“60天账期承诺”可操作空间大？车企如何履约→

Core Viewpoint - The commitment from 17 leading domestic automotive brands to unify supplier payment terms to within 60 days has raised questions about the actual implementation and potential loopholes in the payment process [1][2][3]. Group 1: Supplier Payment Terms - The automotive companies have publicly committed to a 60-day payment term for suppliers, but there are concerns about how this will be enforced and whether it will truly benefit suppliers [1][2]. - Suppliers are uncertain whether the 60-day period starts from the delivery date, acceptance, or invoicing, which could lead to extended payment times [1]. - The payment process involves multiple stages (delivery, acceptance, invoicing, payment), and companies may manipulate these stages to delay payments [1][2]. Group 2: Industry Practices - Some automotive companies, like BYD, have indicated that their payment terms are not the longest in the industry, with some competitors having payment terms exceeding 200 days [2]. - Extending supplier payment terms can be seen as a form of "interest-free loan" for automotive companies, allowing them to avoid bank loan interest and shift financial burdens onto suppliers [2]. - The complexity of the payment process can create opportunities for corruption and inefficiencies, making it essential for companies to clarify the entire payment timeline to ensure suppliers receive payments within the promised 60 days [2][3]. Group 3: Implementation Challenges - Many companies have only provided vague commitments regarding the 60-day payment term without detailing the specific steps to ensure compliance [3]. - Only a few companies, such as SAIC and BAIC, have explicitly stated that they will not use commercial acceptance bills, which could increase financial pressure on suppliers [3].