Survey on the access to
finance of enterprises (SAFE)
Analytical Report 2014
Written by Sophie Doove, Petra Gibcus,
Ton Kwaak, Lia Smit, Tommy Span
November 2014
LEGAL NOTICE
This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.
© European Union, 2014
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry
Directorate D — Entrepreneurship & SMEs
Unit D.3 — SME Access to Finance
Contact: Maciej Otulak
E-mail: [email protected]
European Commission
B-1049 Brussels
Table of contents
1
Introduction
2
Recent needs for external financing
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Key findings
Why is external financing needed?
What sources of external finance are relevant?
What types of external financing were needed?
What type of external financing did SMEs apply for?
What affected the availability of funding?
3
Characteristics of recently obtained finance
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.1
Key findings
What sources of finance were used?
What amount of external finance was last obtained?
Which interest rate was charged for bank overdraft or credit line?
What was the total use of bank products?
4
Future needs for external finance
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Key findings
Do SMEs expect to grow?
What type of future financing is preferred?
What amount of future financing is needed?
What further drives future funding needs?
5
Funding climate
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
Key findings
91
How has the availability of funding changed?
92
Have external aspects affecting the availability of funding changed? 104
Are SMEs confident in talking with banks and investors?
115
What is the expected future availability of funding?
118
What has changed in the terms and conditions of bank financing?
129
6
The problems European SMEs face
6.1
6.2
Key findings
Where is access to finance a problem to SMEs?
Appendices
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
C10887 a
9
11
11
12
13
21
33
50
61
61
61
68
71
74
77
77
78
82
85
88
91
141
141
141
147
Methodological notes
Questionnaire
Glossary of terms
147
149
169
3
Summary
Introduction
Having access to finance is an important determinant for enterprises’ development.
SMEs face difference challenges when accessing finance than large scale enterprises
(LSEs), for instance because LSEs have direct access to capital markets whereas SMEs
often do not. The specific financing needs of SMEs warrant specific policy actions. In
view of this, in 2008, the ECB and DG Enterprises and Industry of the European
Commission established the Survey on the Access to Finance of Enterprises (SAFE).
These surveys, conducted across the EU Member States and some additional countries
have been held in June-July 2009, in August-October 2011, in August-October 2013,
and in September 2014. The latter survey round covers the EU-28 Member States,
Iceland and Montenegro. The current report discusses the results of the September
2014 survey round and presents significant developments over time.
The problems European SMEs face
In 2014, but also in 2013, finding customers was the most pressing problem amongst
SMEs in EU-28. From the items in the questionnaire, SMEs on average rated access to
finance as the fifth most pressing problem they faced; still 14% of the SMEs mention
access to finance as the most pressing problem. SMEs experience this problem the
most pressing in Cyprus, Greece and Slovenia; and the least pressing in Sweden, the
Czech Republic and Denmark.
Comparing across different types of enterprises, SMEs in construction considered the
problem of access to finance the most pressing. Micro enterprises consider the
problem of access to finance the most pressing, whereas large enterprises find it least
pressing. More innovative enterprises experience more access to finance problems
than less innovative enterprises.
Recent needs for external financing
The prime business factors that determine the needs of EU-28 SMEs’ for external
financing are fixed investments and inventory and working capital.
SMEs prefer to use debt instruments such as bank overdraft and credit lines, bank
loans and trade credit most often. Both equity and especially debt securities are
needed by substantially fewer SMEs. This translates to two out of five SMEs, that
consider the specific type of finance relevant to their enterprise, actually applying for
bank loans, trade credit and overdraft and credit lines. Acceptation rates for such
applications were highest for trade credit. The larger the enterprises, the higher the
proportions of enterprises applying for these types of financing. The proportion of
actual acceptations also increases with size class. Acceptation rates are highest in
industry and lowest in construction. Innovative SMEs apply more often for such types
of financing than non-innovative SMEs do, however the rejection rate is also higher
among innovative enterprises.
Various factors affect the external financing available to SMEs in the European Union.
SMEs believe that their own credit history, their own capital and their firm-specific
outlook have changed in such a way as to improve their access to external finance.
SMEs consider the general economic outlook and its impact on their access to finance
negative. Hence, SMEs are more positive about their own business performance and
its impact on the availability of external financing than about outside factors
influencing this business performance.
4
C10887 a
Characteristics of recently obtained finance
For acquiring funds, debt financing is the most frequently used method by European
SMEs between April and September 2014. Internal funds are used by 14% of the
SMEs, whereas equity financing is used by only a very small number. SMEs in the
industry sector tend to be more involved in financing activities than SMEs active in
construction, trade and services. Also, there is a positive correlation between
enterprise size and financing: larger enterprises more often apply for external finance
than smaller ones. The same holds for innovative enterprises in comparison with noninnovative enterprises.
Future needs for external finance
Expected growth
In 2014, more than half of SMEs in EU-28 expected their company’s turnover to grow
over the next two or three years. Almost one third of the SMEs expected their
company to remain the same size, while one out of ten SMEs was expecting turnover
to decrease. Over the last few years SMEs in EU-28 became more positive about
expected growth.
There were large differences between European countries. In 2014, SMEs were the
most optimistic about their prospect in Lithuania and were the most pessimistic in
Spain and Greece.
In 2014, the prospects regarding growth in turnover varied slightly between sectors.
SMEs in industry were most optimistic and SMEs in construction were least optimistic.
In 2014, the proportion of enterprises expecting to grow over the next two or three
years increased with enterprise size. However, the proportion of enterprises that
expected to grow substantially decreased with enterprise size.
In 2014, innovative SMEs were more optimistic about their future growth than noninnovative enterprises.
Type of future funding
Among SMEs in EU-28 that expected to grow in the next two or three years, bank
loans were the most preferred type of external financing in 2014. The second most
preferred type of funding were other sources such as trade credit or loans from
related companies, shareholders or public sources. Equity investment was the least
preferred type of funding among SMEs with the ambition to grow.
In 2014, in all countries except in Hungary, half or more than half of the SMEs
preferred bank loans, making bank loans the most preferred type of external financing
in all countries. In most European countries, equity investments was not a very
popular source of external financing among SMEs.
In 2014, preferences did not differ significantly across sectors, size classes and levels
of innovativeness.
Amount of future funding
In 2014, most SMEs expecting growth would like to acquire financing between 25,000
Euro and 99,999 Euro (25%). Around 13% of SMEs would aim at obtaining less than
25,000 Euro, 19% would like to obtain 100,000 Euro to 249,999 Euro, 18% would aim
at obtaining 250,000 Euro to 1 million Euro and 14% would aim at obtaining more
than 1 million Euro to finance their growth ambitions.
There were large differences between countries regarding the amount of finance
needed. SMEs in Luxembourg would like to obtain the highest levels of funding
C10887 a
5
whereas SMEs in Portugal aimed to obtain the lowest amount of funding. In 2014, the
required amount of finance SMEs varies between sectors. SMEs in industry aimed to
acquire higher levels of external financing. Within the category of SMEs, the amount
of funding aimed to obtain increased with enterprise size. In 2014, innovative SMEs
indicated slightly higher amounts of required funding than non-innovative SMEs did.
Drivers of future funding
In all countries, making existing public measures easier to obtain finance or tax
incentives, was indicated as the most important driver for improving the access to
future financing. The only two exceptions were Sweden and Czech Republic where
SMEs perceived making existing public measures easier to obtain finance and the
provision of guaranteed loans as the most important drivers. In all countries except in
Croatia and Greece, measures to facilitate equity investments and export credits or
guarantees, were perceived as the least important drivers.
The ranking of the six drivers affecting future funding was similar for each sector and
enterprise sizes. The ranking was also stable over time.
Funding climate
C h a n g e s i n t h e av a i l a b il i t y o f f u n d in g
For all types of funding a substantial number of SMEs reported that they could not
give their opinion on recent changes in the availability of funding, because this simply
did not apply to them. Most SMEs that did give their opinion indicated that they did
not experience changes in the availability of equity, bank loans, bank overdraft, trade
credit and other sources.
In 2014, the greatest positive balance between SMEs that experienced improvement
and SMEs that experienced deterioration was for equity and trade credit (7%) and
other types of financing (6%).
C h a n g e s i n e x te r n al a sp e c t s a f fe c ti n g t he a v a il a b i l i t y o f fu n d i n g
Also for all external aspects affecting the availability of funding a substantial number
of SMEs reported that they could not give an opinion about changes in the availability,
specifically on the effect of investors investing in equity or securities and the effect of
public financing support. Those SMEs that were able to report changes in the
availability of funding mostly experienced no changes in the willingness of business
partners and banks to provide finance and the access to public financial support.
In 2014, positive balances existed for the willingness of business partners to provide
trade credit(8%), the willingness of investors to invest (3%) and the willingness of
banks to provide loans (3%). SMEs were strongly negative about public financial
support, with a negative balance of -16%. Also about the access to public financial
support (-13%) and the willingness of banks to provide loans (-11%), SMEs were
negative.
C o n f i d e n c e i n t a l k i n g wi t h b a n k s an d i n ve s t or s
In 2014, about two third of SMEs in the EU-28 felt confident enough to talk with banks
about financing and obtaining desired results. However, a quarter of the SMEs did not.
In the same year, 20% of SMEs felt confident in discussing financing and obtaining the
desired results with equity investors and venture capital enterprises, while 32% did
not feel confident. Half of the SMEs indicated this was not applicable to them.
SMEs in Slovenia were most confident in talking about financing and obtaining desired
goals with banks and SMEs in Denmark were most confident in talking with investors.
SMEs in Greece were the least confident to talk with banks, while SMEs in Slovakia
6
C10887 a
and the Czech Republic were the least confident to talk with investors about these
things
E x p e c te d ch a n g e s i n av a i l a b i l i t y of f u n d in g
SMEs in the EU-28 were mostly positive regarding future changes in external financing
available to them. For each of the various types internal funds, equity, bank loans,
bank overdraft or credit line, trade credit, debt security and other funding sources, the
number of SMEs predicting improvement exceeded the number of SMEs predicting
deterioration of the availability. The highest balances among SMEs in the EU-28 were
for internal funds (16%), equity (11%) and trade credit (10%).
C h a n g e s i n t h e t e r m s an d c o n d i t i on s
In 2014, EU SMEs on balance experienced increased non-interest costs of financing as
well as increased collateral requirements. Conversely, on balance they experienced
decreased interest costs, which is a reverse of trends in 2009 -2013. Generally
speaking, developments have been more positive for larger enterprises than for
smaller ones.
C10887 a
7
1
Introduction
The extent to which enterprises have access to finance is an important determinant
for their development. It is known that SMEs 1 face difference challenges when
accessing finance than large scale enterprises (LSEs), for instance because LSEs have
direct access to capital markets whereas SMEs do not - or to a lesser extent. The
specific financing needs of SMEs warrant specific policy actions.
In 2008, the ECB end DG Enterprises and Industry of the European Commission
established the Survey on the Access to Finance of Enterprises (SAFE). These surveys,
conducted across the EU Member States and some additional countries have been held
in
June-July
2009,
in
August-October
2011,
in
August-October
2013,
and
in
September 2014. The latter survey round covers the EU-28 Member States and
Iceland and Montenegro. The current report discusses the results of the September
2014 survey round and presents significant developments over time.
This report is structured as follows. Chapter 2 presents information on SMEs recent
needs for external financing. In chapter 3 the characteristics of recently obtained
finance are discussed. Chapter 4 describes the expectations of SMEs on future
financing needs. In chapter 5 the funding climate for SMEs is discussed. Chapter 6
first presents how SMEs evaluate eight potential problems they may face when
accessing finance and then focuses on the importance of ‘access to finance’ as
perceived
by
European
SMEs.
The
appendices
present
the
relevant
technical
information on the 2014 SAFE survey round.
In principle results are presented for SMEs as a group. However, in most cases also a
distinction by enterprise category is presented, i.e.:
•
•
By sector of industry (industry, construction, trade, services);
By enterprise size class (micro, small, mediums-sized and large enterprises; hence
this is the only occasion that large enterprises enter the picture);
•
Innovative versus non-innovative SMEs 2.
1
In this report SMEs are defined as enterprises with 1-249 employees (hence, enterprises with no paid staff are
excluded); large scale enterprises (LSEs) are enterprises with at least 250+ employees. Within SMEs, a
distinction is made between micro enterprises (1 -9 employees), small enterprises (10 -49 employees) and
medium-sized enterprises (50 -249 employees)
2
Innovative SMEs are defined as reportedly having introduced innovation in at least one area, such as products,
services, marketing, production or management.
C10887 a
9
2
Recent needs for external financing
This first chapter describes the need for external financing of SMEs in EU-28 in the
period between April and September 2014. The chapter is structured chronologically.
First, it analyses the determinants of the need for external financing by detailing how
business factors affecting this need have changed. Second, it focuses on the various
types of external financing that are relevant. Third, the changes in the need of these
various types of external financing are described. Fourth, it describes the types of
external financing SMEs actually applied for and their success rates. Finally, the
chapter ends with a description of the factors that according to the SMEs have
determined the availability of external financing.
Each issue is discussed in a separate section. The sections are - when relevant - setup as follows. The needs for finance in the period April -September 2014 for SMEs at
the EU-28 level are first compared to financing needs reported in the previous survey
rounds. Subsequently focus is on differences between the individual Member States
and Iceland and Montenegro. Finally, level differences among enterprises based on
sector, size class and innovativeness are analysed at EU-28 level.
2.1
Key findings
The three prime business factors that determine the needs of EU-28 SMEs’ for external
financing are fixed investments and inventory and working capital.
SMEs prefer to use debt instruments such as bank overdraft and credit lines, bank
loans and trade credit most often. Both equity and especially debt securities are
needed by substantially fewer SMEs. This translates to two out of five SMEs, that
consider the specific type of finance relevant to their enterprise, actually applying for
bank loans, trade credit and overdraft and credit lines. Acceptation rates for such
applications were highest for trade credit. The larger the enterprises become, the
higher the proportions of enterprises that apply for these types of financing. The
proportion of actual acceptations also increases with size class. Acceptation rates are
highest in industry and lowest in construction. Innovative SMEs apply more often for
such types of financing than non-innovative SMEs do, however the rejection rate is
also higher among innovative enterprises.
Various factors affect the external financing available to SMEs in the European Union.
SMEs believe that their own credit history, their own capital and their firm-specific
outlook have changed in such a way as to improve their access to external finance.
SMEs were less positive on the general economic outlook and its impact on their
access to finance, considering it to be negative. Hence, SMEs are more positive about
their own business performance and its impact on the availability of external financing
than about outside factors influencing this business performance.
C10887 a
11
2.2
Why is external financing needed?
Corporate finance refers to the choices businesses make regarding the manner in
which they try to obtain the funds required for the day-to-day business operation and
to invest in diverse assets such as the necessary machinery, inventories and in the
company brand. The capital structure of an enterprise reflects the financing choices
made and is typically characterised by the dichotomy between equity and debt. Equity
consists of retained earnings from profits the business generates and of proportions of
the business that are issued to investors. Debt refers to funds that are borrowed from
a creditor and which need to be repaid at a future point in time.
I n te r n a l ve r s u s e x te r n al f i n a n ci n g
The choice of funding can also be divided by source: internal and external financing.
Internal funding consists of the part of equity finance that is generated by internal
cash flows and that results in retained earnings. External funding consists of the
remainder of equity finance and of debt finance and is supplied by financiers outside
of the enterprise. Most enterprises will prefer the financial slack that allows them to
finance their investments internally as external financing is often based on the
financiers’ terms and conditions and more expensive 3. The European Survey on the
Access to Finance of Enterprises focuses on external financing.
P u r p o se o f t h e e x te r n al f i n a n ci n g t o b e a t tr a ct e d
In figure 1, six purposes of external financing for small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) in the 28 countries of the European Union (EU-28) 4 are presented. These six
purposes
are
comprised
of
fixed
investments;
inventory
and
working
capital;
refinancing or paying off obligations; innovation; human resource management; and a
final category of unidentified remaining purposes.
figure 1
purpose for which external financing has been used by SMEs in EU-28 in 2014
0%
10%
20%
Fixed investment
40%
30%
Inventory and working capital
28%
Other
12%
Refinancing or paying off obligations
11%
Developing and launching new products or
services
10%
Hiring and training of employees
30%
8%
Q6A: For what purpose was external financing used by your enterprise during the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
3
This is in accordance with the pecking-order theory expanded upon by Myers (1984). Its theoretical framework
suggests a decision-rule in which enterprises will prefer to finance their investments using internal finance
above all. When they cannot and need to attract external funding, they will prefer debt over issuing equity.
4
Note that in the preceding survey wave held in the autumn of 2013, this question has only been posed to the
countries that together comprise the Eurozone. This may explain part of the observed variations from year to
year and is the reason why more detailed analyses (on country- or business characteristic-level) have been
omitted.
12
C10887 a
2.3
What sources of external finance are relevant?
The extent to which SMEs in EU-28 consider various funding sources relevant to them
is presented in figure 2. Bank loans and bank overdraft or credit line are mentioned by
more than half of the respondents; also leasing and hire purchase rank high. These
three categories also rank in the top-4 of sources actually used (section 0); retained
earnings or sale of assets ranked third in the sources actually used, but is deemed
relevant by only 25% of the SMEs. Other loans, equity , factoring, debt securities and
other sources is mentioned as relevant by less than 20% of the SMEs; this result is
roughly consistent with the actual use of sources.
figure 2
Relevance of financing types for SMEs in EU-28, in 2014
0%
20%
40%
60%
bank loan
57%
bank overdraft or credit line
53%
leasing or hire-purchase
47%
trade credit
33%
grants or subsidised bank loan
32%
retained earnings or sale of assets
25%
other loan
19%
equity
16%
other sources
11%
factoring
11%
debt securities
4%
Q4: Are the following sources of financing relevant to your firm, that is, have you used them in the past or
considered using them in the future?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
2 . 3 . 1 R e le v a nc e o f i n te r n a l fu n d s ( r e t a in e d e a r n in gs o r s a le a ss e t s )
On average, 25% of the EU-28 consider retained earnings or sale assets a relevant
source. There is however significant cross-country variation in this result (figure 3). In
Malta, Lithuania and Iceland, more than 40% of the SMEs consider internal funds as a
relevant source. At the other and of the scale, less than 15% of the SMEs in Greece,
Denmark, Netherlands, Poland, Montenegro and Portugal consider internal funding as
relevant. SMEs in industry and construction consider internal finance as more relevant
to them as do SMEs in trade and services (figure 4). The relevance of internal funds is
positively correlated with enterprise size; in micro enterprises it is below average,
whereas 43% of the large enterprises consider internal finance relevant. Innovative
enterprises consider internal finance more relevant as non-innovative enterprises.
These results are broadly consistent with the actual use of internal finance (section
3.2.1).
C10887 a
13
figure 3
Relevance of internal funds for SMEs in the EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro, by country in 2014
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Malta
42%
Lithuania
42%
Iceland
41%
Estonia
39%
Luxembourg
37%
Ireland
37%
Sweden
36%
Bulgaria
35%
Cyprus
35%
France
34%
Croatia
31%
United Kingdom
29%
Slovenia
28%
Finland
28%
Slovakia
27%
Hungary
26%
Czech Republic
26%
Austria
26%
Italy
25%
Spain
25%
total
25%
EU-28
25%
Germany
24%
Romania
22%
Latvia
19%
Belgium
17%
Greece
14%
Denmark
13%
Netherlands
13%
Poland
13%
Montenegro
Portugal
11%
8%
Q4. Are the following sources of financing relevant to your firm, that is, have you used them in the past or
considered using them in the future? (Retained earnings or sale of assets)
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
14
C10887 a
figure 4
Relevance of internal funds for enterprises in the EU-28 in 2014, by enterprise characteristic
50%
43%
40%
33%
30%
30%
27%
28%
24%
25%
22%
20%
27%
22%
25%
17%
10%
0%
Q4. Are the following sources of financing relevant to your firm, that is, have you used them in the past or
considered using them in the future? (Retained earnings or sale of assets)
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
2 . 3 . 2 R e le v a nc e o f d e b t f in an c e
Debt(bank overdraft or credit line, leasing or hire-purchase, factoring , trade credit,
bank loan , other loan, grants or subsidised bank loan and debt securities issued taken
together) is considered relevant by the vast majority of European SMEs (figure 5);
cross-country variation is somewhat limited as even in Hungary still 74% of the SMEs
consider debt finance a relevant source. Looking at sectors of industry, SMEs in
industry and construction consider debt financing more often relevant than SMEs in
trade and services (figure 6).The variation across enterprise size is larger: the
relevance of debt financing is considered smallest in micro enterprises, and largest in
large enterprises. Also innovative SMEs consider debt financing more relevant than
non-innovative SMEs. These results are roughly consistent with the actual use of debt
financing (section 3.2.2).
C10887 a
15
figure 5
Relevance of debt financing for SMEs in the EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro by country, sorted
from high to low based on the 2014 proportion
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Iceland
94%
Malta
93%
Ireland
93%
Cyprus
92%
France
91%
Greece
91%
Latvia
89%
United Kingdom
89%
Portugal
88%
Spain
87%
Italy
87%
Sweden
87%
total
86%
EU-28
86%
Czech Republic
85%
Germany
85%
Finland
85%
Denmark
85%
Bulgaria
84%
Austria
83%
Poland
83%
Belgium
82%
Luxembourg
82%
Slovenia
81%
Romania
81%
Netherlands
81%
Lithuania
81%
Montenegro
81%
Slovakia
80%
Estonia
Croatia
Hungary
79%
78%
74%
Q4. Are the following sources of financing relevant to your firm, that is, have you used them in the past or
considered using them in the future? Please provide a separate answer in each case. (Debt: bank overdraft or
credit line + leasing or hire-purchase +factoring + trade credit + bank loan + other loan + grants or
subsidised bank loan + debt securities issued)
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
16
C10887 a
figure 6
Relevance of debt financing for enterprises in the EU-28 in 2014, by enterprise characteristic
100%
90%
92%
92%
90%
89%
88%
89%
86%
85% 85%
81%
86%
82%
80%
70%
Q4. Are the following sources of financing relevant to your firm, that is, have you used them in the past or
considered using them in the future? Please provide a separate answer in each case. (Debt: bank overdraft or
credit line + leasing or hire-purchase +factoring + trade credit + bank loan + other loan + grants or
subsidised bank loan + debt securities issued)
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
2 . 3 . 3 R e le v a nc e o f e q u i ty
As can be seen from figure 7, on average, 16% of the EU-28 SMEs consider equity a
relevant source (whereas only 3% actually used it between April and September
2014).There is however considerable variation across countries. In Iceland, Sweden,
Slovakia and Lithuania, more than 50% of the SMEs consider equity as a relevant
source of funding. On the other hand, in Poland, Montenegro, Italy, the Netherlands,
Hungary and the Czech republic this is only the case for less than 10% of the SMEs.
In figure 8, a breakdown by enterprise characteristic is presented. The relevance of
equity does not vary much across SMEs in the various sectors of industry. Enterprise
size appears to be a relevant source of variation; particularly large enterprises
consider equity as a relevant funding source. Also, more innovative SMEs consider
equity as relevant than non-innovative SMEs. These results are broadly consistent
with the actual use of equity financing (section 3.2.3)
C10887 a
17
figure 7
Relevance of equity for SMEs in the EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro by country, sorted from
high to low based on the 2014 proportion
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Iceland
80%
68%
Sweden
66%
Slovakia
59%
Lithuania
53%
Denmark
48%
Malta
39%
Cyprus
35%
Luxembourg
32%
Latvia
32%
Greece
30%
Slovenia
28%
France
27%
Portugal
22%
Finland
21%
Ireland
19%
Croatia
18%
total
16%
EU-28
16%
United Kingdom
15%
Germany
14%
Belgium
14%
Estonia
12%
Romania
11%
Spain
10%
Austria
10%
Bulgaria
10%
Poland
8%
Montenegro
7%
Italy
Netherlands
70%
6%
4%
Hungary
2%
Czech Republic
2%
Q4. Are the following sources of financing relevant to your firm, that is, have you used them in the past or
considered using them in the future? (equity)
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
18
C10887 a
figure 8
Relevance of equity for enterprises in the EU-28 in 2014, by enterprise characteristic
30%
24%
20%
16% 16%
15%
17%
16%
18%
14%
18%
16%
16%
13%
10%
0%
Q4. Are the following sources of financing relevant to your firm, that is, have you used them in the past or
considered using them in the future? (equity)
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
2 . 3 . 4 W h a t i s t he m o s t i m p or t a n t r e a s on f o r n o t con s i d e r i n g
ba n k l o a n s r e l e v a n t ?
In addition, figure 9 provides insight in the reasons why SMEs may not consider bank
loans relevant. 67% of the SMEs that do not consider bank loans relevant do so
because they do not have a need for a bank loan. 11% consider the costs of loans too
high, an additional 5% cannot provide sufficient collateral or guarantee, and 6%
report that no loan is available. Other reasons are reduced control, while also 4%
reports that too much paperwork is connected.
figure 9
Most important reason why bank loans are not relevant for SMEs in EU-28, in 2014
no need for bank loans
1% 5%
4%
high interest rates or price
5%
no bank loans available
6%
insufficient collateral or guarantee
11%
paperwork
67%
reduced control
other
na/dk
Q32. You mentioned that bank loans are not relevant for your enterprise. What is the most important reason
for this?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
C10887 a
19
figure 10
Most important reason why bank loans are not relevant for SMEs in EU-28, Iceland and
Montenegro, by country in 2014 5
0%
25%
75%
50%
Sweden
100%
1%4%2% 6%
86%
Denmark
84%
Finland
79%
Germany
78%
Belgium
77%
Netherlands
76%
Malta
76%
3% 6%
5%
4%
5% 3% 4% 5%
3%
3% 5% 3% 2% 7%
7% 3% 2% 7%
3%
4% 3%3%6%
10%
Luxembourg
74%
8%
2% 9%
Czech Republic
74%
8%
3% 4% 4%
Austria
73%
4% 4% 5% 3%
Ireland
72%
5%
Spain
3%
1% 5% 4% 2%6%
81%
United Kingdom
3%
7%
70%
4%
9%
3% 4% 5%
10%
12%
3% 4%
6%
5%
5%
Iceland
68%
Estonia
68%
EU-28
67%
11%
6%
5% 4% 5%
total
67%
11%
6%
5% 4% 5%
Latvia
58%
Italy
58%
Poland
57%
France
54%
Slovakia
53%
Hungary
52%
Croatia
Greece
Montenegro
3% 4%
10%
4%
19%
8%
10%
20%
14%
46%
9%
34%
39%
7%
35%
34%
9%
4%
5%
3%
3% 8%
8%
9%
12%
49%
2%
12%
5%
23%
3%
12%
5% 3% 6%
30%
26%
3%4%
12%
7%
35%
40%
4%
14%
28%
22%
9%
3% 6% 4%
3%
4%
5% 3% 4%
4% 5%
8%
6%
3% 4%
13%
11%
18%
47%
Bulgaria
Cyprus
8%
9%
4% 4% 4%
25%
50%
Slovenia
13%
18%
60%
Lithuania
Romania
11%
63%
Portugal
3%
27%
4%
5%
12%
6%
6%
5% 4%
7%
no need for bank loans
high interest rates or price
no bank loans available
insufficient collateral or guarantee
paperwork
reduced control
other
na/dk
6%
Q32. You mentioned that bank loans are not relevant for your enterprise. What is the most important reason
for this?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
5
Please note that the unweighted number of observations was relatively low in Cyprus at 29 observations.
These results should be interpreted with care. These results should be interpreted with care.
20
C10887 a
figure 10 present the reasons why SMEs not consider bank loans relevant in the EU28, Montenegro and Iceland by country. In all countries, except Montenegro the most
important reason is that SMEs do not need bank loans. In the Scandinavian countries
even more than 80% of the SMEs indicated this to be the reason for not considering
bank loans relevant. In Montenegro, high interest rates or price was the most
important reason for bank loans not being relevant (for 49% of the SMEs). Also in
Bulgaria (35%) and Romania (34%) this is a relatively important reason. The
unavailability of bank loans is a rather important reason in Cyprus (30%) and Greece
(23%). Insufficient collateral or guarantee, paperwork and reduced control are in all
countries
less
important
reason
for
the
irrelevance
of
bank
loans
for
SMEs.
Insufficient collateral or guarantee was in comparison to other countries the most
important in Hungary (14%), Estonia (13%) and Cyprus (12%). The paperwork was
with respect to the other countries the most important in Lithuania (13%). Relative to
the other countries was reduced control the most important in Cyprus, Croatia,
Slovakia and France (all 12%).
2.4
What types of external financing were needed?
From the discussion in the previous section it follows that in 2014 SMEs mostly
needed financing for fixed investments and working capital. This section will now focus
on the types of external financing SMEs in the EU-28 prefer to attract, by first
presenting overall preferences for the EU-28 over time and subsequently providing
more detail on four types by country and characteristic.
D e b t v e r s u s e q u i ty f i n an c i n g
The types of external funding that enterprises can obtain can roughly be divided into
either equity financing or debt financing. The amount of debt financing in an
enterprise’s capital structure is also referred to as its leverage since it is a way of
potentially generating more earnings with limited funds: attracting more debt allows a
business to expand its operations beyond the equity financing it is able to bring to the
table. Debt and equity financing differ substantially in their nature and it will not
always be in the best interest of an enterprise to incessantly increase its debt
financing.
One of the key differences between these two broad types of financing regards the
resulting future payments that flow to the financiers. When an enterprise chooses to
employ debt financing it commits itself to paying a future sum equal to the amount
borrowed plus an interest charge. This is a fixed claim on the enterprise. When an
enterprise opts to obtain equity funding, its shareholders are entitled to a residual
claim: the shareholders receive what is left of earnings after all debt obligations have
been paid. When earnings are not higher than the debt obligations, the shareholders
will receive nothing. When earnings are higher than the debt obligations, the residual
will flow to the shareholders, either directly in the form of dividends, or indirectly in
the form of increased share prices.
When
an
enterprise
becomes
more
leveraged,
its
debt
obligations
increase
correspondingly and so do the associated risks. When debt obligations are not met, an
enterprise may experience financial distress, potentially leading to bankruptcy.
Financial distress costs include, but are not limited to: legal costs, the costs of lost
business and difficulty in attracting external financing. Furthermore, when financial
distress results in bankruptcy the claims from shareholders are transferred to the
debtors. Too much debt may thus lead to real economic costs to the business and is
likely to make it more difficult to attract external funding: both equity and debt.
C10887 a
21
D e b t fi n a n ci n g u s in g ba n k l o a n s an d o v e r d r a ft a r e m o s t p o p u l a r
Changes in the EU-28 SMEs’ needs for different types of financing are presented in
figure 11, grouped by type ranging from equity, debt and other types of external
financing. Please note that in 2014 a new filter was introduced in the questionnaire,
which should be taken into account when making comparisons across years. The
percentages in this section relate to the SMEs in the EU-28 that indicated that the
corresponding source of finance is relevant to their enterprise. The figure shows that
these SMEs’ needs for equity financing further increased in the half year between April
and September 2014 in compared to the 2013 survey round, with the net effect
increasing from 2% in the preceding survey round to 8% in the current. Trade credit
and bank overdraft, credit line or credit card overdraft are the two most popular types
of debt financing and SMEs’ needs for the two were characterised by a positive net
impact of 13% and 10% respectively in 2014. For trade credit, this means a positive
change when compared to the two preceding survey years, while the positive balance
for bank overdraft has decreased in size.
The figure shows a clear preference for various types of external financing: bank
loans, bank overdraft, credit line or credit card overdraft and trade credit are used by
over 90% of the EU-28 SMEs to which this type of financing is relevant. The use of
other types of external financing has increased from 53% in 2009 to 77% in 2014,
partially pointing to an increased importance of non-standard financial products for
enterprises looking to finance their investments and operations. Debt securities are
used least often.
The results are partly in line with the pecking order theory, which suggests that when
a business needs to attract external financing, it will do so by attracting the safest
types first. In this sense, (issuing) debt is safer and cheaper than equity. Hence, bank
loans, overdraft and trade credit take preference over equity.
22
C10887 a
figure 11
Changes in the need for various types of external financing (left) and the balance between the
categories increased and decreased (right) for the period 2009-2014, sorted by equity, debt and
other. The proportions relate to SMEs that indicated that the corresponding source of finance is
relevant to their enterprise.
0%
25%
bank overdraft or
credit line
bank loans
equity
2014
2013
2011
2009
20%
2013
20%
2011
20%
2014
trade credit
5%
19%
16%
15%
4%
17%
8%
5%
25%
56%
15%
48%
28%
1%
8%
16%
49%
27%
2011
2%
1%
52%
48%
15%
50%
4%
10%
11%
12%
10%
13%
15%
2009
0%
24%
2013
2013
2011
2009
2011
2009
11%
58%
19%
10%
58%
10%
8%
7%
54%
7%
1%
28%
2%
2%
35%
-1 %
9%
8%
6%
45%
increased
0%
69%
51%
11%
remained unchanged
0%
48%
40%
5%
10%
3%
43%
5%
17%
12%
15%
30%
5%
40%
13%
10%
39%
8%
46%
6%
13%
8%
45%
6%
2014
2013
58%
19%
2011
2009
20%
8%
56%
25%
2013
10%
41%
49%
18%
0%
20%
40%
5%
3%
37%
2014
2014
debt securities
5%
45%
4%
2009
6%
47%
10%
100%-10%
75%
61%
7%
2014
other
50%
14%
2%
decreased
23%
40%
47%
47%
7%
4%
5%
3%
not applicable
Note: In 2014 a new filter was introduced in the SAFE questionnaire. This filter was simulated in the data of
the previous survey rounds, nevertheless one should be cautious when making comparisons across years.
Q5: For each of the following types of external financing, please indicate if your needs increased, remained
unchanged or decreased over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2009-2014; edited by Panteia.
2.4.1 Bank loans
More detail is provided on four important types of financing: bank loans, bank
overdraft, equity and trade credit. Differences between SMEs in the EU-28 countries,
Iceland and Montenegro are specified, followed by differences in characteristics of
enterprises. Bank loans are the first type of external financing to be discussed.
Changes in SMEs’ needs for bank loans are presented in figure 12. The proportions in
the figure relate to SMEs that considered bank loans relevant to their enterprise.
C10887 a
23
figure 12
Changes in the need for bank loans (left) and the balance between the categories increased and
decreased (right) for SMEs in the EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro, by country, sorted from high
to low based on the balance, in 2014. The proportions relate to SMEs that indicated that bank
loans are relevant to their enterprise.
0%
10%
20%
Montenegro
Greece
Malta
Slovenia
24%
Finland
20%
Belgium
24%
Sweden
23%
9%
8%
6%
9%
6%
2%
24%
17%
5%
10%
15%
4%
15%
52%
20%
12%
10%
10%
17%
3%
22%
48%
2%
21%
56%
17%
4%
16%
52%
15%
13%
8%
15%
52%
18%
20%
17%
3%
13%
45%
20%
5%
13%
50%
29%
25%
14%
51%
2%
8%
18%
67%
2%
6%
2%
2%
15%
2%
total
20%
52%
19%
8%
1%
EU-28
20%
52%
19%
8%
1%
Romania
Czech Republic
37%
13%
Denmark
19%
Spain
20%
Luxembourg
Austria
Portugal
Germany
17%
United Kingdom
20%
54%
17%
19%
23%
52%
24%
42%
increased
remained unchanged
27%
decreased
-4 %
-5 %
5%
8%
32%
46%
-1 %
-2 %
-2 %
7%
15%
56%
17%
4%
23%
51%
-1 %
10%
19%
51%
22%
8%
22%
48%
15%
0%
16%
51%
19%
16%
37%
60%
16%
Ireland
Netherlands
13%
15%
40%
27%
9%
11%
53%
20%
7%
7%
58%
24%
0%
10%
13%
56%
-20%
13%
53%
22%
100%
6%
6%
60%
25%
Estonia
10%
48%
23%
Iceland
90%
10%
61%
30%
Italy
80%
41%
24%
Bulgaria
70%
58%
32%
Croatia
France
60%
47%
23%
Hungary
Cyprus
50%
26%
Latvia
Poland
40%
35%
Lithuania
Slovakia
30%
38%
3%
9%
-6 %
-7 %
-1 0 %
-1 0 %
not applicable
Note: The reported balance may deviate from the category percentages reported in the bars due to rounding.
Q5a: For bank loans (excluding overdraft and credit lines), please indicate if your needs increased, remained
unchanged or decreased over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
24
C10887 a
figure 13
Net balance of the changes in the need for bank loans for SMEs in the EU-28, Iceland and
Montenegro, by country, sorted from high to low based on the balance, in 2014. The proportions
relate to SMEs that indicated that bank loans are relevant to their enterprise.
Q5a: For bank loans (excluding overdraft and credit lines), please indicate if your needs increased, remained
unchanged or decreased over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
20% of all SMEs in the 28 Member States of the European Union indicated that in the
half year between April and September 2014 their needs for external financing using
bank loans had increased. 19% indicated that their needs for this type of financing
had decreased, resulting in a 1% balance. The need for this type of financing has
increased most strongly in Montenegro (net impact 27%), Greece (25%) and Lithuania
(20%). A decreased need was observed in ten countries and was strongest in the
C10887 a
25
United Kingdom, the Netherlands (-10%) and Germany (-7%). This means that SMEs
in more countries experienced a net decreased need for bank loans than for overdraft
and credit lines between April and September 2014.
figure 14
Changes in the need for bank loans (left) and the balance between the categories increased and
decreased (right) for enterprises in the EU-28, by enterprise characteristic, sorted from high to
low based on the balance, in 2014. The proportions relate to enterprises that indicated that
bank loans are relevant to their enterprise.
0%
20%
industry
construction
sector
size
60%
23%
trade
20%
services
19%
1-9 employees
19%
10-49 employees
20%
50-249 employees
55%
52%
53%
56%
20%
total
19%
8%
20%
8%
52%
19%
8%
23%
20%
52%
remained unchanged
decreased
-5%
0%
5%
4%
- 1%
1%
- 1%
9%
7%
56%
increased
7%
23%
50%
20%
19%
48%
45%
17%
8%
8%
22%
non- innovative firms
19%
21%
26%
innovative firms
100%
16%
52%
22%
250+ employees
80%
50%
18%
SME
innovativeness
40%
3%
- 1%
0%
1%
3%
6%
2%
8%
19%
8%
19%
8%
- 2%
1%
na/dk
Q5a: For bank loans (excluding overdraft and credit lines), please indicate if your needs increased, remained
unchanged or decreased over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
Differences
in
the
needs
of
EU-28
enterprises
for
bank
loans
by
enterprise
characteristics are presented in figure 14. Again, the proportions relate to enterprises
that considered bank loans relevant. All results refer to SMEs except for data
presented by size class. Among the four sectors of the economy distinguished, the
need for bank loans increased most strongly among SMEs in industry, with a balance
between increased need and decreased need of 4%. The need for bank loans has
increased for innovative enterprises while for non-innovative enterprises it decreased.
Micro enterprises reported the largest net increases in the need for external financing
via bank loans between April and September 2014. The balance for this size class
amounted to 3%, compared to 1% for large and even -1% for small enterprises.
2 . 4 . 2 B a n k o v e r d r a f t , c r e d i t l i n e or cr e d i t c a r d s ov e r d r a f t
Bank overdraft, credit line or credit cards overdraft are the next type of external
financing to be discussed: first national differences between various countries are
zoomed in on, followed by differences among enterprise characteristics. Changes in
SMEs’ needs for bank overdraft, credit line and credit cards overdraft are presented in
figure 15. The proportions in the figure relate to SMEs that considered these financing
sources relevant.
figure 15
26
Changes in the need for bank overdraft, credit line or credit cards overdraft (left) and the
balance between the categories increased and decreased (right) for SMEs in the EU-28, Iceland
and Montenegro, by country, sorted from high to low based on the balance, in 2014. The
C10887 a
proportions relate to SMEs that indicated that credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards
overdraft are relevant to their enterprise.
0%
20%
10%
Greece
Estonia
Italy
Belgium
total
Netherlands
Luxembourg
29%
Finland
22%
22%
Czech Republic
United Kingdom
21%
Austria
20%
16%
24%
61%
18%
50%
24%
19%
49%
16%
remained unchanged
2%
6%
6%
4%
6%
4%
5%
2%
4%
7%
3%
10%
19%
decreased
7%
6%
3%
27%
61%
increased
2%
17%
55%
21%
Iceland
Germany
58%
7%
4%
11%
19%
7%
4%
15%
44%
7%
1%
15%
69%
Slovenia
Portugal
8%
3%
9%
53%
28%
10%
9%
22%
61%
22%
Sweden
4%
7%
16%
59%
25%
10%
10%
24%
48%
17%
Spain
3%
15%
72%
Slovakia
11%
4%
13%
58%
16%
11%
2%
17%
12%
13%
5%
15%
43%
15%
1%
17%
56%
23%
3%
12%
59%
16%
16%
10%
53%
21%
2%
14%
56%
25%
16%
12%
54%
22%
21%
1%
1%
13%
9%
59%
25%
25%
22%
4%
11%
66%
27%
EU-28
34%
27%
12%
55%
2%
-3 %
5%
-3 %
na/dk
Q5f: For credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards overdraft, please indicate if your needs increased, remained
unchanged or decreased over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia. The reported balance may deviate from the category percentages
reported in the bars due to rounding.
