One of the preliminary decisions faced when starting your own business is under what guise you should trade. There are various choices of business entity which are available and selecting the right structure is an important consideration.
Two of the more popular trading vehicles in the UK are a sole trader and a private limited company. There are others including two types of partnerships and PLCs which might be appropriate in certain circumstances.
Some factors which may influence the decision of the different business types are as follows:
The Type of Business Activity
Generally, a simple commercial activity may require a straightforward and uncomplicated type of business entity to further the ambitions of the owner.
Typically, small window cleaning businesses which are owned and run by one person may start-up as sole traders.
In situations where there are two or more people involved in the business start-up, they might select a partnership or private limited company. This would enable them to distribute the ownership of the entity according to their wishes.
Ability and Preference on Administrative Tasks
Some kinds of business structure require greater level of administration effort than others. Public limited companies, especially those which are listed on the stock exchange, require more detailed systems for reporting and maintenance than a sole trader might.
The business owners would therefore have to gauge the benefits of the potential enhancement of their standing against the increased administrative costs and other burdens which would be placed up on them when trading as a PLC.
The Importance of Limited Liability
The owner’s views on the importance of limited liability may place a significant part in their decision of how to trade.
Limited liability exists in both private and public companies and in LLPs but is not present in sole trader or traditional partnerships.
A risk assessment of the business and the industry in general might provide sufficient analysis to determine whether such protection would be useful.
Custom within the Industry
Although less significant in today’s world of commerce, certain industries have traditionally been associated with a specific type of business structure.
In addition, larger entities have generally been Limited companies, either private or public, whilst smaller commercial ventures have been known to trade largely as sole traders.
Personal Preference
The choice of which format to use to start the business will depend to a large extent, on the personal preferences of the entrepreneurs who will engaged in it.
Whichever kind of entity is chosen, it is they who must be comfortable with the decision that is made.
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
Different Types of Business Entity
A business entity is the vehicle a person or group of people use to carry on a trade or activity.
There are four main types:
Sole trader
Partnership
Limited liability partnership
Limited liability company
Each of these business entities has its own particular benefits and its own set of drawbacks, such as limited liability, ease of setup and the level of bureaucracy, which is required to run them.
The decision of which trading structure to adopt might be the result of weighing up the pros and cons of each choice and then seeing which of them fits best with the objectives, style and aspirations of the business under consideration.
The kind of business entity chosen at the start-up stage does not prohibit the creation of a similar enterprise at a later date and allow both to run simultaneously under common ownership. It might also be possible and advantageous to transfer the trade of one type of business under one structure to another.
In choosing a type of entity, persons might wish to consider the norm, which may exist within a particular industry or business. For example, Solicitors practices are usually partnerships; larger businesses are generally companies and so on.
There are four main types:
Sole trader
Partnership
Limited liability partnership
Limited liability company
Each of these business entities has its own particular benefits and its own set of drawbacks, such as limited liability, ease of setup and the level of bureaucracy, which is required to run them.
The decision of which trading structure to adopt might be the result of weighing up the pros and cons of each choice and then seeing which of them fits best with the objectives, style and aspirations of the business under consideration.
The kind of business entity chosen at the start-up stage does not prohibit the creation of a similar enterprise at a later date and allow both to run simultaneously under common ownership. It might also be possible and advantageous to transfer the trade of one type of business under one structure to another.
In choosing a type of entity, persons might wish to consider the norm, which may exist within a particular industry or business. For example, Solicitors practices are usually partnerships; larger businesses are generally companies and so on.
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
Small business launchpads
There is an interesting report by CNN Money and Fortune Small Businesses (Report) that rates metro areas in terms of the best place to launch a small business. Portland Metro doesn't rate a top anything. However, it is not clear why.
This type of report leads one to wonder why they are done. They often use categories that are not necessarily germane to the topic or they fail to use categories that might well be a true decision maker.
E.g., for this report, there are many categories that I would add to the mix, but I realize too that the level of data comparison I might choose could well make it difficult to render a comprehensible report.
