spendmatters
 

February 03, 2012

 

Dell and Others: The Business Dilemma of Pushing Out Payment Terms (Part 1)

I'm sorry, but I could care less about the moral dilemma of pushing out payment terms, as many paint the payment term rationalization argument. I personally believe all that matters is the business dilemma of whether or not such logic makes sense based on the balancing act of improving working capital and keeping your suppliers in business and therefore wanting to work with you. There's the start of a good discussion on the topic over on Supply Management's blog, where a commentator notes that she does not "envy Dell's suppliers" who have just been told that their customer "is extending its payment terms from 50 to 65 days."

As anyone in procurement or A/P knows, simply extending payment terms is not an arbitrary or binary thing. Some companies may have Net 50 terms but pay suppliers in 66 days on average. Policy may be policy, but practice is what counts. Some suppliers may actually prefer longer payment terms if they know they will actually get paid when they're supposed to. Others such as commentator David Brown of new payment upstart Oxygen Finance, who is quoted in the same post, suggest that an early payment scheme in exchange for a discount may be a more fair answer.

But the problem with early payment programs is that so few suppliers are usually able to take advantage of them. By the time an invoice is in the system and approved, the chance of getting paid in days or weeks, in most cases, is often long-gone. Moreover, when companies enable such programs with technology, it's rare that more than a small single digit percentage of suppliers participate. I laughed recently when I saw a PowerPoint from one of the biggest players in the space, that claims it's worked with dozens of customers and has facilitated over $8 billion of early payment financing discounts. Why? Many large companies have more than $8 billion in payables in a single year. In other words, this top player is barely scratching the surface for its customers.

I'm personally excited for the potential transformation of A/P and early payment discount programs in general. But we'll need to see entirely new approaches that capture the potential of the majority of a supply base to participate if such models are to make a difference. Perhaps for this reason the much-maligned payment strategy of pushing all spend to a P-Card might not be such a bad idea after all in the future, if it will be possible to get the restrictive and unnecessarily high APRs down.

- Jason Busch


Commodity Edge Conference

TweetBacks
Comments
Pete's Gravatar I agree with Jason's sentiments entirely. Delaying payment can be a blunt and brutal P2P (Purchase to Pay) weapon at the best of times and there are sound reasons why some organizations refuse to use it preferring a policy of prompt payment always. At best, delayed payment in 2010 is misguided. At worst, it is a cynical approach aimed at forcing price reduction.

http://purchasinginsight.com/delayed-payment-is-a-...
# Posted By Pete | 7/13/10 8:48 AM
Steve Hall's Gravatar Good article and pressing issue. I think it's actually a much more complex debate than it's often portrayed as. We've seen in the news recently some concerning statistics around companies' failings in a/p and some cynical voices talking wearily about early payment programs. But on the other hand I wonder, are companies using payment terms as a kind of 'blunt instrument' or is the emotive side of the issue coming through? When you have supply chain finance, for example, it's perhaps a little too narrow to say that companies that extend payment terms are doing it in uniform fashion. We're debating it here: http://tinyurl.com/2b4urcc and I think it's fair to say, rightly or wrongly, we've taken a slightly different angle to you Jason.
Thanks,
Steve
# Posted By Steve Hall | 7/13/10 11:10 AM
Peter Smith's Gravatar If Dell (or anyone else) messes (I was going to use another word there beginning with 'f' actually) with their supplers too much, then ultimately their suppliers will mess (as above) with them. Payment terms are just one way of doing this, no better or worse than others - what matters ultimately is the attractiveness of Dell as a customer.
# Posted By Peter Smith | 7/13/10 4:25 PM
Maverick's Gravatar Steve, I think wrongly, but it's hard to tell from your blog post meanderings (e.g., bringing A/P errors into the debate) what you're actually debating. Jason isn't just saying big buyers are mean and bad and that's the end of the story. He's talked pretty deeply on supply chain finance over the years.
Yes, it is a blunt instrument for many and such firms should be called out for their stupidity when they do it. But, market rules still apply, and over time, the invisible hand will make this a 'self-correcting' problem as smarter firms do the proper segmentation and make use of proper supply chain financing vehicles - and are able to outperform those who don't.
Jason, the P-card however isn't the end game. The untethered plastic is great as a purchasing convenience, but it's a very pricey supply chain finance vehicle.
Steve, I would've commented on your site, but only moderated non-dissenting posts seem to be allowed. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "tear those [editorial] gates down"! I've always respected Jason's decision to allow unfiltered posts and then delete any offensive stuff if it occurs. Let the crowd police itself. The crowd is generally wise.
# Posted By Maverick | 7/13/10 5:31 PM
David Brown's Gravatar Jason,

Thanks for mentioning my name and so to write about the subject matter itself, which is one of many. Everyone must pay attention to the fact that cash is scarce, that is why most buyers try to push out payment terms [quick cash release tool] and also why most suppliers want quicker payment terms, as both are feeling the effect of the lack of cash around right now. Please bear in mind that placing a purchase order on the supplier is not a favor, it is a debt and therefore most suppliers will finance this debt, using variable methods available in the finance sector today, but you the buyer are paying for this cost of finance, as it is built into the cost of goods and services, indeed there are reports around that state up to 4% of the cost of your goods and services are in the cost of finance. This should alarm almost the most senior of procurement officers as this is an enormous cost, and they should collaborate with their finance and treasury teams to ensure that these costs are minimized. Hopefully I can help create some clarity around charging for early payment as this too appears to have debate around charging for this. Imagine Dell decided to pay suppliers early but did not have the money to do so, and as a result decide to borrow the money from their bank, who in turn charges interest on this loan. Should this be given to the supplier free of charge, for those who think it should, then I am sorry but it is impossible, so the question should be at what cost? P-Cards are a very convenient tool but they too cost too much, imaging putting the entire Dell Supply Chain through a P-Card at a cost upwards of 2% per transaction. However what if, a P-Card could be deployed at a far lower cost, utilized by the wholesale money markets, then this would dramatically lower the cost for everyone and indeed bring with it transactional efficiencies for processing, lower than any other medium on the planet.
Welcome to Oxygen the start up company with exactly that technology and vision www.oxygen-finance.com
# Posted By David Brown | 7/14/10 7:50 AM
Robert Kramer's Gravatar Jason, in my experience, Global 2000 companies approve invoices very quickly for their direct material or goods for resale suppliers (less than 10 days). In the context of implementing Supply Chain Finance programs, in 7 years I’ve seen only two Global 2000 companies where invoice approval time has been an inhibitor to SCF participation. Different story perhaps for indirect goods but the majority of spend is in direct materials and that’s generally where SCF is targeted. If uptake of SCF is low for a particular organization, it’s probably not due to long invoice approval times.

Robert Kramer
PrimeRevenue, Inc.
# Posted By Robert Kramer | 7/22/10 1:16 PM
About Us | Advertising and Sponsorships | Advisory Services | Contact Us    © 2004-2012 Azul Partners, Inc. and Spend Matters. All Rights Reserved.