Over the past two decades, payment systems in most developed markets have moved from slow, multi-day processes—like checks—to near-instant transfers between counterparties. Yet, while buyers can now move funds in real time, many still delay payments, often to maintain cash reserves within their supply chains.
As Hugh Thomas, Lead Analyst, Commercial & Enterprise at Javelin Strategy & Research, explains in Faster Funds by Fiat: A Global Comparison of Payment Timing Regulations, it has fallen to governments to ensure that buyers’ desire to hang onto cash doesn’t unduly burden suppliers, particularly smaller ones.
Why Is This Happening?
The tendency to push out supplier payments longer stems from the global financial crisis. Financial analysts began evaluating companies more closely based on cash flow: how much ready cash they have, how much cash they generate, and how much can be extracted from the business at any given time.
Once readily available cash became an important fiscal consideration, companies had an incentive to delay payments to keep money in their hands as long as possible.
“There’s an ability to get paid by one party, then hold off on paying for your input costs and have that much cash on hand as a result of your supply chain,” said Thomas. “Large companies have tended to hoard cash more often in the past 15 years and that’s one thing that governments want to address.”
Another driver for government intervention, especially in developing markets, is high inflation. Brazil was one of the first countries to implement ubiquitous real-time payments, which makes sense given that its real interest rates have reached 30% to 40%. In such environments, if suppliers have to wait 60 days to get paid, they’re effectively selling at a 5% to 7% discount. It’s therefore unsurprising that regulators have mandated faster payment times in markets with high interest rates.
Finding the Formula
As a result, many governments are ensuring that suppliers have recourse when buyers delay payments. Some regimes offer fast-track arbitration system, allowing payees to resolve disputes through specialist arbiters.
In other regions, governments collaborate with local financiers to create a government-approved invoice discounting market. Regulators influence who qualifies for these programs and what financiers can charge, effectively accelerating supplier payments.
“That’s a way of speeding payment to suppliers without what I think is the worst thing you could conceivably do, which is to actually mandate how quickly a buyer needs to pay their suppliers,” said Thomas. “There are 100 different reasons why you don’t want the government telling you that you can’t let invoices age any longer than 60 days. If you’re an aerospace manufacturer, you’re going to have long lead times and a lot of elapsed time in your supply chain as people build custom parts. You wouldn’t want the same set of rules applying to an aerospace manufacturer as you would for a fast-food restaurant, where stuff gets dropped off every day.”
“Name and Shame”
Thomas highlights another effective indirect approach: the so-called “name and shame” scheme. Governments require public disclosure of how quickly companies pay their bills and how well they adhere to agreed payment terms. Under these rules, businesses must report how many payments are made within 30 days, 60 days, and the average time taken to pay. Australia and the UK have successfully used these schemes to reduce average days payable, improve days sales outstanding, and boost compliance with payment terms.
These initiatives also provide journalists with insights into which firms merely claim to support small suppliers but fail in practice. Australia has refined its approach to increase public exposure and encourage investigative reporting.
Publicizing the Findings
In the UK, disclosure is now required in companies’ directors’ reports, akin to the SEC requirements for U.S. firms, ensuring visibility to shareholders and analysts.
“You have to be a principal in the company to sign off on this,” said Thomas. “Your name’s going to go next to it saying, this is how our payment practices run. There’s some reputational exposure there, and some duty of care considerations. “
This transparency also helps suppliers make informed decisions. A supplier may discover that a customer only pays to terms 20% of the time, with an average payment period of 90 days. Even if 30-day terms are standard, the supplier can price in the likelihood of delayed payment, avoiding cash flow traps and negotiating more realistically.
“The UK has done a great job with this, but I’ve also been surprised to see the latest mandate to put these figures in the annual reports,” Thomas added. “That is them presumably saying we don’t think we’ve gone far enough in terms of addressing this problem.”
Two-Track Progress
Overall, Thomas sees progress as uneven. Roughly 60% of companies have improved since these payment initiatives were introduced, while about 30% have worsened—and in some cases, significantly so.
Nevertheless, governments recognize the importance of pushing payments to be faster. Businesses risk facing stricter regulatory action if they fail to comply with these initiatives.
“Maybe there’s something to the notion of taking on something like this to avoid the risk of taking on something more draconian,” said Thomas. “Doing this as opposed to finding the right balance of encouragement without coercion is going to be important.”
