
Principal risks and uncertainties continued
Viability Statement
In accordance with the requirements of the UK Corporate Governance
Code, the aim of the Viability Statement is for the Directors to report on
the assessment of the prospects of the Group meeting its liabilities over
the assessment period, taking into account the current financial
position, outlook, principal risks and uncertainties, and key judgements
and estimates in preparing the Financial Statements.
The Directors have based their assessment of viability on the Group’s
current business model and strategic plan, which is updated and
approved annually by the Board, in line with our objectives to deliver
sustainable and profitable growth, increase shareholder value and offer
an improved service and product offering to our customers. This is
underpinned by the strategic priorities outlined on pages 28 to 35 of
the Strategic Report. The effective management of principal risks and
uncertainties is outlined within pages 64 to 72 and this assessment
emphasises those risks that could theoretically threaten the Group’s
ability to operate, or to continue in existence (with the VR designation).
The assessment period
The Directors have assessed the viability of the Group over the
three year period to May 2025, as this is an appropriate planning
time horizon given the speed of change and customer demand in
the industry and is in line with the Group’s strategic planning period.
Assessment of viability
The viability of the Group has been assessed taking into account
the Group’s current financial position, available bank facilities, and
the Board approved FY23 budget and three year strategic plan.
The Directors have produced a base case budget for FY23, which
reflects recent growth patterns in the relevant geographical regions
and operating segments and relevant growth opportunities for the
Group based on existing propositions and factors in current macro-
economic factors most specifically increasing inflationary pressures.
The Directors have also modelled the impact of certain severe but
plausible scenarios arising from the principal risks, which have the
greatest potential impact on viability in the period under review, as
set out in the table below. Further details of how these sensitivities
have been applied are provided in the going concern disclosures
inNote 1 to the Financial Statements.
The impact of these sensitivities has been reviewed against the Group’s
projected cash flow position, available bank facilities and compliance
withfinancial covenants over the three year viability period. The Group
financing arrangements are made up of a revolving credit facility of
£100m, which expires in June 2024, and a term loan repayable in
instalments with the final payment due in June 2024. As of 31 May 2022,
net debt (excluding lease liabilities)
1
amounted to £52.4m, which comprised
cash of £73.2m, a drawn revolving credit facility of £71.0m and the term
loan of £55.4m, with borrowings offset by arrangement fees of £0.8m.
Please see Note 1 of the Financial Statements for further discussion
of financial covenants and Note 24 of the Financial Statements for
further discussion of the Group’s financing arrangements.
The sensitivities applied under stress testing show adequate levels
of headroom against available bank facilities and financial covenants
and that no mitigating actions are required to address severe but
plausible scenarios modelled by management.
While noting that no mitigating actions are required to address severe
but plausible scenarios modelled by management, options available
include a reduction of planned capital expenditure, headcount reduction,
freezing pay and recruitment and not paying a dividend to shareholders,
all of which are within the Directors’ control and give an additional level
of headroom. Some or all of the above options may be utilised in the
case of any of the risks outlined in the table below arising.
Conclusions
Based on these severe but possible scenarios, the Directors have a
reasonable expectation that the Group and Company will be able to
continue in operation and remain commercially viable over the three
year period of assessment.
Viability risk Risk as applied to viability assessment Specifics of scenario modelled Potential impact
Failure to execute
businessstrategy
Inability to attract
and retain
sufficient high
calibre colleagues
Failure of critical
information
systems
All three of these risks are expected
to lead to a barrier to future growth,
either through lack of key talent,
failure to deliver ongrowth plans or
long-term reputational damage from
criticalsystems failures.
In order to consider the impact of the risks
identified management has modelled various
scenarios in isolation and in combination
(scenarios 2 and 3 and scenarios 1 and 3)
asfollows:
1) The performance of FY23 continues to be similar
to that of FY22, including the impact on regional
and international operations of the Group and
apotential reduction in double-digit revenue
growth to 9% growth and subsequent impact
onmargin.
2) Software Resilience performance does not
achieve expected revenue growth in all territories
and experiences a 1% revenue decline.
3) Further inflationary pressures up to 6% arise
over the existing base case of 4% assessment
and certain day rate price rises to customers do
not occur.
The impact of these sensitivities has been
reviewed against the Group’s projected cash flow
position, available bank facilities and compliance
with financial covenants over the three year
viability period. The sensitivities applied under
stress testing show adequate levels of headroom
and that no mitigating actions are required.
Failure to maintain
control over
customer,
colleague,
commercial and/or
operational data
A cyber breach or similar data
protection issue would give rise
toshort-term reputational damage
and an inability to do business in the
short term, impacting revenue and
profits.
Failure of execution of the strategy andloss of key
customers resulting in a reduction in revenue and
a consequential impact on profitability and cash
generation of £22.5m for FY23, rising to £44.0m
inFY27.
The impact of these sensitivities has been reviewed
against the Group’s projected cash flow position,
available bank facilities and compliance with financial
covenants over the three year viability period. The
sensitivities applied under stress testing show
adequate levels of headroom and that no mitigating
actions are required.
Poor quality of
Management
Information
Systems (MIS) and
internal business
processes
Without appropriate management
information, management may have a
lack of clarity over the impact of rising
costs and the ability of the business to
react tosuch rising cost levels through
price rises.
Further inflationary pressures up to 6%arise
over the existing base case of 4% assessment
and certain day rate price rises to customers do
notoccur.
The impact of these sensitivities has been reviewed
against the Group’s projected cash flow position,
available bank facilities and compliance with financial
covenants over the three year viability period. The
sensitivities applied under stress testing show
adequate levels of headroom and that no mitigating
actions are required.
NCC Group plc — Annual report and accounts for the year ended 31 May 202272