Delaying Payment to Suppliers

On the one hand, extending payment terms is understandable. It represents a flexible source of credit, reflective of the value of business with a supplier. It is also potentially a low-cost source of credit as suppliers tend not to charge interest on the amount outstanding for fear of damaging the relationship (often despite contractual or even regulatory/legal rights to do so).

The unilateral move of organisations towards delaying payments often gives the supplier little choice, especially given the balance of power in the relationship. It also ignores that the supplier’s pricing results from an earlier negotiation and agreement of payment terms.

The value of being a customer of choice

• Money – either it is a large source of revenue or profit
• Brand – or organisational alignment
• Behavioural aspects – i.e. whether you are easy to work with, whether you listen and whether they feel valued

• Achievement
• Being listened to
• Recognition
• Type or quality of work
• Responsibility/trust

The financial benefit of delayed payment

To demonstrate the financial benefits of extending payment terms, let’s take the example of Jackson Steinem & Co., a fictional organisation paying its supplier £1.2 million per annum. For ease of our example, Jackson Steinem & Co.’s supplier payments are broken into 12 monthly payments of £100,000 each. The payment terms are 30 days and Jackson Steinem & Co.’s cost of capital is 5%.

 

Jackson Steinem & Co. decide to change their supplier payment terms from 30 to 60 days – and despite their £1.2m annual spend with the supplier, they save only £417.

 

For those interested, here’s the maths:

The formula to calculate the savings from delaying payment is as follows:

 

Delaying payments to suppliers - maths2

 

Jackson Steinem & Co. avoids the cost of capital for 30 days, which results in a saving of (((60 days minus 30 days = 30 days) divided by (30 days x 12 payments per year)) times the cost of capital, 5%) times the monthly amount, £100,000 = £417.

 

Or for the more mathematical of you: (((60-30)/(30x12)*0.05)*£100,000) = £417.

 

Remember the saving is on the cost of capital for the payment.

 

A common mistake is thinking that extending payment terms produces a saving of 5% of £100,000 (i.e. £5,000) because you are changing the payment terms which affect each month’s payment. Like Jackson Steinem & Co., the large majority of organisational spending is not one-off but regular ongoing monthly payments over the life of the contract (typically years).

 

In this case, Jackson Steinem & Co, hasn’t changed the frequency of the payments, nor the amount owed. They are still paid monthly, however, there is one month when a payment is delayed, but it still must be paid.

 

 

The customer of choice benefit

As mentioned, our research has shown that good SRM drives on average between 4 to 6% per annum benefit, so for ease of comparison let’s say 5%. For Jackson Steinem & Co., this equates to an annual saving of 5% of £1.2m, or £60,000.

 

Compare the £417 saving from extending payment terms to the £60,000 that Jackson Steinem & Co. could have saved through implementing SRM with their supplier. It’s clear to see which is more beneficial financially for Jackson Steinem & Co., not to mention the customer of choice benefits that they would attract by being better to work with.

 

So delaying suppliers’ payments doesn’t pay, but implementing SRM does. For more information about SRM or SRM research, please go to www.stateofflux.co.uk.