Core Viewpoint - The revised "Regulations on Payment of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises" has been officially implemented on June 1, providing hope for SMEs facing payment delays in a challenging economic environment [1][2]. Group 1: Regulation Implementation - The new regulations require large enterprises to pay within 60 days from the date of delivery, preventing indefinite payment delays [2]. - The regulations prohibit forcing SMEs to accept non-cash payment methods like commercial bills, ensuring quicker cash flow for SMEs [2]. - The regulations aim to create a fairer trading environment by banning conditional payments based on third-party payments, reducing uncertainty for SMEs [2]. Group 2: Challenges and Enforcement - Despite the positive changes, the implementation of the regulations faces challenges due to a slowing economy and reduced payment capabilities among enterprises [3]. - To ensure effective enforcement, it is essential to establish clear penalties for violations based on the amount and duration of payment delays [3][4]. - A national credit information platform should be established to blacklist companies that deliberately delay payments, restricting their access to government contracts and loans [3]. Group 3: Tailored Solutions for SMEs - Different sectors and sizes of SMEs have unique payment needs, necessitating targeted payment terms and solutions [4]. - For smaller enterprises, policies should favor cash payments and reduce the use of delayed payment instruments like bills [4]. - Financial institutions should be encouraged to offer short-term loans with government interest subsidies to support SMEs [4][5]. Group 4: Dynamic Policy Adjustments - Payment terms and solutions should be adjusted based on market conditions and the financial status of enterprises [5]. - Regular assessments of payment situations across industries will help in refining payment regulations and support policies [5]. - Addressing the payment issues of SMEs is crucial for the stability and growth of the national economy, particularly in the automotive sector [5].

Core Viewpoint - The recent focus on standardizing supplier payment terms to within 60 days by leading automotive companies has reignited discussions around supply chain financial tools, particularly accounts receivable electronic certificates and their potential regulation [1][4][18]. Summary by Sections Supplier Payment Terms - Nearly 20 automotive companies have announced a unified payment term of 60 days for suppliers, but concerns remain regarding the calculation rules and payment methods [1][4]. - The revised "Regulations on Payment of Funds to Small and Medium-sized Enterprises" emphasizes that large enterprises must pay within 60 days and cannot force small suppliers to accept non-cash payment methods [5][19]. Supply Chain Financial Tools - Accounts receivable electronic certificates were initially designed to alleviate "triangle debts" in the supply chain and help small enterprises with financing issues, but their misuse has raised concerns [2][10]. - The market for accounts receivable electronic certificates is projected to reach 4.4 trillion yuan by 2024, with financing amounts around 3 trillion yuan [12]. Payment Methods and Their Impact - The reliance on commercial bills (商票) varies among companies, with some like BYD and GAC using them more extensively, while others like BAIC and SAIC have committed to eliminating them [3][6][7]. - The average accounts payable turnover days for major automotive companies exceed 100 days, indicating a significant delay in payments [8][16]. Regulatory Developments - New regulations have been implemented to tighten the use of supply chain financial tools, aiming to ensure that payment terms are clear and that the tools are not misused to extend payment periods [18][19]. - The recent regulations also highlight the importance of a genuine trade background for electronic certificates and set a maximum payment term of one year [19]. Future Outlook - The future of accounts receivable electronic certificates remains uncertain, but a complete ban across the industry is unlikely due to their established demand and the scale of their use by core enterprises [18][20]. - The industry is moving towards a model that emphasizes data credit over core enterprise credit, which may lead to healthier competition and development of various financial tools [21].