Metropolitan areas are often comprised of several cities, towns, and counties. Overlapping states are not uncommon. One city typically dominates a metro region, but the city doesn't always reflect the region. Thus, a comparison between metro areas is not the same as comparing the respective dominate cities.
I picked a Portland city look alike Austin, Texas for comparison. Take a peek at the Wikipedia blurb on Austin. In the Report, Austin Metro was #8. As I mentioned above, Portland didn't fare well.
I am not going to run through each category and subcategory, but the bottom line – within the parameters of the Report, assuming equal weighting, there is not one category that stands out to disqualify Portland Metro.
There are three major categories and 17 subcategories. The primary categories: Business Climate; Demand; & Costs. With equal weights, there would be a tie between Austin Metro and Portland Metro.
In an attempt to make sense of the Report, I reformatted the results under Business Climate to create a table showing Portland Metro vs Austin Metro vs an average of all large metros.
Business Climate (category, Portland, Austin, all large metros).
Employer establishments with 1-49 employees: 61,215; 37,296; 78,289
Small business growth rate: 9%; 13.3%; 5.3%
State business tax climate ranking (1 is best) 9; 7; N/A
Percentage of population with bachelor's degree 32.2%; 38%; 32.7%
Violent crime (rate per 100,000 inhabitants): 313.2; 344.1; 537.6
Property crime (rate per 100,000 inhabitants): 3,529.5; 4,126.4; 3,700.0.
The score is Portland 3, Austin 3. Eliminate the crime categories where Portland was better, the score is Portland 1, Austin 3. This raises the question of weighting and the value of quality of life factors..
There was weighting. In the Report there was FAQ that explains its methodology and while it admits to weighting, I didn't see any details on which ones were weighted and how the weighting was assigned.
The business tax climate subcategory is a suspected weighted item. And, upon a closer look it fails to enlighten. The rating is based upon report rating tax climate by states not metros. The report is from the Tax Foundation. They rated Texas as 7th favorable and Oregon as 9th favorable.
This is contrary to the goal of a report that rates metro areas to ignore the business tax climate of the metro; it might well be different than the state, especially given that two states may well be part of the metro. Portland Metro is one. While a more local tax discussion might not help Portland Metro, it would assist an entrepreneur's decision making.
In the Costs section, foreclosures and housing to income ratios subcategories are probably weighted items because without a weighting neither item would take away from Portland Metro's overall qualification.
But, the Report does show that the rate of foreclosures is significantly higher in Portland Metro, and that the Austin Metro did better in the housing to income ratios.
A couple of factors I would have included are office leasing costs and availability of capital and its cost. Aren't both highly relevant to where to start a business?.
I understand that there has to be some limit on how may factors are included in a report, and not everyone will be satisfied with the selections. But even assuming that the right factors were included – the absence of the knowing the weights lessens the value of the Report.
Bottom line: This report doesn't permit a entrepreneur to reach a conclusion as to where it would be best to launch the new business, nor does it help to winnow choices. Its sole value might well be a city branding effect.
This type of report leads one to wonder why they are done. They often use categories that are not necessarily germane to the topic or they fail to use categories that might well be a true decision maker.
E.g., for this report, there are many categories that I would add to the mix, but I realize too that the level of data comparison I might choose could well make it difficult to render a comprehensible report.
Metropolitan areas are often comprised of several cities, towns, and counties. Overlapping states are not uncommon. One city typically dominates a metro region, but the city doesn't always reflect the region. Thus, a comparison between metro areas is not the same as comparing the respective dominate cities.
I picked a Portland city look alike Austin, Texas for comparison. Take a peek at the Wikipedia blurb on Austin. In the Report, Austin Metro was #8. As I mentioned above, Portland didn't fare well.
I am not going to run through each category and subcategory, but the bottom line – within the parameters of the Report, assuming equal weighting, there is not one category that stands out to disqualify Portland Metro.
There are three major categories and 17 subcategories. The primary categories: Business Climate; Demand; & Costs. With equal weights, there would be a tie between Austin Metro and Portland Metro.
