贸易融资Matters welcomes this Guest Post from Ken So, CoFounder of流氓， 一种数据科学公司帮助公司优化营运资金。
虽然签署了供应商倡议的公司名册肯定是成长，但奥巴马的计划有限展示本身的大量成果。
2008年，跨国啤酒巨头Inbev收购了美国最大的啤酒厂，Anheuser-Busch，创建世界上最大的啤酒公司。inbev是一个联盟3G Capital， 一种conglomerate that also owns food and beverage staples like赫恩斯和牛皮纸食品.
In the wake of theAnheuser-Busch和inbev.merger,3G Capitalbegan requesting that its suppliers give it up to 120 days to make payments, rather than the standard 30. Not in a position to refuse, the much smaller farmers and manufacturers that supply 3G Capital companies reluctantly complied.
扩展支付安排标志着供应链经济学的范式转变。这一练习很快陷入了几乎到处都是，在2008年金融危机的后果中给予了大公司呼吸室。但它导致了小型，俘虏供应商的现金流问题，具有少量的金融垫，策略仍然影响他们今天。英国的营销代理协会鼓励旨在争夺ANHEUSER-BUSCH INEV的广告机构等贷款人而不是供应商被视为贷方。
为应对公司越来越不公平的条款，奥巴马政府推出了供应商倡议于2011年。该倡议的主要职能是公司提前支付供应商，解除资本流动并帮助小企业支付供应商。
虽然公司名册签约供应商has certainly lengthened since launched (growing from 26 in 2014 to 47 in 2015), the program has limited results to show for it. We examined the days payable outstanding (DPO) of 17 of the first 26 pledged companies, we found that more than half of those companies have actually extended their overall payment days, to a median of +1.9 days.
Here are five reasons why Obama’s SupplierPay initiative is not the answer:
- 没有执法
Perhaps the single biggest flaw with SupplierPay is the fact that there is no enforcement for companies that have pledged to pay suppliers faster. David Gustin, the founder of贸易融资Matters写道，“白宫在他们的建议中没有牙齿。”
“Getting companies to volunteer and pledge without mandating change via regulations (like Brazil or Mexico have mandated electronic initiatives around trade flows) is just a tough road to travel,” Gustin explains.
As a result, the average payment time for pledged companies has actually increased, not decreased.
- 囚犯的困境悖论
A repport from the US Department of Commerce explains a fundamental disincentive for companies to pledge. The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a hypothetical scenario that explains why two rational entities might not cooperate even if it is in both their best interests to do so.
如果两家公司迅速支付供应商，则会收到相同的充分赔偿。但是，如果公司决定延迟支付以投资储蓄或融资短期项目，则可以从更高的赔偿中受益。公司B的竞争劣势处于竞争劣势，甚至可能会吸收坚定A延迟的成本。公司B现在希望与公司A相同的福利，因此它决定延迟付款。现在供应商被两家公司挤压，导致货物，不稳定的产出和/或价格更高。实际上，每个人都失去了。
Even if SupplierPay means well, it accomplishes little unless everyone participates and pays earlier, not just pledged companies.
- Cost is passed back to suppliers
由于大多数承诺的公司都是大公司，他们可以利用他们巨额的购买力来强迫早期付款回到供应商的增加的成本。此外，延长支付条款的人通常是非战略性的供应商，因此，不是在大买家优先列表中高达的供应商。例如，农民可能只会将他或她的大麦产品销售给单个啤酒人，以便啤酒商可以决定这些条款。如果公司无法再获得扩展付款的优势，那么它可以强制俘虏供应商代替贴现他们的产品。
- Ineffective without Supply Chain Finance
供应链Finance (SCF) needs to be more widely available to both the suppliers and the buyers. Dynamic discounting solutions, virtual cards, and working capital platforms can all help suppliers get paid faster. Innovative SCF solutions can help companies extend their payment terms in a way that’s fair to both parties. However, SupplierPay does little to encourage more supply chain finance solutions. In fact, it fails to acknowledge the economics for large buyers to offer such options without tying their availability to an extension of payment terms.
- Paper checks are slow
In addition to more supply chain finance options, experts agree that upgrading to more efficient payment methods can also reduce the strain on suppliers. Simply switching to electronic payments instead of sending checks and invoices through the mail could go a long way toward alleviating unnecessarily long payment periods.
Despite the significant cost saving of moving from paper checks to e-payment, a recent report suggests B2B checks will not go away. Some 70 percent of organizations it surveyed are struggling to convert to electronic payments, and most companies cite customer/supplier hesitance to adopt and IT barriers as the top obstacles.
是的，我们在选举年。那么卡片中的供应商2.0的机会是什么？鉴于目前迄今为止的缺乏陈旧的结果，尽管今年晚些时候赢得了白宫，但我的资金是目前倡议的根本改变。如果新的管理确保双下来有任何影响，它将需要直接干预，例如法规，税收激励和遣返信贷。我对SCF的技术创新更加乐观，以帮助小企业。从发票的数字化到云解决方案的这种创新，以优化营运资金到新的替代形式的B2B融资的新方法，集体对整个供应链生态系统产生了更实质性的影响。
别忘了报名参加TFMS每周摘要的TFMS摘要这里
讨论这一点：