icbcephnd.info

There are several potential financing options available to cash-strapped businesses that need a healthy dose of working capital. A bank loan or line of credit is often the first option that owners think of – and for businesses that qualify, this may be the best option.

In today’s uncertain business, economic and regulatory environment, qualifying for a bank loan can be difficult – especially for start-up companies and those that have experienced any type of financial difficulty. Sometimes, owners of businesses that don’t qualify for a bank loan decide that seeking venture capital or bringing on equity investors are other viable options.

But are they really? While there are some potential benefits to bringing venture capital and so-called “angel” investors into your business, there are drawbacks as well. Unfortunately, owners sometimes don’t think about these drawbacks until the ink has dried on a contract with a venture capitalist or angel investor – and it’s too late to back out of the deal.

Different Types of Financing

One problem with bringing in equity investors to help provide a working capital boost is that working capital and equity are really two different types of financing.

Working capital – or the money that is used to pay business expenses incurred during the time lag until cash from sales (or accounts receivable) is collected – is short-term in nature, so it should be financed via a short-term financing tool. Equity, however, should generally be used to finance rapid growth, business expansion, acquisitions or the purchase of long-term assets, which are defined as assets that are repaid over more than one 12-month business cycle.

But the biggest drawback to bringing equity investors into your business is a potential loss of control. When you sell equity (or shares) in your business to venture capitalists or angels, you are giving up a percentage of ownership in your business, and you may be doing so at an inopportune time. With this dilution of ownership most often comes a loss of control over some or all of the most important business decisions that must be made.

Sometimes, owners are enticed to sell equity by the fact that there is little (if any) out-of-pocket expense. Unlike debt financing, you don’t usually pay interest with equity financing. The equity investor gains its return via the ownership stake gained in your business. But the long-term “cost” of selling equity is always much higher than the short-term cost of debt, in terms of both actual cash cost as well as soft costs like the loss of control and stewardship of your company and the potential future value of the ownership shares that are sold.

Alternative Financing Solutions

But what if your business needs working capital and you don’t qualify for a bank loan or line of credit? Alternative financing solutions are often appropriate for injecting working capital into businesses in this situation. Three of the most common types of alternative financing used by such businesses are:

1. Full-Service Factoring – Businesses sell outstanding accounts receivable on an ongoing basis to a commercial finance (or factoring) company at a discount. The factoring company then manages the receivable until it is paid. Factoring is a well-established and accepted method of temporary alternative finance that is especially well-suited for rapidly growing companies and those with customer concentrations.

2. Accounts Receivable (A/R) Financing – A/R financing is an ideal solution for companies that are not yet bankable but have a stable financial condition and a more diverse customer base. Here, the business provides details on all accounts receivable and pledges those assets as collateral. The proceeds of those receivables are sent to a lockbox while the finance company calculates a borrowing base to determine the amount the company can borrow. When the borrower needs money, it makes an advance request and the finance company advances money using a percentage of the accounts receivable.

3. Asset-Based Lending (ABL) – This is a credit facility secured by all of a company’s assets, which may include A/R, equipment and inventory. Unlike with factoring, the business continues to manage and collect its own receivables and submits collateral reports on an ongoing basis to the finance company, which will review and periodically audit the reports.

In addition to providing working capital and enabling owners to maintain business control, alternative financing may provide other benefits as well:

It’s easy to determine the exact cost of financing and obtain an increase.
Professional collateral management can be included depending on the facility type and the lender.
Real-time, online interactive reporting is often available.
It may provide the business with access to more capital.
It’s flexible – financing ebbs and flows with the business’ needs.
It’s important to note that there are some circumstances in which equity is a viable and attractive financing solution. This is especially true in cases of business expansion and acquisition and new product launches – these are capital needs that are not generally well suited to debt financing. However, equity is not usually the appropriate financing solution to solve a working capital problem or help plug a cash-flow gap.

A Precious Commodity

Remember that business equity is a precious commodity that should only be considered under the right circumstances and at the right time. When equity financing is sought, ideally this should be done at a time when the company has good growth prospects and a significant cash need for this growth. Ideally, majority ownership (and thus, absolute control) should remain with the company founder(s).

Alternative financing solutions like factoring, A/R financing and ABL can provide the working capital boost many cash-strapped businesses that don’t qualify for bank financing need – without diluting ownership and possibly giving up business control at an inopportune time for the owner. If and when these companies become bankable later, it’s often an easy transition to a traditional bank line of credit. Your banker may be able to refer you to a commercial finance company that can offer the right type of alternative financing solution for your particular situation.

Taking the time to understand all the different financing options available to your business, and the pros and cons of each, is the best way to make sure you choose the best option for your business. The use of alternative financing can help your company grow without diluting your ownership. After all, it’s your business – shouldn’t you keep as much of it as possible?

