KR20050024403A - Automated method and exchange for facilitating settlement of transactions - Google Patents

Abstract

By greatly simplifying account payable, credit, and collection processes for participants, and by adjusting gaps between marginal borrowing rates, the terms and conditions of the transaction and the resulting cash are beneficial to each other. To transform the flow, a system and method are described for settlement of transactions between supply chain participants that offer unique possibilities to the participants.

Description

Automated method and exchange for facilitating settlement of transactions}

FIELD OF THE INVENTION The present invention relates to financial settlements, and in particular, to an automated method and system for facilitating settlements between parties that differ in the marginal cost of the fund.

Traditional financial settlements between buyers and sellers of goods and services involve inefficiencies, leading to both invoice delivery, credit-invoking-credit-collection processes, and procurement-accounts payable processes. This leads to expensive manual intervention. Financial EDI using ANSI X.12 transaction sets, EDIFACT transaction sets, or customized protocols is only minimally successful due to consensus on certain expensive, interactive protocols. As such, concurrent EDI has the potential for greater supply chain efficiency, and low operating costs for participants, but there are variations that are elusive.

A related problem with supply chain settlement is the different conditions of the transaction. The terms of the transaction are comprehensive terms including the format of the invoice information; The time between the supply and payment period of the goods or services is due; Discounts on advance payments; Type of payment; Currency of payment; Place of payment order and remittance information. In general, large entities dictate the terms of the transaction for small entities, which are usually suppliers. Paradoxically, small firms are often poorly equipped to comply with the terms of the transaction dictated by large customers and spend increasing incremental compliance costs significantly exceeding the incremental value they enjoy without waiting. .

This phenomenon is most evident when different borrowing costs are evaluated. Large investment stage companies may have the ability to borrow increasing funds at or near LIBOR interest rates (ie, London Interbank Offer Rate). However, downstream investment stage suppliers often have marginal costs for funds that exceed 4 or 5% of LIBOR interest rates. Supply chain inefficiency arises when large customers dictate a long term between the receipt of goods or services and their associated payments. This is because downstream investment stage suppliers have to pay borrowing costs that significantly exceed the value enjoyed by investment stage customers. That is, the difference in borrowing interest of 4-5% represents a value that can be shared by buyers and sellers by encouraging payment due dates as an exchange for reduced purchase costs.

Previous attempts have been made to improve the supply chain inefficiency.

For example, US Pat. No. 6,167,385 discloses a supply chain financial system and method. In the above method, the "buyer places a purchase order for the goods, which is sent to the supplier who in turn ships the goods to the buyer. The supplier sends an invoice to the buyer who stores the invoice data in the database. An institution (eg, a bank) electronically accesses the database and retrieves daily invoices, after which the financial institution calculates the appropriate financial processing for the goods shipped and pays the supplier. Buyers make payments by financial institutions by sending gross proceeds.

The system and method disclosed in US Pat. No. 6,167,385 suffers from a number of deficiencies and problems.

The installation process is quite complicated, time consuming and expensive. According to the patent,

"Before actually carrying out the [method], the parties involved must evaluate the expected potential savings. ... The evaluation process is undertaken by the buyer borrowing the [bank]. ... [Bank] reviews the electronic commerce infrastructure between the buyer and its trading partner .... If the evaluation has sufficient financial benefit, the bank may examine the customer's relationship with that trading partner and other non-financial objects of the customer. Consider the structure and implementation methods: [Bank] interviews its trading partners to evaluate the supply chain acquisitions used ... Understand other non-financial objects and business value that will affect the implementation of the contract. ... If the results of the interview are all satisfactory and the parties agree to continue, there are some technical, operational and legal proceedings to be enacted. Determine the appropriate line rate (advandce financing rate) for each week (vendor) to participate. "

In addition, the prepayment rate determined by the buyer and the bank for each seller (vendor) is not based on the cost of the fund specified by the buyer and specified by the seller.

Moreover, financial transactions always take place between third parties (eg banks). The bank bears the risk to its own fund by paying the seller before receiving payment from the buyer at the end of the mortgage. Thus, the profits enjoyed by the buyer and / or seller are reduced by the cost of the bank acting as a financial vehicle. The costs of the financial interference by a third party are usually borne by the buyer and seller by using a computerized exchange to propose changes to the terms of payment of the transaction between the buyer and the seller or to change the transaction. It will be bigger than the cost. That is, the cost charged by a bank acting as a financial intermediary will be greater than the cost charged by an exchange acting as an information mediator.

In another example, US Patent Publication US2002 / 0082985 discloses: "In a method and system for processing a buyer's existing or future transaction credit debt (commonly referred to as accounts payable or trade payable). How to convert (i) existing or future transaction credit liabilities to new liabilities and provide financial and other benefits to buyers (ii) ... More specifically, ... financial companies (eg banks) And the buyer is presented with the buyer's supplier the opportunity to obtain a prompt and facilitated payment of the buyer's current or future transaction credit debt, instead of providing a discount rate, commonly referred to as a "fast payment discount", from such transaction credit debt. Under the circumstances, they enter into contracts in accordance with the mechanisms established. Make an agreement or bid on the stored payment, in accordance with the agreement, the financial company pays the discounted price of the transaction credit debt on behalf of the buyer, and the buyer completes the transaction credit debt at the time of the contract on the future date. The price is now higher than the discounted price of the transaction credit debt up to the par value.

