There is no active market for the sale and purchase of privately owned businesses. Any belief that there is a constant search by active purchasers is false. The reality is that many businesses – probably half, or more, of medium-sized companies – are likely not saleable. Erratic history, poor profitability, inadequate finances and uncertain prospects are the usual reasons cited for this circumstance. Realistically, the realisable value of a business to its owners may only be in its continuity. The surprise is that even profitable and well-run businesses are not necessarily saleable. Obviously, this is a disappointment for the owners and an enigma as to why this happens. After an initial flurry of interest in purchasing such a company, the closer assessment takes place. The cooler review by a potential purchaser is guided by the rule that there must be a worthwhile commercial reason to acquire a business, and not simply because it is for sale. Experience suggests that the principal reasons why one business acquires another are as follows: The acquired business is complementary to the acquiring business – for example, a light engineering business acquiring a metal fabrication business, or a transport company acquiring a warehouse business; The businesses share common characteristics that enable synergy and/or joint cost reductions as an added-value benefit to the purchaser; The acquisition protects and/or enhances an existing advantageous relationship between the two businesses; and The acquired business has knowledge, expertise, intellectual property or a location that provides added value to the acquiring business. It follows that the potential for the sale of a ‘standalone’ business (i.e. with none of the above reasons) is limited and only likely in the form of a management buyout. A further restricting factor, and this is true for acquisitions generally, is financing the purchase. Marketplace experience suggests banking caution on lending for acquisitions. There are many reasons why, not least that the underlying assets in the acquired company are not likely available as security due to company law and tax complications. The ‘asset’ being financed (i.e. the shares in the acquired company) is not tangible security, being no more than an expectation of future profitability. In any event, it takes time to sell a business. In an ideal world, the decision to sell would be made up to two years beforehand (although this will likely only be known to the owner). It isn’t that the best market conditions for a sale can be confidently predicted that far ahead; instead, there will be a readiness for sale that can be deferred if necessary, or brought forward if the pre-sale planning is in good order. As with most decisions, timing is important and good forward planning gives flexibility. This planning means not being your own advocate. An experienced corporate finance advisor is essential to a successful sale. Once a sale is contemplated, an informal discussion with an advisor will help you decide whether to sell or not and what will happen subsequently with regard to timing and process. Advance due diligence work means identifying and tidying up awkward circumstances that could derail a sale or adversely affect a sale price. The entire sale and purchase process, when commenced, will likely take between three to six months from start to finish.  It is the job of the corporate finance advisor to direct, coordinate and manage the process from start to finish. The advisor will operate in parallel with a legal advisor; and the same for the purchaser. The process, and the transaction itself, will generate an amount of legal and related documentation – all of which has to be identified, drafted, negotiated and completed. Third parties such as banks, landlords and regulators may also be involved and could, in turn, require documentation and cause delays. Properly done, the sale of a business is a backwards process known as ‘begin with the end’. In other words, the thrust at the outset is to identify prospective purchasers or sectors that likely fit one or more of the reasons for an acquisition, as set out above. Then, ensure that the information and sales approach is directed accordingly. Des Peelo FCA is the author of The Valuation of Businesses and Shares, published by Chartered Accountants Ireland and now in its second edition.

