Property and Land Assets Management

Based on the comprehensive dataset provided for the Property and land assets management sector, we must analyse the payment behaviour of the 37 companies within the sample to understand the prevailing credit culture. The central tendency metrics reveal a notable divergence between the average and the median payment times. The average payment time stands at 36.1 days, which is higher than the median of 30 days. This discrepancy suggests a 'right skew' in the data, indicating that whilst the typical company settles debts within a standard month, a minority of slower payers are dragging the average upward. The standard deviation of 18.6 days further highlights a considerable inconsistency in payment practices; suppliers cannot necessarily rely on a uniform schedule across the sector. It is also important to recognise that the dataset is geographically weighted, with the centre of activity located in London (20 companies) and the South East, which may skew the results towards the working capital practices common in the capital.

A closer inspection of the distribution analysis offers a more granular view of how these companies organise their accounts payable. The sector displays a generally positive profile, as the majority of businesses favour rapid settlement. Specifically, 56.8% of the companies analysed fall into the 'Fast' category (0-30 days), and the top performers—six companies in total—manage to pay in under 20 days. This demonstrates that efficient cash flow management is achievable and practised by a significant portion of the sector. However, amongst the remaining cohorts, the data points to a rigid tier of slower payers. Approximately 19% of companies delay payments to the 46-60 day window, and 10.8% stretch terms to between 61 and 90 days. This bifurcation means that a supplier is nearly as likely to encounter a company paying in two months as they are to find one paying in the moderate 31-45 day window.

From a risk perspective, stakeholders must realise the implications of the high late payment percentage. Despite the healthy median, 30.3% of payments are classified as late, which poses a tangible risk to the cash flow of smaller suppliers servicing this sector. The interquartile range (IQR) of 25 days reinforces the unpredictability mentioned earlier; the difference between a 25th percentile payer (25 days) and a 75th percentile payer (50 days) is substantial. The slowest payer in the sample took 82 days to settle, contrasting sharply with the fastest payer at just 3 days. However, it is a positive sign that zero companies fell into the critical 90+ day category. This suggests that whilst delays are common, complete delinquency or extreme distress is not currently a widespread behaviour within this specific market sample.

In conclusion, the Property and land assets management sector presents a mixed but generally stable payment environment. The dominance of the London and South East regions (comprising nearly 68% of the sample) suggests that the data reflects metropolitan business practices. For credit controllers and analysts who specialise in risk assessment, the key takeaway is to expect payment within 30 days for the majority of contracts, whilst remaining vigilant regarding the 30% of instances where terms are exceeded. The absence of critical failures (90+ days) implies solvency is not the primary concern; rather, the issue lies in administrative delays or strategic cash preservation by the larger, slower-paying entities. Suppliers would be well-advised to negotiate strict terms, as the 18.6-day standard deviation proves that payment speeds are far from guaranteed.