In an attempt to make sense of the Report, I reformatted the results under Business Climate to create a table showing Portland Metro vs Austin Metro vs an average of all large metros.
Business Climate (category, Portland, Austin, all large metros).
Employer establishments with 1-49 employees: 61,215; 37,296; 78,289
Small business growth rate: 9%; 13.3%; 5.3%
State business tax climate ranking (1 is best) 9; 7; N/A
Percentage of population with bachelor's degree 32.2%; 38%; 32.7%
Violent crime (rate per 100,000 inhabitants): 313.2; 344.1; 537.6
Property crime (rate per 100,000 inhabitants): 3,529.5; 4,126.4; 3,700.0.
The score is Portland 3, Austin 3. Eliminate the crime categories where Portland was better, the score is Portland 1, Austin 3. This raises the question of weighting and the value of quality of life factors..
There was weighting. In the Report there was FAQ that explains its methodology and while it admits to weighting, I didn't see any details on which ones were weighted and how the weighting was assigned.
The business tax climate subcategory is a suspected weighted item. And, upon a closer look it fails to enlighten. The rating is based upon report rating tax climate by states not metros. The report is from the Tax Foundation. They rated Texas as 7th favorable and Oregon as 9th favorable.
This is contrary to the goal of a report that rates metro areas to ignore the business tax climate of the metro; it might well be different than the state, especially given that two states may well be part of the metro. Portland Metro is one. While a more local tax discussion might not help Portland Metro, it would assist an entrepreneur's decision making.
In the Costs section, foreclosures and housing to income ratios subcategories are probably weighted items because without a weighting neither item would take away from Portland Metro's overall qualification.
But, the Report does show that the rate of foreclosures is significantly higher in Portland Metro, and that the Austin Metro did better in the housing to income ratios.
A couple of factors I would have included are office leasing costs and availability of capital and its cost. Aren't both highly relevant to where to start a business?.
I understand that there has to be some limit on how may factors are included in a report, and not everyone will be satisfied with the selections. But even assuming that the right factors were included – the absence of the knowing the weights lessens the value of the Report.
Bottom line: This report doesn't permit a entrepreneur to reach a conclusion as to where it would be best to launch the new business, nor does it help to winnow choices. Its sole value might well be a city branding effect.
Business SA advocates nuclear industry for South Australia
SOUTH Australia should actively develop a nuclear energy industry and investigate the storage of nuclear waste in the Outback, says Business SA.
The industry would take advantage of the state's world-leading uranium resources and make SA a major contributor in the global fight against climate change, it says in a major environmental statement launched today.
"Any serious response to the challenges of climate change and energy security must include nuclear energy," Business SA chief executive Peter Vaughan said.
"A nuclear energy industry in SA would ensure that economic development is environmentally sustainable, by providing the energy needed to drive economic growth while not increasing greenhouse gas emissions."
Do you agree with Business SA and its nuclear policy? Vote now in the poll to the bottom right and post a comment in the box below
While Mr Vaughan previously has floated his own support of nuclear power, the environmental statement raises the issue to a higher level as official policy of Business SA.
The statement - A Greenprint for the Future, creating a sustainable SA - also maps out principles on how to achieve a nuclear industry and other goals by making 59 recommendations.
"Environmental issues at the state and national level present both a challenge and an opportunity," Business SA president Robert Atkins said.
"Business SA believes it is possible for SA to have a vibrant society and strong economic growth that is not detrimental to the environment. This society will have a low carbon footprint, use energy and water efficiently and reuse many of the resources it consumes."
The 59 recommendations include measures to address issues of water, climate change, energy markets and waste.
It says SA should: "Investigate ways to overcome the barriers to developing a nuclear energy industry, such as negative community and media attitudes, the lack of a legislative and regulatory framework, the lack of a skilled and trained workforce and technical and cost-competitiveness issues."
On water, recommendations include allowing third party access to distribution networks to promote competition in supply.