25% of those SMEs in the 28 EU Member States indicated that in the half year
between April and September 2014 their needs for external financing using bank
overdraft, credit line or credit cards overdraft had increased. 15% indicated that their
needs for this type of financing had decreased, resulting in a positive balance of 10%.
The need for this type of financing has increased most strongly in Greece (net impact
40%), Estonia (34%) and Montenegro (27%). A decreased need was observed in only
two countries, namely Iceland and Germany (both -3%).
C10887 a
40%
60%
40%
3% 3%
57%
28%
20%
5%
10%
54%
24%
0%
7%
56%
28%
Bulgaria
8%
59%
23%
-20%
5%
11%
65%
29%
Denmark
100%
5%
55%
24%
Hungary
90%
43%
32%
Croatia
80%
45%
28%
Lithuania
70%
45%
31%
Latvia
Ireland
60%
29%
France
Romania
50%
39%
Cyprus
Poland
40%
42%
Montenegro
Malta
30%
45%
27
figure 16
Changes in the need for bank overdraft, credit line or credit cards overdraft (left) and the
balance between the categories increased and decreased (right) for enterprises in the EU-28, by
enterprise characteristics, sorted from high to low based on the balance, in 2014. The
proportions relate to enterprises that indicated that credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards
overdraft are relevant to their enterprise.
0%
innovativeness
size
sector
industry
construction
trade
20%
14%
10-49 employees
14%
50-249 employees
13%
SME
14%
4%
59%
11%
1-9 employees
80%
62%
14%
14%
6%
60%
innovative firms
16%
6%
63%
10%
65%
14%
61%
increased
remained unchanged
decreased
17%
12%
10%
10%
14%
8%
5%
10%
20%
6%
59%
8%
21%
3%
67%
16%
17%
20%
21%
6%
61%
10%
19%
7%
59%
0%
22%
6%
58%
100%
21%
7%
62%
250+ employees
total
60%
16%
services
non- innovative firms
40%
15%
6%
20%
5%
20%
6%
20%
3%
11%
8%
10%
na/dk
Q5f: For credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards overdraft, please indicate if your needs increased, remained
unchanged or decreased over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
Differences in the needs of EU-28 enterprises by enterprise characteristics are
presented in figure 16. The proportions in the figure relate to SMEs that considered
credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards overdraft relevant. All results are for SMEs
except when presented by size class. Among the four sectors of the economy
distinguished, the need for bank overdraft, credit line and credit cards overdraft
increased most strongly in construction, with a net positive impact at 12%. The need
for overdraft and credit line has increased more strongly for innovative enterprises
than for non-innovative enterprises.
Micro (1-9 employees) and small (10-49 employees) enterprises reported the
strongest net increases in the need for external financing via overdraft and credit line
in the half year between April and September 2014. The balance for these two size
classes were 14% and 8% respectively, compared to 5% for medium-sized (50-249
employees) and 3% for large (at least 250 employees) enterprises.
28
C10887 a
2.4.3 Equity
Another type of external financing to be discussed is trade credit: first national
differences are zoomed in on, followed by differences due to enterprise characteristics.
Changes in SMEs’ needs for equity are presented in figure 17. The proportions in the
figure relate to only those SMEs that considered equity capital relevant to their
enterprise.
figure 17
Changes in the need for equity (left) and the balance between the categories increased and
decreased (right) for SMEs in the EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro, by country, sorted from high
to low based on the balance, in 2014. The proportions relate to SMEs that indicated that equity
capital is relevant to their enterprise. 6
0%
10%
Estonia
20%
Greece
50%
60%
Latvia
Lithuania
21%
Slovenia
Finland
5%
63%
8%
3%
Poland
Netherlands
4%
5%
22%
14%
14%
13%
8%
13%
11%
12%
40%
12%
65%
9%
58%
8%
14%
8%
2%
38%
15%
13%
71%
19%
15%
7%
9%
6%
74%
17%
18%
16%
5%
18%
68%
17%
21%
20%
6%
6%
61%
13%
Slovakia
7%
12%
11%
8%
80%
10%
12%
8%
total
14%
61%
6%
20%
8%
EU-28
14%
61%
6%
20%
8%
Austria
13%
Belgium
Italy
Luxembourg
Portugal
61%
11%
Spain
Cyprus
13%
20%
5%
7%
21%
67%
8%
6%
12%
92%
7%
3%
54%
8%
6%
23%
3%
11%
11%
89%
Hungary
7%
Romania
7%
52%
0%
8%
11%
9%
-3 %
11%
decreased
-1 %
40%
89%
remained unchanged
0%
41%
77%
increased
1%
11%
4%
42%
Czech Republic
3%
3%
40%
65%
4%
5%
43%
46%
13%
5%
3%
67%
3%
Montenegro
France
6%
63%
5%
United Kingdom
-11%
not applicable
Q5c: For equity, please indicate if your needs increased, remained unchanged or decreased over the past 6
months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia. The reported balance may deviate from the category percentages
reported in the bars due to rounding.
14% of all SMEs in the 28 EU Member States indicated that in the half year between
April and September 2014 their needs for equity had increased. 6% indicated that
their needs for this type of financing had decreased, resulting in a positive net impact
of 8%. The need for this type of financing has increased most strongly in Estonia
6
Please note that the unweighted number of observations was relatively low in Estonia, the Czech Republic,
Montenegro and Hungary at around 10. These results should be interpreted with care. These results should be
interpreted with care.
C10887 a
50%
10%
67%
23%
Malta
0%
3%
5%
68%
19%
Croatia
7%
61%
19%
Iceland
-50%
3% 5%
10%
69%
17%
Sweden
100%
28%
58%
23%
Germany
90%
56%
25%
21%
80%
68%
30%
Denmark
70%
72%
24%
Bulgaria
Ireland
40%
30%
28%
29
(balance 28%), Greece (21%) and Bulgaria (20%). A decreased need was observed in
four countries and was strongest in the Czech Republic (-11%).
figure 18
Changes in the need for equity (left) and the balance between the categories increased and
decreased (right) for SMEs in the EU-28, by characteristics, sorted from high to low based on
the balance, in 2014. The proportions relate to enterprises that indicated equity capital is
relevant to their enterprise.
0%
industry
innovativeness
size
sector
construction
trade
20%
14%
10-49 employees
14%
50-249 employees
13%
SME
14%
4%
59%
11%
1-9 employees
80%
62%
14%
14%
6%
60%
innovative firms
16%
6%
63%
59%
10%
65%
14%
61%
increased
remained unchanged
decreased
9%
4%
9%
7%
8%
1 0%
17%
8%
20%
6%
1 0%
15%
6%
20%
5%
20%
6%
20%
20%
1 2%
21%
3%
61%
16%
21%
6%
67%
10%
19%
7%
59%
0%
17%
22%
6%
58%
100%
21%
7%
62%
250+ employees
total
60%
16%
services
non- innovative firms
40%
1 0%
5%
8%
na/dk
Q5c: For equity, please indicate if your needs increased, remained unchanged or decreased over the past 6
months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
Differences in the needs of EU-28 enterprises for equity by enterprise characteristics
are presented in figure 18. The proportions in the figure refer only to those
enterprises that consider equity capital relevant. All results are for SMEs except when
presented by size class. Among the four sectors of the economy distinguished, the
need for equity increased most strongly among SMEs in industry, with a 12% balance.
The balance was the lowest – though positive - for SMEs in trade (4%). The need for
equity has increased considerably more for innovative enterprises than for noninnovative enterprises.
Large and medium-sized enterprises reported the largest net increases in the need for
equity in the half year between April and September 2014. The balance for these
categories amounted to 10%, compared to 8% for small and 7% for micro enterprises.
30
C10887 a
2 . 4 . 4 T r a de c r e d it
Trade credit is the last type of external financing to be discussed: first national
differences are discussed, followed by differences due to enterprise characteristics.
Changes in SMEs’ needs for trade credit are presented in figure 19. The proportions in
the figure relate to SMEs that considered trade credit relevant to their enterprise.
figure 19
Changes in the need for trade credit (left) and the balance between the categories increased
and decreased (right) for SMEs in the EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro, by country, sorted from
high to low based on the balance, in 2014. The proportions relate to SMEs that indicated that
trade credit is relevant to their enterprise. 7
0%
10%
20%
Greece
30%
40%
50%
60%
44%
Montenegro
27%
Croatia
Italy
Iceland
23%
United Kingdom
Estonia
11%
2%
9%
58%
11%
24%
58%
11%
Romania
23%
Cyprus
23%
Spain
Denmark
Finland
France
Sweden
Czech Republic
Slovenia
Belgium
Portugal
Austria
Luxembourg
9%
12%
25%
6%
11%
18%
16%
17%
15%
60%
14%
increased
remained unchanged
16%
decreased
4%
4%
4%
4%
2%
3%
2%
1%
14%
17%
43%
6%
5%
16%
15%
55%
18%
5%
10%
60%
6%
6%
10%
16%
52%
19%
2%
12%
60%
8%
7%
7%
9%
72%
11%
4%
15%
65%
20%
1%
8%
12%
66%
14%
12%
12%
16%
61%
18%
13%
16%
9%
63%
15%
13%
2%
12%
55%
22%
14%
13%
28%
67%
18%
5%
14%
6%
65%
16%
Hungary
Germany
56%
15%
6%
9%
59%
38%
16%
16%
68%
22%
18%
1%
8%
10%
61%
18%
18%
4%
7%
24%
Latvia
19%
1%
22%
64%
24%
Slovakia
21%
21%
9%
45%
21%
4%
11%
64%
total
Malta
27%
24%
9%
Bulgaria
EU-28
1%
6%
27%
-1 %
not applicable
Q5b: For trade credit, please indicate if your needs increased, remained unchanged or decreased over the past
6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia. The reported balance may deviate from the category percentages
reported in the bars due to rounding.
24% of all SMEs in EU-28 indicated that in the half year between April and September
2014 their needs for external financing using trade credit had increased. 11%
indicated that their needs for this type of financing had decreased, resulting in a
positive balance of 13%. The need for this type of financing has increased most
7
Please note that the unweighted number of observations was relatively low in Estonia, Luxembourg and
Montenegro at around 20. These results should be interpreted with care.
C10887 a
40%
32%
3% 4%
56%
22%
20%
12%
63%
25%
Poland
0%
9%
70%
26%
-20%
4%
53%
29%
Ireland
100%
5%
6%
62%
27%
Netherlands
90%
12%
55%
32%
23%
80%
69%
30%
Lithuania
70%
39%
31
strongly in Greece (balance 32%), Montenegro (27%) and Croatia (24%). Only in
Luxembourg a decreased need was observed(net impact -1%).
figure 20
Changes in the need for trade credit (left) and the balance between the categories increased
and decreased (right) for SMEs in the EU-28, by country, sorted from high to low based on the
balance, in 2014. The proportions relate to enterprises that indicated that trade credit is
relevant to their enterprise.
0%
20%
sector
industry
24%
construction
size
60%
24%
59%
services
24%
59%
1-9 employees
23%
250+ employees
non- innovative firms
12%
11%
11%
60%
27%
13%
12%
55%
21%
64%
11%
58%
24%
increased
11%
58%
23%
total
10%
58%
24%
innovative firms
12%
58%
26%
SME
13%
58%
25%
remained unchanged
decreased
100%
13%
54%
trade
50-249 employees
80%
59%
27%
10-49 employees
innovativeness
40%
11%
0%
10%
4%
20%
1 2%
7%
1 4%
5%
1 3%
7%
1 4%
8%
1 2%
1 3%
5%
1 5%
5%
1 3%
6%
1 0%
4%
1 5%
7%
1 0%
5%
1 3%
6%
na/dk
Q5b: For trade credit, please indicate if your needs increased, remained unchanged or decreased over the past
6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
Differences in
the
needs
of EU-28 enterprises
for
trade credit
by
enterprise
characteristics are presented in figure 20. Here too, the proportions refer only those
to enterprises that considered trade credit relevant. All results are for SMEs except
when presented by size class. Among the four sectors of the economy distinguished,
there is only little variation in the balance of increased and decreased need: between
12% for SMEs in industry and 14% for SMEs in services and construction. The need
for trade credit has increased considerably strongly for innovative enterprises than for
non-innovative enterprises.
Medium-sized enterprises reported the strongest net increases in the need for external
financing via trade credit in the half year between April and September 2014. The net
impact for this size class was 15%, compared to 12% for micro, 13% for small and
10% for large enterprises.
32
C10887 a
2.5
What type of external financing did SMEs apply for?
Whereas the preceding section detailed SMEs’ needs for certain types of financing, this
section focuses on the types of external financing that SMEs actually applied for. The
same three types as discussed in the previous section are considered here: bank
loans, overdraft and credit line, and trade credit. The proportion of SMEs applying for
a type of financing and the subsequent responses these applications faced is
discussed.
The discussion of each type will follow the same structure as before. First, overall
results are presented for SMEs in EU-28 with the most recent results being compared
to preceding survey years. This is followed by a comparison by country and enterprise
characteristics.
2.5.1 Bank loans
The proportion of SMEs in the EU-28 that applied for a bank loan - or did not do so
due to various reasons - as well as the corresponding success rates are presented in
figure 21. Due to the introduction of a new filter and changes in the question, there
must be carefully dealt with comparisons across years. The proportions presented
refer to SMEs that indicated bank loans to be relevant for their enterprise. In 2014,
28% of these SMEs in the 28 EU Member States applied for a bank loan, which was
slightly lower than in 2013. Most of them were successful in doing so: 66% of all
applications were granted in full and another 7% were granted most of the amount
applied for. Rejection rates have been quite stable over time, 14% in 2009 to 10% in
2011, 11% in 2013 and 13% in 2014.
Most SMEs that did not apply for a loan, did so with the availability of sufficient
internal funds cited as the most important reason for not doing so. This argument has
become increasingly important in SMEs’ decision not to apply for a loan between 2009
and 2013, but this dropped after 2014. In 2014, 38% indicated this to be the reason
for not applying.
A p p l i c a t i o ns a n d s u cc e s s r a te s f or b a n k l o a n s b y c o u nt r y
The proportions of SMEs in the EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro that considered bank
loans to be relevant to their enterprise and applied for a bank loan between April and
September 2014 and their subsequent success rates vary strongly between countries.
In figure 22 the difference regarding the proportion of SMEs that did and did not apply
are presented. The figure shows for example that 43% of the SMEs in Montenegro that
consider bank loans to be relevant applied for a bank loan. Other countries where a
relatively large proportion of SMEs applied for a bank loan were Belgium (38%) and
Slovenia, Croatia and France (all 37%). Comparatively few SMEs applied for this type
of external financing in Cyprus (14%) and Luxembourg (16%).
In 21 countries, SMEs mostly indicated not applying for a bank loans because their
internal funds were sufficient. Sweden and Latvia had the highest proportions of SMEs
citing this reason for not applying for a bank loan. Only in Greece, the proportion of
SMEs that did not apply for a bank loan because of possible rejection was the highest.
In seven countries, the highest proportion of SMEs indicated they did not apply due to
other reasons. Lithuania has by far the highest proportion of SMEs that cited “other
reasons” for not applying for a bank loan.
C10887 a
33
figure 21
Proportion of EU-28 SMEs that applied for bank loans and the results they obtained, where
“most” means that at least 75% of the requested amount was obtained and “limited part”
means that less than 75% of the requested amount was obtained, for the period 2009-2014.
The proportions relate to SMEs that indicated bank loans are relevant to their enterprise.
2014
2013
19%
25%
66%
70%
28%
29%
7%
38%
45%
10%
10%
8%
4%
8%
1%
7%
13%
2011
11%
2009
21%
28%
26%
46%
27%
69%
18%
8%
10%
6%
3%
64%
38%
5%
5%
10%
14%
Note: In 2014 a new filter was introduced in the SAFE questionnaire and changes were made in the questions.
The filter was simulated in the data of the previous survey rounds, nevertheless one should be cautious when
making comparisons across years. In 2009 results, two categories ‘applied and received most’ and ‘applied and
received limited part’ were merged.
Q7A_A: Have you applied for a bank loan (excluding overdraft and credit lines) in the past 6 months?
Q7B_A: If you applied and tried to negotiate for a bank loan (excluding overdraft and credit lines)over the past
6 months, did you: receive all the financing you requested; receive only part of the financing you requested;
refuse to proceed because of unacceptable costs or terms and conditions; or have you not received anything at
all?
Source: SAFE, 2009-2014; edited by Panteia.
34
C10887 a
figure 22
Proportion of EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro SMEs that applied for bank loans or did not apply
for bank loans because of possible rejection, sufficient internal funds or other reasons, in the
period between April and September 2014, by country. The proportions relate to SMEs that
indicated bank loans are relevant to their enterprise.
0%
10%
20%
Montenegro
30%
40%
Belgium
38%
Slovenia
37%
37%
5%
6%
36%
Finland
total
28%
EU-28
28%
Lithuania
28%
Austria
27%
Romania
27%
Iceland
27%
Malta
27%
Czech Republic
26%
Germany
26%
Estonia
26%
23%
23%
Netherlands
22%
Slovakia
21%
Latvia
20%
18%
5%
United Kingdom
18%
6%
Greece
18%
Portugal
18%
applied for
16%
21%
39%
31%
39%
40%
1%
27%
4%
15%
40%
38%
3%
55%
20%
1%
44%
32%
35%
1%
33%
47%
9%
26%
38%
3%
26%
26%
1%
2%
34%
29%
52%
53%
17%
did not apply - possible rejection
2%
3%
28%
32%
3%
20%
37%
29%
2%
1%
19%
25%
57%
9%
5%
10%
48%
4%
Denmark
16%
20%
50%
15%
3%
14%
48%
7%
2%
16%
30%
38%
3%
19%
Cyprus
50%
10%
1%
5%
35%
10%
Bulgaria
25%
56%
6%
5%
Ireland
38%
3%
5%
1%
1%
25%
4%
5%
25%
1%
30%
38%
4%
24%
21%
31%
34%
8%
Poland
Sweden
34%
4%
Hungary
1%
1%
23%
23%
8%
1%
29%
34%
8%
7%
2%
14%
29%
4%
100%
20%
28%
9%
31%
90%
38%
9%
35%
80%
29%
22%
37%
Italy
70%
21%
4%
France
Spain
60%
5%
Croatia
Luxembourg
50%
43%
did not apply - sufficient internal funds
12%
did not apply - other reasons
5%
not applicable
Q7A_A: Have you applied for a bank loan (excluding overdraft and credit lines) in the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
In figure 23 the success and rejection rates of the applications for a bank loan are
presented. The success rate was highest in Luxembourg, where all applying SMEs
received the full amount requested for. Also in Iceland not a single application was
rejected, of which 92% received the total amount of financing applied for. In Greece
however, only 24% of SMEs received the total amount of financing applied for. Also in
Cyprus (35%) and in the Netherlands (38%), the proportion of SMEs that received the
total amount requested for were relatively low.
32% of the EU-28 SMEs did not receive the full amount of finance requested for
between April and September 2014. This percentage was largest in Lithuania, were
83% of the SMEs did not receive the full of requested amount of finance. Also in
Greece (71%) and Cyprus (63%) a relatively high proportion of SMEs did not get the
full bank loan they had applied for. In Luxembourg (0%), the United Kingdom (13%)
C10887 a
35
and Finland (17%) the lowest proportion of SMEs did not get the full requested bank
loan finance.
Flat-out
rejection
rates
were
highest
in
the
Netherlands
(39%
of
bank
loan
applications were rejected completely), Lithuania (36%), Latvia (30%) and Greece
(27%). See figure 22 and figure 23.
figure 23
Obtained result of EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro SMEs that applied for bank loans, where
“most” means that at least 75% of the requested amount was obtained and “limited part”
means that less than 75% of the requested amount was obtained, by country in 2014. The
proportions relate to SMEs that indicated that bank loans are relevant to their enterprise. 8
0%
10%
20%
Netherlands
30%
Lithuania
Greece
11%
27%
Ireland
20%
19%
Bulgaria
19%
Italy
19%
Slovakia
2%
5%
Sweden
15%
2% 8%
Croatia
14%
4%
Romania
13%
6%
EU-28
13%
4%
10%
4%
10%
total
13%
12%
Spain
12%
Poland
Germany
10%
3%
10%
4%
9%
9%
France
9%
Finland
Austria
7%
Czech Republic
6%
Cyprus
6%
3%
5%
6%
6%
70%
12%
59%
9%
58%
7%
66%
7%
66%
59%
11%
53%
5%
69%
6%
5%
75%
5%
76%
13%
4%
7%
54%
64%
6%
21%
3%
8%
Belgium
58%
8%
14%
9%
United Kingdom
Portugal
45%
57%
12%
11%
3%
8%
7%
7%
66%
14%
66%
4%
5%
77%
9%
73%
4%
6%
83%
10%
78%
3% 8%
84%
5%
3% 6%
60%
6%
24%
54%
29%
11%
Montenegro
11%
15%
15%
12%
100%
52%
10%
6%
4%
90%
53%
25%
11%
8%
80%
38%
11%
9%
9%
6%
17%
Estonia
70%
4%
6%
13%
24%
Hungary
60%
16%
2%3% 8%
30%
Slovenia
50%
4%
36%
Latvia
Denmark
40%
39%
35%
4%
80%
Luxembourg
100%
Malta
10%
Iceland
3% 6%
applied - rejected
9%
10%
applied - refused because cost too high
71%
92%
applied - received limited part
applied - received most
applied - received everything
Q7B_A: If you applied and tried to negotiate for a bank loan (excluding overdraft and credit lines)over the past
6 months, did you: receive all the financing you requested; receive only part of the financing you requested;
refuse to proceed because of unacceptable costs or terms and conditions; or have you not received anything at
all?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
8
Please note that the unweighted number of observations was relatively low in Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia,
Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro and Iceland at below 30. These results should be interpreted with care.
36
C10887 a
figure 24
Rejection rates for SMEs in EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro, by country in 2014 9
Q7B_A: If you applied and tried to negotiate for a bank loan (excluding overdraft and credit lines)over the past
6 months, did you: receive all the financing you requested; receive only part of the financing you requested;
refuse to proceed because of unacceptable costs or terms and conditions; or have you not received anything at
all?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
9
Please note that the unweighted number of observations was relatively low in Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia,
Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro and Iceland at below 30. These results should be interpreted with care.
C10887 a
37
C o n f r on t a t io n o f c it e d n e e d s a n d a c t u a l a p p l ic a t i o n
When confronting the need for bank loans (presented in figure 12) with the actual
application rates for this type of financing, the discrepancy between these two
indicators was highest for Greece. Between April and September 2014, 35% of all
SMEs in Greece indicated an increased need for external financing using bank loans.
In the same period, only 18% actually applied for a bank loan. The main cause not
applying was the fear of rejection of the application.
A p p l i c a t i o ns a n d s u cc e s s r a te s f or b a n k l o a n s b y c h a r ac te r i st i c s
The proportion of SMEs in the EU-28 that applied for a bank loan in 2014 and their
subsequent success rates vary strongly with enterprise characteristics (figure 25).
Again, the proportions refer to SMEs that indicated that bank loans were relevant for
their enterprise. All results refer to SMEs, except when results are presented by size
class.
Of the four economic sectors distinguished, the highest proportion of SMEs that apply
for a bank loan is found in industry: 32% of all SMEs in this sector applied for this
type of external financing. The proportion for construction was 28 % and for trade and
for services were 27%. The approval rate of applications for bank loans by SMEs in
industry was also highest (78%).
The proportion of enterprises that applied for a bank loan between April and
September 2014 increases with size class. Only 23% of the micro enterprises applied
for a bank loan compared to 40% of the large enterprises. The proportion of SMEs
that did not apply because of fear of rejection is highest among micro enterprises.
Innovative enterprises apply for a bank loan more often than non-innovative
enterprises, but their requests are also more often refused. The operations of
innovative SMEs are considered to be more risky, as investments in innovations are
more often surrounded by a great degree of uncertainty, as are the resulting profits.
38
C10887 a
figure 25
Proportion of EU-28 SMEs that applied for bank loans and the proportion that obtained most to
everything, where “most” means that at least 75% of the requested amount was obtained by
enterprise characteristic, for the period 2014. The proportions relate to SMEs that indicated
bank loans are relevant to their enterprise.
percentage applied f or bank loan
50%
40%
40%
32%
30%
35%
29%
28% 27% 27%
30%
28%
25%
23%
28%
20%
10%
0%
percentage that subsequently received most to everything
100%
91%
85%
80%
60%
78%
73%
72% 72% 71%
73%
78%
70%
73%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Q7A_A: Have you applied for a bank loan (excluding overdraft and credit lines) in the past 6 months?
Q7B_A: If you applied and tried to negotiate for a bank loan (excluding overdraft and credit lines)over the past
6 months, did you: receive all the financing you requested; receive only part of the financing you requested;
refuse to proceed because of unacceptable costs or terms and conditions; or have you not received anything at
all?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
R e j e c t i on r a t e s f or b an k l o a n s b y s i z e a n d ag e o f th e e n t e r p r i se
figure 26 reports the proportion of enterprises for which bank loan applications were
rejected completely from April to September 2014. Also here, the results refer to
SMEs, except when results are presented by size class.
The rejection rate decreases with size. Among micro enterprises 20% of the
applications for bank loans were rejected versus only 3% of the application among
large enterprises. The rejection rate also decreases with age. Among SMEs that were
established less than 2 years ago, 30% of the applications for bank loans were
rejected versus 11% of the application among SMEs that already exist for more than
10 years.
C10887 a
39
figure 26
Rejection rates by size and age of the enterprise, for the period 2014. The proportions relate to
SMEs that indicated bank loans are relevant to their enterprise.
40%
30%
30%
27%
20%
20%
13%
10%
15%
13%
6%
11%
3%
0%
Q7B_A: If you applied and tried to negotiate for a bank loan (excluding overdraft and credit lines)over the past
6 months, did you: receive all the financing you requested; receive only part of the financing you requested;
refuse to proceed because of unacceptable costs or terms and conditions; or have you not received anything at
all?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
2 . 5 . 2 T r a de c r e d it
The proportion of EU-28 SMEs that applied for trade credit - or did not do so due to
various reasons - as well as the corresponding success rates are presented in figure
27. The proportions refer to SMEs that indicated trade credit to be relevant to their
enterprise. Due to the introduction of a new filter and changes in the question, there
must be carefully dealt with comparisons across years. In 2014, 31% of these SMEs in
the 28 Member States of the EU applied for trade credit, which was lower than in 2013
(35%). Most of them were successful in doing so: 68% of all applications were
granted in full and another 11% were granted most of the amount applied for.
Rejection rates have decreased from 12% in 2009 to 7% in 2014.
Most SMEs that did not apply for trade credit, mentioned the availability of sufficient
internal funds as the most important reason for not doing so. The importance this
argument has in SMEs’ decision not to apply for trade credit decreased over the past
years: from 40% of SMEs in 2009 to 33% in 2014.
40
C10887 a
figure 27
proportion of EU-28 SMEs that applied for trade credit and the results they obtained, where
“most” means that at least 75% of the requested amount was obtained and “limited part”
means that less than 75% of the requested amount was obtained, for the period 2009-2014.
The proportions relate to SMEs that indicated that trade credit is relevant to their enterprise.
2014
28%
2013
2%
3%
24%
68%
31%
35%
11%
33%
13%
35%
12%
13%
5%
71%
1%
7%
4%
3%
2009
2011
25%
39%
2%
3%
64%
73%
13%
30%
40%
4%
11%
4%
11%
40%
5%
22%
2%
12%
Note: In 2014 a new filter was introduced in the SAFE questionnaire and changes were made in the questions.
The filter was simulated in the data of the previous survey rounds, nevertheless one should be cautious when
making comparisons across years.
Q7A_B: Have you applied for trade credit in the past 6 months?
Q7B_B: If you applied and tried to negotiate for trade credit over the past 6 months, did you: receive all the
financing you requested; receive only part of the financing you requested; refuse to proceed because of
unacceptable costs or terms and conditions; or have you not received anything at all?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
A p p l i c a t i o ns a n d s u cc e s s r a te s f or t r a d e c r e d it b y c o un t r y
The proportion of SMEs in EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro that considered trade credit
to be relevant to their enterprise and applied for trade credit between April and
September 2014 and their subsequent success rates vary strongly from country to
country.
In figure 28 the proportions of SMEs that did and did not apply are presented. The
figure shows that 43% of the SMEs that consider trade credit to be relevant in Spain
actually applied for trade credit. Other countries where a relatively large proportion of
SMEs applied for trade credit were the United Kingdom (40%) and Poland (37%).
Relatively few SMEs applied for this type of external financing in Denmark (5%) and
Iceland (11%).
In 21 countries, the major reason for not applying for trade credit was the availability
of sufficient internal funds. Sweden, the Czech Republic and Latvia had the highest
proportions of SMEs citing this reason for not applying for trade credit. In Slovenia
and Greece a relative high proportion of SMEs did not apply for trade credit because of
possible rejection. In nine countries, most SMEs indicated they did not apply due to
C10887 a
41
other reasons. Lithuania had by far the greatest proportion of SMEs citing this “other
reasons” for not applying for a bank loan.
In figure 29 the results after application for trade credit are presented. The success
rate was highest for Luxembourg, where all applying SMEs received the full amount
requested for. Also in Finland no application was rejected, of which 83% received the
total amount of financing they applied for. In Lithuania, only 15% of SMEs received
the total amount of financing they applied for. Also in Greece (29%) and Cyprus
(37%), the proportions of SMEs that received total amount requested for was
relatively low. Flat-out rejection rates were highest in Slovenia (39% of trade credit
applications were rejected completely), Cyprus (35%) and the Netherlands (31%).
figure 28
proportion of EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro SMEs that applied for trade credit or did not apply
for bank loans because of possible rejection, sufficient internal funds or other reasons, in the
period between April and September 2014. The proportions relate to SMEs that indicated trade
credit is relevant to their enterprise. 10
0%
10%
20%
Spain
United Kingdom
Poland
37%
36%
Estonia
35%
Montenegro
34%
Finland
34%
Ireland
32%
EU-28
31%
total
31%
Austria
31%
Cyprus
Croatia
26%
Portugal
25%
Latvia
25%
Germany
24%
Slovenia
24%
Slovakia
23%
Czech Republic
Belgium
21%
France
20%
Greece
20%
18%
Sweden
17%
Luxembourg
15%
14%
Iceland
11%
Denmark
5% 2%
applied for
13%
5%
39%
20%
5%
33%
5%
33%
2%
28%
28%
3%
14%
33%
23%
14%
30%
6%
51%
19%
35%
28%
25%
8%
19%
37%
22%
43%
30%
42%
19%
27%
36%
34%
29%
3%
53%
3%
24%
68%
10%
30%
3%
6%
39%
48%
2%
5%
44%
3%
1%
32%
32%
6%
2%
47%
6%
5%
3%
9%
51%
29%
2%
6%
29%
23%
2%
3%
8%
4%
43%
31%
6%
did not apply - possible rejection
3%
48%
3%
4%
35%
25%
8%
6%
5%
25%
15%
8%
18%
33%
3%
2%
6%
33%
3%
5%
1%
24%
25%
5%
6%
27%
27%
4%
19%
Bulgaria
Lithuania
10%
1%
5%
24%
20%
1%
100%
22%
29%
14%
22%
90%
20%
30%
6%
23%
Hungary
80%
32%
3%
30%
70%
31%
1%
33%
Italy
60%
5%
33%
Malta
50%
40%
40%
Romania
Netherlands
30%
43%
38%
12%
30%
55%
did not apply - sufficient internal funds
8%
did not apply - other reasons
not applicable
Q7A_B: Have you applied for trade credit in the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
10
Please note that the unweighted number of observations was relatively low in Estonia, Luxembourg and
Montenegro, at below 30. These results should be interpreted with care.
42
C10887 a
figure 29
obtained result of EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro SMEs that applied for trade credit, where
“most” means that at least 75% of the requested amount was obtained and “limited part”
means that less than 75% of the requested amount was obtained, for the period 2009-2014.
The proportions relate to SMEs that indicated trade credit is relevant to their enterprise. 11
0%
10%
20%
Slovenia
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
39%
Cyprus
35%
Netherlands
27%
2%
31%
Croatia
13%
26%
Latvia
Greece
19%
18%
Lithuania
6%
Slovakia
Spain
16%
5%
11%
63%
18%
18%
55%
13%
61%
Belgium
7%
EU-28
7%
13%
11%
68%
total
7%
13%
11%
68%
France
7%
Austria
7%
Poland
United Kingdom
19%
11%
62%
71%
10%
11%
2%6%
Montenegro
12%
22%
4% 1%
Ireland 1%
78%
15%
2%
Germany
74%
10%
77%
6%
87%
11%
12%
11%
75%
14%
Iceland
76%
32%
Sweden
68%
23%
Portugal
14%
11%
63%
19%
Malta
70%
34%
12%
53%
Luxembourg
Finland
15%
63%
14%
15%
7%
29%
57%
44%
18%
12%
18%
12%
9%
13%
Italy
51%
57%
28%
14%
14%
100%
41%
14%
5%
15%
Romania
90%
37%
13%
23%
24%
Hungary
80%
61%
100%
4%
13%
83%
Estonia
41%
Denmark
Czech Republic
Bulgaria
applied - rejected
11%
32%
8%
9%
48%
25%
43%
10%
20%
73%
8%
71%
applied - refused because cost too high
applied - received limited part
applied - received most
applied - received everything
Q7B_B: If you applied and tried to negotiate for trade credit over the past 6 months, did you: receive all the
financing you requested; receive only part of the financing you requested; refuse to proceed because of
unacceptable costs or terms and conditions; or have you not received anything at all?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
A p p l i c a t i o ns a n d s u cc e s s r a te s f or t r a d e c r e d it b y c h ar a ct e r is t i c s
The proportion of SMEs in the EU-28 that applied for trade credit in 2014 and their
subsequent
success
rates
vary
strongly
with
enterprise
characteristics.
These
differences are presented in figure 30. The proportions refer to SMEs that indicated
trade credit to be relevant to their enterprise. All results refer SMEs except for results
presented by size-class.
11
Please note that the unweighted number of observations was relatively low in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Montenegro and Iceland, at below 30. These results should be interpreted with
care.
C10887 a
43
Of the four economic sectors distinguished, the highest proportion of SMEs to apply
for trade credit is found in industry and construction: 38% of SMEs active in these
sectors applied for this type of external financing versus only 27% in the business
services. The approval rate of applications varies only slightly between sectors and is
lowest in trade at 74% versus 78% in the sector groups of industry and services.
The proportion of enterprises that applied for trade credit between April and
September 2014 increases with size class. Only 24% of the micro enterprises applied
for a bank loan compared to 45% of the large enterprises. Again, the proportion of
SMEs that did not apply because of fear of rejection was highest among micro
enterprises. Finally, it is interesting to note that innovative enterprises apply for trade
credit more often than non-innovative enterprises, but they are also refused more
often. The operations of innovative SMEs are considered more risky, as investments in
innovations are more often surrounded by a great degree of uncertainty, as are the
resulting profits.
figure 30
proportion of EU-28 SMEs that applied for trade credit and the proportion that obtained most to
everything, where “most” means that at least 75% of the requested amount was obtained by
enterprise characteristic, for the period 2009-2014. The proportions relate to enterprises that
indicated that trade credit is relevant to their enterprise.
percentage applied f or trade credit
50%
40%
30%
45%
38% 38%
34%
29%
27%
37%
33%
31%
28%
31%
24%
20%
10%
0%
100%
80%
percentage that subsequently received most to everything
81% 79%
78% 80%
79%
72%
86%
90%
80%
77%
84%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Q7A_B: Have you applied for trade credit in the past 6 months?
Q7B_B: If you applied and tried to negotiate for trade credit over the past 6 months, did you: receive all the
financing you requested; receive only part of the financing you requested; refuse to proceed because of
unacceptable costs or terms and conditions; or have you not received anything at all?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
44
C10887 a
2 . 5 . 3 B a n k o v e r d r a f t , c r e d i t l i n e or cr e d i t c a r d s ov e r d r a f t
The proportion of EU-28 SMEs that applied for overdraft or credit line - or did not do
so due to various reasons - as well as the corresponding success rates are presented
in figure 31. The proportions refer to SMEs that indicated credit line or overdrafts to
be relevant to their enterprise. Due to the introduction of a new filter and changes in
the question, there must be carefully dealt with comparisons across years. In 2014,
32% of SMEs in the 28 Member States of the EU applied for overdraft or credit line.
Most of them were successful in doing so: 64% of all applications were granted in full
and another 10% were granted most of the amount applied for. Rejection rates
slightly increased from 9% in 2011 to 10% in 2014.
figure 31
proportion of EU-28 SMEs that applied for bank overdraft, credit line or credit cards overdraft
and the results they obtained, where “most” means that at least 75% of the requested amount
was obtained and “limited part” means that less than 75% of the requested amount was
obtained, for the period 2011-2014. The proportions relate to SMEs that indicated that credit
line, bank overdraft or credit cards overdraft are relevant to their enterprise.
2014
2013
19%
25%
64%
66%
32%
33%
10%
35%
42%
10%
12%
13%
3%
7%
10%
5%
1%
9%
2011
20%
66%
31%
43%
9%
14%
6%
3%
9%
Note: In 2014 a new filter was introduced in the SAFE questionnaire and changes were made in the questions.
The filter was simulated in the data of the previous survey rounds, nevertheless one should be cautious when
making comparisons across years.
Q7A_D: Have you applied for credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards overdraft in the past 6 months?
Q7B_D: If you applied and tried to negotiate for credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards overdraft over the
past 6 months, did you: receive all the financing you requested; receive only part of the financing you
requested; refuse to proceed because of unacceptable costs or terms and conditions; or have you not received
anything at all?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
Most SMEs that did not apply for overdraft or credit line, mentioned the availability of
sufficient internal funds cited as the most important reason for not doing so (35% in
2014). The importance of this argument in SMEs’ decision not to apply for trade credit
has decreased over the past years. This contrasts with bank loans, where this
argument has increased strongly in importance.
C10887 a
45
A p p l i c a t i o ns a n d s u c ce s s r a te s f or c r e d i t l i ne , b a n k o v e r d r a f t o r cr e d i t c a r d s
o v e r dr a f t by c o u nt r y
The proportion of SMEs in the EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro that considered
overdraft or credit line to be relevant to their enterprise and applied for a bank loan
between April and September 2014 and their subsequent success rates vary strongly
between countries.
In figure 32 the difference regarding the proportion of SMEs that did and did not apply
are presented. This figure shows that for example 49% of the SMEs in Slovenia that
consider overdraft or credit line to be relevant applied for overdraft or credit line.
Other countries where a relatively large proportion of SMEs applied for overdraft or
credit line were Spain (45%) and Iceland (44%). Comparatively few SMEs applied for
this type of external financing in Cyprus (11%), the Netherlands (17%) and Finland
(18%).
In nineteen countries, the most often indicated reason for not applying for overdraft
or credit line were the sufficient availability of internal funds. Cyprus and Austria have
the largest proportions of SMEs citing this reason for not applying for overdraft or
credit line. Only in Greece, most SMEs did not apply for a bank loan because of
possible rejection. In nine countries, most SMEs indicated they did not apply due to
other reasons. Lithuania has by far the greatest proportion of SMEs citing this “other
reasons” for not applying for a bank loan.
In figure 33 the results after application for overdraft or credit line are presented. The
success rate is again highest in Luxembourg, where most applying SMEs received the
full amount (91%). Also in the Czech Republic a high proportion of SMEs received the
full amount applied for (88%). In Greece, only 22% of SMEs received the total amount
of financing they applied for. Flat-out rejection rates were highest in Cyprus (36% of
overdraft or credit line applications were rejected completely), Greece (33%) and the
Netherlands (29%).
C o n f r on t a t io n o f c it e d n e e d s a n d a c t u a l a p p l ic a t i o n
When confronting the need for bank loans (presented in figure 12) with the actual
application rates for this type of financing it out that the discrepancy between these
two measures was greatest for Greece and Cyprus. Between April and September
2014, 45% of SMEs in Greece and 29% in Cyprus indicated an increased need for
external financing using overdraft or credit line. In the same period, only 20% in
Greece and 11% in Cyprus actually applied for overdraft or credit line.
46
C10887 a
figure 32
proportion of EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro SMEs that applied for bank overdraft, credit line or
credit cards overdraft because of possible rejection, sufficient internal funds or other reasons, in
the period between April and September 2014. The proportions relate to SMEs that indicated
that credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards overdraft are relevant to their enterprise.