Core Viewpoint - The recent focus on standardizing supplier payment terms to within 60 days by leading automotive companies has reignited discussions around supply chain financial tools, particularly accounts receivable electronic certificates, which have faced scrutiny for their potential misuse and lack of regulation [1][19]. Summary by Sections Supplier Payment Terms - Nearly 20 automotive companies have announced a unified payment term of 60 days for suppliers, but concerns remain regarding the calculation rules and payment methods [1][4]. - The revised "Regulations on Ensuring Payment to Small and Medium Enterprises" has been implemented, mandating large enterprises to pay within 60 days of delivery [4][5]. Supply Chain Financial Tools - Accounts receivable electronic certificates were initially designed to alleviate "triangle debts" in the supply chain and help small businesses with financing challenges [2][14]. - The market for accounts receivable electronic certificates is projected to reach 4.4 trillion yuan by 2024, with financing amounts around 3 trillion yuan [13]. Payment Methods and Their Implications - Some companies, like BAIC and SAIC, have committed to eliminating commercial acceptance bills (商票) as a payment method, which has been criticized for increasing supplier financial pressure [6][7]. - The use of commercial bills is relatively low among major automotive companies, with a significant reliance on bank bills instead [7][8]. Regulatory Developments - New regulations have been introduced to tighten the use of supply chain financial tools, particularly focusing on the transparency and duration of payment terms [19][20]. - The recent regulations emphasize the need for a real trade background and set a principle that payment terms for electronic certificates should generally not exceed 6 months [20]. Industry Challenges - The accounts receivable electronic certificates have been criticized for potentially extending payment periods, with some certificates having terms as long as 2 years [16][17]. - The financial strain on small suppliers is exacerbated by the reliance on core enterprises, which can manipulate payment terms to their advantage [15][21]. Future Outlook - The future of accounts receivable electronic certificates remains uncertain, but the demand for such tools is expected to persist, albeit with increased regulation [19][20]. - The industry is moving towards a model that emphasizes data credit over core enterprise credit, which may lead to healthier competition and development of various financial tools [21].

Core Insights - Major automotive companies are standardizing supplier payment terms to within 60 days, raising concerns about the implications for supply chain finance tools [1][2] - The implementation of new regulations aims to address the long payment cycles and "triangular debt" issues faced by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) [3][4] - The market for accounts receivable electronic certificates is projected to reach 4.4 trillion yuan in 2024, indicating significant demand for this financial tool [11] Group 1: Payment Terms and Regulations - Nearly 20 automotive companies have committed to a unified payment term of 60 days, but many have not clarified the calculation rules for this period [1][5] - The revised "Regulations on Payment of Funds to Small and Medium-sized Enterprises" mandates that large enterprises must pay within 60 days of delivery, prohibiting the use of non-cash payment methods to extend payment terms [3][4] - The new regulations are seen as a response to the increasing scale of accounts receivable, which reached nearly 26 trillion yuan by April 2023, with an average recovery period of 70.3 days [4] Group 2: Supply Chain Finance Tools - The discussion around the exclusion of accounts receivable electronic certificates from supply chain finance tools has emerged, with some advocating for a complete ban on such tools [2][9] - The accounts receivable electronic certificate was initially designed to alleviate financing difficulties for SMEs but has faced criticism for being misused by some core enterprises [11][12] - The recent regulations emphasize the need for a real trade background and set a maximum payment term of one year for electronic certificates, aiming to enhance transparency and accountability [16][17] Group 3: Industry Impact and Future Outlook - The automotive sector's shift towards standardized payment terms is viewed as a positive signal, but the actual impact will depend on the clarity of the payment cycle calculation [8][16] - The reliance on non-cash payment methods, such as commercial bills and electronic certificates, remains a concern, particularly for SMEs facing cash flow pressures [6][8] - The future of accounts receivable electronic certificates is uncertain, with industry experts suggesting that while there is a need for regulation, a complete ban is unlikely due to the existing demand [16][18]

