车企账期承诺：薛定谔的“60天”

Core Viewpoint - The automotive supply chain is under significant pressure due to long payment terms, with 17 automakers committing to a 60-day payment term for suppliers, raising questions about the effectiveness of this solution in alleviating supply chain stress [1][2]. Group 1: Payment Terms and Supply Chain Pressure - The accounts receivable in the automotive parts industry have been increasing significantly since 2014, with some companies seeing a tenfold increase over a decade [2]. - Major automakers like BYD, Great Wall, and SAIC have accounts payable turnover days of 145, 153, and 177 days respectively, which is higher than competitors like Tesla and Volkswagen [2]. - The extended payment terms allow automakers to use the funds for price competition, placing financial strain on suppliers who are left waiting for payments [2][3]. Group 2: Execution Challenges of 60-Day Commitment - The 60-day commitment does not guarantee that suppliers will receive payments within that timeframe, as it often refers to the issuance of acceptance bills rather than cash payments [2][3]. - The payment process is fragmented, and suppliers may face delays in receiving cash even after the 60 days if they are given bills instead of cash [3]. Group 3: Settlement Methods and Financial Risks - Cash payments are preferred by suppliers, but most automakers use acceptance bills, which can extend the payment period further [3][4]. - Acceptance bills can be either bank-accepted or commercial, with commercial bills posing a higher risk of delayed payments [4]. - The implementation of regulations to protect small and medium enterprises from forced acceptance of non-cash payment methods has been introduced, but compliance varies among automakers [4]. Group 4: Industry Competition and Cost Pressures - The automotive industry is experiencing intense price competition, which is pushing cost pressures down the supply chain, affecting suppliers at all levels [6][7]. - Steel manufacturers have reported that automakers are demanding price reductions exceeding 10%, which is unsustainable for suppliers [6][7]. - The trend of demanding lower prices has become normalized, leading to detrimental effects on product quality and supplier viability [7][8].