0%
10%
20%
Slovenia
30%
40%
50%
60%
49%
Spain
45%
Iceland
France
40%
Hungary
40%
Luxembourg
39%
Romania
39%
Croatia
Poland
Czech Republic
1%
2%
26%
31%
2%
32%
30%
35%
30%
4%
2%
27%
19%
4%
34%
1%
17%
26%
7%
1%
30%
27%
4%
36%
Slovakia
28%
7%
1%
19%
42%
38%
5%
28%
35%
2%
39%
Montenegro
23%
21%
4%
1%
17%
24%
8%
100%
9%
30%
4%
42%
90%
22%
8%
44%
Italy
80%
70%
19%
4%
3%
29%
42%
23%
total
32%
7%
35%
25%
2%
EU-28
32%
7%
35%
25%
2%
Belgium
30%
Austria
6%
28%
Lithuania
27%
Ireland
27%
Estonia
27%
6%
27%
5%
26%
5%
Portugal
23%
Germany
22%
United Kingdom
21%
Denmark
21%
Greece
18%
Netherlands
17%
Cyprus
applied for
6%
11%
14%
23%
49%
8%
21%
41%
6%
42%
9%
20%
18%
3%
44%
42%
31%
52%
did not apply - possible rejection
3%
39%
33%
14%
1%
30%
29%
9%
2%
29%
49%
2%
6%
22%
38%
6%
3%
2%
55%
20%
Finland
39%
28%
45%
23%
3%
36%
30%
25%
Latvia
6%
23%
36%
7%
1%
13%
58%
11%
Sweden
1%
23%
52%
5% 3%
Bulgaria
Malta
41%
2%
23%
did not apply - sufficient internal funds
did not apply - other reasons
not applicable
Q7A_D: Have you applied for credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards overdraft in the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
A p p l i c a t i o ns a n d s u c ce s s r a te s f or b a n k o v e r d r a f t , cr e d it l i n e o r cr e d i t c a r d s
o v e r dr a f t by c h ar a c t e r is t i c s
The proportion of SMEs in the EU-28 that applied for bank overdraft, credit line or
credit cards overdraft in 2014 and their subsequent success rates vary strongly with
enterprise
characteristics.
These
differences
are
presented
in
figure
34.
The
proportions refer only to those SMEs that indicated credit line or overdrafts to be
relevant to their enterprise. All results refer to SMEs except for results presented by
size-class.
C10887 a
47
figure 33
obtained result of EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro SMEs that applied for bank overdraft, credit
line or credit cards overdraft, where “most” means that at least 75% of the requested amount
was obtained and “limited part” means that less than 75% of the requested amount was
obtained, for the period 2009-2014. The proportions relate to SMEs that indicated that credit
line, bank overdraft or credit cards overdraft are relevant to their enterprise. 12
0%
10%
20%
Cyprus
30%
50%
40%
60%
70%
36%
Greece
8%
33%
Netherlands
29%
Lithuania
12%
18%
Italy
17%
Romania
3%
4%
Hungary
13%
4%
Croatia
12%
12%
11%
66%
2% 6%
70%
9%
70%
3%
12%
10%
total
10%
3%
12%
10%
Finland
10%
3%
13%
10%
10%
3%
France
10%
4%
Iceland
10%
10%
7%
1% 6%
3%
Spain
7%
2%
6%
Portugal
5%
10%
8%
Poland
3%
7%
Austria
2%2% 9%
Czech Republic
77%
67%
13%
60%
11%
12%
5%
9%
65%
68%
19%
6%
4%
Luxembourg
8%
11%
6%
Sweden
9%
75%
9%
11%
3% 7%
Belgium
Malta
73%
5%
22%
7%
Montenegro
64%
73%
14%
Bulgaria
6%
64%
7%
7%
Germany
Slovakia
14%
73%
23%
56%
11%
67%
5%
17%
76%
12%
59%
7%
82%
8%
79%
17%
74%
91%
4% 1%7%
Estonia
applied - rejected
50%
65%
7%
10%
Ireland
51%
13%
6%
6%
22%
46%
15%
EU-28
Denmark
100%
59%
16%
11%
11%
90%
48%
17%
12%
4%
13%
United Kingdom
13%
7%
18%
19%
Slovenia
25%
16%
25%
Latvia
80%
64%
88%
23%
applied - refused because cost too high
77%
applied - received limited part
applied - received most
applied - received everything
Q7B_D: If you applied and tried to negotiate for credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards overdraft over the
past 6 months, did you: receive all the financing you requested; receive only part of the financing you
requested; refuse to proceed because of unacceptable costs or terms and conditions; or have you not received
anything at all?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
Of the four economic sectors distinguished, the highest proportion of SMEs to apply
for overdraft or credit line is found in construction: 35% of all SMEs in this sector
applied for this type of external financing versus 30% in the business services.
Surprisingly, the approval rate of applications for overdraft or credit line is lowest in
construction at 70% versus 76% in industry.
The proportion of enterprises that applied for bank overdraft, credit line or credit
cards overdraft between April and September 2014 increases with size class. 32% of
12
Please note that the unweighted number of observations was relatively low in Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia,
Iceland, Luxembourg, Malta, Sweden and Montenegro at below 30. These results should be interpreted with
care.
48
C10887 a
the SMEs applied for bank overdraft, credit line or credit cards overdraft compared to
41% of the large enterprises. The proportion of SMEs that did not apply because of
fear of rejection is highest among micro enterprises.
Innovative enterprises apply for bank overdraft, credit line or credit cards overdraft
more often than non-innovative enterprises, but they are also refused more often. The
operations
of
innovative
SMEs
are
considered
more
risky,
as
investments
in
innovations are more often surrounded by a great degree of uncertainty, as are the
resulting profits.
figure 34
proportion of EU-28 SMEs that applied for bank overdraft, credit line or credit cards overdraft
and the proportion that obtained most to everything, where “most” means that at least 75% of
the requested amount was obtained by enterprise characteristic, for the period 2009-2014. The
proportions relate to enterprises that indicated credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards
overdraft are relevant to their enterprise.
percentage appplied f or credit line, bank overdraf t or credit cards
overdraf t
50%
41%
40%
33%
35%
32%
30%
30%
35%
32% 32%
31% 32%
32%
27%
20%
10%
0%
percent age t hat subsequent ly received most to everyt hing
100%
80%
89%
85%
76%
70%
74% 74%
74%
66%
74%
73% 76%
74%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Q7A_D: Have you applied for credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards overdraft in the past 6 months?
Q7B_D: If you applied and tried to negotiate for credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards overdraft over the
past 6 months, did you: receive all the financing you requested; receive only part of the financing you
requested; refuse to proceed because of unacceptable costs or terms and conditions; or have you not received
anything at all?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
C10887 a
49
2.6
What affected the availability of funding?
SMEs’ needs for certain types of external financing did not always translate to them
actually applying for these types of funding and certainly did not always translate to
them
actually
receiving
the
amount
applied
for.
SMEs
may
find
themselves
discouraged in seeking out funding due to various factors that they believe reduce
their chances of obtaining the amount needed. An overview of four business factors
that SMEs believe had affected the funding available to them is presented in figure 35
for four survey years. The factors discussed are credit history, SMEs’ own capital,
their firm-specific outlook with respect to sales and profitability or business plan and
their general economic outlook. Each of these factors is subsequently discussed in
more detail by country and enterprise characteristic.
figure 35
Changes in firm-specific factors affecting the availability of external financing (left) and the
balance between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for SMEs in EU-28 in the
period 2009-2014, sorted from high to low based on the balance in 2014
0%
20%
own capital
2014
credit history
firm-specific outlook
economic outlook
23%
2013
2011
2009
26%
21%
46%
22%
22%
49%
21%
26%
46%
16%
42%
38%
19%
33%
41%
15%
34%
44%
12%
9%
15%
65%
2014
2014
13%
59%
10%
2011
12%
59%
21%
2013
11%
60%
23%
2011
2009
24%
42%
39%
improved
remained unchanged
deteriorated
0%
40%
14%
8%
5%
2%
- 10%
3%
12%
6%
11%
6%
8%
7%
-4 %
10%
6%
7%
7%
-1 %
7%
-6 %
4%
- 26%
6%
- 14%
7%
- 19%
7%
3%
64%
25%
-40%
2%
19%
21%
58%
-80%
2%
15%
52%
14%
2013
100%
52%
25%
2014
80%
53%
27%
2011
2009
60%
29%
2013
2009
40%
- 30%
- 55%
not applicable
Q11: The availability of external financing may depend on a number of factors, some of which are specific to
your firm and others which are of more general relevance. For each of the following factors, would you say
that they have improved, remained unchanged or deteriorated over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2009-2014; edited by Panteia.
50
C10887 a
I m p r o ve d ca p i t a l s t o c k, c r e d i t h i s to r y a n d fi r m - s p e c i f i c o u t l o o k
SMEs in EU-28 are most positive about the influence of their own capital stock on the
external funding available to them. In 2014, 29% of all SMEs in the Member States
comprising the European Union felt that their own capital had changed in such a way
that it improved their access to finance, versus 15% that felt it deteriorated their
position, resulting in a net impact of 14%. This is a considerably improvement from
2009 when the net impact was negative and equalled -10%, meaning more SMEs felt
that own capital position had deteriorated their access to external financing.
A similar development is observed for the own credit history of SMEs and its impact on
the availability of external financing. In 2014, 23% of SMEs felt that their credit
history had improved, while only 11% felt it had deteriorated. This is in line with the
reasons for not applying for various type of external financing listed in the previous
section, where fear of rejection is of relatively little importance compared to other
arguments for not applying for external financing. SMEs have been rating their own
credit history consistently better and while the net impact was negative in 2009 (at
minus 4%), it has increased vastly to plus 12% in 2014.
Also, the proportion of SMEs that feel that their own firm-specific outlook improved
their access to finance is higher than the proportion that feels it deteriorated their
position for a net impact of 6%. In previous years SMEs had less faith in their
enterprises’ ability to realise the level of sales required to attract external funding.
Especially in 2009 quite a bit more SMEs felt that their business outlook negatively
affected their access to external financing, making a balance of minus 26%. In 2011
the balance was minus 6% and in 2013, with a balance at minus 1%,SMEs were
ambivalent on the impact of their firm-specific outlook.
S M E s b e c am e le s s pe ss i m i s t i c
a b o u t t he ge ne r a l e c on om i c o u t l o o k
The financial crises that held the economies of the European Union firmly in their grip
in the past years has had considerable impact on SMEs’ views on the general economic
outlook. While 19% believe that it has developed in such a way as to improve the
availability of external funding to them, 33% believe that it deteriorated, resulting in a
negative balance of -14%.While this is still strongly negative, this does mean an
improvement over 2009, when the balance was -55%. In that year, more than half of
all EU-28 SMEs feared the effect of economic developments on their access to finance.
S M E s a r e mo s t l y un c e r ta i n o n ou t s id e e ff e ct s
The preceding shows that while SMEs in EU-28 are generally positive regarding their
own financial position and its impact on their access to finance - and have only
become more so in recent years - they are still keen to point to outside factors when
looking for factors that limit their access to external financing.
C10887 a
51
2 . 6 . 1 C r e d i t h i s t or y
The relation between the credit history of SMEs and the availability of external
financing is presented by country in figure 36.
figure 36
Changes in credit history insofar that it affects availability of external financing (left) and the
balance between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for EU-28, Iceland and
Montenegro SMEs, by country, sorted from high to low based on the balance, in 2014
0%
10%
20%
United Kingdom
37%
Ireland
37%
Sweden
30%
40%
50%
60%
Austria
30%
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Poland
20%
5%
20%
5%
17%
9%
4%
16%
6%
6%
75%
16%
4%
15%
3% 4%
63%
19%
20%
20%
11%
7%
68%
25%
24%
21%
8%
70%
18%
Malta
34%
4%
7%
55%
22%
62%
5%
14%
1%
11%
14%
14%
14%
Slovenia
23%
Portugal
23%
6%
13%
EU-28
23%
60%
11%
6%
12%
23%
60%
11%
6%
total
Latvia
Hungary
15%
16%
Croatia
Cyprus
Italy
Greece
72%
5%
68%
9%
6%
15%
61%
8%
58%
17%
58%
improved
remained unchanged
deteriorated
9%
9%
6%
7%
5%
4%
3%
4%
17%
19%
55%
15%
10%
7%
10%
67%
18%
11%
5%
4%
14%
74%
9%
7%
15%
74%
18%
12%
5% 1%
7%
60%
13%
12%
3% 1%
79%
20%
France
10%
62%
13%
Spain
14%
81%
18%
Finland
25%
61%
16%
Slovakia
Montenegro
9%
15%
Luxembourg
Romania
44%
40%
32%
6%
10%
62%
20%
Estonia
20%
16%
62%
23%
0%
7%
11%
5%
52%
29%
Lithuania
5%
7%
53%
27%
-20%
5% 3%
53%
25%
Denmark
100%
3% 5%
58%
32%
Iceland
90%
59%
28%
Netherlands
80%
56%
29%
Germany
70%
55%
1%
5%
25%
2%
25%
2%
-1 %
-8 %
-1 0 %
na/dk
Q11e: The availability of external financing may depend on a number of factors, some of which are specific to
your enterprise and others which are of more general relevance. For your enterprise’s credit history, would you
say that it has improved, remained unchanged or deteriorated over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
Developments in SMEs’ credit history were most beneficial in the United Kingdom,
where 37% felt that it had improved their access to external financing and 3% felt
that it had deteriorated their position, for a net impact of 34%. Other countries in
which SMEs were particularly positive regarding developments in their credit history
were Ireland (net impact of 32%) and Sweden (24%). There were only three countries
in which SMEs were negative about changes in their credit history: Greece (-10%),
Italy (-8%) and Cyprus (-1%). These countries were all hit hard by the European
sovereign debt crisis, with Greece only recently having returned to the international
capital markets between April and September 2014 and Cyprus still part of the IMF
bailout program.
SMEs in almost all countries were positive regarding changes in their credit history,
but most were ambivalent: the proportion that indicated that the effect of their credit
52
C10887 a
history on their access to external financing remained unchanged ranged from 44% in
Slovenia to 81% in Latvia.
Differences in the way enterprises view the effect of changes in their credit history on
their access to external financing by their characteristics are presented. See figure 37.
All results refer to SMEs except when results by size-class are presented.
figure 37
Changes in credit history insofar that it affects availability of external financing (left) and the
balance between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for enterprises in EU-28, by
enterprise characteristics, sorted from high to low based on the balance, in 2014
0%
sector
industry
construction
trade
services
1-9 employees
size
10-49 employees
innovativeness
non- innovative firms
total
80%
58%
22%
15%
59%
61%
22%
18%
58%
31%
57%
23%
33%
improved
64%
60%
remained unchanged
6%
7%
7%
57%
23%
11%
11%
54%
20%
6%
8%
60%
26%
11%
11%
deteriorated
0%
20%
10%
5%
6%
13%
62%
26%
100%
10%
58%
24%
250+ employees
innovative firms
60%
28%
50-249 employees
SME
40%
20%
18%
7%
13%
11%
4%
15%
5%
23%
4%
6%
12%
26%
5%
12%
5%
10%
6%
11%
6%
30%
15%
9%
12%
na/dk
Q11e: The availability of external financing may depend on a number of factors, some of which are specific to
your enterprise and others which are of more general relevance. For your enterprise’s credit history, would you
say that it has improved, remained unchanged or deteriorated over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
Of the four economic sectors discerned, SMEs in the industry are most positive about
developments in their credit history with a net impact of 18% versus only 7% in
construction.
There exist substantial differences among size classes. Micro enterprises are barely
positive about their credit history with a balance of positive and negative answers of
4%, meaning there are only slightly more enterprises feel that their credit history has
changed in such a way that it improved their access to finance than there are
enterprises that feel it worsened their position. For large enterprises on the other
hand, the balance amounted to 26%: a strongly significant difference. The size of the
net impact increased consistently with size. When compared to the results presented
in figure 25, it can be seen that micro enterprises were the ones most often denied
their application in full.
Innovative SMEs are more positive about developments in their credit history than
non-innovative SMEs. Innovative SMEs report a 15% balance, while non-innovative
SMEs report a 9% balance.
C10887 a
53
2.6.2 Own capital
Differences among countries regarding changes in SMEs’ own capital and their impact
on the availability of external financing to SMEs in the EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro
are presented in figure 38 for 2014.
figure 38
Changes in enterprises’ own capital insofar that it affects availability of external financing (left)
and the balance between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for EU-28, Iceland
and Montenegro SMEs, by country, sorted from high to low based on the balance, in 2014
0%
10%
20%
Denmark
30%
40%
50%
70%
60%
48%
Iceland
49%
Ireland
90%
Sweden
40%
48%
40%
48%
Germany
39%
30%
60%
40%
36%
33%
2%
8%
5%
32%
4%
32%
8%
8%
28%
0%
3%
11%
51%
50%
-30%
3%
13%
43%
United Kingdom
100%
8%
35%
44%
Netherlands
80%
41%
20%
1%
31%
2%
29%
Luxembourg
33%
61%
4% 1%
29%
Malta
33%
62%
4% 1%
29%
Austria
39%
Czech Republic
Belgium
38%
Hungary
Estonia
31%
Lithuania
Latvia
22%
Croatia
Poland
32%
20%
5%
20%
4%
18%
4% 1%
10%
62%
50%
31%
22%
2%
11%
73%
27%
Finland
7%
57%
24%
22%
3%
9%
62%
29%
24%
2%
9%
59%
26%
Slovenia
7%
57%
29%
1%
2%
14%
61%
27%
1%
7%
47%
29%
Montenegro
12%
48%
60%
32%
15%
54%
14%
18%
1%
18%
3%
17%
1%
17%
total
29%
53%
15%
2%
14%
EU-28
29%
53%
15%
2%
14%
Romania
25%
Portugal
25%
Slovakia
Bulgaria
Spain
Italy
France
Cyprus
Greece
58%
14%
14%
58%
25%
56%
18%
16%
67%
21%
13%
60%
14%
17%
64%
19%
21%
52%
16%
27%
58%
18%
remained unchanged
33%
deteriorated
11%
10%
3%
9%
2%
5%
1%
1%
2%
26%
47%
improved
2%
3%
4%
-7 %
-8 %
-1 0 %
1%
-1 6 %
na/dk
Q11d: The availability of external financing may depend on a number of factors, some of which are specific to
your enterprise and others which are of more general relevance. For your enterprise’s own capital, would you
say that it has improved, remained unchanged or deteriorated over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
Developments in SMEs’ own capital were most beneficial in Denmark, where 48% felt
that it had improved their access to external financing and 8% felt that it had
deteriorated their position, for a net impact of 40%. Other countries in which SMEs
were particularly positive regarding developments in their credit history were Iceland
(net impact of 36%) and Ireland (33%). SMEs in only four countries reported negative
impacts of changes in their own capital, with the strongest negative impacts reported
in Greece (-16%) and Cyprus (-10%). These countries were all hit hard by the
European sovereign debt crisis, with Greece only recently having returned to the
international capital markets between April and September 2014 and Cyprus still part
of the IMF bailout program.
SMEs in almost all of the countries were positive regarding changes in their own
capital, but most were simply ambivalent: the proportion that indicated that the effect
54
C10887 a
of their own capital on their access to external financing remained unchanged ranged
from 28% in the Netherlands to 73% in Latvia.
Differences among the way enterprises view the effect of changes in their own capital
on their access to external financing by their characteristics are presented in figure
39. All results refer to SMEs except when results by size-class are presented.
figure 39
Changes in enterprises’ own capital insofar that it affects availability of external financing (left)
and the balance between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for enterprises in EU28, by enterprise characteristics, sorted from high to low based on the balance, in 2014
0%
20%
sector
industry
construction
services
30%
size
innovativeness
innovative firms
non- innovative firms
total
17%
17%
53%
15%
55%
52%
37%
12%
52%
29%
53%
42%
34%
48%
59%
29%
improved
15%
49%
24%
53%
remained unchanged
deteriorated
9%
8%
0%
10%
20%
2%
1%
12%
15%
2%
21%
2%
28%
2%
14%
34%
2%
16%
2%
14%
2%
15%
2%
40%
7%
2%
2%
30%
21%
2%
3%
20%
34%
250+ employees
100%
12%
52%
22%
50-249 employees
SME
80%
57%
29%
10-49 employees
60%
54%
24%
trade
1-9 employees
40%
33%
18%
10%
14%
na/dk
Q11d: The availability of external financing may depend on a number of factors, some of which are specific to
your enterprise and others which are of more general relevance. For your enterprise’s own capital, would you
say that it has improved, remained unchanged or deteriorated over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
Of the four economic sectors discerned, SMEs in industry are most positive about
developments in their own capital with a net impact of 18% versus 7% in
construction.
Substantial differences among size classes exist. Micro enterprises are the least
optimistic about their own capital with a balance of 4%, while for large enterprises the
balance amounted to 26%: a strongly significant difference. The balance increased
consistently with enterprise size. Again, when compared to the results presented in
figure 25, it turns out that micro enterprises were the ones most often denied their
application in full. Innovative SMEs are more often positive about their own capital
with a net impact of 18% versus 10% for non-innovative SMEs.
C10887 a
55
2 . 6 . 3 F i r m - s pe c i f ic o u t l o o k
Differences regarding the firm-specific outlook and its impact on the availability of
external financing to SMEs among countries are presented in figure 40 for 2014.
figure 40
Changes in firm-specific outlook insofar that it affects availability of external financing (left) and
the balance between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for EU-28, Iceland and
Montenegro SMEs, by country, sorted from high to low based on the balance, in 2014
0%
10%
20%
30%
Iceland
40%
50%
60%
Ireland
Czech Republic
34%
Hungary
Malta
32%
Sweden
22%
Montenegro
Germany
8%
Latvia
Slovakia
27%
Spain
28%
Poland
14%
40%
28%
31%
20%
14%
14%
14%
6%
12%
5%
12%
6%
12%
11%
22%
18%
49%
30%
Belgium
11%
51%
32%
Bulgaria
Slovenia
14%
17%
60%
25%
1%
4%
15%
48%
23%
Lithuania
21%
20%
54%
29%
24%
12%
55%
26%
Romania
36%
28%
4%
12%
50%
29%
50%
8%
18%
57%
11%
6%
10%
6%
10%
45%
20%
7%
9%
43%
21%
6%
8%
45%
20%
7%
24%
42%
8%
3%
7%
total
26%
46%
21%
7%
6%
EU-28
26%
46%
21%
7%
6%
Denmark
16%
62%
Greece
Croatia
23%
Portugal
Austria
18%
Cyprus
18%
Italy
14%
France
14%
21%
37%
32%
47%
34%
50%
31%
40%
remained unchanged
39%
deteriorated
5%
2%
0%
5%
-2 %
5%
9%
32%
42%
improved
5%
5%
26%
58%
22%
12%
23%
44%
16%
Finland
25%
52%
24%
Estonia
11%
40%
30%
60%
39%
4%
55%
27%
30%
8%
10%
40%
0%
5%
18%
48%
39%
Luxembourg
7%
31%
-30%
8%
10%
42%
46%
100%
6%
36%
42%
Netherlands
90%
30%
49%
United Kingdom
80%
70%
56%
4%
6%
6%
6%
-5 %
-1 0 %
-1 4 %
-1 5 %
-1 7 %
-2 5 %
na/dk
Q11c: The availability of external financing may depend on a number of factors, some of which are specific to
your enterprise and others which are of more general relevance. For your firm-specific outlook with respect to
your sales and profitability or business plan, would you say that it has improved, remained unchanged or
deteriorated over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
Developments in SMEs’ outlook were most beneficial in Iceland, where 56% felt that it
had improved their access to external financing and 6% felt that it had deteriorated
their position, for a net impact of 50%. Other countries in which SMEs were
particularly positive regarding developments in their outlook were Ireland (net impact
of 39%) and the United Kingdom (36%). SMEs in seven countries reported negative
impacts of changes in their outlook. The strongest negative impacts were reported in
France (-25%) and Italy (-17%).
Overall, SMEs were positive about the impact of changes in their firm-specific outlook
on their access to external financing: the balance amounted to 6% for SMEs in the EU28. This means the proportion that reported a negative impact was lower than the
proportion that reported a positive impact.
56
C10887 a
Differences among the way enterprises view the effect of changes in their own outlook
on their access to external financing by their characteristics are presented in figure
41. All results are for SMEs except when presented by size class.
figure 41
Changes in firm-specific outlook insofar that it affects availability of external financing (left) and
the balance between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for enterprises in EU-28,
by enterprise characteristics, sorted from high to low based on the balance, in 2014
20%
0%
sector
industry
construction
26%
size
SME
27%
innovativeness
19%
47%
26%
21%
42%
39%
31%
21%
51%
26%
20%
46%
remained unchanged
deteriorated
21%
20%
2%
7%
-3 %
7%
6%
19%
5%
6%
24%
4%
10%
6%
8%
7%
30%
-1 %
7%
15%
43%
20%
improved
8%
15%
46%
10%
8%
20%
45%
0%
13%
6%
24%
34%
innovative firms
total
47%
-10%
5%
5%
24%
47%
250+ employees
non- innovative firms
24%
44%
21%
100%
18%
47%
services
50-249 employees
80%
46%
23%
26%
10-49 employees
60%
31%
trade
1-9 employees
40%
0%
6%
na/dk
Q11c: The availability of external financing may depend on a number of factors, some of which are specific to
your enterprise and others which are of more general relevance. For your firm-specific outlook with respect to
your sales and profitability or business plan, would you say that it has improved, remained unchanged or
deteriorated over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
Of the four economic sectors discerned, SMEs in the industry are most positive about
developments in their outlook with a balance between ‘improved’ and ‘deteriorated’
answers
of 13% versus -1% in construction. There exist substantial differences
among size classes. Micro enterprises are the only category of enterprises that are
negative about their outlook with a balance of-3%, meaning there are fewer
enterprises that feel that their outlook has changed in such a way that it improved
their access to finance than there are enterprises that feel it worsened their position.
For large enterprises on the other hand, the balance amounted to 24%: a strongly
significant difference. The balance increased consistently with size. Comparison to the
results presented in figure 25 shows that micro enterprises were the ones most often
denied their application in full. Innovative SMEs are more often positive about their
firm-specific outlook and its effect on their access to eternal finance with a net impact
of 10% versus 0% for non-innovative SMEs.
C10887 a
57
2 . 6 . 4 G e ne r a l e c on o m i c o ut l oo k
figure 42, presents the relation between changes in the general economic outlook and
their impact on the availability of external financing to SMEs in the EU-28, Iceland and
Montenegro.
figure 42
changes in general economic outlook insofar that it affects availability of external financing (left)
and the balance between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for EU-28, Iceland
and Montenegro SMEs, by country, sorted from high to low based on the balance, in 2014
0%
10%
20%
Ireland
Iceland
Sweden
Lithuania
Hungary
25%
Poland
16%
total
EU-28
19%
Portugal
13%
Montenegro
12%
Cyprus
44%
33%
38%
4%
5%
58%
29%
61%
29%
7%
deteriorated
-1 2 %
6%
-1 4 %
6%
-1 4 %
7%
-1 8 %
8%
-1 9 %
4%
-2 2 %
10%
-2 5 %
2%
-2 7 %
1%
-3 0 %
5%
4%
3%
3%
4%
3%
5%
70%
remained unchanged
-9 %
-1 1 %
4%
62%
22%
improved
7%
53%
54%
35%
6%
France
48%
36%
4%
Finland
51%
40%
-7 %
10%
42%
47%
-7 %
6%
40%
34%
12%
7%
35%
44%
8%
6%
40%
46%
14%
Austria
28%
38%
9%
Estonia
Bulgaria
36%
55%
18%
Greece
33%
39%
9%
Slovenia
28%
33%
41%
18%
Belgium
33%
29%
49%
0%
-2 %
9%
24%
41%
19%
7%
9%
26%
43%
7%
4%
20%
27%
35%
18%
Latvia
13%
54%
17%
20%
8%
2%
11%
24%
46%
19%
Germany
28%
21%
10%
17%
39%
41%
2%
19%
54%
25%
30% 60%
8%
11%
40%
0%
32%
23%
48%
-90% -60% -30%
4%
10%
12%
47%
13%
Slovakia
16%
52%
31%
100%
10%
39%
24%
Spain
90%
32%
27%
Czech Republic
80%
27%
31%
Malta
Croatia
70%
36%
44%
Denmark
Italy
60%
50%
40%
Netherlands
Romania
40%
47%
United Kingdom
Luxembourg
30%
50%
3%
-3 3 %
-3 9 %
-4 0 %
-4 6 %
-4 7 %
-5 4 %
-5 5 %
-5 8 %
-6 5 %
na/dk
Q11c: The availability of external financing may depend on a number of factors, some of which are specific to
your enterprise and others which are of more general relevance. For the general economic outlook, would you
say that it has improved, remained unchanged or deteriorated over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
Developments in general economic outlook were only considered beneficial in eight
countries. SMEs were most positive in Ireland, where 50% felt that it had improved
their access to external financing and 10% felt that it had deteriorated their position,
for a balance of 41%. Other countries in which SMEs were positive regarding
developments in economic outlook were Iceland (balance of 32%) and the United
Kingdom (28%). However, SMEs in 21 countries reported negative impacts of changes
in their outlook, which is considerably more than for each of the three types discussed
before. The strongest negative balance was reported in Finland (-65%), France (58%) and Croatia (-55%).
Overall, SMEs were strongly negative about the impact of changes in general
economic outlook on their access to external financing: the net impact amounted to-
58
C10887 a
14% for SMEs in the EU-28. This means the proportion that reported a negative
impact was considerably greater than the proportion that reported a positive impact.
Differences among the way enterprises view the effect of changes in economic outlook
on their access to external financing by their characteristics are presented in figure
43. All results are for SMEs except when presented by size class.
figure 43
Changes in general economic outlook insofar that it affects availability of external financing
(left) and the balance between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for enterprises
in EU-28, by enterprise characteristics, sorted from high to low based on the balance, in 2014
0%
sector
industry
42%
trade
18%
40%
10-49 employees
50-249 employees
SME
19%
non- innovative firms
total
80%
32%
36%
21%
25%
32%
30%
33%
42%
21%
17%
35%
44%
19%
41%
remained unchanged
deteriorated
32%
7%
33%
6%
0%
10%
-1 9 %
-1 7 %
-1 3 %
-2 4 %
-1 1 %
-1 %
-1 4 %
6%
4%
5%
-10%
-1 0 %
5%
6%
24%
39%
-20%
5%
26%
41%
improved
7%
44%
-30%
7%
39%
42%
19%
7%
33%
39%
100%
5%
5%
35%
42%
15%
250+ employees
innovative firms
60%
42%
17%
1-9 employees
innovativeness
40%
construction
services
size
20%
21%
-1 4 %
-1 5 %
-1 4 %
na/dk
Q11: The availability of external financing may depend on a number of factors, some of which are specific to
your enterprise and others which are of more general relevance. For each of the following factors, would you
say that they have improved, remained unchanged or deteriorated over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
Of the four economic sectors discerned, SMEs in industry were least negative about
developments in the general economic outlook with a balance of -10% versus -19% in
construction. There exist substantial differences among size classes. Micro enterprises
are most negative about economic outlook with a balance of -24%, meaning there are
significantly more enterprises that feel that economic outlook has changed in such a
way that it worsened their access to finance than there are enterprises that feel it
improved their position. Large enterprises on the other hand are the only category
with a positive balance, amounting to 6%: a strongly significant difference. The size of
the balance increased consistently with size. Again, comparison to the results
presented in figure 25 shows that micro enterprises were the ones most often denied
their application in full. Innovative SMEs are only slightly less negative about general
economic outlook and its effect on their access to eternal finance with a net impact of
-14% versus -15% for non-innovative SMEs.
C10887 a
59
3
Characteristics of recently obtained finance
This chapter provides insight into the extent to which the demand for external finance
of EU-28 SMEs was actually met. The following issues are discussed: the sources of
external financing used, the impact on SMEs’ capital structure, the amount of funding
that was obtained most recently in the past two years, the source of this funding and
its actual use. The chapter follows upon the previous one which discussed the needs
for external financing of EU-28 SMEs and the degree to which they were able to meet
these needs, by presenting the characteristics of the funding acquired.
Each issue is discussed in a separate section. The sections are - when relevant - setup as follows: the situation between April and September 2014 for SMEs at EU-28
level is first compared to the situation in the same period in recent years. Next focus
is on cross-country differences in the EU-28 Member States, Iceland and Montenegro.
Finally,
the
impact
of
enterprises
characteristics
(sector,
enterprise
size
and
innovativeness) at EU-28 level is discussed.
3.1
Key findings
For acquiring funds, debt financing is the most frequently used method by European
SMEs between April and September 2014. Internal funds are used by 14% of the
SMEs, whereas equity financing is used by only a very small number. SMEs in active in
the industry sector tend to be involved in financing activities than SMEs active in
construction, trade and services. Also, there is a positive correlation between
enterprise size and financing: larger enterprises more often apply for external finance
than smaller ones. The same holds for innovative enterprises in comparison with noninnovative enterprises.
3.2
What sources of finance were used?
The previous chapter detailed the application rates among EU-28 SMEs for different
types of financing (bank loan, overdraft and credit line, trade credit and other), as
well as the subsequent success or failure rates. This section further discusses recent
use of funding by expanding the selection of all financial sources used between April
and September 2014, including include leasing and factoring, retained earnings, and
various types of loans and debt securities. As a result of changes in the questionnaire
we cannot use the results from previous waves for comparison across years. The 2014
results are presented in figure 44.
C10887 a
61
figure 44
Sources of finance used by SMEs in the EU-28 between April and September 2014
0%
10%
20%
30%
bank overdraft or credit line
37%
leasing or hire-purchase
29%
retained earnings or sales of assets (internal funds)
14%
bank loan
13%
grants or subsidised bank loan
9%
trade credit
9%
other loan
7%
factoring
6%
other sources
equity
debt securities
40%
4%
3%
1%
Q4. Are the following sources of financing relevant to your firm, that is, have you used them in the past or
considered using them in the future? Please provide a separate answer in each case.
Source: SAFE, 2013-2014; edited by Panteia.
Credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards overdraft and leasing or hire-purchase have
been used most often as a source of external financing between April and September
2014: 37% of all EU-28 SMEs used credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards overdraft
and 29% used leasing or hire-purchase. Internal funds were used by 14% of the
SMEs. Between April and September 2014 13% of the SMEs made use of bank loan
finance. 9% of the SMEs used grants or subsidised bank loans and another 9% made
use of trade credit. Other types of loans, factoring, other sources, equity and debt
securities were the least popular types of finance.
The next sections discuss the use of three general types of financing in more detail:
internal finance (retained earnings or sales of assets; section 3.2.1), debt financing
(overdraft and credit lines; leasing and factoring, trade credit, bank loans, grants of
subsidised bank loans and other types of loans; section 3.2.2), and equity finance
(section 3.2.3)
3 . 2 . 1 I n te r n a l f i na n c e ( r e t a ine d e ar n i n gs a n d s a l e s o f a s s e t s )
The first source of financing to be discussed in more detail is internal financing,
consisting of retained earnings and sales of assets. Internal financing is a form of
equity financing, albeit not obtained from outside financiers. A breakdown of the use
of this type of funding by country is presented in figure 45.
The data reveal that there are substantial differences between countries. SMEs in
Malta, Ireland and Estonia were most often able to finance their operations and
investments using internal financing from retained earnings: more than one quarter of
the SMEs did so between April and September 2014. At the other end of the spectrum
there is Portugal, where only 2% of SMEs used internal financing.
62
C10887 a
figure 45
Proportion of SMEs that used retained earnings or sales of assets as a source of financing in the
EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro, by country in 2014
0%
10%
30%
20%
Malta
27%
Ireland
27%
Estonia
25%
Lithuania
21%
France
20%
United Kingdom
20%
Luxembourg
20%
Cyprus
19%
Croatia
18%
Sweden
18%
Czech Republic
17%
Austria
17%
Bulgaria
17%
Iceland
17%
Slovenia
16%
Finland
15%
Italy
15%
Germany
15%
EU-28
14%
total
14%
Slovakia
12%
Spain
11%
Romania
11%
Hungary
10%
Netherlands
9%
Belgium
8%
Poland
8%
Latvia
8%
Montenegro
7%
Denmark
7%
Greece
Portugal
6%
2%
Note: In 2014 there have been some changes in the survey design, therefore one should be cautious when
making comparisons across years.
Q4. Are the following sources of financing relevant to your firm, that is, have you used them in the past or
considered using them in the future? (Retained earnings or sale of assets)
Source: SAFE, 2013-2014; edited by Panteia.
A breakdown by enterprise characteristic reveals a greater degree of variation of the
use of internal financing among enterprises in various sectors, size classes and
degrees of innovativeness and is presented in figure 46. All results are for SMEs
except when presented by size class.
Among the four economic sectors distinguished, the use of internal financing as a
means of funding is most prevalent among SMEs in industry: 19% of SMEs in industry
made use of retained earnings of sales of assets between April and September 2014.
SMEs in the three other sectors use it less, with proportions ranging between 13 and
15%.
Enterprise size proves to be a source of more variation with the prevalence of using
internal finance among large enterprises (with at least 250 employees) at 33%, which
C10887 a
63
is more than twice as much as that among SMEs at 14%. The proportion is smallest
among micro enterprises (1 to 9 employees) with only 9% of these enterprises having
used internal financing. The proportion increases steadily with enterprise size.
Innovative SMEs used of internal financing slightly more often than non-innovative
enterprises. This can potentially be linked to the risky nature of their business,
making it more difficult to obtain external financing as research is surrounded by
uncertainty, as are the resulting profits. 16% of innovative SMEs made use of internal
financing versus 13% of non-innovative SMEs.
figure 46
Proportion of enterprises that used retained earnings or sales of assets as a source of financing
in the EU-28, by enterprise characteristic, for the period 2013-2014
40%
33%
30%
22%
20%
19%
15% 14%
16%
13%
10%
14%
16%
13%
14%
9%
0%
Note: In 2014 there have been some changes in the survey design, therefore one should be cautious when
making comparisons across years.
Q4. Are the following sources of financing relevant to your firm, that is, have you used them in the past or
considered using them in the future? (Retained earnings or sale of assets)
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
3 . 2 . 2 D e b t fi n a n ce
The next source of financing to be discussed is debt financing, consisting of overdrafts
and credit lines, leasing and factoring, trade credit, bank loans, grants or subsidised
bank loans, debt securities, subordinated or participation loans and other types of
loans. A breakdown of the use of debt funding by country is presented in figure 47.
The data reveal that there exist substantial differences between countries. SMEs in
Sweden most often used debt financing to fund their operations and investments:
68% did so between April and September 2014. Other countries with a large
proportion of SMEs having used debt financing were Estonia, Finland. Germany, the
United Kingdom and Ireland (all over 60%). At the other end of the spectrum is
Greece, where only 28% of SMEs used debt financing.
A breakdown by enterprise characteristic also reveals a substantial degree of variation
which is presented in
64
C10887 a
figure 48. All results are for SMEs except when presented by size class. Among the
four economic sectors distinguished, the use of debt financing as a means of funding
is most prevalent among SMEs in industry: 64% of SMEs that operate in this sector
used debt financing between April and September 2014. SMEs in the other sectors use
it less, with the smallest proportion at 51% in services.
Enterprise size proves to be a somewhat greater source of variation with the
proportion among large enterprises at 80%, which is significantly greater than that
among micro enterprises at 38%. The use of debt financing increases with enterprise
size. Innovative SMEs made use of debt financing more often than non-innovative
enterprises: 58% of innovative SMEs did so versus 48% of non-innovative SMEs.
figure 47
Proportion of SMEs that used bank loans, grants or subsidised bank loans, other loans, bank
overdraft, credit line or credit cards overdraft, trade credit, leasing or hire-purchase or factoring,
debt securities issued and subordinated loans, participation loans or similar financing
instruments as sources of financing in the EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro, by country in 2014
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Sweden
Estonia
65%
Finland
63%
Germany
63%
United Kingdom
63%
Ireland
61%
France
59%
Latvia
58%
Austria
56%
Malta
55%
EU-28
54%
total
54%
Lithuania
53%
Poland
52%
Denmark
52%
Spain
52%
Slovenia
51%
Czech Republic
50%
Belgium
48%
Netherlands
47%
Croatia
47%
Luxembourg
47%
Slovakia
46%
Italy
45%
Bulgaria
44%
Iceland
43%
Romania
42%
Portugal
40%
Cyprus
40%
Hungary
39%
Montenegro
39%
Greece
80%
68%
28%
Note: In 2014 there have been some changes in the survey design, therefore one should be cautious when
making comparisons across years.
Q4. Are the following sources of financing relevant to your firm, that is, have you used them in the past or
considered using them in the future? (bank overdraft or credit line + leasing or hire-purchase +factoring +
trade credit + bank loan + other loan + grants or subsidised bank loan + debt securities issued)
Source: SAFE, 2013-2014; edited by Panteia.