It also calls for greater trading rights between states and between urban water retailers and industrial and commercial users.
On waste, Business SA wants a broader and more consistent policy on producers having to take responsibility for waste streams beyond the consumer. It notes the success of SA's container deposit scheme on drink bottles and cartons and the current debate on extending this to electronic goods such as TVs.
Concerned about the added costs to producers, it calls for schemes to be limited to products that either generate hazardous waste (such as those which contain mercury) or which can be recycled.
"A set of policy principles for extended producer responsibility schemes needs to be developed to ensure consistent implementation of such schemes and without undue cost impacts on businesses and without the need for separate legislation for each scheme," it recommends.
With Copenhagen mere days away, Business SA says its supports a global emissions trading scheme.
It warns of dangers of countries going it alone on an ETS but says groups of countries working co-operatively may be an answer to overcome the low likelihood of global agreement.
The industry would take advantage of the state's world-leading uranium resources and make SA a major contributor in the global fight against climate change, it says in a major environmental statement launched today.
"Any serious response to the challenges of climate change and energy security must include nuclear energy," Business SA chief executive Peter Vaughan said.
"A nuclear energy industry in SA would ensure that economic development is environmentally sustainable, by providing the energy needed to drive economic growth while not increasing greenhouse gas emissions."
Do you agree with Business SA and its nuclear policy? Vote now in the poll to the bottom right and post a comment in the box below
While Mr Vaughan previously has floated his own support of nuclear power, the environmental statement raises the issue to a higher level as official policy of Business SA.
The statement - A Greenprint for the Future, creating a sustainable SA - also maps out principles on how to achieve a nuclear industry and other goals by making 59 recommendations.
"Environmental issues at the state and national level present both a challenge and an opportunity," Business SA president Robert Atkins said.
"Business SA believes it is possible for SA to have a vibrant society and strong economic growth that is not detrimental to the environment. This society will have a low carbon footprint, use energy and water efficiently and reuse many of the resources it consumes."
The 59 recommendations include measures to address issues of water, climate change, energy markets and waste.
It says SA should: "Investigate ways to overcome the barriers to developing a nuclear energy industry, such as negative community and media attitudes, the lack of a legislative and regulatory framework, the lack of a skilled and trained workforce and technical and cost-competitiveness issues."
On water, recommendations include allowing third party access to distribution networks to promote competition in supply.
It also calls for greater trading rights between states and between urban water retailers and industrial and commercial users.
On waste, Business SA wants a broader and more consistent policy on producers having to take responsibility for waste streams beyond the consumer. It notes the success of SA's container deposit scheme on drink bottles and cartons and the current debate on extending this to electronic goods such as TVs.
Concerned about the added costs to producers, it calls for schemes to be limited to products that either generate hazardous waste (such as those which contain mercury) or which can be recycled.
"A set of policy principles for extended producer responsibility schemes needs to be developed to ensure consistent implementation of such schemes and without undue cost impacts on businesses and without the need for separate legislation for each scheme," it recommends.
With Copenhagen mere days away, Business SA says its supports a global emissions trading scheme.
It warns of dangers of countries going it alone on an ETS but says groups of countries working co-operatively may be an answer to overcome the low likelihood of global agreement.
Which category of stocks interests you?
Every field of profession has its share of jargons. Equity market analysis is no different. There is an excessive use of financial lingo which novice investors find difficult to swallow. At times they are even confused about the genre of the company they are interested in. So which type of stock you own? Are you interested in 'growth' or 'value'? Is the one that you already have 'defensive' or 'cyclical'? Confused?
This article attempts to throw some light on the nomenclature that different analysts use for categorising different stocks.
At a very basic level, the stocks can be classified as follows:
Quality growth stocks:
These usually include established large-cap and mid-cap companies which have are growing at a respectable and steady pace. We are talking about companies having a growth rate of say 15% or so. These companies usually reinvest their profits to expand their business. They do not pay much dividend. But investing in them for long-term is beneficial as price of such stocks usually rise as the companies grow.
