Unlisted retail bonds – a positive development for investors and issuers
18 Jun 2013
In recent weeks, a number of social organisations have launched unlisted retail bonds. Philip Secrett...
Sorry for interrupting, but there is something we need to tell you...
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.
If you wish to restrict or block web browser cookies which are set on your device then you can do this through your browser settings, the Help function within your browser will tell you how.
A charity has a big decision to make. But Robert Ashton is unsure of whether the charity will be able to make it.
I sat in on a very interesting charity Board meeting recently. The organisation has enjoyed considerable success of late which has brought it to something of a crossroads. It is far from a simple decision to choose the right path ahead; there are pros and cons to both options.
All that's certain is that one of the options is time limited. It's a window of opportunity prompted by the current politics of the sector in which the charity operates. Major decisions have to be made and the charity has to choose if it wants to be part of something bigger, or continue to paddle its own canoe.
Typically, the issue has divided the Trustees. Some favour merger and some think the organisation should remain independent. Merger gets faster results; independence means a longer haul but fewer compromises. It's a tough choice.
As the Boardroom clock ticks away, the inevitable showdown approaches. How will the discussion go? Whose argument will win the day? Or will they gamble and delay making the crucial decision.
An early item on the agenda is to set the date for a fundraising barn dance. Should it take place in June, when the weather has a habit of letting you down, or in September, when the weather's better. June seems sensible to me, as if a success, you can repeat in September.
As the pros and cons of the two dates were discussed, time passed. It became a major debate, not because it really mattered I realised, but because it did not. In other words, here was a minor issue that was safe to argue. Furthermore discussing this issue delayed the bigger debate; the one nobody was looking forward to.
Eventually folk got round to the big issue of the day. As is so often the case, the more emotive aspects were debated at length and the economics largely overlooked. More worryingly, some of the hottest debate was about things over which the group would have no control, whichever path they chose.
And as befits a group who spent an age discussing the date for a hoe down, they danced right round the show down. I hope you don't do the same!
18 Jun 2013
In recent weeks, a number of social organisations have launched unlisted retail bonds. Philip Secrett...
17 Jun 2013
The Charity Awards 2013 ceremony took place on 13 June in recognition of the outstanding work undertaken...
7 Jun 2013
Charity Finance editor and former Charity Commission chief executive, Andrew Hind offers his analysis...

Attending our one day courses is a highly effective way of ensuring new and existing trustees fully understand their role, responsibilities and liabilities.
Governance (with optional website)
from £95.00
BUY NOW
29 Oct 2013
29 Oct 2013
29 Oct 2013
27 Nov 2013
Adrian Ashton
www.adrianashton.co.uk
21 Feb 2013
I've always found that the easiest way to ensure that Boards can most objectively and impersonally explore the option of merger vs independence is to take as the starting question: "which will have the greatest impact on this charity's beneficiaries?";
keeping the focus of the discussion on the core purpose of the charity from the outset (and framing all questions around it) means that people don't start to get upset about distractions such as implications to staff (which the charity has a responsibility for, but isn't the reason for its existence and might unduly influence the debate/discussion/decision/deliberation/dance)
[Reply]