C10887 a
65
figure 48
Proportion of enterprises that bank loans, grants or subsidised bank loans, other loans, bank
overdraft, credit line or credit cards overdraft, trade credit, leasing or hire-purchase or factoring,
debt securities issued and subordinated loans, participation loans or similar financing
instruments as sources of financing in the EU-28, by enterprise characteristic, for the period
2013-2014
100%
80%
80%
72%
64%
60%
54%
60%
51% 51%
40%
54%
58%
48%
54%
38%
20%
0%
Note: In 2014 there have been some changes in the survey design, therefore one should be cautious when
making comparisons across years.
Q4. Are the following sources of financing relevant to your firm, that is, have you used them in the past or
considered using them in the future? (bank overdraft or credit line + leasing or hire-purchase +factoring +
trade credit + bank loan + other loan + grants or subsidised bank loan + debt securities issued)
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
3 . 2 . 3 E q u i t y f i n an c e
The final source of financing to be discussed is equity financing, specifically equity
financing that was obtained from external sources. A breakdown of SMEs’ use of
equity funding by country is presented in figure 49. In figure 50 a breakdown by
enterprise types is presented.
In most countries less than 13% of the SMEs used equity finance between April and
September 2014 (EU-28: 3% on average). The use of equity financing, was close to
zero in the Czech Republic and Montenegro.
Across sectors of industry, SMEs’ use of equity financing only shows minor differences.
Enterprise size proves to be a source of variation, the use of equity financing being
positively correlated with enterprise size. The use of equity financing is twice as much
in large enterprises as in SMEs. Innovative SMEs use equity financing more often than
non-innovative enterprises: 4% of innovative SMEs did so versus 2% of noninnovative SMEs.
66
C10887 a
figure 49
Proportion of SMEs that used equity as a source of financing in the EU-28, Iceland and
Montenegro, by country in 2014
0%
10%
20%
Slovakia
40%
32%
Denmark
13%
Iceland
10%
Sweden
9%
Lithuania
9%
Luxembourg
8%
Slovenia
8%
Malta
7%
Latvia
6%
Greece
4%
Germany
4%
Bulgaria
4%
Croatia
4%
Finland
4%
Cyprus
3%
total
3%
EU-28
3%
Ireland
3%
Austria
2%
United Kingdom
2%
France
2%
Romania
2%
Spain
2%
Belgium
2%
Netherlands
1%
Poland
1%
Estonia
1%
Italy
1%
Hungary
0%
Portugal
0%
Czech Republic
0%
Montenegro
30%
0%
Note: In 2014 there have been some changes in the survey design, therefore one should be cautious when
making comparisons across years.
Q4. Are the following sources of financing relevant to your firm, that is, have you used them in the past or
considered using them in the future? Please provide a separate answer in each case. (Equity)
Source: SAFE, 2013-2014; edited by Panteia.
C10887 a
67
figure 50
Proportion of enterprises that used equity as a source of financing in the EU-28, by enterprise
characteristic, in 2014
8%
6%
6%
4%
3%
3%
3%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
4%
3%
3%
2%
0%
Note: In 2014 there have been some changes in the survey design, therefore one should be cautious when
making comparisons across years.
Q4. Are the following sources of financing relevant to your firm, that is, have you used them in the past or
considered using them in the future? Please provide a separate answer in each case. (Equity)
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
3.3
What amount of external finance was last obtained?
The previous sections discussed the sources of financing obtained between April and
September 2014. In this section the focus is on the size of the most recently obtained
external financing. A breakdown by size of the funding granted for the 2009-2014
period is presented in figure 51. Please not that there have been some changes in the
survey design. Differences across years could be the results of these changes,
therefore one should be careful when making comparisons across years.
In 2014, 41% of the EU-28 SMEs that applied for a loan during the past two years
received a loan of between 100,000 and one million Euro. This is slightly less than last
year, but in 2009 and 2011 this percentage amounted to only 32%. 28% of the SMEs
obtained a loan between 25,000 and 100,000 Euro in 2014, which is about the same
as in 2013, but less than in 2009 and 2011. More SMEs report having obtained a small
loan (less than 25,000 Euro) in 2014 compared to 2013, which is however less than
previous years. The proportion of SMEs that have obtained a large loan (larger than
1,000,000 Euro) varies between 11 and 15% over the years. Hence the tendency is
that loans between 100,000 and 1,000,000 Euro are becoming more important and
smaller loans less important to SMEs.
68
C10887 a
figure 51
Size of the last loan of SMEs in EU-28 for the period 2009-2014
2014
2013
3%
16%
13%
13%
15%
22%
27%
27%
22%
19%
21%
2011
2009
4%
12%
7%
22%
18%
11%
32%
32%
32%
30%
< € 2 5 ,0 00
€ 2 5 ,0 00 - 1 00,000
€ 1 0 0 ,000 - 2 5 0,000
€ 1 0 0 ,000 - 1 ,0 00,000
> € 1 ,0 0 0,0 00
not applicable
€ 2 5 0 ,000 - 1 ,0 00,000
Note: In 2014 there have been some changes in the survey design, therefore one should be cautious when
making comparisons across years.
Q8A: What is the size of the last bank loan that your enterprise obtained or renegotiated in the past 6 months?
or attempted to obtain in the past 6 months? (The question referred to the last two years in 2009, 2011 and
2013)
Source: SAFE, 2009-2014; edited by Panteia.
Differences between countries of the EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro in the sizes of
loans SMEs obtained are presented in figure 52.
There are large differences among the countries in loan sizes. SMEs obtained the
largest amounts of external financing in Luxembourg. Cyprus, Montenegro, Italy and
Spain have the lowest proportion of SMEs that obtained over 1 million Euro.
Coincidentally, Cyprus also is the country with the lowest proportion of SMEs obtaining
the funding under 25,000 Euro, together with Denmark and Iceland. In contrast, in
Slovakia, Hungary and Portugal the highest proportion of loans under 25,000 Euro is
seen.
C10887 a
69
Size of the last loan of SMEs in EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro in 2014, by country 13
figure 52
0%
10%
Slovakia
30%
20%
24%
Hungary
24%
Portugal
24%
Poland
21%
Spain
20%
Bulgaria
20%
Italy
19%
Lithuania
16%
EU-28
16%
total
15%
Slovenia
14%
Czech Republic
14%
Netherlands
14%
Luxembourg
13%
Malta
13%
Estonia
9%
Sweden
9%
Croatia
9%
Finland
4%
Greece
2%
Denmark
Iceland
6%
20%
7%
1%
19%
22%
13%
3%
28%
17%
26%
13%
31%
14%
5%
27%
50%
33%
20%
3%
29%
26%
27%
26%
30%
26%
8%
19%
33%
21%
13%
33%
24%
14%
€ 1 0 0 ,000 - 2 5 0,000
16%
27%
42%
49%
16%
22%
20%
6%
28%
22%
25%
28%
6%
18%
18%
5%
20%
26%
28%
9%
28%
17%
14%
5%
29%
29%
11%
7%
6%
15%
26%
16%
31%
1%
24%
16%
19%
2%
12%
23%
19%
20%
€ 2 5 ,0 00 - 1 00,000
8%
27%
20%
23%
2%
6%
20%
3%
22%
17%
11%
21%
37%
Cyprus
< € 2 5 ,0 00
17%
13%
18%
19%
6% 1%
22%
13%
6%
Austria
14%
22%
30%
8%
Latvia
3%
12%
19%
19%
24%
17%
7%
11%
18%
18%
28%
14%
11%
20%
33%
9%
4%
18%
14%
100%
10%
17%
21%
31%
90%
19%
16%
32%
10%
Montenegro
14%
23%
12%
Germany
12%
36%
14%
United…
80%
20%
16%
25%
16%
Ireland
70%
10%
15%
26%
16%
Belgium
60%
17%
30%
17%
France
50%
23%
22%
Romania
40%
17%
27%
33%
6%
14%
2%
6%
29%
25%
€ 2 5 0 ,000 - 1 ,0 00,000
20%
> € 1 ,0 0 0,0 00
6%
not applicable
Note: In 2014 there have been some changes in the survey design, therefore one should be cautious when
making comparisons across years.
Q8A: What is the size of the last bank loan that your enterprise obtained or renegotiated in the past 6 months?
or attempted to obtain in the past 6 months? (The question referred to the last two years in 2009, 2011 and
2013)
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
13
Please note that the unweighted number of observations was relatively low in Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia,
Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro and Iceland at below 30. These results should be interpreted with care.
70
C10887 a
Differences in the sizes of loans obtained by characteristics of enterprises in the EU-28
are presented in figure 53.
figure 53
Size of the last obtained or attempted to obtain loan of SMEs in EU-28, Montenegro and Iceland
in 2104, by enterprise characteristics
0%
sector
industry
20%
6%
18%
construction
16%
trade
17%
services
size
innovativeness
250+ employees
innovative firms
2%4%
17%
total
16%
21%
37%
4%
10%
3%
12%
3%
6% 2%3%
9%
22%
13%
€ 1 0 0 ,000 - 2 5 0,000
21%
17%
28%
3%
2%
19%
28%
3%
4%
74%
27%
2%
11%
28%
19%
17%
€ 2 5 ,0 00 - 1 00,000
15%
25%
28%
15%
16%
39%
16%
16%
23%
18%
31%
14%
19%
18%
31%
100%
18%
17%
28%
11%
non- innovative firms
< € 2 5 ,0 00
33%
35%
50-249 employees 2%
SME
21%
20%
80%
60%
36%
1-9 employees
10-49 employees
40%
22%
19%
22%
€ 2 5 0 ,000 - 1 ,0 00,000
> € 1 ,0 0 0,0 00
14%
12%
13%
3%
4%
3%
not applicable
Note: In 2014 there have been some changes in the survey design, therefore one should be cautious when
making comparisons across years.
Q8A: What is the size of the last bank loan that your enterprise obtained or renegotiated in the past 6 months?
or attempted to obtain in the past 6 months? (The question referred to the last two years in 2009, 2011 and
2013)
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
The data show that SMEs in services more often attracted small loans (less than
25,000 Euro), while SMEs in industry more often attract larger (over 100,000 Euro)
loans. Furthermore, smaller enterprises more often attract small loans (less than
25,000 Euro) than large enterprises, while the latter category more often uses large
loans (in 74% of the cases, over 1 million Euro). Differences between innovative and
non-innovative enterprises are not significant.
3.4
Which interest rate was charged for bank overdraft or credit
line?
Information on the cost to SMEs of using bank overdraft or credit line is presented in
figure 54. The median of the interest rate paid by EU-28 SMEs amounts to 5%
between April and September 2014. Differences between countries are significant,
however. The median of the interest rate is highest
in Greece (8%), Montenegro
(8%), Cyprus (7.9%) and Iceland (7.8%). The median interest rate is the lowest in
Luxembourg (2%). Also in Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Finland and France SMEs pay a
relatively low interest rate (with a median of 3%).
C10887 a
71
Median of the interest rate on bank overdraft and credit line for SMEs in EU-28, Iceland and
Montenegro, by country in 2014 14
figure 54
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Greece
8 .0
Montenegro
8 .0
Cyprus
7 .9
Iceland
7 .8
Bulgaria
7 .0
Croatia
7 .0
Romania
6 .5
Ireland
6 .0
Italy
6 .0
Germany
6 .0
Poland
6 .0
Malta
5 .7
Portugal
5 .5
Spain
5 .5
total
5 .0
EU-28
5 .0
Slovenia
5 .0
Lithuania
5 .0
Denmark
5 .0
Latvia
4 .5
Netherlands
4 .0
Slovakia
4 .0
Sweden
4 .0
Hungary
3 .8
United Kingdom
3 .8
Czech Republic
3 .2
Austria
3 .0
Belgium
3 .0
Estonia
3 .0
Finland
3 .0
France
3 .0
Luxembourg
2 .0
Q8B: What interest rate was charged for the credit line or bank overdraft for which you applied?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
The interest paid by SMEs in industry is well below average, while SMEs in services
are confronted with an above-average interest rate (figure 55). The variation across
14
Please note that the unweighted number of observations was relatively low in Sweden, Lithuania, Cyprus,
Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro and Iceland at below 30. These results should be interpreted
with care.
72
C10887 a
enterprise size classes is stronger. The data show that the interest rate for smaller
enterprises is less than the interest paid by large enterprises: micro enterprises pay
almost 8% interest, while for large enterprises the interest rate amounts to only 3%,
which is half of the average rate for SMEs. The difference between innovative and
non-innovative SMEs is negligible.
figure 55
Mean interest rate on bank overdraft and credit line for enterprises in EU-28, by enterprise
characteristics in 2014
10
7 .9
8
6
5 .8
6 .2
6 .6
4 .8
4
6 .1
6 .0
5 .8
5 .8
6 .0
4 .2
3 .1
2
0
Q8B: What interest rate was charged for the credit line or bank overdraft for which you applied?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
C10887 a
73
3.1
What was the total use of bank products?
Based on the question (Q4) were SMEs were asked about whether or not they used
various types of external financing the percentage of SMEs that used bank product
(bank loan, credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards overdraft) relative to number of
SMEs that used any type of external financing was calculated. 15
The use of bank product by SMEs in EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro has been fairly
stable over the years as approximately 70% of SMEs do use bank product (figure 56).
figure 56
Use of bank products by SMEs in EU-28 in the period 2009 -2014
80%
71%
70%
60%
68%
68%
68%
2014
2013
2011
2009
Note: In 2014 a new filter was introduced in the SAFE questionnaire. This filter was simulated in the data of
the previous survey rounds, nevertheless one should be cautious when making comparisons across years.
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
On average, 68% of the SMEs used bank products in the period under review.
However, the proportion of SMEs that used bank products varied between more than
80% in Ireland, Italy, Malta and Iceland, and less than 50% in Finland, Latvia,
Estonia, Lithuania and Sweden (figure 57). There is little variation in the use of bank
products across enterprise categories (figure 58)
15
The number of SMEs that used either a bank loan, credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards overdraft was
divided by the number of SMEs that used either grants or subsides bank loans, credit line, bank overdraft or
credit overdraft, bank loans, trade credit, debt securities, equity capital, leasing or hire-purchase, factoring,
other types of loans or other sources of financing.
74
C10887 a
figure 57
Use of bank products, in the EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro by country, sorted from high to low
based on the 2014 proportion
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Iceland
91%
Malta
88%
Italy
85%
Ireland
82%
Luxembourg
80%
Belgium
80%
Cyprus
80%
Montenegro
78%
Portugal
77%
France
75%
Denmark
71%
Romania
71%
Bulgaria
70%
Austria
69%
Netherlands
69%
Spain
69%
Slovenia
69%
total
68%
EU-28
68%
Poland
68%
United Kingdom
68%
Croatia
68%
Czech Republic
64%
Hungary
60%
Germany
59%
Slovakia
54%
Greece
54%
Finland
45%
Latvia
45%
Estonia
44%
Lithuania
Sweden
100%
42%
32%
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
C10887 a
75
figure 58
Use of bank products of SMEs in EU-28, by enterprise characteristic, in 2014
80%
71%
70%
71%
70%
69%
67%
65%
68%
68% 68%
68%
68%
66%
60%
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
76
C10887 a
4
Future needs for external finance
This chapter focusses on the future needs for external finance of SMEs in EU-28. In
the first section the growth expectations in terms of turnover are discussed. Next the
need for finance for SMEs that were expecting to grow is explored. In two separate
sections the amount of financing required as well as the type of funds preferred are
discussed. The last section focuses on factors affecting future financing. Each section
starts with presenting the results for SMEs at EU-28 level; next the result for the
individual 28 EU Member States, Iceland and Montenegro are presented and finally
attention is paid to the impact of enterprise characteristics.
4.1
Key findings
Expected growth
In 2014, more than half of SMEs in EU-28 expected their company’s turnover to grow
over the next two or three years. The majority of these SMEs expected an annual
growth rate up to 20%. Almost one third of the SMEs expected their company to stay
the same size, while one out of ten SMEs was expecting a decrease of the turnover.
Over the past few years SMEs in EU-28 became more positive about the expected
growth.
There were large differences between European countries. In 2014, SMEs were the
most optimistic about their prospect in Lithuania and were the most pessimistic in
Spain and Greece.
In 2014, the prospects regarding growth in turnover varied slightly between sectors.
SMEs in industry were the most optimistic and SMEs in construction were the most
pessimistic.
In 2014, the proportion of enterprises expecting to grow over the next two or three
years increased with enterprise size. In line with this, the proportion of enterprises
expecting a decline in turnover decreased with enterprise size. However, the
proportion
of
enterprises
that
expected
to
grow
substantially
decreased
with
enterprise size.
In 2014, innovative SMEs were more optimistic about their future growth than noninnovative enterprises.
Type of future funding
Among SMEs in EU-28 expecting to grow in the next two or three years, bank loans
were the most preferred type of external financing in 2014. The second most
preferred type of funding were other sources such as trade credit or loans from
related companies, shareholders or public sources. Equity investment was the least
preferred type of funding among SMEs with the ambition to grow.
In 2014, in all countries except in Hungary, half or more than half of the SMEs
preferred bank loans, making bank loans the most preferred type of external financing
in all countries. In most European countries, equity investments was not a very
popular source of external financing.
In 2014, preferences did not differ significantly across sectors, size classes and levels
of innovativeness.
C10887 a
77
Amount of future funding
In 2014, most SMEs expecting growth would like to acquire financing between 25,000
Euro and 99,999 Euro (25%). Around 13% of SMEs would aim at obtaining less than
25,000 Euro, 19% would like to obtain 100,000 Euro t 249,999 Euro, 18% would aim
at obtaining 250,000 Euro to 1 million Euro and 14% would aim at obtaining more
than 1 million Euro to finance their growth ambitions.
There were large differences between countries regarding the amount of finance
needed. SMEs in Luxembourg would like to obtain the highest levels of funding
whereas SMEs in Portugal aimed to obtain the lowest amount of funding.
In 2014, the required amount of finance SMEs varies between sectors. SMEs in
industry aimed to acquire higher levels of external financing.
Within the category of SMEs, the amount of funding aimed to obtain increased with
enterprise size.
In 2014, innovative SMEs indicated slightly higher amounts of required funding than
non-innovative SMEs did.
Drivers of future funding
In all countries, making existing public measures easier to obtain finance or tax
incentives, were indicated as the most important drivers for improving the access to
future financing. The only two exceptions were Sweden and Czech Republic where
SMEs perceived making existing public measures easier to obtain finance and the
provision of guaranteed loans as the most important drivers. In all countries, except
in Croatia and Greece, measures to facilitate equity investments and export credits or
guarantees, were perceived as the least important drivers.
The ranking of the six drivers affecting future funding was similar for each sector and
enterprise sizes. The ranking was also stable over time.
4.2
Do SMEs expect to grow?
In 2014, more than half of the SMEs in EU-28 expected turnover to grow over the next
two or three years (61%), see figure 59. 49% of the SMEs expected an annual growth
rate up to 20% and 12% of the SMEs even expected an annual growth rate of more
than 20%. About one quarter (27%) of the SMEs expected to remain the same size,
while one out of ten SMEs (10%) was expecting a decline in turnover. This reflects the
general consensus that the EU economy having stabilised and slowly moving forward.
Business indicators are improving, producer confidence is rising (Kraemer-Eis, Lang &
Gvetadze, 2014) and the economic recovery of the EU is under way (European
Commission, 2014).
Between 2013 and 2014, the proportions of SMEs expecting a decrease of or similar
turnover, is declining. Over the past few years SMEs have become more positive about
the expected growth. Between 2009 and 2014 the proportion of SMEs expecting to
grow increased from 47% in 2009 to 61% in 2014. The increasing proportion of SMEs
that is positive regarding their growth prospects is in line with the results presented in
figure 1 of chapter 2, which implied that SMEs are investing more in fixed capital and
have stronger working capital needs.
78
C10887 a
figure 59
Growth expectations over the next two or three years of SMEs in EU-28, for the period 20092014
0%
25%
50%
2014
12%
2013
9%
48%
2011
11%
45%
2009
11%
grow substantially
75%
27%
49%
29%
28%
36%
grow moderately
100%
29%
sam e size
10%
3%
11%
4%
3%
13%
17%
become smaller
6%
na/dk
Q17. Considering the turnover over the next two to three years, how much does your enterprise expect to
grow per year?
Note: grow substantially =over 20% growth per year in terms of turnover; grow moderately = below 20% per
year in terms of turnover
Source: SAFE, 2009-2014; edited by Panteia.
figure 60 presents the growth expectations of SMEs by country. In 2014, the
proportion of SMEs expecting turnover growth over the next two or three years ranged
from 32% in Greece and Portugal to 82% in Lithuania and Latvia. In Lithuania 36% of
the SMEs expected an annual growth rate of more than 20%, while only 3% of the
SMEs in Malta expected such a substantial growth. The proportion of SMEs expecting
turnover to decline ranged from 0% in Latvia and 2% in Lithuania to 35% in Spain and
31% in Greece.
In Lithuania, where growth remained strong in 2013 and is expected to continue at a
steady pace in 2014 and 2015 (European Commission, 2014), SMEs were the most
optimistic about their prospects, with a relative high proportion of SMEs expecting
substantial growth and a low proportion of SMEs expecting decline. Also SMEs in
Denmark, which is moving out of stagnation with a potential for increased private
consumption and unemployment expected to further decline (European Commission,
2014), were rather optimistic. A relatively high proportion of Danish SMEs were
expecting substantial (22%) and moderate (50%) growth, whereas a relatively low
proportion of SMEs was expecting turnover to decline (4%). In contrast, the
expectations were most negative in Spain and Greece, where the economy was
expected to recover in 2014 (European Commission, 2014). In addition to the high
proportion of SMEs that expected to become smaller, the proportion of SMEs expecting
growth in turnover was relatively low (37% and 32% respectively).
The most notable changes between 2013 and 2014 were in Cyprus. Here, SMEs
became much more optimistic, the proportion of SMEs that expected growth increased
from 15% in 2013 to 48% in 2014.
C10887 a
79
figure 60
Growth expectations over the next two or three years of SMEs in EU-28, Iceland and
Montenegro by country, sorted from high to low based on the proportion of substantial growth,
in 2014
0%
25%
Lithuania
50%
36%
Denmark
17%
Sweden
17%
Montenegro
17%
United Kingdom
17%
Iceland
16%
Cyprus
15%
Slovenia
14%
Netherlands
14%
11%
2%
4%
21%
50%
19%
Finland
100%
46%
22%
Romania
75%
4% 2%
23%
47%
49%
7% 1%
25%
22%
52%
62%
4% 5%
11%
48%
5% 6%
24%
52%
27%
12%
18%
47%
8%
25%
49%
2%
9%
20%
33%
3%
8%
10%
24%
3%
1%
11%
Italy
13%
Belgium
13%
Bulgaria
12%
total
11%
45%
27%
13%
3%
EU-28
11%
45%
28%
13%
3%
Greece
11%
Slovakia
11%
47%
Poland
11%
48%
Latvia
10%
Germany
10%
Estonia
10%
47%
Ireland
10%
48%
Hungary
9%
Luxembourg
9%
Portugal
9%
Czech Republic
8%
Croatia
7%
France
7%
Austria
35%
4%
Malta
3%
grow substantially
10%
49%
33%
21%
20%
7% 1%
13%
24%
27%
10%
4%
14%
22%
4%
7%
2%
2%
1%
40%
29%
36%
54%
19%
24%
23%
52%
42%
28%
51%
35%
28%
sam e size
5%
11%
4%
5%
2%
1%
12%
26%
25%
7%
11%
31%
58%
5%
16%
28%
48%
3%
11%
30%
grow moderately
3%
14%
58%
42%
8%
17%
31%
72%
33%
5%
30%
34%
6%
Spain
37%
19%
become smaller
3%
7%
3%
9%
na/dk
Q17. Considering the turnover over the next two to three years (2014-2016), how much does your enterprise
expect to grow per year?
Note: grow substantially =over 20% growth per year in terms of turnover; grow moderately = below 20% per
year in terms of turnover
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
80
C10887 a
figure 61
Growth expectations over the next two or three years of SMEs in EU-28 by enterprise
characteristic, in 2014
sector
0%
industry
11%
construction
12%
trade
11%
services
12%
1-9 employees
13%
size
10-49 employees
50-249 employees
31%
47%
27%
49%
total
12%
grow substantially
27%
27%
16%
52%
22%
33%
49%
grow moderately
3%
become smaller
3%
4%
2%
6% 2%
3%
6% 3%
8%
12%
27%
sam e size
11%
10%
68%
46%
3%
9%
21%
62%
16%
12%
12%
50%
49%
6% 3%
10%
30%
7%
7%
27%
41%
100%
80%
24%
41%
12%
innovative firms
60%
55%
9%
250+ employees
non- innovative firms
40%
12%
SME
innovativeness
20%
10%
3%
3%
3%
na/dk
Q17. Considering the turnover over the next two to three years (2014-2016), how much does your enterprise
expect to grow per year?
Note: grow substantially =over 20% growth per year in terms of turnover; grow moderately = below 20% per
year in terms of turnover
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
figure 61 shows that the prospects regarding growth in turnover vary slightly between
sectors. SMEs in industry were the most optimistic with the highest proportion of
SMEs expecting growth (66%) and a rather low proportion of SMEs expecting declining
turnover (6%). SMEs in construction were the most pessimistic, with a low proportion
of SMEs expecting growth (53%) combined with relatively the highest proportion of
SMEs expecting to turnover to decline (12%). Between 2013 and 2014 the
expectations regarding turnover development did not change.
The proportion of enterprises that expected to grow over the next two or three years
increased with enterprise size, see figure 61. Similarly, the proportion of enterprises
that expected turnover to decline decreased with enterprise size. 75% of the large
enterprises (>250 employees) expected growth versus 54% of the micro enterprises.
Conversely, 6% of the large and medium sized enterprises expected a decline in
turnover versus 12% of the micro enterprises. In contrast, the proportion of
enterprises expecting to grow substantially decreased with enterprise size. 13% of the
small enterprises expected to grow substantially versus 7% of the large enterprises.
The size class pattern of growth expectations remained stable between 2013 and
2014.
Additionally, innovative SMEs were the most optimistic about future growth. Among
innovative enterprises a relatively high proportion of SMEs expected substantial (16%)
and moderate (52%) growth. Among non-innovative SMEs a relatively low proportion
C10887 a
81
of SMEs expected substantial (7%) and moderate (46%) growth. In 2013 the
differences between innovative and non-innovative SMEs were about similar, but were
less pronounced.
4.3
What type of future financing is preferred?
As in previous years, bank loans were the most preferred type of external financing
among SMEs in EU-28 expecting to grow in the next two or three years, see figure 4.
Between 2009 and 2014 the proportion of SMEs preferring bank loans is fairly stable
varying between 62% and 67%. In 2014, 15% of the SMEs preferred other sources of
financing such as trade credit or loans from related companies, shareholders or public
sources. Furthermore, 7% of the SMEs with growth ambitions preferred equity
investment and 10% preferred other types of financing. The preferences for future
financing are close to the preferences for financing that was needed between April and
September 2014 as presented in figure 11 of chapter 2, showing that SMEs mostly
prefer bank funding.
Overall, the distributions of preferred types of financing were similar for all survey
years.
figure 62
The type of financing EU-28 SMEs prefer to realise their growth ambitions, for the period 20092014
0%
25%
2014
50%
62%
2013
15%
12%
68%
2011
63%
2009
14%
67%
bank loan
other source
75%
11%
equity
other
100%
7%
5%
7%
6%
10%
5%
9%
6%
9%
7%
7%
8%
dk/ na
Q20. If you need external financing to realise your growth ambitions, what type of external financing would
you prefer most?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
In 2014, in all countries, except in Denmark, Romania and Hungary, SMEs expecting
growth preferred bank loans (figure 62). The proportion of SMEs that preferred bank
loans ranged from 40% in Hungary to 73% in France and Belgium.
Compared to EU-28 average, a relatively high proportion of SMEs preferred other
sources such as trade credit or loans from related companies, shareholder or public
sources in Hungary (27%), Greece (21%), the Netherlands (21%), Spain (19%),
Latvia (19/%) and Montenegro (19%). In contrast, a relatively low proportion of SMEs
preferred these other sources in Iceland (5%) and Slovenia (7%).
In most European countries, equity investments and other types financing were the
least preferred choices of external financing. The highest proportions of SMEs
82
C10887 a
preferring equity investment were in Sweden (27%), Iceland (23%) and Croatia
(23%). Romania stood out regarding the number of SMEs preferring other types of
financing, here 23% of the SMEs would choose this category of financing.
figure 63
The type of financing EU-28 SMEs prefer to realise their growth ambitions in EU-28, Iceland and
Montenegro by country, in 2014
0%
25%
50%
Italy
75%
69%
Greece
20%
60%
5%
9%
19%
55%
Sweden
51%
Germany
Cyprus
16%
60%
EU-28
total
62%
Finland
15%
Montenegro
60%
66%
Czech Republic
66%
Portugal
8%
Bulgaria
62%
18%
Iceland
61%
United Kingdom
63%
Slovenia
62%
Croatia
50%
Denmark
49%
Romania
Slovakia
7%
12%
14%
Hungary
40%
bank loan
other source
equity
7%
13%
11%
7%
8%
7%
12%
7%
23%
9%
1%
9%
8%
11%
18%
27%
5% 6%
12%
8%
11%
51%
6%
8%
14%
58%
Estonia
18%
19%
61%
Lithuania
6%
23%
12%
45%
6%
2% 7%
23%
10%
2%6%
2% 10%
6%
5%
5%
9% 1%6%
13%
8%
5%
5%
8%
13%
16%
5%
10%
11%
71%
5%
15%
19%
Luxembourg
4%
4%
10%
5%
13%
8%
8%
8%
7%
18%
64%
5%
13%
15%
57%
7% 4%
9%
15%
62%
Poland
5% 4%
5%
10%
63%
3%
6% 4%
16%
73%
Austria
3%
8%
27%
68%
Belgium
3%
12%
7%
17%
11%
3%
8%
14%
6%
73%
Latvia
9%
19%
France
6% 2%
11%
58%
Spain
1%
1%
12%
21%
21%
70%
Netherlands
10%
18%
49%
Ireland
6%
17%
66%
Malta
100%
18%
other
7%
7%
9%
10%
13%
13%
15%
dk/ na
Q20. If you need external financing to realise your growth ambitions, what type of external financing would
you prefer most?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
As shown in figure 64 the preferred type of financing does not differ much across
sectors. There are however significant variations across enterprise size classes. In
C10887 a
83
particular, large enterprises have a stronger preference for equity funding than SMEs
do. There is also a remarkable difference between innovative and non-innovative
enterprises, the former having a stronger preference for equity while a larger
proportion of the latter express preference for bank loans.
figure 64
The type of financing EU-28 enterprises prefer to realise their growth ambitions, in EU-28 by
enterprise characteristic, in 2014
sector
0%
25%
size
75%
100%
industry
66%
14%
7% 10% 4%
construction
64%
18%
6% 7% 5%
trade
62%
services
60%
1-9 employees
59%
10-49 employees
50-249 employees
16%
innovative firms
60%
non- innovative firms
8%
12% 5%
equity
10% 4%
7% 8% 4%
7%
18%
6% 11% 5%
13%
15%
other
7%
5%
15%
16%
62%
other source
11%
15%
67%
total
9%
15%
62%
61%
bank loan
15%
66%
250+ employees
6% 11% 5%
16%
63%
SME
innovativeness
50%
9%
10% 5%
11%
5% 9%
7%
10%
4%
6%
5%
dk/ na
Q20. If you need external financing to realise your growth ambitions, what type of external financing would
you prefer most?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
84
C10887 a
4.4
What amount of future financing is needed?
SMEs across EU-28 that were expecting growth were asked to indicate what amount of
financing they would like to obtain. In 2014, most SMEs expecting growth would aim
at obtaining financing between 25,000 Euro and 99,999 Euro (25%; see figure 65).
13% of SMEs would aim at obtaining less than 25,000 Euro, 19% would aim at
obtaining between 100,000 Euro and 249,999 Euro, 18% would aim at obtaining
between 250,000 Euro and 1 million Euro and 14% would aim at obtaining more than
1 million Euro to finance their growth ambitions. Between 2013 and 2014 there were
no major changes in the amount of financing SMEs obtain.
figure 65
Amount of financing SMEs in EU-28 need to realise their growth ambitions, for the period 20132014
2013
2014
11%
13%
14%
19%
14%
25%
11%
23%
18%
16%
16%
19%
< €2 5 ,0 00
€2 5 ,0 00- €99,9 99
€1 0 0 ,000 - €2 49,9 99
€2 5 0 ,000 - €1 million
> €1 million
na/dk
Q21. If you need external financing to realise your growth ambitions, what amount of financing would you aim
to obtain?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
In 2014, there were large differences between countries in the amount of finance
SMEs would aim to obtain (figure 66). Compared to EU-28 average a relatively high
proportion of SMEs aimed for more than 1 million Euro in Luxembourg (30%) and the
Netherlands (20%), whereas a relatively low proportion of SMEs aimed for this
amount of funding in Hungary (6%), Portugal (6%) and Latvia (7%).
A relatively low proportion of SMEs aimed for less than € 25,000 in Cyprus (<1%),
Denmark (4%) and Greece (4%) and a relatively high proportion of SMEs aimed for
this amount of financing in Estonia (22%) and Portugal (21%).
C10887 a
85
figure 66
Amount of financing SMEs need to realise their growth ambitions in EU-28, Iceland and
Montenegro by country, in 2014
0%
Greece
25%
Italy
12%
9%
16%
Bulgaria
16%
19%
27%
12%
Austria
12%
27%
6%
8%
10%
16%
10%
14%
19%
24%
8%
10%
23%
18%
21%
17%
11%
21%
14%
22%
8%
17%
20%
7%
17%
15%
19%
6%
6%
13%
16%
17%
6%
11%
22%
20%
4%
8%
19%
20%
23%
2%
16%
17%
33%
10%
14%
18%
36%
18%
France
Finland
31%
23%
2%
4%
19%
24%
25%
Ireland
Germany
28%
9%
14%
30%
22%
21%
Poland
25%
30%
14%
Portugal
36%
8%
15%
Spain
Malta
21%
100%
22%
18%
30%
Romania
75%
27%
31%
4%
Cyprus
Luxembourg
50%
10%
19%
18%
11%
19%
11%
EU-28
13%
25%
19%
18%
14%
11%
total
13%
25%
19%
18%
14%
11%
Montenegro
13%
Hungary
12%
16%
Lithuania
17%
Iceland
Sweden
17%
Denmark
< €2 5 ,0 00
12%
17%
4%
13%
€2 5 ,0 00- €99,9 99
19%
21%
14%
17%
15%
20%
€1 0 0 ,000 - €2 49,9 99
16%
18%
10%
17%
18%
14%
16%
15%
13%
10%
15%
12%
15%
26%
15%
10%
14%
21%
17%
10%
Slovakia
25%
15%
7%
20%
17%
14%
11%
17%
16%
18%
13%
6%
20%
14%
20%
14%
16%
14%
16%
18%
29%
6%
17%
14%
22%
United Kingdom
17%
14%
13%
19%
29%
22%
13%
12%
19%
22%
Latvia
Estonia
15%
22%
Netherlands
16%
14%
32%
10%
12%
17%
36%
14%
Croatia
Czech Republic
18%
18%
Slovenia
Belgium
22%
19%
23%
24%
9%
17%
€2 5 0 ,000 - €1 million
25%
32%
> €1 million
na/dk
Q21. If you need external financing to realise your growth ambitions, what amount of financing would you aim
to obtain?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
86
C10887 a
figure 67
Amount of financing enterprises need to realise their growth ambitions in EU-28 by enterprise
characteristic, in 2014
0%
industry
sector
construction
25%
5%
15%
services
15%
size
2% 7%
SME
13%
250+ employees
innovative firms
non- innovative firms
total
< €2 5 ,0 00
27%
7%
50-249 employees
18%
18%
26%
15%
13%
13%
15%
12%
12%
21%
8% 3% 9%
11%
31%
19%
18%
24%
16%
20%
27%
13%
25%
€1 0 0 ,000 - €2 49,9 99
17%
19%
11%
15%
14%
68%
11%
8%
11%
29%
25%
10%
17%
16%
2%
1 3%11%
€2 5 ,0 00- €99,9 99
17%
40%
24%
100%
22%
21%
27%
25%
75%
27%
29%
trade
10-49 employees
21%
12%
1-9 employees
innovativeness
16%
50%
11%
14%
20%
15%
18%
€2 5 0 ,000 - €1 million
15%
12%
14%
10%
14%
11%
> €1 million
na/dk
Q21. If you need external financing to realise your growth ambitions, what amount of financing would you aim
to obtain?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
The amount of finance SMEs would like to obtain varies between sectors (figure 67).
Industry stood out with a relatively low proportion of SMEs seeking for less than
25,000 Euro (5%) and a relatively high proportion of SMEs seeking for more than 1
million Euro (22%) compared to other sectors.
Comparing SMEs across enterprise size classes, the amount of funding enterprises like
to obtain increased with enterprise size. As shown in figure 67, a relatively low
proportion of medium sized enterprises would like to obtain less than 100,000 Euro
(9%), while the majority of the micro enterprises aimed for less than 100,000 through
external funding (65%). Likewise, only 3% of the micro enterprises would like to
obtain more than 1 million Euro, whereas about one third (31%) of medium-sized
enterprises would like to obtain this amount of money.
Large enterprises aimed to obtain much higher amounts of external finance than SMEs
did. More than half (68%) of the large enterprises liked to obtain more than 1 million
Euro, compared to 14% of the SMEs. Moreover, only 3% of the large enterprises
aimed to seek for less than 100,000 Euro, while 38% of the SMEs aimed to obtain this
amount of external finance.
Innovative SMEs indicated higher amounts of funding than did non-innovative SMEs,
see figure 67. Innovative SMEs aimed more often for more than 250,000 Euro (35%)
compared to non-innovative enterprises (27%). Similarly, a lower proportion of
innovative SMEs (11%) aimed for less than 25,000 Euro compared to non-innovative
enterprises (16%).
C10887 a
87
4.5
What further drives future funding needs?
SMEs have indicated the importance of six specific factors for the future financing of
their companies. As for previous years, making existing public measures easier to
obtain was the most important driver for SMEs in EU-28, followed by tax incentives,
guarantees for loans and business support services (figure 68). Export credits or
guarantees were perceived as the least important factor in future financing.
In 2011 and 2013 the ranking of the six factors (drivers) was similar to that of 2014.
Moreover, there was only little variation in mean scores across years.
figure 68
8
7
7 ,2
Factors affecting future financing for SMEs in EU-28, weighted average of grades on a scale of
1-10, where 1 means it is not at all important and 10 means that it is extremely important,
sorted from high to low based on the grade received in 2014, for the period 2013-2014
6 ,9
6 ,7 6 ,6
5 ,8 5 ,8
6
5 ,5 5 ,7
5
4 ,1 4 ,0
4
3 ,6
3 ,3
3
2
1
making
tax incentives guarantees for
loans
existing public
measures
easier to
obtain
2014
business
support
services
measures to
facilitate
equity
investments
export credits
or guarantees
2013
Q24. On a scale of 1-10, where 10 means it is extremely important and 1 means it is not at all important, how
important are each of the following factors for your enterprise’s financing in the future?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
In all countries, either making existing public measures easier to obtain or tax
incentives were indicated as the most important factor for future financing. The only
two exceptions were Sweden and Czech Republic where SMEs perceived making
existing public measures easier to obtain and guarantees for loans as the most
important factors. In all countries, except in Croatia and Greece, measures to
facilitate equity investments and export credits or guarantees were perceived as the
least important factors.
Making existing public measures easier to obtain was seen to be the particularly
important in Italy and Croatia. In contrast, in Iceland and Denmark, it was seen as
least important. The most notable change between 2013 and 2014 was the increase in
importance of making existing public measures easier to obtain in Slovakia and Latvia.
Furthermore the importance of this factor significantly declined in Malta between 2013
and 2014.
Tax incentives were perceived to be especially important in Latvia and Greece. In
the Denmark and Czech Republic tax incentives received the lowest mean scores.
Such tax incentive schemes could for instance aim to ease the pooling of funds by
informal investors and thus stimulate the availability of alternative financing sources.
88
C10887 a
The mean scores regarding tax incentives in 2013 and 2014 were slightly different and
the biggest change occurred in Croatia. Here, the importance of tax incentives
increased.
In Greece, Cyprus and Italy guarantees for loans are perceived to be very
important. In contrast, in Denmark, guarantees for loans are perceived as relatively
unimportant. The most striking change between 2013 and 2014 was the decline in
importance of guarantees for loans in Iceland. New and young SMEs in particular are
faced with the adverse impact of information asymmetries existing between lender
and borrower of external financing as they often have little collateral and, due to their
limited active experience, have little to no financial track record. Government
guarantees mitigate at least part of the information asymmetry problem, as the
guarantor compensates part of the amount outstanding in the case of a default.
Kraemer-Eis, Lang & Gvetadze (2014) note that guarantee programs have expanded
in recent years.
Particularly in Lithuania and Romania business support services were perceived as
important. In Iceland and Denmark, business support services were seen as less
important. Mainly in Latvia the importance of business support services increased. In
Malta and Iceland stand out because of a substantial decrease in the importance of
this factor.