Claire Lord explains why it’s better to get your business’s record-keeping right in your own time and on your own terms. "Run your company like you are planning to sell it” was a piece of advice given to a room full of early stage companies attending a talk being delivered by a tech entrepreneur, who had successfully navigated the pathway from idea through development and scaling to a lucrative exit. He was calling it as it was: you are pursuing your respective endeavours to make money, so do everything you can to maximise that return. When great ideas are being converted into profit-generating businesses, the focus is often on the development of complex technologies, the routes to market, the sales strategies, the hiring of the very best employees quickly. Often the paperwork, the record-keeping, the ‘routine’ pieces of the puzzle are put on the long finger, to be dealt with when there is time. But rarely is there ever time and the longer the record-keeping is neglected, the harder and more expensive it becomes to put right. Irish companies are required by law to maintain a number of books and registers. These include proper accounting records that correctly record and explain the transactions of the company and that enable its assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss to be determined with reasonable accuracy at any time.  A company must keep registers of its members, directors and secretary, and disclosable interests. It must also keep copies of instruments creating charges and copies of directors’ service contracts. The Companies Act 2014 further requires companies to keep minutes of shareholder and director meetings. In respect of minutes from shareholder meetings, the minimum detail to be recorded is a summary of the proceedings of the meeting and the terms of the resolutions passed. In respect of minutes from board meetings (which includes meetings of committees of the board), the minimum detail to be recorded is the appointments of officers made by the directors, the names of the directors present, a summary of the proceedings and details of all resolutions passed. In the case of both meetings of the shareholders and directors of a company, the minutes should be prepared “as soon as may be” after the meeting has been held. Certain of the registers and documents required to be kept by a company can be inspected by the shareholders of that company. These are its registers of its members, directors and secretary and disclosable interests, and the instruments creating charges and directors’ service contracts. Members of the public are entitled to inspect a company’s registers of members, directors and secretary and disclosable interests. A company is permitted to keep any of these registers and documents electronically (other than minutes of meetings of shareholders) once it puts adequate measures in place to guard against, and detect, falsification and once they can be easily reproduced in legible form at a place in Ireland. When it comes to the day-to-day running of an Irish company, it would be unusual for a request to be made by a shareholder or a member of the public to inspect the registers and documents that the law permits them to inspect. On the other hand, if a company was the subject of an interested investor or acquirer, it would be most usual for them to require production of all these registers and documents for due diligence purposes without delay (subject, where the need permits, for obligations of confidentiality to be agreed and documented). When there is a gap in record-keeping, which is likely to occur when ‘the paperwork’ has been neglected, not only is the prospective investor or acquirer unable to satisfy themselves that they have the full history of the company in terms of its governance proceedings and compliance with its statutory obligations, but the impact in terms of cost on the target company and its owners to rectify that neglect under time pressure and the scrutiny of an impatient investor or acquirer can be significant. Record-keeping is one of the things that you as a business owner can control. Record keeping can be routine and inexpensive when the time is taken at the outset to get the processes, procedures and resources right. Even if you don’t have plans to sell your company, run it like you are planning to sell it. It’s better to get the record-keeping right in your own time and on your own terms, rather than it being one of the elements that undermines or adds unnecessary cost to that lucrative exit when it does come.   Claire Lord is a Corporate Partner and Head of Governance and Compliance at Mason Hayes & Curran.

Could the fall in interest rates result in an economic ice age for western economies? By Cormac Lucey Across the developed world, interest rates have collapsed over recent decades. Yields on German government 10-year bonds fell below -0.7% this month while yields in Japan were hovering at -0.3%. Japan has struggled to combat low growth and low interest rates for 30 years. Only America, where rates on government bonds remain at about 1.6%, has avoided Japanification. So far. The trouble is the US may be headed that way too – its rate has halved since last October. Why have interest rates fallen so far, and where might they now be headed? Several factors influence underlying interest rates. The first is the rate of inflation. In theory, real interest rates (after we exclude the inflation factor) should be relatively stable. So, if inflation drops sharply, we would expect a sharp drop in interest rates. And inflation has indeed dropped sharply in western countries over recent decades since it peaked in the inflationary 1970s. Nonetheless, in recent times real interest rates have