This category can include IT majors like TCS, Infosys and Wipro or automobile giants like Tata Motors or Maruti etc. These large, consistently profitable companies are also known as blue chips (they take their name after the most valuable poker chips.) It is worth noting that these growth stocks are often more expensive than stock in lesser-known or smaller companies.
Emerging growth stocks:
This genre usually includes small emerging companies which gain a lot of investor interest through their niche value propositions. These include companies which have crossed their initial stage. Many promising mid and small-cap stocks in the expansion phase and witnessing super normal growth rates fall under this category.
Value stocks:
Value stocks primarily stand for companies which are asset-rich. The main attraction for buying these companies is the assets on their balance sheet and not their current earnings. This category usually includes companies from oil & gas, real estate and utilities companies. There is also a different line of thought about value stocks. Stocks that are underpriced (less expensive) are also referred to as value stocks. Reasons for low price can be temporary financial stress on the company or underestimation of the growth potential.
Defensive stocks:
Defensive stocks are the ones that are usually recession resistant. Industries which are basic to human needs or vices fall in this category. This includes sectors like electric and gas utilities, drugs, health care, food and FMCG. Demand for their products remains stable even in uncertain economic times. However, they might not have excellent growth rates.
Cyclical Stocks:
Cyclical stocks are the ones which may find favour in good times and suffer during bad times. As the name suggests, their revenues and profits are tied strongly to the economy and price fluctuates with the business cycle. This category includes stocks from sectors like automobile, airlines, chemical, railroads etc. Airlines, for example, tend to lose money during recession when people spend less on business and pleasure travel. It is wise to buy cyclicals during recession and sell them on recovery.
Income Stocks:
These are the stocks which consistently pay higher than average dividends. Investors (especially old and retired) find these attractive because of the cash-flow they generate. However, one must be cautious while buying such stocks as high dividend can be because of lack of future expansion plans. It is advisable to invest in quality growth stocks having trend of rising dividends.
Penny Stocks:
Penny stocks are the ones which are of lower denomination in terms of stock price. They are often mistaken to be 'cheaper' than higher priced stocks, which may not be the case. Also, they are more risky to invest in. While some penny stocks may rise decently in value, many of the companies never see profits. One may seldom find sufficient information to evaluate them properly.
One cannot draw a clear line between the categories as overlaps are bound to occur. Some 'high -growth' stocks can be 'income' as well. Similarly some 'value' stocks can be 'defensive' and some 'penny' can be 'value' as well. However, we hope this broad categorization will assist investors in knowing which kind of stock they own or are interested in. It can help them make a more informed decision about buying, selling or holding the stock.
This article attempts to throw some light on the nomenclature that different analysts use for categorising different stocks.
At a very basic level, the stocks can be classified as follows:
Quality growth stocks:
These usually include established large-cap and mid-cap companies which have are growing at a respectable and steady pace. We are talking about companies having a growth rate of say 15% or so. These companies usually reinvest their profits to expand their business. They do not pay much dividend. But investing in them for long-term is beneficial as price of such stocks usually rise as the companies grow.
This category can include IT majors like TCS, Infosys and Wipro or automobile giants like Tata Motors or Maruti etc. These large, consistently profitable companies are also known as blue chips (they take their name after the most valuable poker chips.) It is worth noting that these growth stocks are often more expensive than stock in lesser-known or smaller companies.
Emerging growth stocks:
This genre usually includes small emerging companies which gain a lot of investor interest through their niche value propositions. These include companies which have crossed their initial stage. Many promising mid and small-cap stocks in the expansion phase and witnessing super normal growth rates fall under this category.
Value stocks:
Value stocks primarily stand for companies which are asset-rich. The main attraction for buying these companies is the assets on their balance sheet and not their current earnings. This category usually includes companies from oil & gas, real estate and utilities companies. There is also a different line of thought about value stocks. Stocks that are underpriced (less expensive) are also referred to as value stocks. Reasons for low price can be temporary financial stress on the company or underestimation of the growth potential.
