For the majority of Alternative Finance B2B providers, their information on size, volumes, etc. is kept private, no different than trying to find the payment terms and commercial agreements between a Bechtel and a Sunoco or anIBMand one of their Engineering suppliers. That data is just not public.
What you do tend to find is how big the network size is (which can be highly misleading due to double counting or more) or the amount of invoice values processed. That’s a start.
所以我想问你读者，你想看到除了通过网络平台运行多少百班（或数百万）的冷酷问题之外，您希望看到其他标准？
我们可以使用的一些标准示例：
客观的
- 资产转移到第三方（并非由公司自筹资费）
- Invoices financed by early pay solutions (either self-funded or third party)
- Number of buying customers that are paying subscription fees
- Number of suppliers that have submitted more than “x” amount of volume over a year
Subjective
- A perspective of business model that is superior given market structure changes
- Solution innovation
- Scalability assessment
- Retention of risk in the platform
- Collateral management
The reason this can be confusing is you can have a vendor say publicly we have funded $75 billion in receivables. What does that mean? That number could be total value of invoices that flowed through the system since inception, it could represent how much was early paid by dynamic discounting, or something else.
There is no one that is producing data that tracks information such as:
- outstanding invoices discounted
- volume of invoices not discounted/ processed through the platform (this is where data discrepancies can occur)
- number of buyers/ buying entities
You don’t know until you have an auditor on site to really verify. The truth is no one wants to lift the kimono until they are forced to (via a stock listing). See在供应链金融数据上提升和服
但有些方法可以辨别这些信息，并在公司世界中鉴定我的联系，我发现真相一般都在某处，只是很难找到。
I would be interested in hearing your criteria and the reasons behind your selection. Contact me atdgustin at tradefinancingmatters.comand we can chat about the criteria we will use for the selection process.
访问这里获得免费列表
Discuss this: