LC Forfaiting versus DA Forfaiting

LC Forfaiting versus DA Forfaiting

Forfaiting helps F.I. (Exporter’s Bank) to manage risk as well as access to competitive financing provided by the financing bank. USD is a good example where HK or Singapore based financing banks can offer a much more competitive financing rate than elsewhere due to relative ease in tapping into USD liquidity pool from HK and Singapore.

When would an F.I. consider Forfaiting option? Say the F.I. is already maxed out on Bank of China (BOC) credit limit but they still want to accommodate their corporate client on a new financing request involving a BOC LC. The F.I. could approach one of the financing banks to look at LC Forfaiting.

The F.I. would scan through their existing LC portfolio where they have already assumed BOC risk. They would select a BOC LC transaction where latter has accepted the documents and a due date has been provided. Hence there is no documentary risk whatsoever for the financing bank. Once the terms of the cooperation agreed with the financing bank including net interest margin, a SWIFT transactional agreement would normally be sent by the financing bank to the F.I. in question. The F.I. would then send a SWIFT message to BOC the LC issuing bank notifying latter that the LC proceeds have been assigned to the financing bank and please pay the financing bank at maturity. Once the notice of assignment has been executed, the financing bank will then disburse funds to the F.I. in question. The bottom line is that it achieves two objectives for the F.I. in question namely a) the BOC credit limit is now free up to accommodate their corporate client’s new BOC LC financing request and b) it helps the F.I. to churn over their LC receivable much faster and at the same time making a skim say 15-20 basis points out of the Forfaiting transaction without taking BOC credit and country risk.

DA Forfaiting is different than LC Forfaiting in that there is no LC instrument. It operates on the basis of a documentary acceptance DA transaction and it is subject to ICC URC 522. In China market, a SWIFT guarantee is normally issued by the importer’s bank in favour of the financing bank instead of former stamping their avalization on the bill of exchange or known as a draft.

For more details such as enforceability of the assignment of notice and how to navigate the intricacies of bills of exchange act or equivalent in various countries, please reach out to us to have a discussion on how this idea can benefit you as an F.I.

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Alan K.L. Wong的更多文章

  • To Factor Or Not To Factor

    To Factor Or Not To Factor

    Picture this. You just walked out of a post-covid-19 scenario.

    4 条评论
  • Use of Counter-Guarantee in cross-border transaction

    Use of Counter-Guarantee in cross-border transaction

    Did you know your correspondent bank can help if your corporate client wants to do business in a country where you as…

    2 条评论
  • Demystifying UPAS LC

    Demystifying UPAS LC

    UPAS stands for Usance Payable At Sight LC. Interestingly, you can use it as a financing instrument to finance either…

    14 条评论
  • Can Bank Payment Obligation and Blockchain co-exist?

    Can Bank Payment Obligation and Blockchain co-exist?

    Yes it can. Bank Payment Obligation or BPO was created by SWIFT back in July 2013.

    5 条评论
  • The Blockchain revolution is coming!

    The Blockchain revolution is coming!

    Fasten your seatbelt. Blockchain is going to revolutionize how trade transactions are currently done.

    2 条评论
  • Why Implement SCF?

    Why Implement SCF?

    Supply chain finance is no rocket science. It leverages on the stronger credit rating of the buyer and hence cheaper…

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了