What does FedEx, Pfizer, Wachovia, 3Com, Mellon Financial, Shurgard Storage, Sempra Energy and Proctor & Gamble have in common? What board committee exists for only 10% of publicly traded companies but generates 6.5% greater returns for those companies? What is the single largest budget item after salaries and manufacturing equipment?Technology decisions will outlive the tenure of the management team making those decisions. While the current fast pace of technological change means that corporate technology decisions are frequent and far-reaching, the consequences of the decisions-both good and bad-will stay with the firm for a long time. Usually technology decisions are made unilaterally within the Information Technology (IT) group, over which senior management chose to have no input or oversight. For the Board of a business to perform its duty to exercise business judgment over key decisions, the Board must have a mechanism for reviewing and guiding technology decisions.A recent example where this sort of oversight would have helped was the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) mania of the mid-1990′s. At the time, many companies were investing tens of millions of dollars (and sometimes hundreds of millions) on ERP systems from SAP and Oracle. Often these purchases were justified by executives in Finance, HR, or Operations strongly advocating their purchase as a way of keeping up with their competitors, who were also installing such systems. CIO’s and line executives often did not give enough thought to the problem of how to make a successful transition to these very complex systems. Alignment of corporate resources and management of organizational change brought by these new systems was overlooked, often resulting in a crisis. Many billions of dollars were spent on systems that either should not have been bought at all or were bought before the client companies were prepared.Certainly, no successful medium or large business can be run today without computers and the software that makes them useful. Technology also represents one of the single largest capital and operating line item for business expenditures, outside of labor and manufacturing equipment. For both of these reasons, Board-level oversight of technology is appropriate at some level.Can the Board of Directors continue to leave these fundamental decisions solely to the current management team? Most large technology decisions are inherently risky (studies have shown less than half deliver on promises), while poor decisions take years to be repaired or replaced. Over half of the technology investments are not returning anticipated gains in business performance; Boards are consequently becoming involved in technology decisions. It is surprising that only ten percent of the publicly traded corporations have IT Audit Committees as part of their boards. However, those companies enjoy a clear competitive advantage in the form of a compounded annual return 6.5% greater than their competitors.Tectonic shifts are under way in how technology is being supplied, which the Board needs to understand. IT industry consolidation seriously decreases strategic flexibility by undercutting management’s ability to consider competitive options, and it creates potentially dangerous reliance on only a few key suppliers.The core asset of flourishing and lasting business is the ability to respond or even anticipate the impact of outside forces. Technology has become a barrier to organizational agility for a number of reasons:o Core legacy systems have calcified
o IT infrastructure has failed to keep pace with changes in the business
o Inflexible IT architecture results in a high percentage of IT expenditure on maintenance of existing systems and not enough on new capabilities
o Short term operational decisions infringe on business’s long term capability to remain competitiveTraditional Boards lack the skills to ask the right questions to ensure that technology is considered in the context of regulatory requirements, risk and agility. This is because technology is a relatively new and fast-growing profession. CEOs have been around since the beginning of time, and financial counselors have been evolving over the past century. But technology is so new, and its cost to deploy changes dramatically, that the technology profession is still maturing. Technologists have worked on how the systems are designed and used to solve problems facing the business. Recently, they recognized a need to understand and be involved in the business strategy. The business leader and the financial leader neither have history nor experience utilizing technology and making key technology decisions. The Board needs to be involved with the executives making technology decisions, just as the technology leader needs Board support and guidance in making those decisions.Recent regulatory mandates such as Sarbanes-Oxley have changed the relationship of the business leader and financial leader. They in turn are asking for similar assurances from the technology leader. The business leader and financial leader have professional advisors to guide their decisions, such as lawyers, accountants and investment bankers. The technologist has relied upon the vendor community or consultants who have their own perspective, and who might not always be able to provide recommendations in the best interests of the company. The IT Audit Committee of the Board can and should fill this gap.What role should the IT Audit Committee play in the organization? The IT Audit function in the Board should contribute toward:1. Bringing technology strategy into alignment with business strategy.
2. Ensuring that technology decisions are in the best interests of shareholders.
3. Fostering organizational development and alignment between business units.
4. Increasing the Board’s overall understanding of technological issues and consequences within the company. This type of understanding cannot come from financial analysis alone.
5. Effective communication between the technologist and the Committee members.The IT Audit Committee does not require additional board members. Existing board members can be assigned the responsibility, and use consultants to help them understand the issues sufficiently to provide guidance to the technology leader. A review of existing IT Audit Committee Charters shows the following common characteristics:1. Review, evaluate and make recommendations on technology-based issues of importance to the business.
o Appraise and critically review the financial, tactical and strategic benefits of proposed major technology related projects and technology architecture alternatives.
o Oversee and critically review the progress of major technology related projects and technology architecture decisions.
2. Advise the senior technology management team at the firm
3. Monitor the quality and effectiveness of technology systems and processes that relate to or affect the firm’s internal control systems.Fundamentally, the Board’s role in IT Governance is to ensure alignment between IT initiatives and business objectives, monitor actions taken by the technology steering committee, and validate that technology processes and practices are delivering value to the business. Strategic alignment between IT and the business is fundamental to building a technology architectural foundation that creates agile organizations. Boards should be aware of technological risk exposures, management’s assessment of those risks, and mitigation strategies considered and adopted.There are no new principles here-only affirmation of existing governance charters. The execution of technology decisions falls upon the management of the organization. The oversight of management is the responsibility of the Board. The Board needs to take appropriate ownership and become proactive in governance of the technology.Do Boards need a Technology Audit committee? Yes, a Technology Audit Committee within the Board is warranted because it will lead to technology/business alignment. It is more than simply the right thing to do; it is a best practice with real bottom-line benefits.