Whether it is the multi-level circulation of electronic accounts receivable or supply chain bills, the core is actually the business of resources. Whoever owns the core enterprise resources can make money. Supply chain finance companies with core enterprise resources, while earning a lot of money, some people rely too much on this business, and some people begin to think, how long can this business last? When it is easiest to make money, thinking about the sustainability and future development direction of the business is actually something that every enterprise should consider, which also belongs to the second curve problem in the popular strategic management in the market.
0 1
The biggest risk of "letter chain" is supervision.
The underlying logic of multi-level circulation of electronic accounts receivable is the same as that of bills. The inventor at that time should have been influenced by the bill and saw the defects and market space of the bill before making the bill. As for many people in the market saying that the two products are different to illustrate the two differences, they are actually appearances and there are benefits behind them. Whether the two products are the same or different in nature, as a product with a wide range of financial attributes, they are inevitably subject to financial supervision. I believe that everyone's views should be the same at this point. The rest depends on when to supervise, which regulatory agency to supervise, and the content and method of supervision.
Compared with bills, the multilevel circulation of electronic accounts receivable is mainly different from the openness of the system and the participants. The openness of the system is the core, and the multi-level circulation of electronic accounts receivable is a closed system. The advantage of the closed system is that as long as this thing is opened, no matter where it circulates, even if it is circulated all over the world, if you want to raise funds, you must go through the operator of this system. At this time, operators can decide their own funds and rates, which is equivalent to building a expressway. There is nothing wrong with this model, making money with your own resources and making your own decisions. However, after all, we are a socialist country and pay attention to fairness and justice in everything. In recent years, the state has made great efforts in anti-monopoly supervision, so the regulatory authorities reject this closed system. On the surface, they have many choices for suppliers, but in fact they still take care of the interests of other financial institutions.
In the future, if the regulatory authorities supervise the multi-level circulation of electronic accounts receivable, they will certainly open the system like bills, allowing all kinds of financial institutions to participate and suppliers to choose independently. In this way, the advantages of platform construction and operators will actually be gone. At present, the platform is basically charged by the holder, and there is no charge for non-financing circulation and holding. If the system is liberalized, it is very difficult to charge according to the use, even individual users can charge. Even the regulatory authorities may establish such a platform themselves. Similar to the ticket exchange system, all core enterprises are directly connected, and no third party is allowed to establish it, which is more like the current bill. No matter which method is adopted, it will actually cause a great blow to the platform business of multi-level circulation of electronic accounts receivable.
In addition to facing regulatory risks, if the core enterprises cooperate well, the business can easily reach the ceiling, because this business volume cannot exceed the amount of accounts payable of the whole group, and the group can't let you make it full. Replacing all business credits of the group with financial credits with rigid payment puts great pressure on the liquidity of the group. If you can't do it in the group, you have to consider what to do next.
Therefore, companies that mainly rely on multi-level circulation of electronic accounts receivable should think of this consequence in advance and make countermeasures as early as possible.
0 2
Supply chain bills are not the dish of non-bank institutions, nor are they the transformation direction of the "letter single chain" platform.
In fact, not only I, but also more companies focusing on multi-level circulation of electronic accounts receivable are aware of the impact of future supervision on this product. Many companies are eyeing supply chain bills and want to open up the market on them. I think it is a bit difficult for non-bank institutions to make money by supply chain bills.
The essence of supply chain bills is bills, and the problem that bills cannot be split and endorsed is only solved by batch issuance and batch endorsement. The birth of supply chain bills is actually influenced by the multi-level circulation of electronic accounts receivable in the ticket exchange. In order to realize the billing of accounts receivable, many people are wondering whether supply chain bills will replace the multi-level circulation of electronic accounts receivable. The core of whether supply chain bills can replace the multi-level circulation of electronic accounts receivable is one reason, supervision. It will not be replaced unless there is a regulatory requirement.
