A Private Equity Blog

A vignette into the aberrant thoughts of a private equiteer

Working Capital Series: Improvements and one-off cash wins

This post belongs to a series on Working Capital (see the contents page here).

cash winI’ve previously harped on about how working capital drives an investee’s value (see, Working Capital Series: Valuation). It receives this attention because it can affect value more than we often want to believe. Additionally, it’s not something that’s easily controlled; many external forces are at play (foreign exchange, shipping, terms, supply, demand, etc.)

But, with risks, we get areas for potential improvement. And, just as working capital can collapse a business, it can make a business thrive too (see, working capital profiles).

The primary drivers of working capital are the trade accounts: debtors, creditors and inventory. These accounts financially represent the trade cycle, which starts from the moment a customer commissions a product or service, to the moment all cash settles (inflows and outflows). Optimising working capital is really about optimising this trade cycle. This means ensuring your bottleneck is customer demand rather than your production cycle or payment terms.

One-off cash win #1: Payment Terms

When financial analysts think about improving working capital management, they immediately think of improving payment terms. This means getting your customers to pay sooner and your suppliers to accept payment later. Sometimes these are non-negotiable, but most of the time there’s potential movement. A particular area for improvement is on the supplier side, especially if they’re overseas. Most overseas suppliers will ask for a prepayment before they even ship the goods. But, if you can build trust and have them waive payment until the goods arrive at your local dock, this can lead to a monumental improvement.

One-off cash win #2: Inventory Management

It goes without saying that if you can sell the same amount and spend less on inventory, you’ll be better off. You can achieve this through streamlining any number of parts of your production and sales processes. You can also achieve this by rationalising your offering and reducing your number of SKUs (stock-keeping units). Overall, you need to find a balance between the inventory kept on hand and satisfying customer demand. Often it’s better to disappoint customers than to keep hundreds of slow-moving SKUs. Also, a great one-off cash win is to put your obsolete and slow-moving stock on sale, but make sure to keep your stock rationalised after you get rid of the dross.

One-off cash win #3: Operational Efficiency

When you optimise your payment terms (see #1), you’re bringing your inflows closer and pushing your outflows further. But, what does this really mean? Well, you may pay a supplier 60 days after you receive your raw materials and you may demands customers pay within 14 days of receipt of the finished product. But, there is still one major variable left: the time between receiving the raw material and shipping the finished product. This is where operational efficiency matters. You want to minimise this time to further optimise your cash cycle.

Operational efficiency deserves a few textbooks of its own, but for the purpose of this post, just consider what drives timing in your organisation. Often it’s people and process. Keep your people motivated and continually improve your processes and there’s no reason you shouldn’t excel in the area of operational efficiency.

Images: Good working capital management can make it rain money [source: Shutterstock]

twitter: @privateequiteer |

Posted in Analysis & DD

  • vlade
    David,
    I think there's really more to this than just moving the paper based process to a technological one.
    Firstly, there's the bargaining power. If you are a small supplier to a large chain, you have almost no pricing power - why wouldn't the chain keep the money as long as it can, regardless of whether it can send the money right away or not? Conversely, if you are a large supplier (say P&G selling to corner shops), you have quite a bit of negotiating power to get your invoices paid pretty quickly.

    Then, there's the cashflow predictability. Regardless of how good technology we have, exceptions happen, and we cannot predict the cashflows perfectly.
    For example, we can pay our (personal) bills immediately. Yet, think how complicated your life would become if you were on a tight budget (to simulate little to no FCF in a company), your bills arrived randomly, and all were "pay tomorrow". I think most people would be really frustrated rather quickly, and we would go back to "pay by" bills - regardless of the fact we have the technology for instant payments.
  • Actually, my point is that we live in a "information age" that now facilitates a more efficient trade transaction business process than was able to be reasonably effected during prior periods. We should rethink our working capital management practices with this in mind.

    Significant improvements can be yielded from an electronically based, re-designed trade transaction process vs. that which can be achieved by utilizing technology to merely mechanize an paper-based process that is actually inefficient by current standards.

    For example, in the case of both invoicing and payments, any business process to remit and receive payment is more efficient if it is embedded naturally within the physical custody transfer process than could otherwise be achieved by [the current practice of] executing multiple, standalone [often disconnected] business processes regarding a single trade transaction event.

    Notwithstanding the resistance to change by people and longstanding practice.
  • Thanks for the comments.

    In suggestion #1, I mentioned reducing debtor terms, which if customers comply, should reduce debtor days (DSO).

    But it shounds than rather than just DSO, you're suggesting more focus on the period between the customer commissioning the sale (say a purchase order or similar) and the time the invoice is issued. This is a really good point, because clearly your debtor terms start from the time the invoice is received, but of course if that invoice is issued a month after delivery, then that would have a much more significant impact on cash than you'd realise.

    So, this additional variable is likely based on when you recognise the sale, as you suggested, and then how long it takes after the sale is theoretically recognised for the customer to receive the invoice.

    This may sound like it's getting a little pedantic, but I've seen companies issue invoices whenever someone remembers, which was usually long after delivery. In those cases, you DSO may look like 30 days but really be 60 days.

    In terms of demanding payment upon delivery due to developments in technology, well, it may be okay for customers, but then once suppliers demand it, you could be in a worse position. Intuitively, I think it makes sense (maybe not immediately, but not 90 days either). Then again, payment terms really form part of you value proposition. Maybe if payment terms were revolutionised, we'd still return to current equilibriums through price adjustments. Maybe?
  • vlade
    David,
    I'm not sure you can do it from practical point of view. At least not always.

    There are both real issues (you don't really automatically approve invoices and pay them - it's opening to huge fraud, and it may be operationally more efficient to do payments processing just once a month say), as well as behavioural from game theory (i.e. while it might make the sense to do it for all players, they would have to do it at once. If anyone does it on their own, they will be disadvantaged either by not earning the interest on cash at hand, or paying interest if they have to borrow to pay the invoice).


    Not to mention that the revenue recognition is a whole bit can of worms (how do you recognize revenue for long-term contracts, say aircraft deliveries? Do you get payment on delivery? I dare say it would lead to bankruptcy of both Airbus and Boeing)
  • And what about decreasing the time from actually delivering the service/product to the customer and commencing the invoice generation/AR recognition. DSO reduction.

    Afterall, we do live in an "information age" and we do utilize debit cards in retail transactions...so why can't we begin to insist [contractually] on receiving payment in exchange for delivery? Maybe that wasn't feasible in earlier times, but that was then and now is quite different.

    After all, the sales event is the trading/exchange of service/product for cash between the parties.
blog comments powered by Disqus