SMEs in Greece and Croatia view measures to facilitate equity investments as
important. In contrast, in Germany and the Netherlands, such measures were
perceived as less important. This pattern did not change significantly between 2013
and 2014. The change between 2013 and 2014 was very large for Croatia. In
comparison to other countries, SMEs in Croatia rated measures to facilitate equity
investments as rather unimportant in 2013, however in 2014 SMEs in Croatia gave
relatively high rates to this factor.
Export credits or guarantees are deemed important in Greece. Especially in
Germany, export credits or guarantees are seen as less important.
Comparing enterprises across sectors, size classes and levels of innovativeness, the
ranking of the six factors affecting future funding was similar to that of the total EU28. For all type of enterprises, making existing public measures easier to obtain and
tax incentives were the first and second most important factor. Export credits or
guarantees and measures to facilitate equity investments were perceived as the least
important factors in future financing.
Differences
between
sectors,
size
classes
and
innovative
and
non-innovative
enterprises were quite similar for all factors, except for export credits or guarantees.
Comparing scores across sectors, enterprises in construction gave on average highest
rates. In addition the average rate decreased with size class. Moreover, higher mean
scores were seen for innovative enterprises than for non-innovative enterprises.
Export credits or guarantees were deemed most important in industry and least
important in services. Furthermore, smaller enterprises indicate export credits or
guarantees as less relevant than larger enterprises. Innovative enterprises indicate
export credits or guarantees to be more relevant than non-innovative.
C10887 a
89
5
Funding climate
This chapter analyses the funding climate European SMEs face when searching for
external financing. The first section describes how the availability for different types of
funding changed over the past six months. Next changes in external aspects affecting
the availability of funding are discussed. Then the confidence of SME to talk with
banks, equity investors and venture capital enterprises about financing and obtaining
the desired results is discussed. Subsequently focus is on SMEs’ expectations
regarding the availability of various types of funding. Finally, changes
in the terms
and conditions of bank financing are discussed. Again, each section starts by
presenting the overall results for SMEs in the EU-28, after which result for 30
European
countries
and
results
broken
down
by
company
characteristics
are
presented.
5.1
Key findings
C h a n g e s i n t h e av a i l a b il i t y o f f u n d in g
For all types of funding a substantial number of SMEs reported that they could not
give their opinion on recent changes in the availability of funding, because this simply
did not apply to them. Most SMEs that did give their opinion indicated that they did
not experience changes in the availability of equity, bank loans, bank overdraft, trade
credit and other sources.
In 2014, the greatest positive balance between SMEs that experienced improvement
and SMEs that experienced deterioration was for equity and trade credit (7%) and
other types of financing (6%).
C h a n g e s i n e x te r n al a sp e c t s a f fe c ti n g t he a v a il a b i l i t y o f fu n d i n g
Also for all external aspects affecting the availability of funding a substantial number
of SMEs reported that they could not give an opinion about changes in the availability,
specifically on the effect of investors investing in equity or securities and the effect of
public financing support. Those SMEs that were able to report the changes they
experienced mostly experienced no changes in the willingness of business partners
and banks to provide finance and the access to public financial support.
In 2014, positive balances existed for the willingness of business partners to provide
trade credit(8%), the willingness of investors to invest (3%) and the willingness of
banks to provide loans (3%). SMEs were strongly negative about public financial
support, with a negative balance of -16%,for the access to public financial support (13%) and the willingness of banks to provide loans (-11%).
C o n f i d e n c e i n t a l k i n g wi t h b a n k s an d i n ve s t or s
In 2014, about two third of SMEs in the EU-28 felt confident enough to talk with banks
about financing and obtaining desired results. However, a quarter of the SMEs did not.
In that same year, 20% of SMEs felt confident in discussing financing and obtaining
the desired results with equity investors and venture capital enterprises, while 32%
did not feel confident. Half of the SMEs indicated this was not applicable to them.
C10887 a
91
SMEs in Slovenia were most confident in talking about financing and obtaining desired
goals with banks and SMEs in Denmark were most confident in talking with investors.
SMEs in Greece were the least confident to talk with banks, while SMEs in Slovakia
and Czech Republic were the least confident to talk with investors about these things
E x p e c te d ch a n g e s i n av a i l a b i l i t y of f u n d in g
SMEs in the EU-28 were mostly positive regarding future changes in external financing
available to them. For each of the various types internal funds, equity, bank loans,
bank overdraft or credit line, trade credit, debt security and other funding sources, the
number of SMEs predicting improvement exceeded the number of SMEs predicting
deterioration of the availability. The highest balances among SMEs in the EU-28 were
for internal funds (16%), equity (11%) and trade credit (10%).
C h a n g e s i n t h e t e r m s an d c o n d i t i on s
In 2014, EU SMEs on balance experienced increased non-interest costs of financing as
well as of collateral requirements. Conversely, on balance they experienced decreased
interest costs, which is a reverse of trends in 2009 -2013. Generally speaking,
developments have been more positive for larger enterprises than for smaller ones.
5.2
How has the availability of funding changed?
SMEs indicated whether they experienced recent changes in the availability of various
sources of external financing. Please note that in 2014 a new filter was introduced in
the questionnaire, which should be taken into account when making comparisons
across years. The percentages in figure 69 relate to the SMEs in the EU-28 that
indicated that the corresponding source of finance is relevant to their enterprise.
In 2014, 27% of these SMEs reported that they could not give an opinion about
changes in the availability of equity, because this was not applicable to them. 53% of
SMEs in EU-28 indicated that they did not experienced changes in the availability of
equity. Only 13% experienced improvement in the availability of equity. Another 6%
felt the availability of equity deteriorated. Since 2009 the proportion of SMEs
experiencing a decline in the availability of equity decreased from 9% in 2009 to 6%
in 2014.
The majority of these SMEs in the EU-28 felt that the availability of bank loans and
bank overdraft, credit line or credit card overdraft did not change in 2014 (56%
and 63% respectively). About one out of five SMEs experienced an improvement in the
availability of bank loans and overdrafts (18% and 17% respectively). A decline in the
availability of bank loans and overdrafts was experienced by respectively 16% and
14% of the SMEs. The remaining SMEs stated they could not give an indication of the
development since it was not applicable them.
Since 2009 the proportion of the SMEs experiencing no change in the availability of
bank loans increased from 37% in 2009 to 56% in 2014. During this period the
proportion of SMEs experiencing a decline in the availability of bank loans decreased
from 45% in 2009 to 16% in 2014. The proportions of experienced changes regarding
bank overdrafts changed less strongly.
In 2014, 59% of SMEs in the EU-28 that considered trade credit relevant did not see
any changes in the availability of trade credit. 20% of these SMEs believed that the
availability improved, while 13% believed that the availability of trade credit worsened
92
C10887 a
between April and September 2014. Since 2009 the proportion of SMEs experiencing a
decline in the availability of trade credit decreased from 25% in 2009 to 13% in 2014.
In 2014, a third of EU-28 SMEs (34%) could not give an opinion on the availability of
debt securities, a marked decline from 2009 when it was still 80%. Half of the SMEs
that considered debt securities relevant to their enterprise (49%) experienced no
change in the availability. One out of ten of these SMEs felt the availability of debt
securities improved and 8% believed it has deteriorated. Since 2009 the proportion of
SMEs experiencing an improvement in the availability of debt securities increased from
1% in 2009 to 9% in 2014.
Also for the availability of other sources most SMEs (67% in 2014) experienced no
change. 12% experienced improvement of the availability of other sources and 6% felt
the availability declined.
figure 69
Changes over the past six months in the availability for different types of funding (left) and the
balance between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for SMEs in the EU-28, sorted
by equity, debt and other, for the period 2009-2014. The proportions relate to SMEs that
indicated that the corresponding source of finance is relevant to their enterprise.
0%
25%
equity
2014
2013
2011
2009
36%
7%
19%
bank loans
bank overdraft
10%
2009
8%
2014
trade credit
9%
2011
11%
1%
-7 %
16%
2%
10%
17%
-5 %
22%
18%
-8 %
24%
45%
11%
63%
14%
55%
3%
6%
19%
14%
21%
14%
55%
-3 6 %
-8 %
-1 0 %
2009
0%
20%
2013
2011
9%
2014
55%
14%
5%
2011
8%
34%
10%
50%
-5 %
-5 %
67%
41%
22%
improved
1%
-4 %
80%
6%
45%
6%
remained unchanged
6%
2%
45%
66%
deteriorated
15%
40%
7%
9%
-5 %
-2 1 %
56%
5%
12%
9%
8%
7%
36%
14%
7%
-4 %
21%
36%
49%
34%
8%
19%
25%
9%
2013
2009
13%
35%
3%
2009 1%
13%
59%
4%
2014
2013
59%
9%
2011
2009
20%
-1 %
56%
50%
17%
11%
0%
7%
69%
47%
2013
-20%
51%
37%
2014
debt securities
8%
11%
2011
-40%
27%
54%
5%
18%
2013
100%
6%
34%
2%
75%
53%
5%
2014
other
50%
13%
1%
-6 %
not applicable
Note: In 2014 a new filter was introduced in the SAFE questionnaire. This filter was simulated in the data of
the previous survey rounds, nevertheless one should be cautious when making comparisons across years.
Q9: For each of the following types of financing, would you say that their availability has improved, remained
unchanged or deteriorated for your enterprise over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2009 -2014; edited by Panteia.
Four types of financing are explored more in-depth in the following four sections, one
for each type of external financing. These are, in their order of appearance: bank
loans, bank overdraft and credit line, trade credit and equity.
C10887 a
93
5.2.1 Bank loans
The percentages in figure 70 refer to the SME that considered bank loans relevant to
their enterprise. In the EU-28, 18% of these SMEs believed the availability of bank
loans had improved while 16% of these SMEs that believed it had deteriorated,
resulting in a balance of 2% 16. This indicates a greater level of improvement than
deterioration.
As shown in figure 70 and figure 71, twenty of the countries under investigation had a
positive balance. In these countries a greater proportion of SMEs experienced an
improvement of the availability of bank loans than SMEs experiencing a deterioration.
Montenegro (26%), Iceland (24%) and Malta (18%) had the highest balance among
these countries. In Hungary, SMEs were just as likely to experience improvement as
to experience a decline in availability.
The other nine countries had a negative balance, indicating that SMEs in these
countries were more likely to report deterioration than improvement. Slovenia had the
most negative balance (-28%), followed by Cyprus (-25%) and Greece (-21%).
The percentages in figure 72 refer to the enterprises that considered bank loans
relevant to their enterprise. In 2014, SMEs in construction show a negative balance
regarding improvement or deterioration of availability of bank loans. Conversely, SMEs
in industry are on balance positive about the availability of bank loans. In trade and
services, the balance between positive and negative opinions on availability of banks
loans merely did not change.
Enterprises across all size classes with the exception of micro enterprises reported
improvement more often than deterioration. Micro enterprises however reported a
negative net impact of -8%.
Both innovative and non-innovative enterprises reported more improvement more
often than deterioration.
16
Due to rounding, calculations sometimes may seem to be incorrect, while these calculations are in fact correct
when decimals are taken into account.
94
C10887 a
figure 70
Changes over the past six months in the availability of bank loans (left) and the balance
between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for SMEs in the EU-28, Iceland and
Montenegro by country, sorted from high to low based on the balance, in 2014. The proportions
relate to SMEs that indicated that bank loans are relevant to their enterprise.
0%
10%
20%
Montenegro
30%
50%
40%
60%
29%
Iceland
24%
Lithuania
Sweden
23%
23%
Slovakia
Spain
18%
17%
Ireland
49%
Luxembourg
Croatia
66%
17%
13%
11%
7%
12%
12%
11%
12%
7%
11%
10%
10%
13%
9%
9%
9%
8%
6%
10%
6%
15%
13%
16%
58%
17%
18%
10%
33%
54%
19%
Belgium
10%
14%
10%
18%
24%
18%
17%
8%
55%
41%
15%
Portugal
7%
63%
14%
5%
6%
4%
7%
3%
total
18%
56%
16%
10%
2%
EU-28
18%
56%
16%
10%
2%
Estonia
14%
Hungary
14%
Latvia
13%
Finland
France
13%
13%
Italy
Greece
Cyprus
Slovenia
11%
7%
16%
57%
16%
20%
57%
31%
35%
43%
35%
remained unchanged
deteriorated
-7 %
8%
26%
43%
-4 %
9%
-1 1 %
4%
25%
43%
improved
-3 %
6%
24%
55%
2%
0%
19%
55%
13%
8%
16%
59%
12%
10%
11%
14%
55%
15%
Netherlands
Austria
67%
55%
40%
26%
16%
62%
16%
20%
8%
17%
11%
58%
0%
15%
9%
51%
22%
Romania
6%
60%
-20%
9%
10%
61%
28%
Poland
10%
60%
22%
Bulgaria
3%
57%
21%
United Kingdom
8%
-40%
5%
4%
5%
66%
18%
Denmark
100%
3%
55%
20%
Germany
90%
62%
27%
Czech Republic
80%
59%
29%
Malta
70%
62%
9%
17%
11%
15%
-1 2 %
-1 3 %
-2 1 %
-2 5 %
-2 8 %
na/dk
Q9a: For bank loans (excluding overdraft and credit lines), would you say that the availability has improved,
remained unchanged or deteriorated for your enterprise over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
C10887 a
95
figure 71
Net balance of changes over the past six months in the availability of bank loans for SMEs in the
EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro, by country in 2014
Q9a: For bank loans (excluding overdraft and credit lines), would you say that the availability has improved,
remained unchanged or deteriorated for your enterprise over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
96
C10887 a
figure 72
Changes over the past six months in the availability of bank loans (left) and the balance
between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for enterprises in the EU-28, by
enterprise characteristic, in 2014. The proportions relate to enterprises that indicated that bank
loans are relevant to their enterprise.
20%
0%
sector
industry
construction
15%
56%
services
17%
55%
50-249 employees
SME
non- innovative firms
total
19%
17%
26%
15%
32%
16%
54%
19%
53%
17%
17%
59%
18%
14%
56%
remained unchanged
deteriorated
16%
-4 %
11%
1%
-8 %
4%
15%
8%
10%
8%
10%
1%
9%
10%
56%
10% 20% 30%
10%
12%
56%
18%
9%
17%
57%
-10% 0%
9%
21%
19%
improved
100%
13%
54%
13%
250+ employees
innovative firms
80%
56%
18%
10-49 employees
size
60%
56%
trade
1-9 employees
innovativeness
40%
22%
2%
25%
6%
10%
2%
9%
3%
10%
2%
na/dk
Q9a: For bank loans (excluding overdraft and credit lines), would you say that the availability has improved,
remained unchanged or deteriorated for your enterprise over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
5 . 2 . 2 B a n k o v e r d r a f t , c r e d i t l i n e or cr e d i t c a r d o ve r d r a f t
The percentages in figure 73 relate to the SME that considered bank overdraft, credit
line or credit card overdraft relevant to their enterprise. Nine of the countries under
investigation had a negative balance. In these countries a higher proportion of SMEs
experienced a deterioration of the availability of bank overdraft, credit line or credit
card overdraft than SMEs experiencing a deterioration. Again, Cyprus (-23%),
Slovenia (-22%) and Greece (-17%) had the highest positive balance.
In the other twenty-one countries the relative number of SMEs reporting improvement
exceeded the number of SMEs reporting deterioration of the availability. Czech
Republic (20%), Lithuania (19%) and Iceland (18%) had the strongest positive
balance.
C10887 a
97
figure 73
Changes over the past six months in the availability of bank overdraft, credit line or credit card
overdraft (left) and the balance between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for
SMEs in the EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro by country, sorted from high to low based on the
balance, in 2014. The proportions relate to SMEs that indicated that bank overdraft, credit line
or credit card overdraft is relevant to their enterprise.
0%
10%
Czech Republic
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
21%
Lithuania
25%
Iceland
Malta
Bulgaria
20%
Sweden
6%
United Kingdom
20%
Slovakia
Estonia
Spain
27%
Montenegro
Hungary
16%
Belgium
16%
12%
10%
4%
9%
4%
12%
8%
9%
3%
8%
12%
11%
63%
11%
11%
9%
18%
67%
12%
11%
8%
9%
67%
12%
12%
64%
16%
14%
6%
10%
51%
14%
Croatia
15%
2%
8%
10%
69%
21%
5% 2%
10%
6%
61%
18%
Ireland
16%
11%
64%
20%
Germany
17%
9%
8%
62%
17%
18%
17%
62%
11%
6%
6%
6%
11%
69%
11%
5%
4%
4%
total
17%
63%
14%
6%
3%
EU-28
17%
63%
14%
6%
3%
Finland
7%
Latvia
81%
10%
Netherlands
13%
Austria
13%
France
Greece
Slovenia
15%
7%
24%
52%
Cyprus 1%
improved
12%
deteriorated
-1 3 %
-1 7 %
10%
25%
remained unchanged
-1 2 %
1%
30%
73%
-5 %
-7 %
6%
26%
58%
8%
3%
6%
22%
61%
-1 %
-5 %
18%
20%
63%
13%
5%
16%
66%
61%
9%
Italy
8%
59%
40%
20%
3% 5%
10%
64%
22%
20%
19%
8%
59%
0%
5%
6%
59%
22%
-20%
10%
68%
18%
Portugal
-40%
8%
9%
74%
22%
Romania
6%
65%
19%
100%
2%
72%
21%
Denmark
90%
59%
20%
Poland
80%
58%
27%
Luxembourg
70%
69%
-2 2 %
1%
-2 3 %
na/dk
Q9f: For credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards overdraft, would you say that the availability has improved,
remained unchanged or deteriorated for your enterprise over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
In figure 74 the results by enterprise characteristic are presented. The data refer to
enterprises that indicated bank overdraft, credit line or credit card overdraft to be
relevant to their enterprise. In 2014, in most sectors, the proportion of SMEs that
experienced
improvement
exceeded
the
proportion
of
SMEs
that
experienced
deterioration of the availability of bank overdraft, credit line or credit card overdraft.
The single (slightly) negative balance was among SMEs in construction (-1%).
In 2014, the balance increased with size class. Most size classes reported net
improvements, with the sole exception being the negative net impact reported by
micro enterprises (-5%). The greatest positive balance was among large enterprises,
with a net impact of 19%.
Both innovative and non-innovative enterprises reported improvement more often
than deterioration.
98
C10887 a
figure 74
Changes over the past six months in the availability of bank overdraft, credit line or credit card
overdraft (left) and the balance between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for
enterprises in the EU-28, by enterprise characteristic, in 2014. The proportions relate to
enterprises that indicated that bank overdraft, credit line or credit card overdraft is relevant to
their enterprise.
0%
sector
industry
construction
trade
services
1-9 employees
size
10-49 employees
50-249 employees
SME
20%
innovativeness
non- innovative firms
total
80%
11%
63%
18%
16%
61%
16%
63%
14%
17%
15%
6%
15%
6%
22%
66%
17%
8%
63%
26%
14%
62%
18%
60%
15%
16%
67%
17%
12%
63%
remained unchanged
14%
deteriorated
10%
20%
-1 %
3%
1%
-5 %
4%
5%
14%
5%
3%
6%
8%
0%
9%
7%
14%
64%
-10%
5%
6%
19%
60%
improved
100%
63%
15%
250+ employees
innovative firms
60%
40%
20%
19%
4%
2%
6%
6%
3%
6%
3%
na/dk
Q9f: For credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards overdraft, would you say that the availability has improved,
remained unchanged or deteriorated for your enterprise over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
5 . 2 . 3 T r a de c r e d it
The percentages in figure 75 refer to the SME that considered trade credit relevant to
their enterprise. In 2014, in the overall EU-28 the balance between improvement and
deterioration for trade credit is 7%. In nineteen countries the number of SMEs that
experienced
improvement
exceeded
the
number
of
SMEs
that
experienced
deterioration. The balance was highest in the United Kingdom (26%).
In the remaining eleven countries, SMEs were more likely to report a deterioration
than an improvement. Of these countries, Cyprus (-24%) and Slovenia (-18%) had
the most negative balance.
C10887 a
99
figure 75
Changes over the past six months in the availability of trade credit (left) and the balance
between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for SMEs in the EU-28, Iceland and
Montenegro by country, sorted from high to low based on the balance, in 2014. The proportions
relate to SMEs that indicated trade credit is relevant to their enterprise. 17
0%
10%
United Kingdom
20%
Sweden
29%
Spain
29%
Poland
EU-28
Hungary
Iceland
Croatia
Cyprus
15%
15%
19%
remained unchanged
-8 %
-8 %
5%
-8 %
13%
17%
25%
38%
deteriorated
-2 %
-6 %
4%
25%
47%
improved
4%
14%
14%
22%
-2 %
6%
20%
57%
-2 %
9%
20%
53%
1%
1%
12%
12%
49%
3%
2%
9%
13%
65%
7%
4%
3%
6%
10%
68%
4%
5%
4%
13%
68%
16%
6%
10%
59%
5%
6%
17%
15%
71%
Greece
9%
14%
67%
11%
7%
7%
13%
6%
69%
4%
Belgium
8%
10%
70%
15%
7%
7%
3%
8%
56%
13%
Italy
8%
18%
65%
11%
12%
9%
19%
69%
8%
Finland
France
9%
76%
16%
15%
20%
68%
11%
17%
1%
10%
12%
55%
15%
Portugal
Slovenia
7%
59%
8%
Denmark
8%
62%
13%
Netherlands
13%
59%
22%
7%
7%
59%
40%
17%
10%
13%
68%
12%
Montenegro
20%
26%
24%
59%
23%
0%
5%
9%
69%
14%
Malta
-20%
7%
12%
12%
18%
-40%
15%
15%
59%
13%
Bulgaria
4%
5%
46%
20%
100%
4% 4%
57%
15%
Slovakia
90%
51%
20%
total
80%
62%
15%
Germany
70%
58%
19%
Czech Republic
Austria
60%
62%
21%
Romania
Luxembourg
50%
22%
Ireland
Latvia
40%
26%
Lithuania
Estonia
30%
30%
-9 %
-1 1 %
-1 8 %
-2 4 %
na/dk
Q9b: For trade credit, would you say that the availability has improved, remained unchanged or deteriorated
for your enterprise over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
The result in figure 76 relate to enterprises that considered trade credit relevant to
their enterprise. In 2014, in all sectors, the number of SMEs that experienced
improvement was higher than the number of SMEs that experienced deterioration of
the availability of trade credit. The smallest positive balance was among SMEs in
construction (2%).
In 2014, the balance increased with size class, see figure 76. The balance was neutral
among small enterprises and highest among large enterprises (17%).
As can be seen in figure 76, both innovative and non-innovative enterprises reported
improvement more often than deterioration. A greater proportion of innovative SMEs
did so, resulting in a greater and more positive balance of 9% against 4% among noninnovative SMEs.
17
Please note that the unweighted number of observations was relatively low in Estonia and Montenegro at
below 30. These results should be interpreted with care.
100
C10887 a
figure 76
Changes over the past six months in the availability of trade credit (left) and the balance
between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for enterprises in the EU-28, by
enterprise characteristic, in 2014. The proportions relate to enterprises that indicated that trade
credit is relevant to their enterprise.
20%
0%
industry
size
sector
construction
trade
16%
50-249 employees
22%
innovativeness
non- innovative firms
total
20%
59%
24%
9%
6%
13%
13%
63%
20%
59%
remained unchanged
deteriorated
4%
0%
10%
13%
7%
8%
8%
56%
17%
improved
6%
63%
22%
11%
12%
12%
20%
2%
10%
16%
62%
10%
8%
13%
59%
0%
10%
7%
12%
56%
22%
innovative firms
58%
-10%
6%
18%
59%
10-49 employees
100%
11%
56%
22%
1-9 employees
80%
61%
20%
17%
250+ employees
60%
22%
services
SME
40%
17%
5%
9%
8%
12%
8%
13%
8%
4%
7%
na/dk
Q9b: For trade credit, would you say that the availability has improved, remained unchanged or deteriorated
for
your
enterprise
over
the
past
6
months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
5.2.4 Equity
The percentages in figure 77 relate to the SME that considered equity relevant to their
enterprise. In 2014, 13% of SMEs experienced an improvement in the availability of
equity financing, while 6% reported a deterioration, resulting in a positive balance of
7%. In fact, SMEs in 22 countries reported a positive balance, with the balance being
most positive in Iceland (23%), Sweden (23%) and Croatia and Denmark (21%). On
balance, SMEs in Estonia and Montenegro report neutral regarding changes in the
availability of equity financing. SMEs in the six remaining countries were less positive
on the developments of equity financing available to them, with the greatest negative
balances in Hungary (-9%), Portugal (-6%) and Austria (-5%).
C10887 a
101
figure 77
Changes over the past six months in the availability of equity (left) and the balance between the
categories improved and deteriorated (right) for SMEs in the EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro by
country, sorted from high to low based on the balance, in 2014. The proportions relate to SMEs
that indicated that equity is relevant to their enterprise. 18
0%
10%
Iceland
Sweden
Denmark
Lithuania
19%
Bulgaria
Ireland
EU-28
13%
Germany
Romania
7%
27%
6%
27%
7%
5%
34%
3%
30%
3%
8%
76%
71%
7%
49%
7%
2%
Austria
6%
1%
12%
7%
5%
remained unchanged
23%
39%
9%
deteriorated
9%
-3 %
-3 %
16%
8%
58%
-2 %
54%
49%
50%
improved
0%
0%
46%
84%
Hungary
2%
31%
5%
11%
3%
21%
42%
3%
3%
2%
2%
15%
56%
39%
4%
12%
35%
65%
79%
2%
8%
7%
88%
France
11%
10%
6%
7%
17%
Cyprus
5%
10%
11%
5%
12%
11%
7%
49%
Montenegro
Portugal
12%
23%
53%
7%
13%
13%
12%
3%
46%
9%
15%
13%
29%
67%
Estonia
Poland
2%
66%
Finland
17%
15%
69%
10%
21%
9%
18%
65%
10%
23%
17%
5%
53%
40%
21%
18%
70%
3%
Slovenia
4%
11%
55%
15%
20%
21%
72%
16%
13%
0%
11%
5%
2%
58%
18%
total
-20%
9%
60%
11%
Slovakia
100%
23%
4%
46%
15%
Malta
90%
25%
61%
14%
Greece
80%
3%
58%
18%
Netherlands
70%
70%
13%
Spain
60%
58%
24%
Czech Republic
Belgium
50%
45%
25%
19%
Italy
40%
21%
United Kingdom
Latvia
30%
27%
Croatia
Luxembourg
20%
26%
-5 %
-6 %
-9 %
na/dk
Q9c: For equity, would you say that the availability has improved, remained unchanged or deteriorated for
your enterprise over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
In figure 78 the results by enterprise characteristic are presented, the proportions
relate to enterprises that indicated equity to be relevant to their enterprise. When
developments in the availability of equity financing are explored by enterprise
characteristic, it appears that for EU-28, the balance is positive for every type of
enterprise. SMEs in all of the four sectors discerned reported improvements in equity
availability, particularly so in industry, trade and services with respective balances of
8%, 7% and again 7%.
There exists a clear correlation between enterprise size and the experienced changes
in availability that becomes clear from the figure. The balance is smallest, but still
positive, for micro enterprises at 3% and increases with enterprises size to 14% for
large enterprises.
Innovative enterprises more often report a positive balance between improved and
deteriorated changes in the availability of equity.
18
Please note that the unweighted number of observations was relatively low in the Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, and Montenegro at below 20. These results should be interpreted with care.
102
C10887 a
figure 78
Changes over the past six months in the availability of equity (left) and the balance between the
categories improved and deteriorated (right) for enterprises in the EU-28, by enterprise
characteristic, in 2014. The proportions relate to enterprises that indicated that equity is
relevant to their enterprise.
0%
sector
industry
12%
trade
13%
53%
services
14%
53%
14%
50-249 employees
14%
SME
13%
non- innovative firms
total
80%
6%
6%
9%
5%
19%
6%
55%
51%
9%
13%
6%
53%
improved
remained unchanged
6%
deteriorated
4%
7%
27%
7%
3%
9%
10%
23%
7%
14%
22%
10%
27%
29%
27%
20%
8%
27%
5%
6%
56%
10%
29%
4%
53%
0%
28%
29%
59%
16%
24%
5%
52%
100%
29%
8%
50%
10-49 employees
innovative firms
60%
56%
12%
250+ employees
innovativeness
40%
51%
construction
1-9 employees
size
20%
14%
3%
7%
na/dk
Q9c: For equity, would you say that the availability has improved, remained unchanged or deteriorated for
your enterprise over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
C10887 a
103
5.3
Have external aspects affecting
changed?
the
availability
of
funding
In addition to the opinion of SMEs on recent changes in the availability of various
sources of external financing, their opinion about changes of external aspect affecting
funding are described in this section. Again, SMEs could indicate whether the various
aspects improved, remained unchanged or deteriorated in the past six months. The
result for SMEs in the EU-28 are presented in figure 79. Please note that in 2014 a
new filter was introduced in the questionnaire for the questions on willingness of bank,
investors and business partners. This should be taken into account when making
comparisons across years.
figure 79
Changes over the past six months of external aspects affecting the availability of funding (left)
and the balance between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for SMEs in the EU28, for the period 2009-2014.
business partners
providing trade credit
investors investing in
equity or securities
0%
2014
2014
20%
2013
11%
2011
11%
2009
2011
3%
15%
banks lending
public financial
support
6%
6%
2011
3%
27%
2009
5%
24%
29%
improved
-3 %
-5 %
10%
20%
31%
25%
21%
17%
48%
23%
remained unchanged
36%
49%
22%
48%
deteriorated
3%
19%
32%
37%
4%
3%
21%
36%
2013
-8 %
-9 %
27%
36%
6%
-6 %
76%
14%
20%
-1 %
44%
7%
22%
23%
76%
38%
0%
8%
53%
7%
15%
2011
-20%
79%
25%
2013
-40%
45%
4%
16%
100%
13%
17%
19%
14%
31%
15%
2014
2014
50%
37%
2009 1%
80%
13%
47%
10%
3%
60%
52%
5%
2013
2009
40%
21%
- 12%
- 17%
- 25%
- 16%
- 13%
- 20%
- 18%
not applicable
Note: In 2014 a new filter was introduced in the SAFE questionnaire for the questions regarding the
willingness of business partners, investor and banks to provide financing. This filter was simulated in the data
of the previous survey rounds, nevertheless one should be cautious when making comparisons across years;
Proportions regarding the willingness of business partners to provide trade credit relate to SMEs that
considered trade credit relevant to their enterprise; Proportions regarding the willingness of investors to invest
relate to SMEs that considered debt securities, equity capital, other loans or other sources of financing
relevant to their enterprise; Proportions regarding the willingness of banks to provide credit relate to SMEs
that considered credit line, bank overdraft, credit card overdraft, bank loans or subsidised bank loans to be
relevant to their enterprise; Proportions regarding access to public financial support including guarantees
relate to all SMEs.
Q11 b, f-h: The availability of external financing may depend on a number of factors, some of which are
specific to your enterprise and others which are of more general relevance. For each of the following factors,
would you say that they have improved, remained unchanged or deteriorated over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2009-2014; edited by Panteia.
104
C10887 a
The results discusses here regarding the willingness of business partners to provide
trade credit relate to SMEs that considered trade credit relevant to their enterprise. In
2014, about one in eight of these SMEs (13%) could not indicate whether the
willingness of business partners to provide trade credit changed. Half of the
SMEs (52%) did not experience any changes in the willingness of business partners.
The proportion of SMEs that felt the willingness improved (21%) exceeded the
proportion of SMEs that experienced deterioration (13%). Hence, overall SMEs’
opinions about changes in the willingness of business partners have become more
positive. The proportion of SMEs that experienced improvement increased and the
proportion of SMEs that experienced deterioration declined between 2009 and 2014
such that the net impact has now become positive.
The results discussed here regarding the willingness of investors to invest, refer only
to those SMEs that considered debt securities, equity capital, other loans or other
sources of financing relevant to their enterprise. In 2014, the majority (53%) of these
SMEs in the EU-28 indicated they could not give their opinion about changes in the
willingness of investors to invest, because this was not applicable to their
enterprise. 31% of the SMEs felt the willingness remained unchanged. The proportion
of SMEs that experienced deterioration (6%) was smaller than the number of SMEs
that experienced improvement (10%). Between 2009 and 2014 the proportion of SMEs
that indicated deterioration decreased slightly from 7% in 2009 to 6% in 2014.
The percentages regarding the willingness of banks to provide credit, refer only to
those SMEs that considered credit line, bank overdraft, credit card overdraft, bank
loans or subsidised bank loans to be relevant to their enterprise. In 2014, almost half
of SMEs in EU-28 (44%) that applied for a bank loan, credit line or overdraft believed
that the willingness of banks to provide a loan had not changed. A quarter (25%)
of these SMEs indicated they experienced improvement of bank lending versus 21% of
SMEs
that
indicated
deterioration.
The
proportion
of
SMEs
that
experienced
improvement increased and the proportion of SMEs that experienced deterioration
declined between 2009 and 2014.
In 2014, 36% of the SMEs that applied for a bank loan, credit line or overdraft were
not able to indicate whether the access to public financial support including
guarantees changed in the past six months. One 37% of these SMEs indicated the
access
remained
unchanged.
The
number
of
SMEs
that
believed
the
access
deteriorated (21%) greatly exceeded the number of SMEs that believed it changed for
the better (6%). The proportion of SMEs that indicated a deterioration decreased
slightly from 23% in 2009 to 21% in 2014.
5 . 3 . 1 W i l l in g ne s s o f b u s i ne ss p a r t ne r s to p r o v i d e t r a d e c r e d i t
As shown in figure 80 the recent changes in the willingness of business partners to
provide trade credit differed between countries. The results presented relate to SMEs
that considered trade credit relevant to their enterprise. In 2014, in most European
countries SMEs more often reported improvement rather than deterioration of the
willingness
of
business
partners.
In
Estonia,
33%
of
the
SMEs
experienced
improvement, whereas only 5% experienced deterioration, making a balance of 29%.
The next greatest balances were in Iceland (25%) and the United Kingdom (22%).
In Luxembourg, the proportion of SMEs that experienced improvement was equal to
the proportion of SMEs that felt the willingness deteriorated in the past six months.
C10887 a
105
In the remaining nine countries, the proportion of SMEs that indicated deterioration
exceeded the proportion of SMEs that indicated improvement of the willingness of
business partners. The balance among these countries ranged from -2% in Greece up
to -22% in Cyprus.
figure 80
Changes over the past six months in the willingness of business partners to provide trade credit
(left) and the balance between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for SMEs in the
EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro by country, sorted from high to low based on the balance, in
2014. The proportions relate to SMEs that considered trade credit relevant to their enterprise. 19
0%
10%
20%
Estonia
30%
40%
50%
60%
33%
Iceland
30%
United Kingdom
Ireland
32%
31%
Lithuania
Germany
Czech Republic
23%
Croatia
20%
20%
11%
19%
4%
16%
9%
14%
17%
7%
13%
18%
11%
42%
22%
16%
11%
53%
31%
29%
25%
10%
55%
12%
12%
13%
12%
23%
10%
22%
37%
10%
9%
total
21%
52%
13%
13%
8%
EU-28
21%
52%
13%
13%
8%
Malta
18%
Latvia
Bulgaria
Portugal
Hungary
Slovenia
Cyprus
45%
16%
15%
11%
deteriorated
-8 %
-9 %
21%
-1 0 %
34%
37%
-4 %
-5 %
14%
20%
20%
remained unchanged
8%
24%
43%
improved
-4 %
16%
20%
49%
42%
-2 %
13%
17%
49%
0%
11%
19%
54%
10%
5%
3%
3%
1%
12%
51%
11%
8%
9%
16%
23%
63%
14%
4%
27%
7%
68%
13%
Italy
Belgium
13%
21%
France
13%
45%
7%
Finland
19%
70%
Greece
Austria
51%
14%
5%
18%
63%
7%
6%
17%
15%
22%
7%
11%
13%
48%
16%
Slovakia
18%
10%
53%
19%
Denmark
11%
63%
18%
Netherlands
Luxembourg
53%
16%
40%
20%
9%
5%
57%
23%
0%
18%
59%
19%
Sweden
-20%
10%
11%
11%
49%
-40%
20%
55%
24%
100%
11%
5%
47%
25%
Spain
5%
39%
26%
Poland
90%
5%
59%
23%
Montenegro
80%
45%
27%
Romania
70%
51%
-1 5 %
5%
-2 2 %
na/dk
Q11g: The availability of external financing may depend on a number of factors, some of which are specific to
your enterprise and others which are of more general relevance. For the willingness of business partners to
provide trade credit, would you say that it has improved, remained unchanged or deteriorated over the past 6
months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
19
Please note that the unweighted number of observations was relatively low in Estonia and Montenegro at
below 30. These results should be interpreted with care.
106
C10887 a
figure 81
Changes over the past six months in the willingness of business partners to provide trade credit
(left) and the balance between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for enterprises
in the EU-28, by enterprise characteristic, in 2014. The proportions relate to enterprises that
considered trade credit relevant to their enterprise.
0%
innovativeness
size
sector
industry
20%
trade
22%
services
19%
1-9 employees
19%
46%
52%
50-249 employees
22%
SME
21%
250+ employees
22%
17%
52%
21%
remained unchanged
deteriorated
11%
11%
8%
13%
9%
57%
2%
10%
13%
49%
9%
11%
11%
63%
24%
4%
7%
18%
12%
20%
9%
16%
17%
57%
10%
12%
13%
52%
improved
11%
13%
54%
0%
11%
19%
47%
23%
100%
12%
52%
10-49 employees
total
80%
56%
23%
non- innovative firms
60%
21%
construction
innovative firms
40%
13%
6%
14%
13%
12%
14%
13%
13%
10%
4%
8%
na/dk
Q11g: The availability of external financing may depend on a number of factors, some of which are specific to
your enterprise and others which are of more general relevance. For the willingness of business partners to
provide trade credit, would you say that it has improved, remained unchanged or deteriorated over the past 6
months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
The results in figure 81 refer to only those SMEs that considered trade credit relevant
to their enterprise. In 2014, in all sectors, the proportion of SMEs that experienced
improvement was higher than the proportion of SMEs that experienced deterioration in
the
willingness
of
business
partners
to
provide
trade
credit.
Again,
SMEs
in
construction were most pessimistic about the recent changes, but still with a positive
balance of 4%. The strongest positive balance was among SMEs in industry and trade
(9%).
Again, balance increased with size. The smallest positive balance was among micro
enterprises (2%) and the largest balance was among large enterprises (4%).
In 2014, both innovative and non-innovative enterprises reported improvement more
often than deterioration. The balance of innovative enterprises (10%) was more
positive than that of non-innovative enterprises (4%).
5 . 3 . 2 W i l l in g ne s s o f i n ve s t or s t o i nv e st i n e q ui t y or i s s ue d d e bt s e cu r it i e s
As for the total EU-28, in most countries a great majority of SMEs were not able to
give their opinion on changes in the willingness of investors to invest in equity or
issued debt securities, because this was not applicable to their enterprise. The results
in figure 82 refer to only those SMEs that considered debt securities, equity capital,
other loans or other sources of financing relevant to their enterprise.
In 2014, in only six countries a slightly greater proportion of SMEs reported
deterioration rather than improvement. The balance in these countries ranged from 1% in Austria to -5% in Cyprus and Italy. In Hungary, the proportions of improvement
C10887 a
107
and deterioration were equal in 2014. In the other twenty-three countries, SMEs more
often experienced improvement rather than deterioration of the willingness of
investors. The strongest positive balance was in the United Kingdom (13%).
figure 82
Changes over the past six months in the willingness of investors to invest in equity or issued
debt securities (left) and the balance between the categories improved and deteriorated (right)
for SMEs in the EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro by country, sorted from high to low based on
the balance, in 2014. The proportions to invest relate to SMEs that considered debt securities,
equity capital, other loans or other sources of financing relevant to their enterprise. 20
0%
10%
United Kingdom
Sweden
10%
10%
Ireland
14%
Iceland
14%
Bulgaria
EU-28
10%
31%
10%
Slovakia
Belgium
Luxembourg
8%
9%
Portugal
Greece
France
2%
5%
Cyprus
4%
2%
37%
2%
61%
2%
75%
2%
9%
47%
5%
28%
7%
57%
-3 %
44%
58%
10%
10%
improved
0%
-1 %
66%
14%
8%
43%
1%
59%
5%
30%
1%
47%
10%
31%
1%
53%
8%
21%
1%
35%
7%
36%
17%
3%
63%
10%
32%
4%
Italy
3%
41%
3%
26%
4%
53%
53%
10%
4%
53%
7%
34%
9%
5%
67%
3%
8%
Austria
5%
45%
5%
10%
5%
46%
6%
6%
Spain
6%
10%
30%
18%
6%
44%
40%
5%
4%
8%
7%
47%
6%
26%
12%
8%
41%
5%
42%
7%
Croatia
Hungary
8%
35%
62%
2%
Finland
Czech Republic
10%
6%
29%
31%
11%
56%
38%
26%
20%
13%
9%
51%
6%
0%
10%
2%
37%
10%
Poland
2%
6%
total
-20%
54%
40%
15%
100%
60%
53%
11%
Slovenia
1%
32%
90%
51%
4%
18%
80%
45%
56%
35%
11%
Netherlands
Latvia
70%
5%
23%
5%
Estonia
60%
2%
33%
13%
Malta
50%
3%
24%
10%
Denmark
40%
36%
15%
Germany
Montenegro
30%
14%
Romania
Lithuania
20%
16%
remained unchanged
-4 %
42%
69%
deteriorated
-4 %
-5 %
-5 %
na/dk
Q11h: The availability of external financing may depend on a number of factors, some of which are specific to
your enterprise and others which are of more general relevance. For the willingness of investors to invest in
equity or issued debt securities for enterprises, would you say that it has improved, remained unchanged or
deteriorated over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
In 2014, most categories of enterprises reported a positive net impact from the
willingness of investors to invest in equity or debt issued by enterprises on the
availability of external financing to them as evidenced by the results shown in figure
83. The results presented in this figure refer only to those SMEs that considered debt
securities, equity capital, other loans or other sources of financing relevant to their
enterprise. Among the four discerned sectors, a negative net effect is reported by
construction only (-1%) with the remaining three reporting a positive net effect.