also dropped. It used to be the case that bank depositors got a rate of interest that exceeded the rate of inflation and provided them with real capital appreciation. That is no longer the case. Today, depositors get negligible or nil rates of interest income even though inflation persists and erodes the underlying value of their savings. There are other factors at play. The biggest cause of ultra-low rates is weak economic growth. If growth rates are high, there is substantial demand for investment funds which stokes demand for deposits (so that banks will have sufficient funds to lend) and supports higher interest rates. Low economic growth pushes interest rates down. Over the twentieth century, productivity per worker grew in the developed world at about 2% per annum. Since the turn of the century, underlying growth amounts to half or less than half of that rate. This problem has been described as “secular stagnation”. There has been extensive academic debate on the subject, but nobody has come up with a convincing explanation for this drop in underlying economic growth. Ageing populations are another factor propelling interest rates downwards. The longer we anticipate our life after retirement will be, the more we need to save to fund our retirements. If the supply of savings increases then, all other things being equal, we would expect the price of savings (i.e. the rate of interest) to fall. There are several problems with interest rates being this low. Central bankers have less interest rate-cutting ammunition with which to fight the next recession. It is notable that the European Central Bank is already contemplating monetary policy relaxation to fight the next downturn without having once felt able to increase its base rate of interest during the economic recovery since 2010. Commercial banks also have big problems as a significant element of their profits – interest income generated from current account deposits on which they pay no interest – has dried up in today’s low interest rate environment. That helps explain why the index of euro area bank equities has fallen in value by over 40% since January 2018. Albert Edwards, a strategist with the French investment bank, Société Générale, has long predicted this fall in interest rates and an economic ice age for western economies. He recently asked: “Do market participants really believe fiscal stimulus and helicopter money will save us from a gut-wrenching global bust that will make 2008 look like a picnic?” He argues that the current government bond rally is not a bubble, but an appropriate reaction to the market discounting the next global recession. This means that “the bubbles are not in the government bond market in my view. They are in corporate equities and corporate bonds”. Ouch! Cormac Lucey FCA is an economic commentator and lecturer at Chartered Accountants Ireland.

The UK’s Financial Reporting Lab recently spoke to companies and investors about what they wanted from cash disclosures, outside of the cash flow statement. This is what they found… By Thomas Toomse-Smith It has been said that investing is as much art as science. Numbers can tell you so much, but at the heart of every investment decision is a story – either that which the company tells or which investors interpret for themselves. But to allow investors to interpret that story correctly, they need disclosures that help them better understand the generation, availability and use of cash. This allows them to make an assessment of management’s historical stewardship of a company’s assets, as well as support analysis of future expectations. Cash and flow The core disclosure that supports investor needs on cash is often conceptualised to be the cash flow statement. However, while it clearly provides information about the flow of cash, does it do a good job of explaining how that cash is, and (more critically) will be, generated and used? Our discussions with investors suggest that the disclosures that help answer this question are often provided outside of the cash flow statement, and perhaps outside of the annual report completely. Our project focused on this supplemental, but nevertheless fundamental, set of disclosures; disclosures that are principally about the sources and uses of cash. What do investors want? Our discussions with investors concluded that what they want, at a high level, is an overall direction on companies’ cash position but that this should be supported by further details. We have summarised investors’ needs in the model outlined in Figure 1. A focus on drivers Companies note that communicating their strategy and performance are essential objectives of their investor communications. However, for many companies, their attention is on a number of performance-focused metrics (such as profit or adjusted profit) with cash metrics featuring as a supporting, rather than a leading, metric. While companies often do a good job of explaining some aspects of their wider performance, cash metrics and cash generation are often not fully explained. This wider cash story deserves better explanation. Both numbers and narrative are crucial for investors. However, the most effective disclosures are those where numbers and narrative are combined in a way that shows how future cash generation is underpinned by current cash generation. Two ways in which we saw companies trying to communicate this was through better disclosure around selection and use of key performance metrics (in line with the practices suggested in our recent KPI report), and through the use of narratives (that bring all the cash-related elements together). A focus on sources of cash Understanding the link between the operations of a company and its