Defensive stocks:
Defensive stocks are the ones that are usually recession resistant. Industries which are basic to human needs or vices fall in this category. This includes sectors like electric and gas utilities, drugs, health care, food and FMCG. Demand for their products remains stable even in uncertain economic times. However, they might not have excellent growth rates.
Cyclical Stocks:
Cyclical stocks are the ones which may find favour in good times and suffer during bad times. As the name suggests, their revenues and profits are tied strongly to the economy and price fluctuates with the business cycle. This category includes stocks from sectors like automobile, airlines, chemical, railroads etc. Airlines, for example, tend to lose money during recession when people spend less on business and pleasure travel. It is wise to buy cyclicals during recession and sell them on recovery.
Income Stocks:
These are the stocks which consistently pay higher than average dividends. Investors (especially old and retired) find these attractive because of the cash-flow they generate. However, one must be cautious while buying such stocks as high dividend can be because of lack of future expansion plans. It is advisable to invest in quality growth stocks having trend of rising dividends.
Penny Stocks:
Penny stocks are the ones which are of lower denomination in terms of stock price. They are often mistaken to be 'cheaper' than higher priced stocks, which may not be the case. Also, they are more risky to invest in. While some penny stocks may rise decently in value, many of the companies never see profits. One may seldom find sufficient information to evaluate them properly.
One cannot draw a clear line between the categories as overlaps are bound to occur. Some 'high -growth' stocks can be 'income' as well. Similarly some 'value' stocks can be 'defensive' and some 'penny' can be 'value' as well. However, we hope this broad categorization will assist investors in knowing which kind of stock they own or are interested in. It can help them make a more informed decision about buying, selling or holding the stock.
Food sales drive growth at Greene King
It's the food not the beer which is apparently driving profits at pubs group Greene King.
The company said like for like sales growth in its retail division - its main pubs business in other words - had grown by 4.6% but food sales were up 9.2%. Overall, half year profits climbed 2.8% to £62.4m. Chief executive Rooney Anand said:
Having detected the warning signs in the autumn of 2007, we acted quickly and decisively to adapt our offer to consumers to reflect their flight to value, to increase our focus and investment in strategically important growth categories such as food, wine and coffee.
It said that since the half year, the current strong trading had continued. It warned more companies were likely to fail during the recession, but Greene King would continue to prosper.
It has bough seven pubs in Scotland for £12.7m from Mitchells & Butlers, and more acquisitions are on the cards, either individual pubs or small packages. In a buy note Oriel Securities said:
This is a sound well managed company which looks undervalued on a PE of 9.2 times and a yield of 5.2%, which is 2.1 times covered by earnings ( based on our forecast of £122m for 2009/10).
Investec kept a hold recommendation on the business, but was still relatively positive:
Interims are in line across every division and current trading remains very robust. The shares have underperformed the All Share by 22% over the last three months, which seems a little unfair given the sector-leading operational performance and secured financing. Greene King is well placed to benefit from the current sector fallout, in our view, and this is illustrated by this solid set of results. We retain our estimates, hold recommendation and 430p target price.
In the market Greene King bubbled up 23.7p to 425p.
The company said like for like sales growth in its retail division - its main pubs business in other words - had grown by 4.6% but food sales were up 9.2%. Overall, half year profits climbed 2.8% to £62.4m. Chief executive Rooney Anand said:
Having detected the warning signs in the autumn of 2007, we acted quickly and decisively to adapt our offer to consumers to reflect their flight to value, to increase our focus and investment in strategically important growth categories such as food, wine and coffee.
It said that since the half year, the current strong trading had continued. It warned more companies were likely to fail during the recession, but Greene King would continue to prosper.
It has bough seven pubs in Scotland for £12.7m from Mitchells & Butlers, and more acquisitions are on the cards, either individual pubs or small packages. In a buy note Oriel Securities said:
This is a sound well managed company which looks undervalued on a PE of 9.2 times and a yield of 5.2%, which is 2.1 times covered by earnings ( based on our forecast of £122m for 2009/10).