20
Please note that the unweighted number of observations was relatively low in Montenegro at around 20.
These results should be interpreted with care.
108
C10887 a
Again, a positive relation between enterprise size and the size of the net effect can be
observed. The net effect is slightly negative for micro enterprises (-1%) and greatest
for large enterprises at 16%. Innovative SMEs are more positive on changes in the
willingness of investors to invest in equity or debt issued by enterprises with a net
effect of 5% versus 0% among non-innovative SMEs.
figure 83
Changes over the past six months in the willingness of investors to invest in equity or issued
debt securities (left) and the balance between the categories improved and deteriorated (right)
for enterprises in the EU-28, by enterprise characteristic, in 2014. The proportions relate to
enterprises that considered debt securities, equity capital, other loans or other sources of
financing relevant to their enterprise.
0%
sector
industry
construction
trade
services
size
1-9 employees
11%
9%
50-249 employees
11%
innovative firms
non- innovative firms
total
6%
28%
20%
3%
6%
29%
10%
improved
6%
5%
7%
3%
6%
53%
deteriorated
16%
5%
50%
58%
remained unchanged
-1 %
39%
6%
31%
3%
53%
5%
32%
2%
50%
6%
20%
-1 %
53%
35%
12%
10%
8%
55%
6%
31%
0%
51%
8%
35%
10%
-10%
55%
7%
30%
100%
53%
56%
31%
8%
80%
3%
7%
30%
11%
250+ employees
innovativeness
31%
11%
60%
33%
6%
10-49 employees
SME
40%
20%
0%
3%
na/dk
Q11h: The availability of external financing may depend on a number of factors, some of which are specific to
your enterprise and others which are of more general relevance. For the willingness of investors to invest in
equity or issued debt securities for enterprises, would you say that it has improved, remained unchanged or
deteriorated over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
5 . 3 . 3 W i l l in g ne s s o f b a n k s to p r o v i d e a l o a n
As can be seen in figure 84 and figure 85, there was a lot of variation across countries
in 2014. The presented results refer to only those SMEs that considered credit line,
bank overdraft, credit card overdraft, bank loans or subsidised bank loans to be
relevant to their enterprise. In countries the SMEs were on average rather optimistic
about the changes in the willingness of banks to provide loans. In these countries
more SMEs indicated they experienced an improvement of the willingness of banks
than SMEs that indicated deterioration. This was in particular the case in Iceland, with
a balance of 37%.
In the other countries, SMEs were less optimistic about the recent changes in bank
lending. Cyprus stands out with a balance of -36%, followed by Slovenia and the
Netherlands with a balance of -23%.
C10887 a
109
figure 84
Changes over the past six months in the willingness of banks to provide a loan (left) and the
balance between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for SMEs in the EU-28,
Iceland and Montenegro by country, sorted from high to low based on the balance, in 2014. The
proportions relate to SMEs that considered credit line, bank overdraft, credit card overdraft,
bank loans or subsidised bank loans to be relevant to their enterprise.
0%
10%
20%
Iceland
Bulgaria
35%
36%
Slovakia
30%
Poland
29%
Spain
Germany
United Kingdom
Hungary
Estonia
EU-28
Finland
Cyprus
5%
15%
4%
44%
21%
10%
3%
9%
2%
56%
17%
57%
13%
52%
51%
45%
39%
37%
36%
30%
improved
7%
deteriorated
-8 %
-1 3 %
4%
-1 5 %
14%
-2 2 %
11%
-2 3 %
16%
46%
remained unchanged
-3 %
9%
33%
37%
35%
-2 %
8%
25%
27%
33%
3%
18%
21%
49%
18%
10%
16%
9%
13%
25%
16%
14%
18%
13%
10%
17%
13%
10%
21%
15%
Slovenia
10%
8%
44%
19%
Netherlands
17%
48%
12%
Italy
13%
25%
19%
Belgium
11%
11%
14%
55%
21%
total
9%
16%
39%
12%
25%
54%
19%
13%
12%
16%
45%
26%
Luxembourg
14%
13%
9%
24%
15%
9%
17%
48%
26%
Malta
20%
16%
19%
48%
19%
21%
20%
5%
13%
43%
27%
21%
15%
16%
48%
27%
Lithuania
28%
28%
4%
24%
13%
60%
37%
11%
9%
45%
30%
15%
9%
41%
0%
9%
11%
30%
-30%
9%
8%
46%
-60%
14%
15%
49%
29%
100%
5%
5%
44%
26%
Portugal
8%
52%
30%
Denmark
90%
8%
40%
27%
Ireland
80%
42%
41%
Romania
70%
41%
31%
Sweden
Greece
60%
54%
Croatia
France
50%
32%
Montenegro
Austria
40%
36%
Czech Republic
Latvia
30%
45%
14%
-2 3 %
-3 6 %
na/dk
Q11f: The availability of external financing may depend on a number of factors, some of which are specific to
your enterprise and others which are of more general relevance. For the willingness of banks to provide a loan,
would you say that it has improved, remained unchanged or deteriorated over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
110
C10887 a
figure 85
Net balance of the changes over the past six months in the willingness of banks to provide a
loan for SMEs in the EU-28 in 2014. The proportions relate to SMEs that considered credit line,
bank overdraft, credit card overdraft, bank loans or subsidised bank loans to be relevant to their
enterprise
Q11f: The availability of external financing may depend on a number of factors, some of which are specific to
your enterprise and others which are of more general relevance. For the willingness of banks to provide a loan,
would you say that it has improved, remained unchanged or deteriorated over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
C10887 a
111
figure 86
Changes over the past six months in the willingness of banks to provide a loan (left) and the
balance between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for enterprises in the EU-28,
by enterprise characteristic, in 2014. The proportions relate to enterprises that considered credit
line, bank overdraft, credit card overdraft, bank loans or subsidised bank loans to be relevant to
their enterprise.
0%
20%
sector
industry
construction
trade
services
1-9 employees
size
10-49 employees
innovativeness
non- innovative firms
total
80%
25%
43%
23%
45%
18%
44%
32%
21%
10%
20%
44%
36%
21%
47%
27%
42%
48%
44%
25%
remained unchanged
deteriorated
-3 %
4%
1%
- 10%
7%
19%
6%
10%
10%
3%
26%
6%
22%
9%
20%
10%
21%
10%
40%
12%
9%
13%
20%
0%
11%
12%
48%
25%
improved
9%
27%
27%
-20%
8%
25%
22%
43%
21%
100%
17%
45%
250+ employees
innovative firms
60%
46%
22%
50-249 employees
SME
40%
29%
5%
2%
3%
na/dk
Q11f: The availability of external financing may depend on a number of factors, some of which are specific to
your enterprise and others which are of more general relevance. For the willingness of banks to provide a loan,
would you say that it has improved, remained unchanged or deteriorated over the past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
In
112
C10887 a
figure 86 results are presented by enterprise characteristic. The proportions in this
figure relate to the enterprises that considered credit line, bank overdraft, credit card
overdraft, bank loans or subsidised bank loans to be relevant to their enterprise. In
2014, in most sectors the proportion of SMEs that experienced improvement exceeded
the proportion of SMEs that experienced deterioration in the willingness of banks to
provide loans, albeit mostly slightly. A negative balance was among SMEs in
construction (-3%). The strongest positive balance was in the sector group of industry
(12%).
The balance increased with size. A negative balance was among micro enterprises (10%) and the highest balance was among large enterprises (26%).
In
2014,
both
innovative
and non-innovative enterprises reported more
often
improvement rather than deterioration. The balance of innovative enterprises (5%)
was slightly more negative than that of non-innovative enterprises (2%).
5 . 3 . 4 A c c e s s t o pu b l i c f i n an ci a l s u p p o r t i n c l u d i n g g u a r a n te e s
In 2014, in Iceland, Hungary, the United Kingdom and Lithuania, a higher proportion
of SMEs experienced an improvement of the access to public financial support,
compared to the proportion of SMEs that experienced deterioration (with a balance of
7%, 2%, 2% and 1% respectively; see figure 87). In Malta, an equal proportion of
SMEs indicated improvement to the proportion that indicated deterioration. In all
other countries the proportion of SMEs that indicated deterioration exceeded the
proportion of SMEs that indicated improvement of the access. The balance ranged
from -1% in Ireland up to -39% in Cyprus.
C10887 a
113
figure 87
Changes over the past six months in access to public financial support including guarantees
(left) and the balance between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for SMEs in the
EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro by country, sorted from high to low based on the balance, in
2014. The proportions relate to SMEs that applied for bank loans, credit lines, bank overdraft or
credit card overdraft during that period.
0%
10%
Iceland
Hungary
Sweden
3%
Slovakia
Poland
Latvia
5%
2%
Romania
4%
Luxembourg
4%
total
EU-28
6%
Croatia
6%
Belgium
Bulgaria
Portugal
8%
Spain
7%
Finland
2%
Austria
2%
France
4%
Italy
3%
Greece
3%
Slovenia
2%
Cyprus
-5 %
48%
-6 %
69%
-7 %
13%
44%
-8 %
71%
-1 0 %
14%
55%
52%
41%
28%
37%
21%
-1 6 %
36%
-1 6 %
52%
44%
-1 7 %
24%
41%
26%
31%
-2 6 %
37%
32%
36%
-3 3 %
27%
39%
-3 6 %
24%
40%
remained unchanged
-2 8 %
24%
39%
35%
-2 7 %
34%
38%
31%
-2 4 %
33%
29%
31%
-1 9 %
25%
28%
36%
32%
-1 9 %
30%
27%
38%
-1 7 %
31%
23%
35%
improved
-1 4 %
36%
22%
22%
-1 2 %
31%
21%
21%
20%
-1 0 %
16%
37%
6%
-5 %
46%
14%
27%
4%
-3 %
-4 %
50%
9%
39%
7%
-1 %
-1 %
40%
12%
6%
1%
0%
21%
50%
11%
-3 7 %
37%
deteriorated
20%
2%
24%
11%
10%
14%
0%
7%
47%
5%
30%
19%
-20%
2%
11%
42%
-40%
49%
6%
33%
-60%
37%
7%
42%
8%
Estonia
Netherlands
8%
42%
100%
38%
9%
55%
6%
90%
30%
15%
43%
4%
Germany
80%
64%
7%
2%
70%
6%
35%
10%
4%
60%
43%
9%
Ireland
50%
30%
8%
Denmark
Montenegro
40%
52%
10%
Lithuania
Czech Republic
30%
17%
United Kingdom
Malta
20%
13%
-3 9 %
na/dk
Q11b: The availability of external financing may depend on a number of factors, some of which are specific to
your enterprise and others which are of more general relevance. For access to public financial support
including guarantees, would you say that they have improved, remained unchanged or deteriorated over the
past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
In 2014, all types of enterprises were more likely to report deterioration than
improvement in the access to public financial support, see figure 88.
Across sectors, the most negative balance was in construction (-19%). The least
negative balance was in industry (-11%) The balance improved with size class. The
most negative balance was among micro enterprises (-21%) and the highest balance
was
among
large
enterprises
(-4%).
Innovative
enterprises
experienced
more
negative change (with a balance of -18%) than non-innovative enterprises (with a
balance of -13%).
114
C10887 a
figure 88
Changes over the past six months in access to public financial support including guarantees
(left) and the balance between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for enterprises
in the EU-28, by enterprise characteristic, in 2014. The proportions relate to enterprises that
applied for bank loans, credit lines, bank overdraft or credit card overdraft during that period.
0%
sector
industry
7%
60%
41%
80%
19%
100%
trade
5%
36%
20%
38%
services
6%
35%
22%
37%
50-249 employees
SME
41%
4%
6%
7%
innovative firms
6%
non- innovative firms
5%
total
6%
37%
21%
41%
6%
250+ employees
25%
38%
8%
37%
35%
15%
37%
37%
37%
remained unchanged
36%
24%
33%
18%
40%
21%
36%
-10%
0%
- 11%
- 19%
- 15%
- 17%
- 21%
- 15%
-7 %
- 16%
-4 %
35%
11%
deteriorated
-20%
35%
21%
47%
improved
30%
24%
34%
-30%
33%
5%
10-49 employees
size
40%
construction
1-9 employees
innovativeness
20%
- 18%
- 13%
- 16%
na/dk
Q11b: The availability of external financing may depend on a number of factors, some of which are specific to
your enterprise and others which are of more general relevance. For access to public financial support
including guarantees, would you say that they have improved, remained unchanged or deteriorated over the
past 6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
5.4
Are SMEs confident in talking with banks and investors?
figure 89 presents whether or not SMEs in the EU-28 were confident in talking with
banks or investors about financing and obtaining the desired results. In 2014, about
two third of SMEs in the EU-28 (63%) felt confident enough to talk with banks. A
quarter of the SMEs (27%) felt not confident to talk to banks about such matters.
10% of the SMEs could not indicate whether they felt confident or not, because it was
not applicable to their enterprise. SMEs’ confidence in talking with banks did not
change much over the past years.
In 2014, only 20% of SMEs felt confident to discuss financing and obtaining the
desired results with equity investors and venture capital enterprises, while 32% did
not feel confident. The majority of SMEs (48%) indicated they did not know or this is
was not applicable to their enterprise. This latter proportion increased since 2009
(55%).
When not taking the group of SMEs in account that stated “don’t know/not applicable”
about 70% of the SMEs in EU-28 indicated that they are confident in talking with bank
and about 38% indicated they are confident in talking to investors. Across years there
is only slight variation in the distribution of SMEs that are and are not confident in
talking with banks or investors.
C10887 a
115
figure 89
Confidence in talking with banks, equity investors and venture capital enterprises about
financing and obtaining the desired results for SMEs in the EU-28, for the period 2009-2014
banks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
2014
63%
27%
2013
64%
24%
12%
2011
63%
25%
12%
2009
63%
25%
12%
10%
equit y invest ors and vent ure capit al f irms
0%
25%
2014
2013
20%
14%
2011
2009
16%
18%
75%
50%
32%
100%
48%
19%
67%
22%
62%
27%
yes
55%
no
don't know/not applicable
Q19: Do you feel confident talking about financing with banks and that you will obtain the desired results? And
how about with equity investors/venture capital enterprises?
Source: SAFE, 2009 -2014; edited by Panteia.
Figure presents the proportion of SMEs that were confident to talk with banks, equity
investors and venture capital enterprises about financing and obtaining the desired
results in individual countries.
By far the greatest proportion of SMEs that felt confident to talk to banks was in
Slovenia (86%), Iceland (84%) and Denmark (79%). SMEs in Greece (35%) and
Cyprus (41%) were least confident enough to talk with banks. Denmark (46%) stood
out with the relative highest number of SMEs that felt confident to talk to investors.
The lowest proportions of SMEs that were confident to talk to investors were found in
the Czech Republic (10%) and Slovakia (10%).
There exist considerable differences in the confidence among SMEs regarding talking
about financing and obtaining the desired results with either banks on the one hand,
and equity investors and venture capital enterprises on the other hand, even within
countries. It holds for each country that SMEs find the latter to be more intimidating.
The difference is, however, relatively smaller for countries such as Denmark, Malta,
Hungary and Greece. The difference is particularly large in the Czech Republic and
Slovakia.
116
C10887 a
figure 90
Confidence in talking with banks, equity investors and venture capital enterprises about
financing and obtaining the desired results for SMEs in the EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro by
country, sorted from high to low by the proportion of enterprises that have such confidence in
talking with banks, in 2014 21
0%
20%
40%
Slovenia
81%
36%
Denmark
77%
10%
Luxembourg
75%
21%
Finland
74%
25%
Belgium
69%
20%
Bulgaria
69%
20%
Austria
68%
22%
Estonia
66%
16%
65%
10%
65%
25%
France
65%
15%
total
63%
20%
EU-28
63%
20%
Spain
62%
25%
61%
14%
Ireland
61%
22%
Hungary
54%
27%
53%
15%
Lithuania
53%
23%
Latvia
Greece
65%
33%
Sweden
Cyprus
66%
28%
Malta
Romania
67%
29%
Netherlands
Italy
68%
25%
United Kingdom
Poland
73%
30%
Germany
Croatia
76%
31%
Portugal
Slovakia
79%
46%
Montenegro
100%
86%
33%
Iceland
Czech Republic
80%
60%
52%
16%
52%
11%
45%
14%
41%
22%
22%
35%
bank
equity investors
Q19: Do you feel confident talking about financing with banks and that you will obtain the desired results? And
how about with equity investors/venture capital enterprises?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
21
Please note that the unweighted number of observations was relatively low in Luxembourg, Malta, Iceland and
Montenegro at around 20. These results should be interpreted with care.
C10887 a
117
figure 91
Confidence in talking with banks, equity investors and venture capital enterprises about
financing and obtaining the desired results for enterprises in the EU-28, by enterprise
characteristic, in 2014
0%
20%
industry
40%
60%
80%
21%
construction
60%
18%
trade
62%
19%
services
61%
21%
1-9 employees
100%
70%
53%
17%
67%
10-49 employees
22%
50-249 employees
75%
24%
SME
63%
20%
250+ employees
78%
33%
innovative firms
63%
23%
non- innovative firms
63%
17%
total
63%
20%
bank
equity investors
Q19: Do you feel confident talking about financing with banks and that you will obtain the desired results? And
how about with equity investors/venture capital enterprises?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
In 2014, there was relatively little variation across sectors in SMEs’ confidence to talk
with banks and investors, see figure 91. The highest proportion of SMEs that felt
confident to talk to banks was in the sector group industry, with 70% of its SMEs. The
largest proportion of SMEs that were confident to talk to equity investors or venture
capital enterprises were found in industry and services (21% each).
The relative amount of enterprises that indicated to be confident to talk with banks
and investors each increases with size. Micro enterprises had the lowest proportion of
confident
SMEs
(53%
regarding
banks
and
17%
regarding
investors).
Large
enterprises had the highest proportion of confident enterprises (78% regarding banks
and 33% regarding investors).
Innovative and non-innovative enterprises felt equally confident in talking with banks,
while innovative enterprises were more confident (23%) in talking with equity
investors and venture capital enterprises than non-innovative enterprises (17%).
5.5
What is the expected future availability of funding?
SMEs were asked to indicate whether they expected the availability of various types of
funds would improve, remain unchanged of deteriorate in the next six months. Please
note that in 2014 a new filter was introduced in the questionnaire, which should be
taken into account when making comparisons across years. The percentages in figure
92 relate to the SMEs in the EU-28 that indicated that the corresponding source of
finance is relevant to their enterprise.
118
C10887 a
In 2014, half of these SMEs in the EU-28 (54%) expected no changes in the
availability of internal funds. Furthermore, the proportion of SMEs that expected an
improvement
(28%)
was
higher
than
the
proportion
of
SMEs
that
expected
deterioration (12%). The balance between expected improvement and deterioration
increased substantially over the past years (from 0% in 2009 to 16% in 2014).
In 2014, a quarter of SMEs (23%) stated that the availability of equity investments
in their enterprises was not applicable to their enterprise. About half of the EU-28
SMEs that considered equity relevant to the enterprise did not expect any changes in
the availability of equity investments. 18% of the SMEs expected an improvement in
availability of equity investments and only 8% predicted deterioration. In particular,
the proportion of SMEs who indicated that changes in the availability of equity
investments was not applicable to their enterprise decreased since 2009 (from 49% in
2009 to 23% in 2014).
In 2014, half of the SMEs (55%) that considered bank loans relevant, expected no
change in the access to bank loans. The number of SMEs that expected positive
change was greater (21%) than the number of SMEs that expected negative change
(17%). The balance between expected improvement and deterioration increased over
the past years (from -2% in 2009 to 4% in 2014).
In 2014, a majority of the SMEs (59%) that consider these financing source to be
relevant, expected no changes in the availability of bank overdraft, credit line or
credit cards overdraft. 21% of SMEs predicted improvement of the availability of
bank overdraft, credit line or credit cards overdraft and 15% predicted deterioration.
Between 2011 and 2014 the balance increased from -2% to 5%.
In 2014, 60% of SMEs that deemed trade credit to be relevant to their enterprise
expected no changes in the availability of trade credit, 21% expected improvement
and 12% expected deterioration. Over the past years the balance increased from -1%
in 2009 to 10% in 2014.
A large proportion of those SMEs in EU-28 (24%) considering this type of financing
relevant could not predict changes in the availability of debt securities issued. 46%
of these SMEs thought the availability of debt securities would remain unchanged.
More SMEs reported improvement in the availability than deteriorations, resulting in a
6% balance.
Almost two third of SMEs (60%) expected no change in the availability of other
sources such as loan from a related company, leasing and factoring. The proportion of
SMEs that expected improvement (14%) exceeded the proportion of SMEs that
expected deterioration (8%) of the access to other sources. The balance between
expected improvement and deterioration increased over the past years (from 0% in
2009 to 6% in 2014).
C10887 a
119
figure 92
Expectations regarding the availability of various types of funding (left) and the balance
between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for SMEs in the EU-28, for the period
2009-2014. The proportions relate to SMEs that indicated that the corresponding source of
finance is relevant to their enterprise.
internal funds
0%
25%
2014
23%
54%
2011
24%
52%
2009
bank loans
2013
17%
bank overdraft or
credit line
2014
21%
2011
equity
4%
4%
-3 %
-2 %
5%
5%
4%
11%
16%
10%
-2 %
0%
2009 0%
2013
2011
2009
18%
2009
11%
2011
2009
2011
2009
38%
6%
21%
5%
45%
0%
60%
12%
9%
58%
11%
46%
18%
6%
39%
5%
39%
24%
14%
60%
40%
5%
-1 %
8%
5%
remained unchanged
47%
4%
deteriorate
18%
6%
40%
6%
49%
improve
-5 %
66%
46%
6%
1%
47%
3%
10%
-3 %
50%
10%
30%
8%
12%
4%
-1 %
35%
5%
10%
7%
16%
17%
14%
9%
49%
2%
3%
49%
62%
7%
11%
23%
49%
4%
13%
2014
2013
5%
42%
2014
2013
8%
38%
4%
2013
2011
51%
8%
2014
trade credit
15%
12%
61%
0%
6%
15%
59%
14%
10%
10%
17%
62%
20%
16%
15%
14%
21%
15%
2014
debt securities
59%
10%
11%
17%
17%
0%
9%
13%
52%
-10%
11%
17%
55%
12%
2013
13%
14%
56%
14%
2009
100%
6%
12%
58%
16%
2011
75%
54%
2013
2014
other
50%
28%
42%
5%
2%
0%
na/dk
Note: In 2014 a new filter was introduced in the SAFE questionnaire. This filter was simulated in the data of
the previous survey rounds, nevertheless one should be cautious when making comparisons across years.
Q23: Looking ahead, for each of the following types of financing available to your firm, could you please
indicate whether you think their availability will improve, deteriorate or remain unchanged over the next 6
months?
Source: SAFE, 2009-2014; edited by Panteia.
Four of the types of external funds are discussed in more detail in the following
section. In the order of appearance, these are internal funding, bank loans, bank
overdraft or credit line and equity.
5 . 5 . 1 I n te r n a l f und i n g
In 2014, SMEs in Iceland, Ireland and Malta overall were most optimistic about the
future availability of internal funds. In these countries the proportion of SMEs that
expected improvement greatly exceeded the proportion of SMEs that expected
deterioration. Also in most other countries the balance was positive (see figure 93).
The proportions presented here, refer to only those SMEs that considered internal
funds to be relevant to their enterprise.
In only six countries the proportion of SMEs that thought the availability would decline
in the next six months was greater than the proportion of SMEs that expected
improvement. The country with by far the most negative balance was Cyprus(-26%).
120
C10887 a
figure 93
Expectations regarding the availability of internal funding (left) and the balance between the
categories improved and deteriorated (right) for SMEs in the EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro by
country, sorted from high to low based on the balance, in 2014. The proportions relate to SMEs
that indicated that internal funds are relevant to their enterprise.
0%
10%
20%
Iceland
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
58%
Ireland
59%
Malta
Spain
Hungary
37%
Germany
Slovakia
24%
29%
28%
3%
9%
26%
26%
6%
21%
15%
9%
62%
30%
11%
5%
53%
29%
Bulgaria
1%
2%
10%
5%
55%
31%
3%
12%
54%
25%
38%
31%
7%
53%
30%
Poland
9%
49%
31%
52%
38%
6%
56%
20%
10%
20%
9%
18%
6%
total
29%
54%
12%
6%
16%
EU-28
28%
54%
12%
6%
16%
Czech Republic
21%
Estonia
Montenegro
22%
16%
Latvia
16%
France
Greece
Cyprus
67%
13%
15%
17%
16%
23%
41%
31%
42%
improve
39%
remained unchanged
deteriorate
6%
3%
5%
4%
3%
3%
5%
0%
6%
27%
55%
20%
8%
2%
5%
16%
62%
47%
13%
19%
63%
15%
10%
15%
53%
11%
8%
9%
62%
23%
5%
14%
74%
Austria
Finland
12%
56%
20%
Belgium
Portugal
14%
14%
14%
59%
15%
Italy
5%
18%
86%
24%
Slovenia
7%
51%
14%
Croatia
Luxembourg
67%
32%
100%
58%
4%
9%
42%
37%
Romania
50%
10%
57%
35%
Netherlands
5%
47%
36%
Denmark
7%
48%
40%
Sweden
0%
7%
45%
36%
-50%
7%
48%
44%
Lithuania
100%
5%
33%
45%
United Kingdom
90%
36%
-2 %
-6 %
8%
-9 %
8%
-1 2 %
7%
-2 6 %
na/dk
Q23a: Looking ahead, for each of the following types of financing available to your firm, could you please
indicate whether you think their availability will improve, deteriorate or remain unchanged over the next 6
months? Internal funds, for example from retained earning and sale of assets
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
C10887 a
121
figure 94
Expectations regarding the availability of internal funding (left) and the balance between the
categories improved and deteriorated (right) for enterprises in the EU-28 by enterprise
characteristic, in 2014. The proportions relate to enterprises that indicated that internal funds
are relevant to their enterprise.
0%
industry
sector
construction
services
29%
size
50-249 employees
SME
250+ employees
innovative firms
non- innovative firms
total
60%
12%
13%
51%
52%
33%
28%
54%
12%
56%
34%
31%
51%
25%
57%
28%
54%
remained unchanged
deteriorate
6%
8%
20%
14%
16%
16%
9%
15%
24%
5%
6%
16%
27%
7% 3%
12%
6%
12%
5%
12%
6%
30%
18%
5%
6%
12%
54%
10%
5%
16%
55%
0%
5%
7%
13%
52%
27%
100%
10%
57%
25%
improve
80%
57%
26%
29%
10-49 employees
40%
28%
trade
1-9 employees
innovativeness
20%
19%
12%
16%
na/dk
Q23: Looking ahead, for each of the following types of financing available to your firm, could you please
indicate whether you think their availability will improve, deteriorate or remain unchanged over the next 6
months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
In figure 94 the expected changes in the availability is presented by enterprise
characteristics. Here too results relate to the SMEs that deemed internal funds
relevant to their enterprise. SMEs in industry were most optimistic about future
changes in the access to internal funding. 28% of SMEs in this sector expected
improvement while 10% expected deterioration, for an 18% balance. SMEs in
construction were least positive overall when compared to the other sectors. Here,
26% of SMEs expected improvement, whereas 12% expected deterioration. The
balance in construction thus amounted to 14%.
The balance increases with enterprise size. Among micro enterprises 25% of the
enterprises expected deterioration and 16% expected improvement; the net effect
among these smallest of enterprises amounted to 9%. Among large enterprises 34%
expected improvement, while 7% expected deterioration, resulting in a much larger
positive balance.
Innovative enterprises were more optimistic than non-innovative enterprises. The
proportions of enterprises that expected deterioration of the availability were equal,
while the proportion of enterprises that expected improvement was higher among
innovative (31%) than among non-innovative enterprises (25%), so that the net
effect was more strongly positive.
122
C10887 a
5.5.2 Bank loans
In 2014, in most European countries, SMEs that considered bank loans to be relevant
reported that they expected improvement of the availability of bank loans more often
than they reported deterioration. Looking at the balance, Montenegro (37%), Iceland
(30%) and Ireland (29%) were most often optimistic. See figure 95.
In nine EU-countries the proportion of SMEs that expected deterioration exceeded the
proportion of SMEs that expected improvement. Austria had the greatest negative net
effect, amounting to -21%.
figure 95
Expectations regarding the availability of bank loans (left) and the balance between the
categories improved and deteriorated (right) for SMEs in the EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro by
country, sorted from high to low based on the balance between the categories improve and
deteriorate, in 2014. The proportions relate to SMEs that indicated that bank loans are relevant
to their enterprise.
0%
10%
20%
Montenegro
30%
40%
50%
60%
37%
Iceland
31%
Ireland
Hungary
34%
48%
Croatia
Romania
Poland
Portugal
18%
4%
18%
17%
16%
7%
16%
14%
26%
13%
11%
9%
13%
12%
10%
16%
45%
4%
14%
13%
53%
25%
4%
16%
10%
53%
22%
Slovenia
22%
8%
10%
55%
23%
29%
27%
6%
5%
60%
22%
Bulgaria
14%
5%
41%
24%
37%
30%
19%
5%
60%
23%
Sweden
20% 40% 60%
7%
12%
57%
19%
0%
12%
65%
26%
Slovakia
11%
50%
22%
United Kingdom
4%
4%
10%
55%
30%
Czech Republic
8%
8%
68%
29%
-40% -20%
1% 7%
48%
23%
Malta
100%
0% 8%
53%
29%
Denmark
90%
51%
35%
Lithuania
80%
61%
37%
Spain
70%
54%
10%
9%
19%
6%
12%
6%
total
21%
55%
17%
6%
4%
EU-28
21%
55%
17%
6%
4%
Estonia
Germany
22%
Belgium
Greece
23%
Cyprus
12%
Finland
12%
France
14%
23%
58%
14%
24%
49%
9%
30%
56%
improve
remained unchanged
31%
deteriorate
-3 %
3%
11%
29%
56%
-3 %
9%
31%
36%
0%
4%
23%
36%
21%
Luxembourg
20%
55%
2%
4%
22%
53%
19%
2%
4%
22%
56%
17%
Italy
6%
14%
52%
19%
Latvia
20%
66%
22%
Netherlands
Austria
53%
16%
-4 %
-8 %
-9 %
9%
5%
7%
4%
-1 1 %
-1 2 %
-1 6 %
-2 1 %
na/dk
Q23b: Looking ahead, for each of the following types of financing available to your firm, could you please
indicate whether you think their availability will improve, deteriorate or remain unchanged over the next 6
months? Bank loans
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
C10887 a
123
figure 96
Expectations regarding the availability of bank loans (left) and the balance between the
categories improved and deteriorated (right) for enterprises in the EU-28 by enterprise
characteristic, in 2014. The proportions relate to enterprises that indicated that bank loans are
relevant to their enterprise.
0%
industry
size
sector
construction
20%
services
20%
1-9 employees
20%
10-49 employees
20%
innovativeness
innovative firms
non- innovative firms
total
18%
55%
55%
51%
19%
6%
7%
23%
10%
52%
18%
18%
61%
21%
16%
55%
remained unchanged
deteriorate
17%
30%
4%
2%
-1 %
3%
12%
5%
4%
6%
17%
20%
10%
6%
12%
57%
10%
2%
6%
60%
29%
0%
7%
17%
17%
55%
-10%
8%
21%
57%
21%
improve
100%
13%
54%
23%
250+ employees
80%
58%
20%
21%
SME
60%
23%
trade
50-249 employees
40%
19%
4%
5%
7%
6%
2%
4%
6%
na/dk
Q23: Looking ahead, for each of the following types of financing available to your firm, could you please
indicate whether you think their availability will improve, deteriorate or remain unchanged over the next 6
months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
As shown in figure 96, SMEs in all sectors were positive about changes in the
availability of bank loans to them, although there existed differences in the degree to
which they were positive on these developments. Again, the results only relate to
those SMEs that considered bank loans relevant to their enterprise. The positive net
effect was relatively small for SMEs in construction and services (2% both) and largest
for the industries (10%).
As was the case for internal funding, the balance increases with enterprise size. Micro
enterprises were the only group of enterprises with a negative net effect, amounting
to -1%. The proportion of enterprises among the large enterprises that expected an
improvement (29%) far outweighed the proportion that expected a deterioration
(10%), resulting in a net effect of 19%.
Innovative
enterprises
were
more
often
optimistic
than
their
non-innovative
counterparts. Among innovative enterprises, 23% expected deterioration, while 18%
expected improvement. The net effect among this group thus amounts to 5%. Among
non-innovative
enterprises,
18%
expected
improvement,
while
16%
expected
deterioration for a net effect of 2%.
124
C10887 a
5.5.3
B a n k o v e r d r a f t , c r e d i t l i n e or cr e d i t c a r d o ve r d r a f t
In 2014, Montenegro, Ireland and Spain had the highest proportion of SMEs that
expected improvement relative to the proportion of SMEs that expected deterioration
of the availability of bank overdraft, credit line or credit card overdraft (with a balance
of 31%, 25% and 23% respectively). See figure 97.
In seven countries the proportion of SMEs that believed the availability would decline
in the next six months was higher than the proportion of SMEs that expected
improvement. Within these seven countries the balance ranged from -1% in Belgium
up to -20% in Austria.
figure 97
Expectations regarding the availability of bank overdraft, credit line or credit cards overdraft
(left) and the balance between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for SMEs in the
EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro by country, sorted from high to low based on the balance, in
2014. The proportions relate to SMEs that indicated that bank overdraft, credit line or credit
card overdraft are relevant to their enterprise.
0%
10%
20%
Montenegro
31%
Ireland
31%
Spain
40%
50%
60%
Slovakia
Malta
24%
Poland
23%
Czech Republic
Estonia
6%
58%
21%
17%
3%
57%
15%
14%
7%
13%
8%
12%
14%
16%
4%
10%
11%
15%
69%
15%
10%
14%
48%
18%
18%
9%
9%
67%
11%
3%
12%
9%
52%
20%
19%
6%
11%
65%
26%
Portugal
11%
58%
24%
Slovenia
7%
54%
26%
3%
10%
8%
48%
19%
Croatia
21%
21%
3%
9%
66%
26%
23%
22%
10%
7%
61%
28%
Bulgaria
31%
25%
2%
13%
59%
26%
Lithuania
3%
57%
25%
-30%-20%-10% 0% 10%20%30%40%
15%
50%
29%
Denmark
10%
8%
63%
26%
United Kingdom
100%
6% 2%
56%
34%
Iceland
90%
0%
4%
48%
24%
Sweden
80%
60%
30%
Hungary
70%
66%
32%
Romania
Cyprus
30%
9%
8%
5%
6%
15%
6%
total
21%
59%
15%
5%
5%
EU-28
21%
59%
15%
5%
5%
Latvia
19%
Germany
Netherlands
France
Austria
21%
66%
20%
Greece
16%
55%
15%
Italy
25%
70%
11%
29%
61%
improve
remained unchanged
4%
28%
deteriorate
0%
-1 %
2%
-3 %
1%
-4 %
9%
17%
54%
7%
3%
5%
24%
46%
20%
4%
2%
18%
55%
11%
6%
13%
63%
20%
Luxembourg
16%
70%
17%
Belgium
Finland
59%
15%
-5 %
2%
6%
4%
-7 %
-1 8 %
-2 0 %
na/dk
Q23g: Looking ahead, for each of the following types of financing available to your firm, could you please
indicate whether you think their availability will improve, deteriorate or remain unchanged over the next 6
months? Bank overdraft, credit line or credit cards overdraft
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
C10887 a
125
figure 98
Expectations regarding the availability of bank overdraft, credit line or credit card overdraft
(left) and the balance between the categories improved and deteriorated (right) for enterprises
in the EU-28, by enterprise characteristic, in 2014. The proportions relate to enterprises that
indicated that bank overdraft, credit line or credit card overdraft are relevant to their enterprise.
0%
60%
20%
construction
20%
trade
21%
59%
services
21%
58%
1-9 employees
21%
10-49 employees
20%
50-249 employees
21%
SME
21%
sector
size
40%
industry
250+ employees
innovativeness
20%
innovative firms
non- innovative firms
total
64%
100%
11%
58%
16%
17%
19%
59%
15%
62%
23%
9%
56%
18%
16%
63%
21%
14%
59%
remained unchanged
deteriorate
15%
4%
5%
4%
2%
4%
12%
4%
5%
5%
17%
4%
5%
5%
5%
20%
9%
5%
6%
9%
59%
10%
4%
5%
16%
66%
0%
5%
6%
16%
55%
25%
improve
80%
6%
4%
5%
na/dk
Q23: Looking ahead, for each of the following types of financing available to your firm, could you please
indicate whether you think their availability will improve, deteriorate or remain unchanged over the next 6
months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
figure 98 presents the expectations regarding the availability of bank overdraft, credit
line or credit card overdraft by enterprise characteristic.
In all sectors, the proportion of SMEs that expected improvement was greater than
the proportion of SMEs that expected deterioration of the availability of bank
overdraft, credit line or credit card overdraft. Across sectors, the balance ranged from
4% in construction and services to 9% in industry.
Again, the balance increased with enterprise size. Among micro enterprises 21% of
the enterprises expected improvement and 19% expected deterioration, for a net
effect of 2%. Among large enterprises 25% expected improvement, while only 9%
expected deterioration, resulting in a 17% balance.
Innovative enterprises were more often optimistic than non-innovative enterprises
were. The proportion of SMEs that expected improvement of availability among this
group was 23% and the proportion that expected deterioration totalled 16%, for a net
effect of 6%. The net effect among non-innovative SMEs equalled 4%.
5.5.4
Equity
In 2014, SMEs in the countries of the EU-28 were generally positive about changes in
the availability of equity funding to them over the next six months, as evidence by the
fact that 18% expected an improvement versus 8% that expected deterioration. This
results in a net, non-rounded impact of 11%. The results for individual countries for
SMEs in the EU-28 plus Iceland and Montenegro that considered equity relevant to
their enterprise are presented in figure 99.
126
C10887 a
The figure shows that most countries are positive on changes in the availability of
equity financing. The proportion of SMEs that expected improvements was greater in
24 out of the 30 countries surveyed. The net effect ranged up to 31% for Denmark.
Other examples of countries with large balances were Iceland (29%) and Sweden
(28%).
On the negative end of the spectrum, countries like Hungary (-15%), Czech Republic
(-10%) and France (-9%) reported negative balances, meaning that the proportion of
SMEs that expected a deterioration in the availability of equity financing outweighed
the proportion that expected improvement.
figure 99
Expectations regarding the availability of equity investments (left) and the balance between the
categories improved and deteriorated (right) for SMEs in the EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro by
country, sorted from high to low based on the balance, in 2014. The proportions relate to SMEs
that indicated that equity is relevant to their enterprise. 22
0%
10%
20%
Denmark
Iceland
33%
Sweden
34%
Malta
40%
Lithuania
Latvia
Germany
3%
EU-28
Netherlands
Poland
14%
10%
8%
23%
8%
23%
11%
11%
11%
15%
Italy
6%
6%
7%
36%
6%
11%
75%
8%
65%
14%
10%
51%
4%
37%
Czech Republic
7%
0%
-1 %
-1 %
-4 %
45%
-9 %
39%
67%
15%
remained unchanged
3%
36%
10%
improve
4%
5%
37%
13%
Hungary
5%
33%
10%
51%
6%
3%
48%
48%
9%
8%
97%
Portugal
9%
27%
72%
9%
12%
10%
13%
45%
Cyprus
4%
4%
3%
17%
16%
15%
26%
51%
12%
7%
21%
17%
Greece
19%
16%
19%
4%
58%
13%
Slovenia
10%
73%
22%
6%
14%
8%
68%
11%
Estonia
6%
63%
51%
19%
19%
4%
52%
18%
Bulgaria
Luxembourg
23%
58%
13%
24%
22%
31%
51%
51%
27%
24%
15%
64%
18%
29%
28%
4%
18%
62%
11%
total
5%
6%
22%
40%
31%
11%
4%
52%
18%
Finland
20%
16%
37%
25%
0%
19%
8%
51%
23%
-20%
5%
6%
52%
24%
Austria
4%
48%
20%
100%
5%
57%
26%
Spain
90%
57%
22%
Croatia
80%
44%
29%
Ireland
70%
54%
26%
Romania
France
60%
32%
United Kingdom
Belgium
50%
27%
Slovakia
Montenegro
30%
36%
deteriorate
-1 0 %
18%
-1 5 %
na/dk
Q23c: Looking ahead, for each of the following types of financing available to your firm, could you please
indicate whether you think their availability will improve, deteriorate or remain unchanged over the next 6
months? Equity investments
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
The results for different types of enterprises that considered equity relevant to their
enterprise
are
presented
in
figure
100.