generation of cash is a key objective for investors. However, it is something that is not always easy to do from the information a company discloses. Investors that participated in our project noted that this lack of clarity is prevalent and that it can be challenging to understand how the operations of businesses are generating cash. Key areas where further enhancements would be welcomed include working capital and groups. While the generation of cash is important, to fully understand the health of a business, investors also need to understand their approach to working capital. Disclosures that provided more clarity were narratives about differing working capital requirements, cycles and metrics within different elements of a group, and disclosures detailing less common approaches to financing such as factoring or reverse factoring. While investors are interested in the overall capacity of a group to generate cash, it can also be important to understand where within the group the cash was generated, especially for credit investors. This is an area where there remain limited examples of good disclosures in the marketplace, but an area where investors were keen to obtain more information such as how much capacity was within the group and how the group manage capital and cash between its subsidiaries. Uses of cash Once investors have considered how a company generates cash, and the quality and sustainability of that generation, they then want to understand what a company intends to do with the resulting resource. While many investors feel that, in general, disclosure about the use of cash is relatively well-reported, they would like more information that supports their assessment of the future use of cash – namely, understanding priorities and the risks attached to them. Setting priorities for generated and available cash At its simplest level, capital allocation is a balance between maintaining and growing a business. However, there is a significant nuance in how these various priorities are balanced within any business and at any point in time. Differing considerations of the relative priorities will lead to a very different view when assessing a company. That is why information about how companies prioritise different stakeholders is useful. Many businesses have therefore taken to creating more formal disclosure, often in the form of a capital allocation framework. This approach is particularly popular with companies that are launching a new or refreshed strategy. While the disclosure of a framework often provides only a high-level picture of a company’s allocation priorities, it can serve to focus investor and management conversations on key aspects of the business. As such, investors often welcome such disclosure. Priorities in action Once investors are clear on management’s priorities, they then want information that supports their understanding of how those priorities are represented in the period, and how current decisions might impact future flows. Detail regarding capital expenditure, dividends and other returns are critical to achieving this understanding as they help establish whether management actions are aligned to the priorities. Variabilities, risks and restrictions To properly assess the future potential upside of a business, investors need to be able to assess the downside. Investors understand that returns are variable and should reflect the changing focus and priorities of the company, the call of other stakeholders and the availability of resources. Investors therefore value information that helps them understand the potential uncertainties and management’s reaction. When thinking about future availability of cash, they need information on: Variability of future outcomes: how does the company consider the range of possibilities for future cash use and how does that feed through to the prioritisation of decisions? Risks: what is the link between the risks facing the company and the outturn in cash generation, use and dividend? Restrictions: are there any restrictions on current or future cash, either through capital or exchange controls, availability of dividend resources or other items? Concluding message Overall, investors are not seeking to overburden preparers but they do want preparers to focus disclosure on the areas that are most fundamental to their investment story. The full Lab report is available on the Financial Reporting Council’s website, and gives more insight and examples. Thomas Toomse-Smith is Project Director at the Financial Reporting Council’s Disclosure Lab.  

Businesses in Ireland are working towards a low-carbon future, but the transition to a low-carbon economy needs to urgently accelerate. By Kim McClenaghan & Dr Luke Redmond Irish businesses are responding to the climate action challenge and to date, 47 companies in Ireland have signed Business in the Community Ireland’s (BITCI) Low Carbon Pledge. Signatory companies have committed to reducing their direct carbon intensity by 50% by 2030, and to report on their progress on an annual basis. The pledge companies operate in traditional carbon-intensive sectors such as agribusiness and energy/utilities, along with a range of other cross-sectoral companies from pharma/med-tech, beverages, transport, retailing, communications, technology and professional services. The pledge aims to demonstrate the commitment of Irish businesses to supporting the country’s transition to a low-carbon economy. The Low Carbon Pledge requires companies to reduce the intensity of their Scope 1 and Scope 2 carbon emissions by 50% by 2030. Scope 1 emissions refer to emissions produced directly from sources owned and controlled by a company, such as fuels used in boilers or vehicles, for