Investec kept a hold recommendation on the business, but was still relatively positive:
Interims are in line across every division and current trading remains very robust. The shares have underperformed the All Share by 22% over the last three months, which seems a little unfair given the sector-leading operational performance and secured financing. Greene King is well placed to benefit from the current sector fallout, in our view, and this is illustrated by this solid set of results. We retain our estimates, hold recommendation and 430p target price.
In the market Greene King bubbled up 23.7p to 425p.
Business awards will 'boost profile'
Entering the Belfast Telegraph Northern Ireland Business Awards can boost staff morale and raise a company's profile, according to economist John Simpson.
The 2010 awards, in association with bmi, were launched last month, and will be awarded at a glittering ceremony at the Ramada Hotel on March 25 next year.
A total of 10 awards, including two new categories - excellence in technology and best small/medium sized business - are up for grabs. Head judge and Belfast Telegraph columnist John Simpson said there are compelling reasons to enter.
"Firstly, for many businesses it is a very useful way of creating team spirit as they put together bids and realise how their work has come together. So, internally it is good for morale," he said.
"Secondly, there is the acknowledgement they will get from customers, suppliers and interested people in the public - ranging from politicians and even appreciation from competitors."
Businesses keen to enter the competition must fufill certain criteria, but Mr Simpson notes they are essentially open to most successful firms in Northern Ireland. "It doesn't matter if you are small or big, if you have a long history or are only a few years in the marketplace. The only test question is do you meet the criteria?" he said.
Chaired by Mr Simpson, the panel of judges includes CBI chair Brian Ambrose; Invest NI chief executive Alastair Hamilton; Professor Rodney McAdam from the University of Ulster; chief executive of the NI Chamber of Commerce Ann McGregor; Brenda Morgan from bmi; Paul Rooney partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers and chair of Business in the Community; and Joanne Stuart, chair of the Institute of Directors NI.
"We are very pleased we have judges that represent a broad cross section of expertise and who come from leading business organisations, and therefore whose judgement will be respected by all who enter," said Mr Simpson.
For a full list of the award categories, rationale, criteria and rules go to www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk /business-awards or telephone Kathryn Kirk of JPR on 9076 0066. Application forms can be downloaded from the website.
Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/business-news/business-awards-will-boost-profile-14581618.html#ixzz0YTB1X1SR
The 2010 awards, in association with bmi, were launched last month, and will be awarded at a glittering ceremony at the Ramada Hotel on March 25 next year.
A total of 10 awards, including two new categories - excellence in technology and best small/medium sized business - are up for grabs. Head judge and Belfast Telegraph columnist John Simpson said there are compelling reasons to enter.
"Firstly, for many businesses it is a very useful way of creating team spirit as they put together bids and realise how their work has come together. So, internally it is good for morale," he said.
"Secondly, there is the acknowledgement they will get from customers, suppliers and interested people in the public - ranging from politicians and even appreciation from competitors."
Businesses keen to enter the competition must fufill certain criteria, but Mr Simpson notes they are essentially open to most successful firms in Northern Ireland. "It doesn't matter if you are small or big, if you have a long history or are only a few years in the marketplace. The only test question is do you meet the criteria?" he said.
Chaired by Mr Simpson, the panel of judges includes CBI chair Brian Ambrose; Invest NI chief executive Alastair Hamilton; Professor Rodney McAdam from the University of Ulster; chief executive of the NI Chamber of Commerce Ann McGregor; Brenda Morgan from bmi; Paul Rooney partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers and chair of Business in the Community; and Joanne Stuart, chair of the Institute of Directors NI.
"We are very pleased we have judges that represent a broad cross section of expertise and who come from leading business organisations, and therefore whose judgement will be respected by all who enter," said Mr Simpson.
For a full list of the award categories, rationale, criteria and rules go to www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk /business-awards or telephone Kathryn Kirk of JPR on 9076 0066. Application forms can be downloaded from the website.
Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/business-news/business-awards-will-boost-profile-14581618.html#ixzz0YTB1X1SR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