When
enterprise
characteristics
are
considered, there is not a single group with a negative balance across the EU-28. The
22
Please note that the unweighted number of observations was relatively low in the Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, and Montenegro at below 30. These results should be interpreted with care.
C10887 a
127
balance amounted to 5% among SMEs in construction; other sectors report more
positive figures (10 -13%).
Contrary to the other financing types, the balance for availability of equity funding
does not increase monotonically with size of the enterprise. While it does increase
with size for SMEs, the balance is slightly smaller for large enterprises (13%) than it
was for medium-sized enterprises (15%).
Innovative SMEs are considerably more positive on future changes in equity funding
available to them than their non-positive counterparts are. 22% of innovative SMEs
expected improvements (7% expected deteriorations), while no more than 11% of
non-innovative SMEs did so (and 8% expected deteriorations). As a result, the balance
for innovative enterprises is notably higher than that of non-innovative enterprises
(14% versus 4%).
figure 100
Expectations regarding the availability of equity investments (left) and the balance between the
categories improved and deteriorated (right) for enterprises in the EU-28, by enterprise
characteristic, in 2014. The proportions relate to enterprises that indicated that equity is
relevant to their enterprise.
0%
industry
sector
construction
trade
innovativeness
size
services
20%
18%
5%
10-49 employees
18%
50-249 employees
19%
SME
18%
250+ employees
18%
51%
8%
61%
11%
56%
18%
improve
7%
8%
51%
remained unchanged
8%
deteriorate
12%
10%
6%
12%
15%
19%
11%
23%
4%
48%
5%
25%
4%
20%
13%
25%
7%
59%
10%
23%
11%
49%
0%
24%
9%
47%
22%
23%
6%
48%
100%
22%
9%
53%
19%
17%
total
80%
53%
17%
innovative firms
60%
54%
14%
1-9 employees
non- innovative firms
40%
13%
17%
14%
22%
25%
23%
4%
11%
na/dk
Q23: Looking ahead, for each of the following types of financing available to your firm, could you please
indicate whether you think their availability will improve, deteriorate or remain unchanged over the next 6
months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
128
C10887 a
5.6
What has
financing?
changed
in
the
terms
and
conditions
of
bank
figure 101 present the changes in terms and conditions of bank financing according to
SMEs in the EU-28 that indicated they applied for bank loans, credit lines, bank
overdrafts or credit card overdrafts. Please not that there have been some changes in
the survey design. Differences across years could be the results of these changes,
therefore one should be careful when making comparisons across years. According to
figure 101, most terms and conditions of bank financing SMEs face have increased for
most bank products in the first half of 2014. For most terms and conditions
categories, this is a continuation of trends, in particular for the non-interest cost of
finance, collateral requirements, and other requirement. Regarding interest rates,
historical trends seem to reverse.
figure 101
Changes in terms and conditions of bank financing (incl. bank loans, overdraft and credit line)
(left) and the balance between the categories increased and decreased (right) for SMEs in the
EU-28, for the period 2009-2014.
interest rates
loan maturity
loan size or credit
line
other
collateral
requirements
non- interest cost of
financing
0%
25%
2014
2013
31%
2013
31%
2011
2009
2014
25%
2013
24%
2011
2014
2011
2011
8%
2009
8%
2013
5%
55%
40%
increased
33%
decreased
0%
-4 %
5%
4%
8%
29%
0%
0%
10%
12%
21%
29%
remained unchanged
8%
32%
41%
3%
-7 %
9%
8%
12%
2%
6%
7%
75%
5%
4%
8%
68%
27%
26%
8%
78%
22%
5%
18%
74%
37%
20%
13%
23%
53%
30%
25%
12%
17%
53%
34%
28%
10%
15%
60%
2011
2009
3%
61%
23%
26%
2% 11%
50%
9%
7%
5%
9%
5%
56%
16%
2013
6%
63%
21%
2009
44%
30%
3% 7%
60%
18%
38%
3%5%
54%
20%
2013
5%
56%
31%
30%
5%
9%
61%
30%
2009
10%
59%
31%
20% 40% 60%
4% 6%
41%
33%
-20% 0%
5%
5%
43%
40%
2014
100%
9%
46%
48%
2009
2014
75%
48%
43%
2011
2014
50%
39%
-9 %
14%
6%
6%
45%
8%
not applicable
Note: In 2014 a new filter was introduced in the SAFE questionnaire. This filter was simulated in the data of
the previous survey rounds, nevertheless one should be cautious when making comparisons across years.
Q10: Turning to the terms and conditions of bank financing (including bank loans, overdraft and credit lines),
could you please indicate whether the following items increased, remained unchanged or decreased in the past
6 months?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia
C10887 a
129
5 . 6 . 1 I n te r e s t r a te s
From figure 102 and figure 103 it can be seen that the improved interest rate
conditions are not evenly spread across categories. For instance, SMEs in Italy,
Ireland, Slovenia, Cyprus and the United Kingdom on balance report an increased in
interest rates, while German, Belgium and Sweden on balance report a decrease. Also,
the proportion of large enterprises reporting interest rate decreases (compared to
those reporting increases) is higher than the corresponding figure for SMEs; in fact,
micro enterprise on balance report higher interest rates. SMEs in industry most often
report interest rate decreases.
figure 102
Changes in the level of interest rates of bank financing (incl. bank loans, overdraft and credit
line) (left) and the balance between the categories increased and decreased (right) for SMEs in
the EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro by country, sorted from high to low based on the balance,
in 2014. 23
0%
10%
20%
Italy
30%
40%
50%
60%
44%
Ireland
36%
Slovenia
Cyprus
43%
Greece
Netherlands
Spain
Lithuania
8%
1%
31%
18%
9%
10%
8%
2%
27%
42%
21%
9%
2%
18%
37%
16%
Croatia
1%
20%
34%
28%
10%
14%
55%
10%
4%
12%
24%
42%
32%
Portugal
19%
17%
7%
23%
42%
26%
19%
19%
4%
13%
62%
28%
Denmark
1%
8%
1%
25%
49%
-2 %
24%
6%
-3 %
EU-28
23%
40%
32%
5%
-9 %
total
23%
40%
32%
5%
-9 %
Slovakia
Montenegro
Romania
Iceland
Poland
11%
12%
Austria
14%
14%
14%
33%
36%
7%
38%
42%
43%
47%
32%
remained unchanged
decreased
-1 6 %
-1 7 %
-1 9 %
7%
5%
3%
9%
-1 9 %
-2 1 %
-2 2 %
-2 3 %
-2 7 %
11%
43%
29%
increased
8%
12%
36%
41%
14%
-1 0 %
-1 1 %
8%
35%
46%
11%
9%
35%
47%
14%
15%
10%
35%
42%
13%
Sweden
33%
42%
13%
12%
26%
43%
16%
France
Belgium
27%
54%
Hungary
Germany
16%
53%
8%
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
21%
64%
Estonia
Luxembourg
54%
5%
50%
24%
7%
7%
39%
23%
0%
24%
53%
33%
Malta
-50%
2%
16%
33%
23%
100%
17%
62%
34%
Latvia
90%
19%
45%
24%
Finland
80%
40%
35%
United Kingdom
70%
35%
-2 8 %
8%
3%
-3 0 %
-3 9 %
54%
6%
-4 2 %
53%
6%
-4 4 %
na/dk
Q10a: Turning to the terms and conditions of bank financing (including bank loans, overdraft and credit lines),
could you please indicate whether the following items increased, remained unchanged or decreased in the past
6 months? Level of interest rates
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia
23
Please note that the unweighted number of observations was relatively low Cyprus, Estonia, Luxembourg and
Malta at below 30. These results should be interpreted with care.
130
C10887 a
figure 103
Changes in the level of interest rates of bank financing (incl. bank loans, overdraft and credit
line) (left) and the balance between the categories increased and decreased (right) for
enterprises in the EU-28, by enterprise characteristic, in 2014
0%
sector
industry
20%
construction
23%
trade
24%
services
23%
1-9 employees
size
innovativeness
innovative firms
non- innovative firms
total
29%
39%
42%
23%
29%
6%
33%
42%
32%
40%
36%
24%
49%
40%
20%
34%
40%
remained unchanged
32%
decreased
-20%
-8 %
-5 %
5%
-1 0 %
-2 5 %
-9 %
5%
6%
5%
5%
20%
-6 %
4%
4%
0%
-1 9 %
8%
3%
30%
41%
23%
increased
5%
22%
38%
-40%
4%
32%
43%
40%
100%
5%
39%
44%
17%
13%
80%
37%
23%
SME
250+ employees
60%
27%
10-49 employees
50-249 employees
40%
20%
-3 6 %
-6 %
-1 4 %
-9 %
na/dk
Q10a: Turning to the terms and conditions of bank financing (including bank loans, overdraft and credit lines),
could you please indicate whether the following items increased, remained unchanged or decreased in the past
6 months? Level of interest rates
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
C10887 a
131
5 . 6 . 2 L e ve l o f t he c o s t o f f i na n c i n g o th e r t h an i n te r e s t r a t e s
Contrary to the interest rates, more SMEs report an increase in the other costs of
finance than a decrease (figure 104, figure 105). Especially in Cyprus, Slovenia and
Italy, SMEs on balance report in increase of other costs of finance; SMEs in these
countries also reported an increase in interest rates. A positive balance between cost
increases and decreases is most often reported by SMEs in construction and services.
Large enterprises on balance report less often an increase in other costs of bank
financing than SMEs do; this corresponds to the fact that large enterprises more often
report interest rate decreases. The difference between the judgment of innovative and
of non-innovative enterprises regarding the development of non-interest costs are
minor.
figure 104
Changes in the level of non-interest costs of bank financing (incl. bank loans, overdraft and
credit line) (left) and the balance between the categories increased and decreased (right) for
SMEs in the EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro by country, sorted from high to low based on the
balance, in 2014. 24
0%
10%
20%
30%
Cyprus
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
66%
Slovenia
57%
Italy
Greece
55%
50%
Spain
50%
33%
Malta
Netherlands
38%
United Kingdom
38%
Luxembourg
2%
37%
36%
9%
6%
57%
37%
8%
4%
50%
39%
3%
7%
10%
49%
44%
44%
40%
4% 4%
37%
35%
Portugal
50%
44%
1%
9%
47%
45%
52%
51%
6% 3%
49%
34%
6%
32%
3% 5%
40%
13%
32%
3%
31%
EU-28
39%
48%
9%
5%
30%
total
39%
48%
9%
5%
30%
Denmark
36%
Croatia
51%
33%
Latvia
24%
Belgium
Sweden
26%
Iceland
7%
55%
10%
Germany
17%
Lithuania
Poland
4%
23%
Romania
Estonia
5%
Czech Republic
5%
17%
54%
28%
Montenegro
33%
increased
remained unchanged
8%
8%
7%
20%
14%
decreased
6%
6%
9%
31%
12%
72%
16%
10%
6%
18%
63%
9%
26%
54%
19%
16%
10%
8%
57%
17%
10%
12%
70%
12%
18%
11%
3%
56%
19%
7%
70%
22%
28%
23%
15%
14%
57%
19%
4%
9%
5%
48%
25%
Bulgaria
10%
57%
31%
Slovakia
8%
47%
100%
65%
6%
11%
42%
44%
Hungary
50%
2% 4%
41%
46%
0%
4%
6%
38%
43%
-50%
4% 3%
47%
Ireland
France
5%
37%
47%
Austria
100%
2%
33%
55%
Finland
90%
32%
1%
-3 %
-7 %
8%
-9 %
na/dk
Q10b: Turning to the terms and conditions of bank financing (including bank loans, overdraft and credit lines),
could you please indicate whether the following items increased, remained unchanged or decreased in the past
6 months? Level of the cost of financing other than interest rates
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
24
Please note that the unweighted number of observations was relatively low Cyprus, Estonia, Luxembourg and
Malta at below 30. These results should be interpreted with care.
132
C10887 a
figure 105
Changes in the level of non-interest costs of bank financing (incl. bank loans, overdraft and
credit line) (left) and the balance between the categories increased and decreased (right) for
enterprises in the EU-28, by enterprise characteristic, in 2014
0%
sector
industry
20%
52%
1-9 employees
size
innovativeness
49%
38%
31%
SME
total
41%
55%
39%
24%
46%
52%
36%
39%
increased
48%
remained unchanged
decreased
7%
9%
9%
16%
57%
40%
7%
11%
48%
0%
20%
4%
40%
9%
8%
9%
37%
4%
27%
6%
34%
6%
39%
29%
5%
19%
3%
30%
5%
3%
5%
4%
5%
60%
22%
6% 4%
11%
47%
46%
10-49 employees
non- innovative firms
47%
41%
100%
11%
46%
38%
services
innovative firms
80%
43%
trade
250+ employees
60%
33%
construction
50-249 employees
40%
7%
31%
28%
30%
na/dk
Q10b: Turning to the terms and conditions of bank financing (including bank loans, overdraft and credit lines),
could you please indicate whether the following items increased, remained unchanged or decreased in the past
6 months? Level of the cost of financing other than interest rates
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
C10887 a
133
5 . 6 . 3 A v a i l a b l e s iz e of t he l oa n
On balance 5% of the EU SMEs report an increase in the available loan size (figure
106, figure 107). Such increases are found for most individual countries as well, with
however the notable exception of Italy, the Netherlands, Iceland, Cyprus, Greece and
Slovenia. Disaggregated by sector of industry, EU SMEs in manufacturing, trade and
services on balance report increases in the available loan size; EU SMEs in
construction do not. The positive judgment on the size of available loans is positively
related to enterprise size: it is lowest in micro enterprises, and largest in large
enterprises. This is again consistent with the result on cost of loans.
figure 106
Changes in the available size of bank loans or credit line (left) and the balance between the
categories increased and decreased (right) for SMEs in the EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro by
country, sorted from high to low based on the balance, in 2014. 25
0%
10%
Czech Republic
20%
Montenegro
25%
Denmark
26%
Portugal
60%
Bulgaria
12%
11%
13%
11%
3%
11%
13%
11%
21%
11%
12%
77%
2%
48%
9%
5%
9%
10%
9%
14%
14%
14%
10%
20%
50%
24%
12%
9%
8%
46%
22%
14%
9%
8%
57%
11%
Ireland
17%
17%
10%
60%
29%
Hungary
5%
6%
70%
20%
18%
18%
27%
56%
7%
10%
18%
6%
8%
79%
6%
total
20%
60%
15%
5%
5%
EU-28
20%
60%
15%
5%
5%
Spain
24%
Austria
15%
Romania
15%
France
21%
Slovenia
26%
13%
73%
17%
11%
9%
3%
35%
decreased
2%
3%
-2 %
5%
-5 %
-6 %
18%
-9 %
2%
30%
47%
remained unchanged
2%
24%
52%
increased
2%
8%
17%
56%
3%
12%
18%
48%
7%
4%
5%
15%
62%
Cyprus
Greece
12%
62%
16%
Netherlands
12%
60%
19%
Italy
2%
20%
62%
17%
Belgium
Iceland
54%
68%
40%
19%
14%
69%
United Kingdom
20%
10%
8%
5%
19%
0%
9%
11%
62%
10%
-20%
12%
4%
56%
52%
-40%
4%
8%
63%
21%
Sweden
7%
58%
19%
Croatia
100%
5%
59%
20%
Slovakia
90%
66%
16%
Germany
80%
56%
24%
Lithuania
70%
66%
18%
Poland
Luxembourg
50%
26%
Estonia
Malta
40%
27%
Finland
Latvia
30%
24%
7%
-1 3 %
-2 5 %
na/dk
Q10c: Turning to the terms and conditions of bank financing (including bank loans, overdraft and credit lines),
could you please indicate whether the following items increased, remained unchanged or decreased in the past
6 months? Available size of loan or credit line
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
25
Please note that the unweighted number of observations was relatively low Cyprus, Estonia, Luxembourg and
Malta at below 30. These results should be interpreted with care.
134
C10887 a
figure 107
Changes in the available size of bank loans or credit line (left) and the balance between the
categories increased and decreased (right) for enterprises in the EU-28, by enterprise
characteristic, in 2014
0%
sector
industry
construction
20%
SME
innovativeness
non- innovative firms
total
59%
24%
6%
16%
4%
8%
11%
60%
32%
15%
58%
19%
16%
13%
63%
20%
60%
remained unchanged
decreased
15%
20%
40%
0%
4%
5%
-1 %
4%
13%
3%
5%
9%
56%
21%
5%
0%
10%
6%
15%
62%
20%
15%
18%
61%
19%
-20%
5%
15%
57%
increased
100%
14%
59%
17%
250+ employees
innovative firms
80%
64%
services
50-249 employees
60%
58%
15%
20%
10-49 employees
40%
23%
trade
1-9 employees
size
20%
5%
24%
3%
6%
5%
5%
6%
5%
5%
na/dk
Q10c: Turning to the terms and conditions of bank financing (including bank loans, overdraft and credit lines),
could you please indicate whether the following items increased, remained unchanged or decreased in the past
6 months? Available size of loan or credit line
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia
C10887 a
135
5 . 6 . 4 A v a i l a b l e ma t u r i ty o f th e l o an
Whereas 9% of European SMEs report an increasing maturity of loans, also 9% report
a decreasing maturity of loans (figure 108, figure 109). Particularly in Cyprus, the
balance regarding SMEs’ judgment on loan maturity is positive, while in Sweden,
Denmark, Slovenia and Belgium it is negative. Differences between SMEs in the
various sectors of industry are very small; the same holds for differences between
innovative and in non-innovative SMEs. Consistently with the other aspects of the cost
of financing, increases
in maturity are on balance most often reported in medium-
sized and particularly large enterprises.
figure 108
Changes in the available maturity of bank loans (left) and the balance between the categories
increased and decreased (right) for SMEs in the EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro by country,
sorted from high to low based on the balance, in 2014. 26
0%
10%
Cyprus
Iceland
Poland
Romania
8%
Greece
5%
EU-28
Ireland
Spain
11%
Croatia
11%
Lithuania
3%
Austria
3%
Portugal
4%
Italy
6%
5%
Belgium
7%
85%
6%
7%
10%
11%
11%
-1 %
79%
5%
11%
-2 %
-3 %
-5 %
-5 %
16%
-6 %
6%
13%
12%
decreased
5%
8%
14%
18%
-1 %
23%
79%
72%
0%
8%
81%
58%
0%
0%
6%
72%
0%
0%
9%
11%
4%
remained unchanged
5%
19%
12%
68%
increased
1%
9%
8%
8%
72%
5%
4%
1%
5%
8%
70%
11%
1%
4%
74%
7%
2%
3%
13%
86%
Sweden
Slovenia
17%
86%
74%
3%
3%
8%
70%
Netherlands
Denmark
9%
9%
66%
5%
17%
79%
6%
6%
6%
14%
3%
71%
6%
6%
14%
8%
64%
9%
7%
12%
3%
59%
7%
8%
8%
7%
3%
74%
9%
9%
9%
4%
72%
9%
Montenegro
12%
11%
10%
4%
75%
18%
20%
16%
10%
4%
75%
8%
10%
14%
75%
11%
0%
17%
4%
78%
6%
-10%
26%
14%
5%
100%
17%
86%
9%
Luxembourg
90%
6%
74%
6%
Slovakia
Germany
80%
63%
12%
United Kingdom
70%
67%
11%
Finland
60%
71%
13%
Czech Republic
total
50%
56%
10%
Malta
France
40%
15%
Latvia
Bulgaria
30%
12%
Hungary
Estonia
20%
21%
-7 %
-7 %
4%
-8 %
na/dk
Q10d: Turning to the terms and conditions of bank financing (including bank loans, overdraft and credit lines),
could you please indicate whether the following items increased, remained unchanged or decreased in the past
6 months? Available maturity of the loan
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
26
Please note that the unweighted number of observations was relatively low Cyprus, Estonia, Luxembourg and
Malta at below 30. These results should be interpreted with care.
136
C10887 a
figure 109
Changes in the available maturity of bank loans (left) and the balance between the categories
increased and decreased (right) for enterprises in the EU-28, by enterprise characteristic, in
2014
0%
size
sector
industry
construction
40%
60%
80%
100%
76%
10%
9%
8%
75%
-20%
0%
6%
7%
9%
8%
8%
2%
8%
services
9%
72%
9%
11%
0%
1-9 employees
8%
72%
9%
11%
-1 %
10-49 employees
8%
50-249 employees
250+ employees
innovative firms
non- innovative firms
total
76%
74%
10%
10%
77%
9%
7%
74%
15%
8%
72%
7%
9%
7%
78%
9%
74%
increased
remained unchanged
8%
decreased
-1 %
-2 %
4%
7%
0%
9%
10%
5% 5%
76%
10%
8%
20%
1%
trade
SME
innovativeness
20%
0%
10%
8%
9%
0%
0%
na/dk
Q10d: Turning to the terms and conditions of bank financing (including bank loans, overdraft and credit lines),
could you please indicate whether the following items increased, remained unchanged or decreased in the past
6 months? Available maturity of the loan
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
C10887 a
137
5 . 6 . 5 C o l l a t e r a l r e q u i r e me n ts
On balance, collateral requirements have increased for European SMEs (figure 110).
The balance between SMEs reporting increased collateral requirements and decreased
collateral requirement is over 60% in SMEs in Cyprus, Greece and Slovenia, while in
Poland and Iceland, this balance is less than 10%. On average, 26% of the EU SMEs
experience an increase in collateral requirements. Regarding this phenomenon,
differences between countries are much larger than differences between other
characteristics of SMEs (figure 111). Again, large enterprises on balance experience
the smallest increase of collateral requirements.
figure 110
Changes in the collateral requirements of bank financing (incl. bank loans, overdraft and credit
line) (left) and the balance between the categories increased and decreased (right) for SMEs in
the EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro by country, sorted from high to low based on the balance,
in 2014. 27
0%
10%
20%
30%
Cyprus
40%
50%
60%
70%
61%
Greece
80%
60%
Slovenia
47%
48%
Austria
47%
48%
37%
Luxembourg
Denmark
Italy
Estonia
26%
total
Spain
Sweden
25%
Ireland
26%
Croatia
26%
United Kingdom
20%
Portugal
19%
Romania
56%
56%
67%
68%
4%
remained unchanged
6%
11%
4%
1%
decreased
4%
12%
8%
18%
15%
14%
14%
5%
73%
17%
17%
18%
17%
20%
19%
10%
72%
17%
23%
20%
10%
7%
68%
increased
5%
24%
70%
60%
25%
23%
12%
8%
3%
Poland
25%
25%
9%
6%
7%
53%
9%
26%
15%
58%
Slovakia
Iceland
25%
4%
8%
5%
55%
19%
5%
5% 2%
2%
54%
14%
Czech Republic
26%
26%
5% 3%
63%
21%
28%
26%
5%
7%
64%
26%
Lithuania
1%
13%
62%
31%
Montenegro
Latvia
5%
58%
25%
33%
30%
4% 4%
59%
30%
Hungary
35%
9%
5%
30%
Germany
36%
4%
7%
59%
32%
Belgium
45%
43%
5%
61%
31%
54%
8%
63%
31%
80%
51%
11%
6%
63%
29%
EU-28
2%
57%
27%
60%
2%
4% 1%
64%
35%
Bulgaria
40%
6%
51%
30%
20%
2% 3%
49%
41%
Malta
6%
50%
41%
0%
61%
6%
31%
Finland
France
100%
12%
31%
57%
Netherlands
90%
27%
7%
13%
13%
9%
8%
na/dk
Q10e: Turning to the terms and conditions of bank financing (including bank loans, overdraft and credit lines),
could you please indicate whether the following items increased, remained unchanged or decreased in the past
6 months? Collateral requirements
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
27
Please note that the unweighted number of observations was relatively low Cyprus, Estonia, Luxembourg and
Malta at below 30. These results should be interpreted with care.
138
C10887 a
figure 111
Changes in the collateral requirements of bank financing (incl. bank loans, overdraft and credit
line) (left) and the balance between the categories increased and decreased (right) for
enterprises in the EU-28, by enterprise characteristic, in 2014
0%
sector
industry
20%
26%
construction
trade
size
innovativeness
non- innovative firms
total
52%
59%
24%
increased
59%
remained unchanged
decreased
24%
28%
5% 6%
5% 5%
6% 5%
63%
31%
27%
5% 5%
5% 4%
56%
27%
20%
31%
25%
19%
26%
5% 5%
70%
33%
40%
6% 4%
6% 5%
59%
20%
20%
5% 5%
66%
31%
0%
6% 5%
56%
31%
SME
innovative firms
59%
37%
100%
5% 5%
58%
33%
10-49 employees
80%
64%
30%
1-9 employees
250+ employees
60%
33%
services
50-249 employees
40%
5% 5%
15%
28%
21%
26%
na/dk
Q10e: Turning to the terms and conditions of bank financing (including bank loans, overdraft and credit lines),
could you please indicate whether the following items increased, remained unchanged or decreased in the past
6 months? Collateral requirements
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia.
C10887 a
139
6
The problems European SMEs face
This chapter first describes how SMEs in the EU-28 evaluate eight potential problems
they may face and then focuses on ‘access to finance’. This gives insight in the reality
European SMEs currently operate in - one strongly influenced by two successive
economic crises - and puts the issue of SMEs’ access to finance in perspective by
comparing its severity to that of other problems these enterprises face 28.
6.1
Key findings
In 2013 and 2014, the most pressing problem amongst SMEs in EU-28 was finding
customers. From the items in the questionnaire, SMEs on average rated access to
finance as the fifth most pressing problem they faced; it is mentioned by 14% of the
SMEs as the most pressing problem. SMEs experience the problem of access to finance
the most pressing in Cyprus, Greece and Slovenia; and the least pressing in the Czech
Republic, Austria and Slovakia.
Comparing across different types of enterprises, SMEs in construction considered the
problem of access to finance the most pressing. Micro enterprises consider the
problem of access to finance the most pressing, whereas large enterprises find it least
pressing. More innovative enterprises experience more access to finance problems
than less innovative enterprises.
6.2
Where is access to finance a problem to SMEs?
figure 112 present SMEs’ most pressing problems. In 2014, as in previous years, the
largest proportion of SMEs in EU-28 perceived finding as the most pressing problem
(20% of all SMEs in 2014). Finding skilled and experienced staff rank second, and the
importance of this problem has increased over the years; also dealing with regulation
has increased in rank. Access to finance was the fifth most pressing problem SMEs
faced. About 13% of all SMEs in the EU-28 indicated access to finance as the most
pressing problem.
28
The formulation of the question has changed over the survey rounds. In 2009 and 2011, the respondents
were asked to select one of the categories as the most pressing problem. In 2013 and 2014, the respondents
were asked to indicate how pressing a specific problem is, using a scale from 1 (not pressing) to 10 (extremely
pressing). 2013 and 2014 results were recalculated to make them comparable with previously collected data
C10887 a
141
figure 112
Most pressing problems EU-28 SMEs faced during the period 2009-2014. Percentages indicate
the percentage of SMEs that consider a specific problem the most urgent problem
Q0: How pressing are each of the following problems that your enterprise is facing? (survey round 2013 and
2014)
Q0: What is currently the most pressing problem your firm is facing? (survey round 2009 and 2011)
Source: SAFE, 2009 -2014; edited by Panteia
This section focuses on the specific issue of access to finance as a factor hampering
European SMEs by first presenting a detailed breakdown by country for SMEs in all EU28 Member States and Iceland and Montenegro, followed by an overall EU-28
breakdown by enterprise characteristics, sector, size and innovativeness.
As shown in figure 113
and figure 114 there has been a significant variation across
countries in how pressing SMEs asses the problem of access to finance. In 2014, the
proportion of SMEs considering access to finance as the most pressing problem was
the largest in Cyprus, Greece and Slovenia. In the Czech Republic, Austria and
Slovakia the relative lowest number of SMEs considered the problem of access to
finance the most pressing.
142
C10887 a
figure 113
Proportion of SMEs in EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro that consider access to finance the most
pressing problem, by country in 2014
Q0: How pressing are each of the following problems that your enterprise is facing: access to finance?
Source: SAFE 2014; edited by Panteia
C10887 a
143
figure 114
Most pressing problems SMEs in EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro are facing. Percentages
indicate the percentage of SMEs that consider a specific problem the most urgent problem, by
country in 2014
0%
20%
Cyprus
40%
60%
45%
Greece
6% 5%
8%
32%
Slovenia
28%
Montenegro
6%
20%
Lithuania
19%
Croatia
18%
Ireland
18%
Spain
17%
Portugal
12%
14%
Netherlands
14%
11%
24%
24%
15%
16%
15%
7%
16%
23%
16%
7%
8%
10%
19%
16%
8%
8%
13%
21%
9%
13%
12%
15%
17%
17%
19%
11%
1%
14%
10%
11%
14%
20%
13%
24%
17%
15%
3%
9%
20%
13%
11%
12%
14%
9%
18%
19%
28%
12%
8%
17%
Italy
6%
9%
100%
80%
6%
10%
8%
11%
12%
20%
17%
9%
5%
Hungary
14%
Romania
14%
total
13%
20%
17%
16%
15%
12%
8%
EU-28
13%
20%
17%
16%
15%
12%
7%
Sweden
12%
9%
Estonia
12%
11%
Denmark
12%
12%
United Kingdom
12%
Malta
11%
Iceland
11%
France
11%
Belgium
11%
Bulgaria
11%
Finland
10%
Poland
10%
Latvia
10%
9%
17%
Slovakia
7%
19%
7%
20%
14%
30%
29%
13%
15%
6%
8%
13%
9%
4%
12% 1%
11%
14%
16%
9%
17%
8%
4%
6%
12%
11%
11%
16%
8%
14%
17%
15%
18%
7%
18%
19%
17%
23%
23%
6% 5%
15%
26%
20%
17%
12%
20%
25%
6%
9%
15%
22%
15%
16%
19%
22%
34%
13%
9%
13%
13%
1%
6%
11%
18%
20%
18%
17%
20%
20%
15%
10%
29%
16%
7%
11%
24%
19%
14%
18%
21%
19%
24%
9%
14%
23%
16%
11%
14%
5%
23%
20%
8%
7%
17%
11%
16%
13%
19%
6%
15%
22%
39%
14%
4%
Germany
Austria
15%
12%
22%
Luxembourg
Czech Republic
18%
16%
13%
7%
4%
13%
access to finance
finding customers
skilled staff/ experienced managers
regulation
competition
costs of production or labour
other
na/dk
Q0: How pressing are each of the following problems that your enterprise is facing
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia
144
C10887 a
figure 115
Proportion of SMEs in EU-28, Iceland and Montenegro that consider access to finance the most
urgent problem, by enterprise characteristic for 2014
20%
15%
13%
14%
13%
12%
10%
14%
13%
12%
11%
13%
10%
11%
0%
Q0: How pressing are each of the following problems that your enterprise is facing: access to finance?
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia
figure 115 present the proportion of SMEs indicating access to finance the most
pressing problem for enterprises in EU-28 broken down by enterprise characteristic. In
2014, there was some variation across different types of SMEs.
Comparing SMEs across sectors, for SMEs in construction access to finance is
considered most often the most pressing problem. SMEs in the services sector
experience access to finance least often the most pressing problems.
The extent to which enterprises considered the problem of access to finance to be
pressing decreased with enterprise size. Micro enterprises (1-9 employees) rated the
problem highest, whereas large enterprises (250+ employees) rated it lowest.
Innovative enterprises perceived access to finance as a somewhat larger problem than
non-innovative enterprises.
C10887 a
145
figure 116
Most urgent problems enterprises in EU-28 are facing. Percentages indicate the percentage of
SMEs that consider a specific problem the most urgent problem, by enterprise characteristic for
2014
20%
0%
industry
sector
construction
trade
services
1-9 employees
size
10-49 employees
50-249 employees
SME
innovativeness
250+ employees
innovative firms
non- innovative firms
total
13%
15%
13%
12%
14%
12%
11%
13%
10%
14%
11%
13%
19%
16%
40%
19%
18%
22%
20%
20%
19%
20%
20%
20%
19%
20%
20%
13%
19%
14%
60%
16%
13%
16%
19%
16%
17%
18%
17%
16%
18%
13%
17%
16%
17%
14%
15%
19%
17%
80%
14%
15%
16%
16%
15%
16%
15%
19%
14%
16%
16%
16%
15%
100%
14%
13%
6%
9%
11%
8%
13%
12%
7%
9%
12%
7%
13%
5%
12%
7%
13%
12%
5%
9%
12%
12%
6%
7%
access to finance
finding customers
skilled staff/ experienced managers
regulation
competition
costs of production or labour
other
na/dk
Q0: How pressing are each of the following problems that your enterprise is facing
Source: SAFE, 2014; edited by Panteia
146
C10887 a
Appendices
Appendix 1
Methodological notes
The survey sample was selected randomly according to three criteria:
•
Country: 28 EU members states, Iceland and Montenegro.
•
Enterprise size: micro (1-9 employees), small (10-49 employees), medium-sized
(50-249 employees) and large (250 or more employees).
•
Sector of industry. The following industries have been taken into account 29:
•
Industry (NACE B, C, D, E).
•
Construction (NACE F).
•
Trade (NACE G).
•
Services (NACE H, I, J, L, M, N, R, S).
Sample plan and the number of completed interviews are summarised in table 1.1.
Unexpected outliers have been Germany and the United Kingdom, where in both
countries the response rate and strike rate (average expected number of completed
interviews per hour) were lower than expected from other projects with comparable
respondent types and companies. Various measures have been taken to avoid these
gaps, however the number of observations is still lower than originally envisaged.
The distribution of interviews across countries, sectors of industry and enterprise sizeclasses is not the same as the distribution of the population of enterprises along these
dimensions. Hence, calibrated weights were used with regard to company size and
economic activity. Since the economic weight of the companies varies according to
their size, weights that restore the proportions of the economic weight of each size
class, economic activity and country. The number of persons employed is used as a
proxy for economic weight.
The calibration targets were derived from the latest figures from Eurostat’s structural
business statistics (SBS) in terms of the number of persons employed, economic
activity, size class and country, with figures from national accounts and different
country-specific registers used to cover activities not included in the SBS regulations,
as well as from figures from the European Commission’s SME Performance Review.
The questionnaire has been included in Appendix 2. Since the last wave, some
questions have been changed. Specifically, question Q4 was reformulated so that first
the respondent is asked if a particular instrument is relevant, i.e. the enterprise used
it in the past or considered using it in the future. If yes, the follow-up question is
asked
whether
the
instrument
had
been
used
in
the
past
6
months.
Such
reformulation caused an increase in the category “not relevant” and a drop in category
“relevant”, and introduced a structural break in the series so the past data are not
directly comparable. The filter based on Q4 also affected questions Q5, Q7A, Q7B, Q9,
Q10, Q11, Q8A and Q23.
For consistency reasons and to avoid structural breaks in the time series, past
aggregated data were revised accordingly. The impact on the time series is minimal to
small in most cases, and is only visible when the sample sizes are small. In all cases,
the changes are within the confidence intervals of the survey. In particular, to enable
comparison over time, the past aggregated results were aligned by excluding the
responses from the enterprises for which a specific instrument was not relevant. Such
ex-post filter was applied to the questions Q5, Q9, Q7A, Q11 (items f, g, h) and Q23,
29
C10887 a
The NACE Rev. 2 classification of economic activities has been used.
147
having also an indirect impact on questions Q7B and Q10 since they are based of the
newly filtered question Q7A. It also affects the question Q12, which was replaced by
the question Q8A, now filtered by the question Q7B.
Detailed
methodological
information
can
be
found
on
the
ECB’s
website
(https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/money/surveys/sme/html/index.en.html).
table 1.1
sample size by country
country
completed
completed
interviews
interviews
Austria
502
Luxembourg
102
Belgium
501
Malta
100
Bulgaria
500
Netherlands
800
Croatia
300
Poland
1305
Cyprus
101
Portugal
501
Czech Republic
500
Romania
500
Denmark
500
Slovakia
501
Estonia
100
Slovenia
200
Finland
501
Spain
1303
France
1500
Sweden
500
Germany
1337
United Kingdom
1218
Greece
501
EU-28
16875
Hungary
501
Ireland
500
Iceland
100
Italy
1500
Montenegro
100
Latvia
200
Lithuania
301
grand total
17075
Source: GDCC/Panteia
148
C10887 a
Appendix 2
Questionnaire
Survey on the access to finance of enterprises, April to
September 2014
[INTRODUCTION TO THE ONLINE SURVEY]
Welcome to the Survey on the access to finance of enterprises: a joint initiative of the
European Commission and the European Central Bank.
Your business has been selected to participate in this Europe-wide survey, which aims
to assess the financing needs and the availability of financing among companies like
yours. We very much appreciate your participation.
Your answers to this voluntary survey will be treated in strict confidence, used for
statistical purposes and published in aggregate form only.
[INTRODUCTION TO THE TELEPHONE SURVEY]
Hello, my name is [interviewer] and I am calling from [survey company] on behalf of
the European Commission and the European Central Bank. Your business has been
selected to participate in a Europe-wide survey on the financing needs and the
availability of financing among companies like yours.
European policy-makers want to have a better understanding of the issues and
circumstances faced by small, medium-sized and large non-financial firms when it
comes to accessing finance from banks and other institutions. This survey is now
being conducted across Europe and your input is of the utmost importance: the
responses to the survey will help shape policy decisions made by the European
Commission and the European Central Bank.
[INTERVIEWER, READ OUT ONLY IF RESPONDENT IS FROM PANEL: You may remember
that we spoke to you about [INSERT CORRECT TIME PERIOD (e.g. 6 months, one year,
one and a half years)] ago and you kindly said that you would be willing to participate
again in the survey at around this time.]
[INTERVIEWER, READ OUT ONLY IF RESPONDENTS ASK FOR MORE INFORMATION
ABOUT THE PROJECT: The results of the survey will help in the European
Commission’s evidence-based policy-making to improve the access to finance for
businesses and in the monetary policy of the European Central Bank. Can I e-mail you
some more information about the survey?]
May I speak with the most appropriate person – the person best able to provide
information on how your company is financed?
[INTERVIEWER: THIS PERSON COULD BE THE OWNER, A FINANCE MANAGER, THE
FINANCE DIRECTOR OR THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER (CFO).]
Your answers to this voluntary survey will be treated in strict confidence, used for
statistical purposes and published in aggregate form only.
C10887 a
149
Section 1: General characteristics of the firm (Demographic part, common)
FOR PANEL MEMBERS: First a few demographic questions – you may have
already answered these, but it would be good to confirm that the details are
still correct.
[COMMON]
30
D2. How would you characterise your enterprise? Is it...
[READ OUT – ONLY ONE ANSWER IS POSSIBLE]
-
-
a subsidiary of another enterprise [A SEPARATE, DISTINCT LEGAL
ENTITY THAT IS PART OF A PROFIT-ORIENTED ENTERPRISE] .................................... 4
a branch of another enterprise [BRANCHES ARE CONTROLLED BY
A PARENT COMPANY AND ARE NOT SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITIES] ............................... 5
an autonomous profit-oriented enterprise, making independent
financial decisions [IN THE SENSE OF MAKING INDEPENDENT
MANAGEMENT DECISIONS; THIS INCLUDES PARTNERSHIPS AND
COOPERATIVES] ................................................................................................. 2
a non-profit enterprise [FOUNDATION, ASSOCIATION, SEMIGOVERNMENT] ................................................................................................... 3
[DK/NA] ............................................................................................................ 9
[IF 3 (NON-PROFIT)  STOP INTERVIEW  INTERVIEW NOT VALID]
[IF 4 (SUBSIDIARY)  MAKE THE FOLLOWING REQUEST]
In your replies to all the following questions, please respond on behalf of the
subsidiary.
[IF 5 (BRANCH)  ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTION]
Are you knowledgeable about the finances of the whole enterprise, that is,
the head office and all branches?
[IF NO  STOP INTERVIEW  INTERVIEW NOT VALID]
30
The tags [COMMON], [ENTR] and [ECB] indicate whether the question is common to the ECB and the
European Commission (DG-ENTR), or specific to the Commission or the ECB, respectively. [COMMON] and
[ECB] questions are asked every 6 months, while [ENTR] questions are only asked every year. [ECB]
questions are only asked in the euro area.