example. Scope 2 emissions refer to those produced during the generation of electricity purchased by a company. The narrowing window of opportunity PwC was commissioned by BITCI to produce the inaugural Low Carbon Pledge Report. This work was conducted against a backdrop of mounting evidence that points to a rapidly closing window in which business and society can successfully tackle climate change and its principal driver: carbon emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency’s most recent pronouncements warn that Ireland faces an unfavourable emissions reduction environment due to ongoing challenges in successfully decoupling economic and emissions growth. Ireland is not on track to meet its 2020 and 2030 EU emissions reduction targets, and failure to achieve the 2020 target could result in financial penalties of up to €150 million. What’s more, the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report estimates that countries and businesses have a window of just 11 years in which to successfully tackle the carbon challenge. Meaningful progress According to the PwC report, signatory companies have engaged positively with the decarbonisation challenge and have already delivered meaningful emissions reductions. The 47 pledge signatory companies have achieved an overall reduction of 42% in their absolute carbon emissions between the baseline period and 2018, and are on course to secure a 50% decrease in carbon intensity by 2030. Pledge companies have achieved a 36% reduction in average emissions intensity, in part by reducing their electricity usage by 60 million KwH between the baseline period and 2018. This equates to a cost saving of roughly €6.6 million. Energy efficiency-focused rationalisation and strategic investment programmes, coupled with an increasing use of electricity generated from renewable sources, has underpinned the emissions reduction activity to date. Upping the ante The PwC report, and the dataset that underpins it, provides a benchmark against which to assess the future carbon reduction efforts of the signatory companies. With an ever-increasing awareness of the risks of climate change and the importance of accelerating abatement activity, it is critical that the ambition of the Low Carbon Pledge also evolves. While the initial pledge group of 47 signatories is a significant achievement, it will be important to grow this number while extending the carbon commitment scope. Because of the significant intensity reductions over the baseline period to 2018, BITCI has upped the scope and ambition of the 2030 greenhouse gas reduction targets. A critical challenge for companies will be sustaining such reduction efforts and focusing on the delivery of further intensity improvements up to the 50% target and out to 2030, or an earlier date. Enhanced robustness To maintain the integrity of the Low Carbon Pledge, it is critical that businesses seek external assurance of their non-financial data. This is critical to enhancing the robustness of the emissions reduction actions and commitments reported as part of the Low Carbon Pledge. Seeking third-party assurance also provides companies with another opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to decarbonisation, while at the same time enabling companies to prepare for a transition to an increasingly onerous and transparent reporting environment. Scenario analysis The Low Carbon Report analysed four companies – Gas Networks Ireland, Dawn Meats, ESB and Heineken Ireland – to examine how companies are seeking to enhance the sustainability and decarbonisation of their business operations. The analysis found that senior management leadership is central to driving a meaningful response to the challenges of decarbonisation. Businesses should seek to embed decarbonisation and sustainability policies and actions in their business strategy, from both risk mitigation and value-enhancing perspectives. To test corporate strategies, scenario analysis should consider, for example, a high future carbon price, climate change impacts on global and regional GDP growth rates, or climate disruption within the supply chain. Evolving target-setting, coupled with the use of energy management systems and data analytics, can help ensure that companies make informed energy efficiency investment decisions. Strong leadership can help businesses prepare for a carbon-constrained world and ensure that their businesses are aligned with an increasingly carbon-conscious investor and consumer. While delivering carbon reductions through the procurement of electricity generated from renewable sources represents a positive mitigation action, companies could further enhance the integrity of such actions by procuring green-certified renewable electricity. Decisions by senior management to embed renewable energy sourcing targets, underpinned by green certificates, into company strategy could act as an important catalyst for driving further decarbonisation efforts. The case study analysis identifies investors as being increasingly interested in companies’ financial and non-financial metrics. For companies to truly demonstrate a commitment to decarbonisation and sustainability, it is important to place equal emphasis on their financial and non-financial reporting. Leading companies also seek to align the publication of their sustainability and annual financial reports. Such actions demonstrate that sustainability has become an integral part of the company’s core strategy, and associated metrics form part of the business’s key performance indicators.   Kim McClenaghan is Partner in Consulting and Energy, Utilities and Sustainability Lead at PwC. Dr Luke Redmond is Senior Manager, Strategy Consulting at PwC.

