The pros and cons of ‘supply chain finance’

Coca-Cola does it. So does the global consumer goods group Procter & Gamble and discount store chain Walmart. In Australia, Telstra and construction group CIMIC are into it.

All are using an increasingly popular scheme known as “supply chain finance” to pay the companies that provide them with goods and services.

The old-fashioned method of paying invoices is simple. A company orders goods from a supplier. The supplier delivers them and issues an invoice with a due date, such as 30 days’ time. The company pays the supplier within 30 days.

Suppliers who have delivered their goods but want to get paid earlier than 30 days have also for many years had another option: approach a bank and sell 80 per cent of the invoice (typically the maximum the bank is prepared to buy) before the due date. The bank later collects the invoice payment.

This is known as debt factoring; the bank or financier that buys the invoices is called a factor.

In recent years, a third option has emerged. With the help of banks and financiers, big companies take the initiative and suggest payment options to their suppliers, giving the companies more control over when and how they pay invoices.

This latter scheme is most commonly known as supply chain finance or, more specifically, “reverse factoring” – a technical term commonly used by ratings agencies to differentiate it from conventional debt factoring.

Reverse factoring compared to normal payment terms

Reverse factoring compared to normal payment terms

In reverse factoring, the big company hires a bank such as JPMorgan or a financier such as London-based Greensill Capital to make agreements with its suppliers. The supplier gets to choose exactly when it wants to be paid the full amount of money it is owed, with payment dates as soon as 10 days after goods and services are delivered.

Banks and financiers team up with technology groups such as Taulia and Oracle, which insert technology known as enterprise resource planning software into the accounting systems of their customers.

Read more at The pros and cons of ‘supply chain finance’

Leave your comments below and join us in the discussion. Subscribe to us to get more updates in your inbox.

 

Financing the Supply Chain with Big Data

To many, supply chain finance still leans primarily on approved invoices and credit. And yet, over the past 15 years, there’s been a complete transformation in the way financial processes are handled within the supply chain. Fifteen years ago, letters of credit predominated the payment interactions between buyers, suppliers and financial institutions. Financing was arduous and expensive. Today, online, cloud-based platforms are revolutionizing both payment and financing.

Data is the driver. Today, we have unprecedented visibility into all the transactions and interactions that take place in the supply chain. The cloud, as a central information hub, not only can host these interactions and provide a real-time picture of them, but it can also keep long-term records.

This gives financial institutions what they always wanted—a better way to assess risk.

Big Data Financing

Credit rating was historically the key factor for financial providers to assess risk. In many cases, it’s the buyer’s credit rating that counts most, even when the supplier is the one receiving the financing. The problem with credit rating, though, is that it depends on a lot of factors, not just on how reliable a supplier is in delivering goods or how reliable a buyer is in paying on time.

But as far as risk assessment goes, proven transaction history is what lenders prefer to set their decisions and rates upon. But for the longest time, financial providers didn’t have a good way to assess risk independently of credit rating. Now, thanks to big data, they do.

Read more at Financing the Supply Chain with Big Data

Please leave your opinions in the comment box below and subscribe to get updates in your inbox.