Core Insights - The chairman of Zhongqi Yunlian, Liu Jiang, discussed the importance of digital financial solutions in addressing financing bottlenecks for enterprises, particularly through the use of electronic receivables certificates [2][4] - Liu emphasized the need for core enterprises to adhere to contractual obligations to protect the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) [2][5] Digitalization and Platformization Trends - The industry is experiencing two major trends: digitalization, which addresses information asymmetry, and platformization, which connects core enterprises, financial institutions, and SMEs [3][4] - Digital technologies enhance information transmission, allowing banks to better serve SMEs in the real economy [3] Regulatory Changes and Industry Evolution - Recent regulatory changes have led to greater recognition of supply chain finance, encouraging banks and core enterprises to participate in this business model [4] - The regulations emphasize "subject credit," "data credit," and "material credit," aiming to collaboratively resolve financing challenges for enterprises [4] Importance of Contractual Integrity - Liu highlighted the need for the industry to uphold the spirit of contracts, urging large enterprises to fulfill their agreements with SMEs to facilitate financing from banks [5][7] - The health of the supply chain finance industry relies on maintaining this contractual integrity, supported by regulatory oversight [7] Operational Challenges - There are operational pain points, such as banks requiring suppliers to open accounts at multiple banks, which complicates financing for SMEs [6] - Some banks do not provide financing to individual businesses, indicating a need for better communication with regulatory bodies to improve services for these entities [6] Recommendations for High-Quality Development - The industry should focus on maintaining the spirit of contracts and ensuring that large enterprises act as responsible "chain leaders" [7] - Continuous regulatory oversight is essential to ensure the effective application of supply chain finance tools and to mitigate potential abuses [7]

Core Viewpoint - The new regulations on supply chain finance in China aim to enhance the protection of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and improve the overall health of the supply chain finance ecosystem, effective from June 15, 2025 [1][2]. Summary by Relevant Sections Regulatory Changes - The People's Bank of China, along with several regulatory bodies, has issued new guidelines that officially include accounts receivable electronic vouchers into the regulatory framework, which is expected to foster industry development and innovation [2][3]. - The new regulations signal a shift towards "de-financialization" of supply chain finance platforms, emphasizing their role as information platforms rather than credit platforms, which will promote healthier development of third-party platforms [2][3]. Risk Management - The new regulations introduce a comprehensive credit risk management system, including monitoring of all debts of core enterprises and addressing risks associated with bill circulation [3][4]. - The regulations replace the previous cash flow indicators with a focus on the financial condition of enterprises as a risk warning metric, aiming to create a more robust credit risk prevention framework [3][4]. Payment Practices - The regulations address the issue of delayed payments to SMEs by core enterprises, mandating timely payments and prohibiting unreasonable payment terms or the abuse of non-cash payment methods to extend payment periods [5][6]. - The maximum payment period for accounts receivable electronic vouchers is set at six months, with a maximum of one year [5][6]. Fee Structures - The new guidelines regulate the charging practices of core enterprises and supply chain information service providers, ensuring that fees related to accounts receivable confirmation are reasonable and transparent [6][7]. - Core enterprises are prohibited from charging SMEs under the guise of accounts receivable confirmation and must clearly define and publicize their service fee standards [6][7].

Core Viewpoint - The People's Bank of China, along with several regulatory bodies, has issued a notification to standardize supply chain finance practices, enhance financial services for the real economy, and mitigate potential financial risks, effective from June 15, 2025 [1] Group 1: Supply Chain Financial Practices - Financial institutions and core supply chain enterprises have been providing information services and technical support for supply chain finance activities through information service systems, which have been beneficial for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) [1] - However, there are risks such as excessive credit expansion by core enterprises and a lack of necessary standards and management regulations for supply chain information service systems [1] Group 2: Payment Terms and Financial Support - The notification stipulates that the payment term for accounts receivable electronic vouchers should generally be within 6 months and not exceed 1 year, ensuring timely payments to SMEs [2] - It emphasizes that core enterprises must not exploit their position to delay payments or impose unreasonable payment terms on SMEs [2] - The notification encourages commercial banks to develop diverse supply chain finance models and support SMEs in obtaining credit loans and financing based on orders, inventory, and other assets [2] Group 3: Risk Management and Compliance - Commercial banks are required to enhance risk management in supply chain finance, including monitoring the overall debt of core enterprises to prevent excessive credit and misuse of supply chain finance [3] - Supply chain information service institutions must not engage in financial activities without proper authorization and should avoid transforming information intermediaries into credit intermediaries [3] - Regulatory bodies will guide self-regulatory organizations in the supply chain finance industry to establish management rules and conduct risk monitoring [3]