A new report proposes measures for the sustainability of owners’ management companies and lays the foundation for a more structured approach to managing apartment complexes or managed estates. By David Rouse In a professional audit or reporting capacity, Chartered Accountants may encounter owners’ management companies (OMC). Readers living in an apartment complex or managed estate may even have been asked to serve as an OMC director. OMCs, while in form incorporated typically as companies limited by guarantee (CLG), are in substance hybrid entities. They sit at a corporate crossroads between not-for-profit companies, property management businesses and residents’ associations (see Figure 1). Many readers will be familiar with the legacy construction and financial issues facing these companies. High-profile cases such as Priory Hall and Longboat Quay, as well as other less prominent estates, have featured in the press in recent years while corporate governance failings in OMCs receive periodic attention in court reporting. The country’s largest OMCs have multi-million euro annual service charge budgets. And yet, the stewardship of these companies is entrusted to unpaid, untrained directors (the term “volunteer director” is deliberately avoided, as in law, there is no such thing – a director is a director). There is as yet no firm handle on the number of OMCs in the country. However, it is estimated that the upper limit is likely to be about 8,000 companies. New report A recent independent report titled Owners’ Management Companies – Sustainable Apartment Living for Ireland considers issues that will be familiar to those with even a passing knowledge of managed estates and OMCs. The report was jointly commissioned by the Housing Agency and Clúid Housing. The Housing Agency works with the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, local authorities, and approved housing bodies (AHB) in the delivery of housing and housing services. Clúid is the State’s largest AHB, managing  just over 7,000 homes across the country. The inadequacy of annual service charges, failure to provide for building maintenance (sinking) funds, and the persistent problem of mounting debtors are just some of the topics assessed. International best practice is examined, and Ontario and New South Wales are among the comparator jurisdictions featured. The future demand for high-density housing is signalled in the context of new Government policy, such as the National Planning Framework and the Climate Action Plan. To audit or not to audit? Recommendations for reform across a range of relevant regulatory systems are proposed. Of interest to the accountancy profession will be the recommendation for the removal of the audit exemption currently available to OMCs, most of which, as noted earlier, are incorporated as CLGs. Companies Act 2014 provides the audit exemption for CLGs. In this way, small not-for-profit companies without shareholders may benefit from a reduced financial and administrative burden. (It should be noted that under sections 334 and 1218 of the Companies Act, any one member of the CLG may in effect demand an audit.) However, while OMCs are not-for-profit, they are responsible for multi-million euro property assets in the form of estate common areas. Considering the centrality of OMCs to property values, good title, and quality of living spaces, the value of an audit to members in terms of assurance, transparency, and governance cannot be overstated. Finance and governance The creditworthiness of OMCs in the context of current under-funding is also considered. Regulation over and above corporate compliance enforced by the ODCE is recommended. Dispute resolution outside of the courts is advocated, as are more cost-effective avenues for service charge debt recovery. Personal insolvency practitioners will be aware that OMC service charge debt is an “excludable debt” under the Personal Insolvency Act 2012. Only with the consent of the creditor (i.e. the OMC) may management fee balances be reduced or written off in a Personal Insolvency Arrangement. The report’s other recommendations include mandatory training for OMC directors, the standardisation of accounts to a format prescribed for OMCs, and enhanced insurance obligations. Reform may be some way off. In the meantime, practitioners should be aware that the Institute’s practice toolkit, Owners’ Management Company PQAs, was updated in 2018. This replaces the 2011 version. As the Institute’s product catalogue notes, and as may be recognised from sectoral weaknesses highlighted in this commentary, although OMCs can be small in size, they may be higher-risk clients. Future regulation of the sector could mitigate a number of the risks identified.   David Rouse FCA is an advisor with the Housing Agency, a director of the Apartment Owners’ Network CLG, and a director of one of the country’s largest OMCs.