Whether the trade between core enterprises and suppliers takes the form of multi-level circulation of accounts receivable, bills, letters of credit or electronic accounts receivable depends mainly on the trade situation between core enterprises and suppliers and the interests of core enterprises. Different suppliers, even the same supplier, will take different forms at different times and in different industries. Without mandatory regulatory requirements, supply chain bills cannot replace the multi-level circulation of electronic accounts receivable.
Since the essence of supply chain bills is bills, it will face the problem of participants. In recent years, the country's financial supervision has become more and more strict, and so has bill discount. Both the Supreme People's Court's opinions on the Ninth National People's Congress and other documents clearly require that bill discounting is a franchise business and must be carried out by institutions with loan qualifications. In fact, financial institutions with loan qualifications here mainly refer to banks. Other businesses that are not qualified for bill discount are illegal, and those with a large amount should be investigated for criminal responsibility. In the multi-level circulation of electronic accounts receivable, most participants are factoring companies, and financial bureaus in China Banking Regulatory Commission and other places require factoring companies not to engage in bill discount business, so factoring companies simply cannot participate in bill business in the supply chain.
Some platforms operating multi-level circulation of electronic accounts receivable have applied for access to the supply chain bill system of the ticket exchange. Let's not talk about the entry threshold. Even if it is connected, the bill system is an open system, the bill is highly market-oriented and the rate is more open and market-oriented. Not to mention whether the supply chain bill can come back to you for financing. Even if financing, how much money can you earn by docking with financial institutions? If the platform wants to enrich products, that's fine, and you have to find ways to make money.
It is necessary for the financial companies of core enterprises to access the supply chain bill system. After all, finance companies can be discounted, and bills are also one of the financial businesses, which should serve the whole group.
0 3
The existing "chain of letters" being done and those who have the resources to do it should do it quickly, forcefully and quickly.
After analyzing the multi-level circulation of electronic accounts receivable and supply chain bills, many enterprises that are already operating or have resources to do it may have lost confidence and don't know whether to do it or not. In fact, this is completely unnecessary. It is still a long time before the regulatory authorities supervise the multi-level circulation of electronic accounts receivable and fully roll it out in the group. In the meantime, I encourage everyone to work hard and be quick. The cost of doing this thing itself is not much, just a matter of internal coordination. Is it silly not to make money?
Any enterprise should consider both immediate interests and future interests. These two interests are not contradictory, not one or the other. Multi-level circulation of electronic accounts receivable is actually a very good product and innovation, which is of great benefit to supply chain financial enterprises, core enterprises and suppliers. This product not only solves the financing difficulties of suppliers, but also solves the financing repayment problem. It can also reduce the interest-bearing liabilities of core enterprises and turn their own financing liabilities into suppliers' financing liabilities, which is quite suitable for city investment companies. Of course, this function ticket is also available.
For the multi-level circulation of electronic accounts receivable and supply chain bills, I think the future regulatory authorities should allow them to exist at the same time and should not cancel them. Although the essence of the two tools is the same, there are still great differences in participants and operation methods. The two tools can complement each other and promote each other. In the future, whether it is society or business, it is impossible for a tool to meet the different needs of all enterprises at all stages of development. The future business development must be diversified and personalized. It should be the mainstream direction to configure different financial instruments to meet the different financial needs of different enterprises at different stages of development. It is written in the title of the article that electronic accounts receivable multi-level circulation and supply chain bills are not two tools with no future, but these two tools have no future for non-bank supply chain financial enterprises (mainly local financial institutions and supply chain financial technology platforms), so we need to think deeply about the future development direction.
0 4
Only by deeply participating in, controlling and managing the supply chain can there be a future.
At present, there are many subjects involved in supply chain finance in China, including local financial institutions, including factoring companies, small loan companies, pawn shops, financial leasing companies and financing guarantee companies, as well as supply chain financial technology companies, supply chain companies (including logistics companies), banks, brokers, trusts and exchanges, all of which perform their duties. In addition to auxiliary participants, there are actually two types, one is the supply chain scenario side, and the other is the pure capital side. For example, the multi-level circulation platform of electronic accounts receivable is mostly operated by supply chain finance companies of core enterprises and factoring companies of core enterprises. I added an article that independent factoring companies are difficult to survive and core factoring companies are difficult to transform. You can go and have a look if you are interested.