150
C10887 a
[FILTER: IF D2 FEATURES 4 OR 5]
[COMMON]
D2A. In which country is the parent company of your enterprise located?
[DO NOT READ OUT – USE ISO COUNTRY CODES]
[LIST OF MAIN COUNTRY CODES]
Euro area countries
AT
Austria
BE
Belgium
CY
Cyprus
EE
Estonia
FI
Finland
FR
France
DE
Germany
GR
Greece
IE
Ireland
IT
Italy
LV
Latvia
LU
Luxembourg
MT
Malta
NL
Netherlands
PT
Portugal
SK
Slovakia
SI
Slovenia
ES
Spain
Other EU Member States
BG
Bulgaria
HR
Croatia
CZ
Czech Republic
DK
Denmark
HU
Hungary
LT
Lithuania
PL
Poland
RO
Romania
SE
Sweden
UK
United Kingdom
Other countries
CN
China
IS
Iceland
JP
Japan
ME
Montenegro
NO
Norway
RU
Russian Federation
CH
Switzerland
US
United States
[FILTER: ALL ENTERPRISES]
C10887 a
151
[COMMON]
D1. How many people does your enterprise currently employ either full or part
time in [YOUR COUNTRY] at all its locations? [PLEASE DON’T INCLUDE UNPAID FAMILY
WORKERS AND FREELANCERS WORKING REGULARLY FOR YOUR ENTERPRISE.]
[READ OUT – ONLY ONE ANSWER IS POSSIBLE]
NUMERICAL ANSWER [1-999999]
[DK/NA]
[IF 0 EMPLOYEES  STOP INTERVIEW  INTERVIEW NOT VALID]
[THE BUSINESS MUST HAVE AT LEAST ONE EMPLOYEE BEYOND THE FOUNDER(S);, IF THE
FOUNDER IS THE ONLY EMPLOYEE – WE STILL CONSIDER THAT TO BE A ZERO-EMPLOYEE
BUSINESS. FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME EMPLOYEES SHOULD EACH COUNT AS ONE
EMPLOYEE. UNPAID FAMILY WORKERS AND EMPLOYEES WORKING LESS THAN 12 HOURS
PER WEEK ARE TO BE EXCLUDED.]
[IF NA/DK  ASK ABOUT APPROXIMATE NUMBER IN BRACKETS – ONLY ONE ANSWER
IS POSSIBLE]  IF STILL NA/DK  STOP INTERVIEW  INTERVIEW NOT VALID]
-
From 1 employee to 9 employees ....................................................... -1
From 10 employees to 49 employees .................................................. -2
From 50 employees to 249 employees ................................................ -3
250 employees or more .................................................................... -4
[DK/NA] ......................................................................................... -9
[COMMON]
D3. What is the main activity of your enterprise?
[READ OUT – ONLY ONE ANSWER IS POSSIBLE]
-
152
Construction ...................................................................................................... 2
Manufacturing [also includes mining and electricity, gas and water
supply]............................................................................................................. 12
Wholesale or retail trade ...................................................................................... 4
Transport .......................................................................................................... 5
Agriculture [STOP INTERVIEW  INTERVIEW NOT VALID] ........................................ 8
Public administration [STOP INTERVIEW  INTERVIEW NOT
VALID] .............................................................................................................. 9
Financial services [STOP INTERVIEW  INTERVIEW NOT VALID] ...............................10
Other services to businesses or persons ................................................................13
[None of these] [OTHER, SPECIFY  IF RECODING IS NOT
POSSIBLE, STOP INTERVIEW  INTERVIEW NOT VALID] .........................................11
[DK/NA] [STOP INTERVIEW  INTERVIEW NOT VALID] ...........................................99
C10887 a
[COMMON]
D6. Who owns the largest stake in your enterprise?
[READ OUT – ONLY ONE ANSWER IS POSSIBLE]
- Public shareholders, as your enterprise is listed on the stock
market ................................................................................................................... 1
- Family or entrepreneurs [MORE THAN ONE OWNER] ................................................. 2
- Other enterprises or business associates................................................................. 3
- Venture capital enterprises or business angels [INDIVIDUAL
INVESTORS PROVIDING CAPITAL OR KNOW-HOW TO YOUNG
INNOVATIVE ENTERPRISES] ...................................................................................... 4
- Yourself or another natural person, one owner only ................................................. 5
- Other ................................................................................................................ 7
- [DK/NA] ............................................................................................................ 9
[COMMON]
D4. What was the annual turnover of your enterprise in 2013?
[READ OUT – ONLY ONE ANSWER IS POSSIBLE]
[For non-euro area countries, the amounts in euro will be converted to national currency.]
-
Up to €500,000 ................................................................................. 5
More than €500,000 and up to €1 million .............................................. 6
More than €1 million and up to €2 million ............................................. 7
More than €2 million and up to €10 million............................................ 2
More than €10 million and up to €50 million .......................................... 3
More than €50 million ........................................................................ 4
[DK/NA] .......................................................................................... 9
[COMMON]
D7. What percentage of your company’s total turnover in 2013 is accounted
for by exports of goods and services? [EXPORTS COMPRISE SALES OF GOODS OR
THE PROVISION OF SERVICES TO NON-RESIDENTS, INCLUDING TO FOREIGN
TOURISTS VISITING THE RELEVANT COUNTRY.]
NUMERICAL ANSWER IN PERCENTAGES [0-100]
[DK/NA]
[IF (NA/DK)  ASK WHETHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES WOULD APPLY –
ONLY ONE ANSWER IS POSSIBLE]
- 0% – my enterprise did not export any goods and services last
year...................................................................................................
- Less than 25% ................................................................................
- Between 25% and 50%....................................................................
- Over 50% ......................................................................................
- [DK] ..............................................................................................
C10887 a
-1
-2
-3
-4
-9
153
[COMMON]
D5. In which year was your enterprise first registered? [IN CASE OF A PAST
ACQUISITION, PLEASE REFER TO THE YEAR WHEN THE ACQUIRING ENTERPRISE WAS
REGISTERED OR, IN CASE OF A MERGER, TO THE LARGEST ENTERPRISE INVOLVED (IN
TERMS OF EMPLOYEES)].
NUMERICAL ANSWER [1700-2014] (four digits, less or equal than [YEAR OF
SURVEY])
[DK/NA]
[The age of the enterprise is calculated as 2014 minus the year of registration.]
[IF NA/DK  ASK WHETHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES WOULD APPLY – ONLY
ONE ANSWER IS POSSIBLE]
- 10 years or more ............................................................................. -1
- 5 years or more but less than 10 years ............................................... -2
- 2 years or more but less than 5 years ................................................. -3
- Less than 2 years............................................................................. -4
- [DK/NA] ......................................................................................... -9
Section 2: General information on the type and situation of the enterprise
We will now turn to your enterprise’s current situation. When asked about the
changes experienced by your enterprise over the past 6 months, please report just
the changes over this period.
[FILTER: ALL ENTERPRISES]
[COMMON]
Q0b. On a scale of 1-10, where 10 means it is extremely pressing and 1
means it is not at all pressing, how pressing are each of the following
problems that your enterprise is facing?
[READ OUT. ONE ANSWER PER LINE. DK/NA (CODE 99) OPTION PERMITTED]
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Finding customers .................................................................................................
Competition ..........................................................................................................
Access to finance [FINANCING OF YOUR BUSINESS – BANK LOANS,
TRADE CREDIT, EQUITY, DEBT SECURITIES, OTHER EXTERNAL
FINANCING] .........................................................................................................
Costs of production or labour ..................................................................................
Availability of skilled staff or experienced managers....................................................
Regulation
[EUROPEAN
AND
NATIONAL
LAWS,
INDUSTRIAL
REGULATIONS, ETC.] .............................................................................................
Other ...................................................................................................................
[ENTR]
Q1. During the past 12 months have you introduced...?
[READ OUT– ONE ANSWER PER LINE]
…
…
…
…
154
a
a
a
a
new
new
new
new
Yes ............................................................................... 1
No ............................................................................... 2
[DK/NA] ........................................................................ 9
or significantly improved product or service to the market................................
or significantly improved production process or method ...................................
organisation of management .......................................................................
way of selling your goods or services ............................................................
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
9
9
9
9
C10887 a
[COMMON]
Q2. Have the following company indicators decreased, remained unchanged or
increased over the past 6 months?
[READ OUT – ONLY ONE ANSWER PER LINE]
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
g)
h)
i)
Increased ...................................................................... 1
Remained unchanged ...................................................... 2
Decreased...................................................................... 3
[NOT APPLICABLE, FIRM HAS NO DEBT] ............................. 7
[DK/NA] ........................................................................ 9
Turnover ........................................................................................................
Labour cost (including social contributions) .........................................................
Other cost (materials, energy, other) .................................................................
Interest expenses [WHAT YOUR COMPANY PAYS IN INTEREST FOR
ITS DEBT] ......................................................................................................
Profit [NET INCOME AFTER TAXES] ....................................................................
Fixed investment [INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY, PLANT, MACHINERY
OR EQUIPMENT] ............................................................................................
Inventories and working capital ........................................................................
Number of employees .....................................................................................
1239
1239
1239
1239
1239
1239
1239
1239
[AS REGARDS ITEM (j), IF THE COMPANY HAS NO DEBT, CODE 7 (NOT
APPLICABLE) SHOULD BE USED.]
j) Debt compared to assets ................................................................................ 1 2 3 7 9
Section 3: Financing of the enterprise
We will now turn to the financing of your enterprise.
[COMMON]
Q4. Are the following sources of financing relevant to your firm, that is, have
you used them in the past or considered using them in the future? Please
provide a separate answer in each case.
[READ OUT – ONE ANSWER PER LINE IS POSSIBLE (CODE 3, 7 OR 9)]
-
Yes, this source is relevant to my enterprise ................................... 3
No, this source is not relevant to my enterprise............................... 7
[DK]
.................................................................................... 9
[FOR EACH FINANCING SOURCE, IF THE ANSWER IS “YES” (CODE 3), ASK THE
RELEVANT FOLLOW-UP QUESTION – ONE ANSWER PER LINE IS POSSIBLE (CODE 1, 2
OR 99)]
-
Yes
No
[DK]
.................................................................................... 1
.................................................................................... 2
.................................................................................. 99
c) Credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards overdraft [CREDIT LINE =
PRE-ARRANGED LOAN THAT CAN BE USED, IN FULL OR IN PART, AT
DISCRETION AND WITH LIMITED ADVANCE WARNING; BANK
OVERDRAFT = NEGATIVE BALANCE ON A BANK ACCOUNT WITH OR
WITHOUT SPECIFIC PENALTIES; CREDIT CARD OVERDRAFT =
NEGATIVE BALANCE ON THE CREDIT CARD] .......................................................... 3 7 9
C10887 a
155
IF “YES” (CODE 3)  Have you drawn on such
types of credit in the past 6 months? .......................................................... 1 2 99
b) Grants or subsidised bank loan [INVOLVING SUPPORT FROM PUBLIC
SOURCES IN THE FORM OF GUARANTEES, REDUCED INTEREST RATE
LOANS ETC.] ..................................................................................................... 3 7 9
IF “YES” (CODE 3)  Have you obtained new financing of this
type in the past 6 months? ........................................................................ 1 2 99
d) Bank loan (excluding subsidised bank loans, overdrafts and credit
lines) .............................................................................................................. 3 7 9
[FOLLOW-UP QUESTION SHOULD NOT BE ASKED – SEE
QUESTION Q7A.d) AND Q7B.d)]
e) Trade credit [PURCHASE OF GOODS OR SERVICES FROM ANOTHER
BUSINESS WITHOUT MAKING IMMEDIATE CASH PAYMENT] ................................... 3 7 9
[FOLLOW-UP QUESTION SHOULD NOT
QUESTION Q7A.b) AND Q7B.b)]
BE
ASKED
–
SEE
f) Other loan (for instance from a related enterprise or shareholders,
excluding trade credit; from family and friends) ..................................................... 3 7 9
IF “YES” (CODE 3)  Have you taken out or renewed such a
loan in the past 6 months? ........................................................................ 1 2 99
m) Leasing or hire-purchase [OBTAINING THE USE OF A FIXED ASSET
(FOR EXAMPLE, CARS OR MACHINERY) IN EXCHANGE FOR REGULAR
PAYMENTS, BUT WITHOUT THE IMMEDIATE OWNERSHIP OF THE
ASSET] ............................................................................................................ 3 7 9
IF “YES” (CODE 3)  Have you used this type of financing in
the past 6 months? ................................................................................. 1 2 99
h) Debt securities [SHORT-TERM COMMERCIAL PAPER OR LONGERTERM CORPORATE BONDS] ................................................................................. 3 7 9
IF “YES” (CODE 3)  Have you issued any debt securities in
the past 6 months? .................................................................................. 1 2 99
j) Equity capital [QUOTED OR UNQUOTED SHARES, PREFERRED
SHARES OR OTHER FORMS OF EQUITY PROVIDED BY THE OWNERS
THEMSELVES OR BY EXTERNAL INVESTORS, INCLUDING VENTURE
CAPITAL OR BUSINESS ANGELS] ......................................................................... 3 7 9
IF “YES” (CODE 3)  Have you issued equity in the past 6
months? ................................................................................................. 1 2 99
r) Factoring [SELLING YOUR INVOICES TO A FACTORING COMPANY;
THIS COMPANY GETS YOUR DEBT AND HAS TO COLLECT IT; IT WILL
MAKE A PROFIT BY PAYING YOU LESS CASH THAN THE FACE VALUE
OF THE INVOICE] .............................................................................................. 3 7 9
IF “YES” (CODE 3)  Have you used factoring in the past 6
months? ................................................................................................. 1 2 99
156
C10887 a
a) Retained earnings or sale of assets [INTERNAL FUNDS LIKE CASH OR
CASH EQUIVALENT RESULTING FOR INSTANCE FROM SAVINGS,
RETAINED EARNINGS, SALE OF ASSETS] ............................................................... 3 7 9
IF “YES” (CODE 3)  Have you retained earnings or sold
assets in the past 6 months? .................................................................... 1 2 99
p) Other sources of financing [FOR EXAMPLE, SUBORDINATED DEBT
INSTRUMENTS, PARTICIPATING LOANS, PEER-TO-PEER LENDING,
CROWDFUNDING] .............................................................................................. 3 7 9
IF “YES” (CODE 3)  Have you obtained such sources of
financing in the past 6 months? ................................................................. 1 2 99
[FILTER: IF ITEM Q4.d) (BANK LOANS) IS “NOT RELEVANT” (CODE 7)]
[COMMON]
Q32. You mentioned that bank loans are not relevant for your enterprise.
What is the most important reason for this?
[READ OUT – ONE ANSWER PER LINE]
-
Insufficient collateral or guarantee......................................... 1
Interest rates or price too high .............................................. 2
Reduced control over the enterprise ....................................... 3
Too much paperwork is involved ........................................... 6
No bank loans are available .................................................. 4
I do not need this type of financing ........................................ 8
Other ................................................................................ 5
[DK] ................................................................................. 9
[FILTER: FOR EACH Q4 ITEMS THAT IS “RELEVANT” (CODE 1, 2, 3, 99), NAMELY Q4.c),
Q4.d), Q4.b), Q4.e), Q4.h) AND Q4.j), FILL THE RELEVANT ITEM IN Q5]
[COMMON]
Q5. For each of the following types of external financing, please indicate if
your needs increased, remained unchanged or decreased over the past 6
months?
[READ OUT – ONE ANSWER PER LINE IS POSSIBLE]
- Increased .......................................................................... 1
- Remained unchanged .......................................................... 2
- Decreased.......................................................................... 3
- [INSTRUMENT NOT APPLICABLE TO MY
FIRM] .................................................................................... 7
- [DK] ................................................................................. 9
[FILTER: IF Q4.c) FEATURES CODE 1, 2 OR 99]
f) Credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards overdraft ............................................ 1 2 3 7 9
[FILTER: IF Q4.d) FEATURES CODE 3 OR Q4.b) FEATURES CODE 1, 2 OR 99]
a) Bank loans (excluding overdraft and credit lines) ............................................... 1 2 3 7 9
[FILTER: IF Q4.e) FEATURES CODE 3]
b) Trade credit.................................................................................................. 1 2 3 7 9
[FILTER: IF Q4.j) FEATURES CODE 1, 2 OR 99]
C10887 a
157
c) Equity [INCLUDING PREFERRED SHARES, VENTURE CAPITAL OR
BUSINESS ANGELS] ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 7 9
[FILTER: IF Q4.h) FEATURES CODE 1, 2 OR 99]
d) Debt securities issued [SHORT-TERM COMMERCIAL PAPER OR
LONGER-TERM CORPORATE BONDS] ............................................................... 1 2 3 7 9
[FILTER: IF AT LEAST ONE OF THE Q4 ITEMS Q4.f), Q4.m), Q4.r) OR Q4.p) IS
“RELEVANT” (CODE 1, 2, 99)]
e) Other [FOR EXAMPLE, LOANS FROM A RELATED COMPANY,
SHAREHOLDERS OR FAMILY AND FRIENDS, LEASING, FACTORING,
GRANTS, SUBORDINATED DEBT INSTRUMENTS, PARTICIPATING
LOANS, PEER-TO-PEER LENDING, CROWDFUNDING].......................................... 1 2 3 7 9
[FILTER: FOR EACH Q4 ITEM THAT IS “RELEVANT” (CODE 1, 2, 3, 99), NAMELY Q4.c),
Q4.d), Q4.b) AND Q4.e), FILL THE RELEVANT ITEM IN Q7A]
[COMMON]
Q7A. Have you applied for the following types of financing in the past 6
months? Please provide a separate answer in each case.
[READ OUT ITEMS AND SCALE – ONE ANSWER PER LINE IS POSSIBLE]
- Applied ......................................................................... 1
- Did not apply because of possible rejection ......................... 2
- Did not apply because of sufficient internal
funds................................................................................. 3
- Did not apply for other reasons ......................................... 4
- [DK/NA] ........................................................................ 9
[FILTER: IF Q4.c) FEATURES CODE 1, 2 OR 99]
d) Credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards overdraft ........................................... 1 2 3 4 9
[FILTER: IF Q4.d) OR Q4.b) FEATURE CODE 1, 2, 3 OR 99]
a) Bank loan (excluding overdraft and credit lines) ................................................ 1 2 3 4 9
[FILTER: IF Q4.e) FEATURES CODE 3]
b) Trade credit ................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 9
[FILTER: IF AT LEAST ONE OF THE Q4 ITEMS Q4.f), Q4.h), Q4.j), Q4.m), Q4.r)
OR Q4.p) IS “RELEVANT” (CODE 1, 2, 99)]
c) Other external financing [FOR EXAMPLE, LOANS FROM A RELATED
COMPANY, SHAREHOLDERS OR FAMILY AND FRIENDS, LEASING,
FACTORING, GRANTS, SUBORDINATED DEBT INSTRUMENTS,
PARTICIPATING LOANS, PEER-TO-PEER LENDING, CROWDFUNDING,
AND ISSUANCE OF EQUITY AND DEBT SECURITIES] .......................................... 1 2 3 4 9
[FILTER: FOR EACH Q7A ITEM THAT IS “APPLIED” (CODE 1), FILL THE RELEVANT ITEM IN
Q7B]
[COMMON]
Q7B. If you applied and tried to negotiate for this type of financing over the
past 6 months, did you: receive all the financing you requested; receive only
part of the financing you requested; refuse to proceed because of
158
C10887 a
unacceptable costs or terms and conditions; or have you not received
anything at all?
[READ OUT – ONLY ONE ANSWER PER LINE IS POSSIBLE]
- Received everything ................................................................. 1
- Received most of it [BETWEEN 75% AND 99%] ........................... 5
- Only received a limited part of it [BETWEEN 1% AND
74%] .......................................................................................... 6
- Refused because the cost was too high........................................ 3
- Was rejected ........................................................................... 4
- Application is still pending ......................................................... 8
- [DK] ...................................................................................... 9
[FILTER: IF Q7A.d) FEATURES CODE 1]
d) Credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards overdraft ...................................... 1 3 4 5 6 8 9
[FILTER: IF Q7A.a) FEATURES CODE 1]
a) Bank loan (excluding overdraft and credit lines) ........................................... 1 3 4 5 6 8 9
[FILTER: IF Q7A.b) FEATURES CODE 1]
b) Trade credit............................................................................................ 1 3 4 5 6 8 9
[FILTER: IF Q7A.c) FEATURES CODE 1]
c) Other external financing [FOR EXAMPLE, LOANS FROM A RELATED
COMPANY, SHAREHOLDERS OR FAMILY AND FRIENDS, LEASING,
FACTORING, GRANTS, SUBORDINATED DEBT INSTRUMENTS,
PARTICIPATING LOANS, PEER-TO-PEER LENDING, CROWDFUNDING,
AND ISSUANCE OF EQUITY AND DEBT SECURITIES] .................................... 1 3 4 5 6 8 9
[FILTER: IF Q7B.a) FEATURES CODE 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 OR 8]
[COMMON]
Q8A.
What is the size of the last bank loan that your enterprise…
[IF Q7B. a) FEATURES CODE 1, 5 or 6]
…obtained or renegotiated in the past 6 months?
[IF Q7B. a) FEATURES CODE 3, 4 or 8]
…attempted to obtain in the past 6 months?
[READ OUT– ONLY ONE ANSWER IS POSSIBLE]
[For non-euro area countries, the amounts in euro will be converted to national currency.]
-
Up to €25,000 .................................................................... 1
More than €25,000 and up to €100,000.................................. 2
More than €100,000 and up to €250,000 ................................ 5
More than €250,000 and up to €1 million ............................... 6
Over €1 million ................................................................... 4
[DK/NA] ............................................................................ 9
[FILTER: IF Q7B.d) FEATURES CODE 1, 3, 5 OR 6]
C10887 a
159
[COMMON]
Q8B. What interest rate was charged for the credit line or bank overdraft for
which you applied?
NUMERICAL ANSWER IN PERCENTAGES [0-100]
[DK/NA]
[FILTER: ALL ENTERPRISES]
[COMMON]
Q6A. For what purpose was external financing used by your enterprise during
the past 6 months?
[READ OUT – SEVERAL ANSWERS POSSIBLE. DK/NA (CODE 99) OPTION PERMITTED]
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Fixed investment [INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY, PLANT, MACHINERY OR
EQUIPMENT]
Inventory and working capital
Hiring and training of employees
Developing and launching new products or services
Refinancing or paying off obligations
Other
[DK/NA]
[FILTER: ALL ENTERPRISES]
Section 4: Availability of finance and market conditions
In this part of the survey, we would like to ask about your firm’s experience in
accessing finance. Your views on market conditions will be helpful in shaping the
policies of the European Central Bank and the European Commission.
[COMMON]
Q11. The availability of external financing may depend on a number of
factors, some of which are specific to your enterprise and others which are of
more general relevance. For each of the following factors, would you say that
they have improved, remained unchanged or deteriorated over the past 6
months?
[READ OUT – ONE ANSWER PER LINE]
-
Improved ...................................................................... 1
Remained unchanged ...................................................... 2
Deteriorated .................................................................. 3
[NOT APPLICABLE TO MY ENTERPRISE ONLY FOR b), f), g), h)] .................................................. 7
[DK] ............................................................................. 9
a) General economic outlook [INSOFAR AS IT AFFECTS THE
AVAILABILITY OF EXTERNAL FINANCING]............................................................ 1
b) Access to public financial support including guarantees ....................................... 1 2
c) Your firm-specific outlook with respect to your sales and profitability
or business plan [INSOFAR AS IT AFFECTS THE AVAILABILITY OF
EXTERNAL FINANCING FOR YOU] ....................................................................... 1
d) Your enterprise’s own capital ............................................................................. 1
e) Your enterprise’s credit history .......................................................................... 1
160
239
379
239
239
239
C10887 a
[FILTER: IF THE ITEM Q4.c) (CREDIT LINE, BANK OVERDRAFT, CREDIT CARD OVERDRAFT),
Q4.d) (BANK LOAN) OR Q4.b) (SUBSIDISED BANK LOAN) IS “RELEVANT” (CODE 1, 2, 3,
99)]
[CODE 7 IS NOT TO BE USED FOR ENTERPRISES HAVING “APPLIED” (CODE 1) IN
Q7A.d), OR Q7A.a)]
f) Willingness of banks to provide credit to your enterprise [LENDER’S
ATTITUDE] ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 7 9
[FILTER: IF THE ITEM Q4.e) (TRADE CREDIT) IS “RELEVANT” (CODE 3)]
[CODE 7 IS NOT TO BE USED FOR ENTERPRISES HAVING “APPLIED” (CODE 1) IN
Q7A.b)]
g) Willingness of business partners to provide trade credit [BUSINESS
PARTNERS’ ATTITUDE] ................................................................................... 1 2 3 7 9
[FILTER: IF ONE OF THE Q4 ITEMS Q4.f) (OTHER LOAN), Q4.h) (DEBT SECURITIES), Q4.j)
(EQUITY CAPITAL) OR Q4.p) (OTHER SOURCES OF FINANCING) IS “RELEVANT” (CODE 1, 2,
99)]
h) Willingness of investors to invest in your enterprise [INVESTORS’
ATTITUDES TOWARDS, FOR EXAMPLE, INVESTING IN EQUITY OR
DEBT SECURITIES ISSUED BY YOUR ENTERPRISE] ............................................ 1 2 3 7 9
[FILTER: FOR EACH OF THE Q4 ITEMS THAT ARE “RELEVANT” (CODE 1, 2, 3, 99), NAMELY
Q4.c), Q4.d), Q4.b), Q4.e), Q4.h) AND Q4.j), FILL THE RELEVANT ITEM IN Q9]
[COMMON]
Q9. For each of the following types of financing, would you say that their
availability has improved, remained unchanged or deteriorated for your
enterprise over the past 6 months?
[READ OUT – ONE ANSWER PER LINE]
-
Improved ........................................................................... 1
Remained unchanged .......................................................... 2
Deteriorated ....................................................................... 3
[NOT APPLICABLE TO MY FIRM] ............................................ 7
[DK] ................................................................................. 9
[FILTER: IF Q4.c) FEATURES CODE 1, 2 OR 99]
[CODE 7 IS NOT TO BE USED FOR ENTERPRISES HAVING “APPLIED” (CODE 1) IN
Q7A.d)]
f) Credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards overdraft ............................................ 1 2 3 7 9
[FILTER: IF Q4.d) FEATURES CODE 3 OR Q4.b) FEATURES CODE 1, 2 OR 99]
[CODE 7 IS NOT TO BE USED FOR ENTERPRISES HAVING “APPLIED” (CODE 1) IN
Q7A.a)]
a) Bank loans (excluding overdraft and credit lines) ............................................... 1 2 3 7 9
C10887 a
161
[FILTER: IF Q4.e) FEATURES CODE 3]
[CODE 7 IS NOT TO BE USED FOR ENTERPRISES HAVING “APPLIED” (CODE 1) IN
Q7A.b)]
b) Trade credit ................................................................................................. 1 2 3 7 9
[FILTER: IF Q4.j) FEATURES CODE 1, 2 OR 99]
c) Equity [INCLUDING PREFERRED SHARES, VENTURE CAPITAL OR
BUSINESS ANGELS] ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 7 9
[FILTER: IF Q4.h) FEATURES CODE 1, 2 OR 99]
d) Debt securities issued [SHORT-TERM COMMERCIAL PAPER OR
LONGER- TERM CORPORATE BONDS] .............................................................. 1 2 3 7 9
[FILTER: IF AT LEAST ONE OF THE Q4 ITEMS Q4f.), Q4.m), Q4.r) OR Q4.p) IS
“RELEVANT” (CODE 1, 2, 99)]
e) Other [FOR EXAMPLE, LOANS FROM A RELATED COMPANY,
SHAREHOLDERS OR FAMILY AND FRIENDS, LEASING, FACTORING,
GRANTS, SUBORDINATED DEBT INSTRUMENTS, PARTICIPATING
LOANS, PEER-TO-PEER LENDING, CROWDFUNDING].......................................... 1 2 3 7 9
[FILTER: Q7A.A) OR Q7A.D) IS “APPLIED” (CODE 1) (BANK LOANS, AND CREDIT
LINES, BANK OVERDRAFT AND CREDIT CARD OVERDRAFTS)]
[COMMON]
Q10. Turning to the terms and conditions of bank financing (including bank
loans, overdraft and credit lines), could you please indicate whether the
following items increased, remained unchanged or decreased in the past 6
months?
[READ OUT – ONE ANSWER PER LINE]
-
Was increased by the bank............................................... 1
Remained unchanged ...................................................... 2
Was decreased by the bank .............................................. 3
[DK/NA] ........................................................................ 9
Price terms and conditions:
a) Level of interest rates ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 9
b) Level of the cost of financing other than interest rates [CHARGES,
FEES, COMMISSIONS] ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 9
Non-price terms and conditions:
c) Available size of loan or credit line ...................................................................... 1
d) Available maturity of the loan ............................................................................ 1
e) Collateral requirements [THE SECURITY GIVEN BY THE BORROWER
TO THE LENDER AS A PLEDGE FOR THE REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN] ........................ 1
f) Other, for example, loan covenants [AN AGREEMENT OR
STIPULATION LAID DOWN IN LOAN CONTRACTS UNDER WHICH THE
BORROWER PLEDGES EITHER TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTION OR TO
REFRAIN FROM TAKING CERTAIN ACTION], required guarantees,
information requirements, procedures, time required for loan
approval ......................................................................................................... 1
162
239
239
239
239
C10887 a
[FILTER: FOR EACH Q4 ITEM THAT IS “RELEVANT” (CODE 1, 2, 3, 99), NAMELY Q4.c),
Q4.d), Q4.e), Q4.h), Q4.j) and Q4.a), FILL THE RELEVANT ITEM IN Q23]
[COMMON]
Q23. Looking ahead, for each of the following types of financing available to
your firm, could you please indicate whether you think their availability will
improve, deteriorate or remain unchanged over the next 6 months?
[READ OUT – ONE ANSWER PER LINE]
- Will improve ....................................................................... 1
- Will remain unchanged......................................................... 2
- Will deteriorate ................................................................... 3
- [INSTRUMENT NOT APPLICABLE TO MY
FIRM] .................................................................................... 7
- [DK] ................................................................................. 9
[FILTER: IF Q4.c) FEATURES CODE 1, 2 OR 99]
[CODE 7 IS NOT TO BE USED FOR ENTERPRISES HAVING “APPLIED” (CODE 1) IN
Q7A.d)]
g) Credit line, bank overdraft or credit cards overdraft ............................................ 1 2 3 7 9
[FILTER: IF Q4.d) OR Q4.b) FEATURES CODE 1, 2, 3 OR 99]
[CODE 7 IS NOT TO BE USED FOR ENTERPRISES HAVING “APPLIED” (CODE 1) IN
Q7A.a)]
b) Bank loans (excluding overdraft and credit lines) ............................................... 1 2 3 7 9
[FILTER: IF Q4.e) FEATURES CODE 3]
[CODE 7 IS NOT TO BE USED FOR ENTERPRISES HAVING “APPLIED” (CODE 1) IN
Q7A.b)]
d) Trade credit.................................................................................................. 1 2 3 7 9
[FILTER: IF Q4.j) FEATURES CODE 1, 2 OR 99]
c) Equity [INCLUDING PREFERRED SHARES, VENTURE CAPITAL OR
BUSINESS ANGELS] ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 7 9
[FILTER: IF Q4.h) FEATURES CODE 1, 2 OR 99]
e) Debt securities issued [SHORT-TERM COMMERCIAL PAPER OR
LONGER-TERM CORPORATE BONDS] ................................................................ 1 2 3 7 9
[FILTER: IF Q4.a) FEATURES CODE 1, 2 OR 99]
a) Retained earnings or sale of assets [INTERNAL FUNDS] ...................................... 1 2 3 7 9
[FILTER: IF AT LEAST ONE OF THE Q4 ITEMS Q4.f), Q4.m), Q4.r) OR Q4.p) IS
“RELEVANT” (CODE 1, 2, 99)]
f) Other [FOR EXAMPLE, LOANS FROM A RELATED COMPANY,
SHAREHOLDERS OR FAMILY AND FRIENDS, LEASING, FACTORING,
GRANTS, SUBORDINATED DEBT INSTRUMENTS, PARTICIPATING
LOANS, PEER-TO-PEER LENDING, CROWDFUNDING] ......................................... 1 2 3 7 9
C10887 a
163
Section 5: Future, growth and obstacles to growth
Finally, we would like to ask you a few questions about the longer-term prospects
for your enterprise.
[FILTER: ALL ENTERPRISES]
[ENTR]
Q16.
Over the past three years (2011-2013), how much did your enterprise grow
on average per year …?
[READ OUT– ONE ANSWER PER LINE]
-
Over 20% per year ......................................................... 1
Less than 20% per year ................................................... 2
No growth ..................................................................... 3
Got smaller .................................................................... 4
[NOT APPLICABLE, THE ENTERPRISE IS
TOO RECENT] ............................................................... 7
[DK/NA] ........................................................................ 9
A. …in terms of employment regarding the number of full-time or fulltime equivalent employees ? ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 7 9
B. …and in terms of turnover? .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 7 9
[ENTR]
Q17.
Considering the turnover over the next two to three years (2014-2016),
how much does your enterprise expect to grow per year?
[READ OUT– ONLY ONE ANSWER IS POSSIBLE]
- Grow substantially – over 20% per year in terms of
turnover ................................................................................. 1
- Grow moderately – below 20% per year in terms of
turnover ................................................................................. 2
- Stay the same size .............................................................. 3
- Become smaller ................................................................... 4
- [DK/NA] ............................................................................. 9
164
C10887 a
[ENTR]
Q19.
Do you feel confident talking about financing with banks and that you will
obtain the desired results? And how about with equity investors/venture capital
enterprises?
[READ OUT– ONE ANSWER PER LINE]
-
Yes ................................................................................... 1
No .................................................................................... 2
[NOT APPLICABLE] .............................................................. 7
[DK] ................................................................................. 9
A. …with banks .................................................................................................... 1 2 7 9
B. …with equity investors/venture capital enterprises ................................................ 1 2 7 9
[FILTER: IF Q17 FEATURES CODE 1 OR 2 (ENTERPRISE EXPECTS TO GROW)]
[ENTR]
Q20.
If you need external financing to realise your growth ambitions, what type
of external financing would you prefer most?
[READ OUT–ONLY ONE ANSWER IS POSSIBLE]
-
Bank loan...............................................................................................................
Loan from other sources (FOR EXAMPLE, TRADE CREDIT, RELATED
ENTERPRISE, SHAREHOLDERS, PUBLIC SOURCES).......................................................
Equity investment [INCLUDING PREFERRED SHARES, VENTURE
CAPITAL OR BUSINESS ANGELS] ..............................................................................
Other ....................................................................................................................
[DK/NA] ................................................................................................................
[ENTR]
Q21. If you need external financing to realise your growth ambitions, what amount
of financing would you aim to obtain?
[READ OUT– ONLY ONE ANSWER IS POSSIBLE]
[For non-euro area countries, the amounts in euro will be converted to national currency.]
- Up to €25,000 .................................................................... 1
- More than €25,000 and up to €100,000.................................. 2
- More than €100,000 and up to€250,000 ................................. 5
- More than €250,000 and up to €1 million ............................... 6
- Over €1 million ................................................................... 4
- [DK/NA] ............................................................................ 9
[FILTER: IF Q20 FEATURES A BANK LOAN, A LOAN FROM OTHER SOURCES OR
EQUITY INVESTMENT RESPECTIVELY (CODE 1, 2 OR 3)]
[ENTR]
Q22C. What do you see as the most important limiting factor to get this financing?
[READ OUT – ONLY ONE ANSWER IS POSSIBLE]
- There are no obstacles ........................................................ 8
- Insufficient collateral or guarantee [NOT
TO BE USED IF Q20 FEATURES EQUITY
INVESTMENT (CODE 3)] ........................................................... 1
- Interest rates or price too high .............................................. 2
- Reduced control over the enterprise ....................................... 3
C10887 a
165
1
2
3
5
9
-
Too much paperwork is involved ............................................ 6
Financing not available at all ................................................. 4
Other ................................................................................. 5
[DK/NA] ............................................................................. 9
[FILTER: ALL ENTERPRISES]
[ENTR]
Q24. On a scale of 1-10, where 10 means it is extremely important and 1
means it is not at all important, how important are each of the following
factors for your enterprise’s financing in the future?
[READ OUT – ONE ANSWER PER LINE. DK/NA OPTION PERMITTED]
a) Guarantees for loans
b) Measures to facilitate equity investments (FOR EXAMPLE,
SUPPORT FOR VENTURE CAPITAL OR BUSINESS ANGEL
FINANCING)
c) Export credits or guarantees
d) Tax incentives
e) Business support services (FOR EXAMPLE, ADVISORY SERVICES,
TRAINING, BUSINESS NETWORKS, CREDIT MEDIATION, MATCHMAKING SERVICES ETC.)
f) Making existing public measures easier to obtain (FOR EXAMPLE,
THROUGH THE REDUCTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE BURDENS)
C1/ Would you like to receive a copy of the published results? SINGLE CODE
Yes
1  READ OUT: Please confirm your e-mail address and we will send you
the link for the publication. WRITE IN E- ADDRESS. Confirm e-mail
address.
No
2
C3/ This survey will be repeated in around 6 months. Your input is an
important part of the findings that the European Central Bank and the
European Commission use to inform their policies towards smoothing
businesses’ access to finance. Are you willing to be contacted on this topic
again?
SEVERAL ANSWERS POSSIBLE (NOT IN COMBINATION WITH CODE 2)
-
-
166
Yes, via telephone [ CONFIRM AND MAKE A NOTE OF THE
RESPONDENT'S FULL NAME AND JOB TITLE] ................................................................ 3
Yes, via e-mail (for web-based survey) [ CONFIRM AND MAKE A
NOTE OF THE RESPONDENT’S FULL NAME, JOB TITLE AND E-MAIL
ADDRESS] .............................................................................................................. 4
No ......................................................................................................................... 2
C10887 a
[IF C3 FEATURES 3 OR 4]
Please confirm the details below.
1 Name
2 Job title
3 Telephone
[IF C3 FEATURES 3]
4 E-mail
[IF C3 FEATURES 4]
[IF C3 FEATURES 2]
For quality control purposes, may I please note down your name and job title?
1 Name
2 Job title
C4/ Do you agree to share your contact details with the European Central
Bank and the European Commission in order to complement other information
already present in business registers? Please note that any information you
may provide will be used solely for scientific and policy research purposes.
SINGLE CODE
-
C10887 a
Yes
No
............................................................................... 1
............................................................................... 2
167
Appendix 3
Glossary of terms
Capital structure
The way enterprises finance their assets, investments and
operations is captured by their capital structure and is
characterised by the dichotomy between equity and debt.
Equity financing can be generated internally, by using
profits as a source of capital, and externally by issuing
equity shares to investors.
Credit line
A line of credit is a source of financing and when extended
to a business, it allows the business to withdraw funds up
to a certain pre-determined amount. It differs from a
regular loan in that the business need not use the entire
amount and will only pay interest on the money withdrawn,
making it particularly suitable to absorb immediate cash
flow problems.
Debt securities
Debt financing need not necessarily be obtained from
financial institutions. Instead, businesses can also issue
securities with debt-like properties. Buyers are entitled to
payment of a fixed principal and accrued interest. In
contrast to bank loans or other types of debt, securitised
debt is a tradable financial asset.
Equity investments
An equity investment refers to the money that is invested
in a firm through buying shares of stock by individuals and
firms. These shares of stock may be bought and sold
among stockholders in response to changes in market
price.
Export credits
A credit opened by an importer with a bank in the country
of the exporter to pay for the export operation.
External financing
Enterprises can finance their operations and investments in
assets using both internal and external sources. External
financing consists of debt and shares of the enterprise
issued to investors.
Guarantees for loans
Loans for which a third party (mostly government agency)
guarantees to repay the loan in case the borrower defaults.
This is done to assume debt obligation.
Internal financing
Enterprises can finance their operations and investments in
assets using both internal and external sources. Internal
financing uses internally generated cash flows as a source.
Such retained earnings are comprised of net income plus
depreciation and minus dividends paid out to shareholders.
Overdraft
Overdraft of a bank account or credit card occurs when its
balance
dips
below
zero
as
a
result
of
a
business
overextending its account or credit card. This will usually
result in higher interest rates or overdraft fees paid.
C10887 a
169
Trade credit
Outside of financial institutions, businesses provide another
potential source of financing. Trade credit is a type of
short-term financing where one business extends funds to
another to help the latter purchase its goods or services,
allowing for delayed payment.
Tax incentives
A tax incentive is a reduction in taxes to encourage a
particular economic activity.
Venture capital firms
Financing provided by investors to start-up firms and small
businesses with high growth potential. The investor takes
this risk in the hopes of earning money by owning equity in
the companies it invests in.
170
C10887 a