all to take out more debt, by providing low rates, tax incentives for borrowing and tax bills for saving/investing?

    Secondly, with over 100 small bank failures this year, many of the banks are scrambling to try and survive themselves. Granted, much of this is due to poor management - bad risks taken - but much of it is also because they made "safe investments" with their assets in preferred stock of government sponsored institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that were wiped out when the government intervened to "save" them. Now the health care plan is place more taxes, fines and penalties on small businesses for their health care plan. Seems to me the government is waging war against the profits of small businesses.
  • Mustafa
    It isn't productive when banks go into frenzy like this. The investigations can not produce likable outcomes. Banks must use the report and its not going to be good.
  • DR
    Even worse, the investigative accountants can charge whatever they want and say whatever they want. In theory, they want you to fail so they can get even more work to handle your bankruptcy.
  • vlade
    Yep, it's from one extreme to another.
    That said, I think it might have (long term, and irrelevant to the companies immediately affected) a good outcome. That is, the traditional banks are replaced by more local and nimble way of raising capital. For example, from your customers, who are likely to be affected if you die as well.

    So, if you call back on the last post, building communities can help you even with this - if you're a well-liked local baker, it might be easier for you to raise money from your local community than from your bank.
blog comments powered by Disqus