The supply chain financial platform of core enterprises mainly depends on the upstream and downstream industrial resources of the group, but due to the limitation of its own group business scale, it needs to consider how to develop after completion. After all, being a business is different from being a farmer. As a farmer, you don't have to develop, just plant enough land to eat and drink, and if you don't advance as an enterprise, you will retreat. After the upstream and downstream business of the core enterprise supply chain finance company group is completed, if you want to do some other financial business, you can't do it, because other financial businesses are full and you can't grab them. Being a centralized procurement platform is even more pit, and it is not your business scope. It's even harder to grab this business.
The rest that can be developed is external. To do foreign business, a simple technology platform or a factoring company is definitely not possible, because the risks cannot be controlled. Because technology platforms and factoring companies don't participate in trade business, they don't know where the money goes, where the goods come from and what the goods are for. Trade is unreal and risks are uncontrollable. And other factoring companies of state-owned enterprises. This is not a long-term solution, and it is ok to do it occasionally.
In fact, there is a very good way, which is to set up a supply chain service company to provide comprehensive supply chain+financial services for small and medium-sized enterprises through supply chain company+factoring company+financial institutions and relying on the industrial background resources of the group. This model is to conduct business with the outside world. Compared with only revitalizing internal resources, cooperation is less difficult and it is easy to get the respect of other internal brothers. Otherwise, you will always say that you are incompetent and eat at home. At present, the state and other local governments are implementing the chain length system to serve more small and medium-sized enterprises through chain length. Small and medium-sized enterprises here are not only upstream and downstream enterprises, but also other similar small and medium-sized enterprises in the market. By opening up their supply chain capabilities, these SMEs can also enjoy the supply chain advantages of their chain owners. Moreover, the chain owner may also change from a product-oriented enterprise to an ecological enterprise.
Through supply chain companies+factoring companies+financial institutions, we can deeply participate in, control and manage the supply chain, abandon the limitation that we can only optimize capital flow for customers in the past, and help customers optimize cost, efficiency and quality from the perspectives of business flow, logistics, capital flow and information flow in all directions, from a giant baby to an adult, from a single financial service provider to an integrated service provider of supply chain and finance, and maybe one day we will grow into an industrial organizer. At that time, I believed.
0 5
Is it difficult to transform supply chain+financial integration service providers?
From a single pure financial service provider to a supply chain+financial integration integrated service provider, many people will ask, will it be difficult? Actually, this is not a good question to answer. What is difficulty? What is the standard of difficulty? Is it difficult for shareholders not to do it? Still no resources? Or is it difficult to do it in the organization? Or is the organization unwilling to do it? In fact, there are both situations. Personally, I think the core problem is that team organizations are unwilling to do it. Mainly supply chain+financial integration services, it takes a long time to accumulate, and the effect is slow, and all the work is very hard and tired.
There are many integrated services of supply chain and finance, but they are basically very mature products in the market. There are many single services in the market. This is not about making chips, engines and inventing the COVID-19 vaccine. People in the financial industry all graduated from key universities in 1985,211. Is it the work of someone who has never even graduated from an ordinary university? It doesn't matter if you can't do it yourself. You can integrate a service provider and recruit people in this field. There are many in the market. Of course, if you want to write PPT and brag comfortably in the office to make money, there is really no way. After all, no matter how capable you are, you can't wake a person who pretends to sleep.
Enterprises engaged in supply chain services have entered the supply chain financial market one after another, earning comprehensive benefits of supply chain+finance. But it is a pity that financial enterprises have strong resources and contacts, high-quality talents and strong financial ability, and can only earn high-risk and low-profit money.
Author: Dean of Lvshun Wudaokou Supply Chain Research Institute