Similar US Pat. No. 6,167,385 and US Patent Publication No. US2002 / 0082982 are quite cumbersome, time consuming and expensive. This uses an auction that determines the quick payment discount of each transaction rather than using the buyer's and seller's fund costs. Thus, the system does not propose a change to the purchase order or the realization of the change based on the difference in the cost of the buyer's and seller's funds.

In another example, US patent application publication US2002 / 0099655 describes a system for facilitating seller finance and advance payment. The system also allows buyers and sellers to modify purchase order agreements.

However, the form of seller financing promoted by the system is merely using conventional third party financial mediators, e.g., the seller obtains a prepayment from a borrower who "..." and then is entitled to payment from the buyer. It's just something. Thus, the potential benefit to the buyer and / or seller is reduced by the cost paid for the financial arbitrator. In addition, the system does not receive or evaluate the cost of the fund for the buyer or seller. Thus, the system does not propose or realize changes to purchase orders based on differences in buyer and seller costs of the fund.

In another example, US patent application publication US2003 / 0018563 discloses a method and system that facilitates financial investment in the processing and trading of commercial receivable accounts. Similar to the other prior art cited above, US patent application publication US2003 / 0018563 is quite cumbersome, time consuming and expensive. The above uses a dynamic transaction procedure (eg, auction) to determine the discount rate to be applied to each receiving account. Similar to U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US2002 / 0099655, the system does not receive or evaluate the cost of the fund for the buyer or seller. Thus, the system also does not implement the change or propose a change to the purchase order based on a difference in the cost of the buyer's or seller's fund.

1 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example system interface between a participant and a financial settlement exchange, ie via an ERP system and via a customer interface module.

2 is a schematic diagram illustrating certain exemplary components of a user interface for a financial settlement exchange.

3 is a flow chart of an example procedure for facilitating financial settlement of a transaction between parties with different marginal costs of funds.

4 is a schematic diagram illustrating the flow of information and funds between a participant and a financial settlement exchange for a strong buyer / weak seller scenario.

5 is a schematic diagram illustrating the flow of information and funds between the participant and the financial settlement exchange for a weak buyer / strong seller scenario.

The present invention provides an automated method and system that facilitates the settlement of transactions between parties that differ in the marginal cost of the fund, thereby overcoming problems and limitations of the prior art.

One feature of the present invention includes a method in which a computerized financial settlement exchange receives the buyer costs of funds and the seller costs of funds, and payment terms of one or more transactions. The exchange determines whether the transaction is eligible for a change based at least in part on the buyer's cost of the funds, the seller's cost of the funds, and one or more payment terms of the transaction. If the exchange determines that the transaction is suitable for a change, the exchange proposes that one or more payment terms be changed, or changes the payment terms.

In one embodiment, the change does not include financial interference by a third party, such as a bank that finances.

Another feature of the invention includes a system for realizing a financial settlement exchange.

Another feature of the invention includes a machine readable recording medium having stored thereon data representing sequences of instructions for operating the exchange.

The present invention differs from the prior art because it does not require a third party (usually a financial institution) to finance financing and mediate transactions for participants. In addition, participants usually provide each other with transactional credits that can be extended or shortened based on their relative borrowing and / or investment rates, and their preferences for liquidity.

Advantages of the present invention are beneficial to all participants, including low paying account operating costs, low receivable account and credit operating costs, low banking costs, the ability to promote liquidity in ways that increase revenue at the same time, low borrowing costs, investments Increased circulation, greater borrowing capacity, improved circulation of capital used, and convenient accounting characteristics.

Also, as the number of participants in the exchange increases, "simultaneous EDI" becomes possible and practical. The exchange will benefit from receiving bank fee, participant fee, and discount fee fee. In addition, the exchange will be uniquely acquainted with the trading patterns of its participants, thus giving participants a unique ability to expand the proposed supply chain.

Previous and other embodiments of the present invention will become apparent to those skilled in the art by the following detailed description of the invention in conjunction with the accompanying drawings and the appended claims.

A method and system are described for facilitating settlement of transactions between parties that differ in their marginal cost of funds. Embodiments of the present invention will be described with reference to the accompanying drawings. While embodiments of the invention have been described in connection with the accompanying drawings, it should be understood that they do not limit the invention to only these specific embodiments. On the contrary, the invention is intended to cover modifications, variations, and equivalent embodiments that fall within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims.

In addition, many specific details are set forth in the following description in order to provide a thorough understanding of the present invention. However, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that the present invention may be practiced without these specific details. Other examples, methods, processes, components, and networks known to those skilled in the art are not described in detail so as not to obscure the features of the present invention.

Individual sources give slightly different meanings or ranges to financial terms. Thus, in the specification and claims, the definitions set out below will be contrasted.

Buyer: An entity that purchases goods and / or services from a seller. The buyer generally takes over the goods or services before making a payment to the seller using a transactional credit.

Cost of funds: The marginal borrowing rate or the participant's marginal investment rate as applicable.

Credit limit: The maximum amount of a transaction credit the seller is willing to extend to the buyer.

Entity: An entity can be a person, institution, company, corporation, partnership, government agent, or university.

ERP system: An enterprise resource planning system, or computer application and system used to manage the procurement and financial transactions of an entity.

Financial intervention: Occurs when a third party (e.g., a financial institution such as a bank) provides financing for transactions between buyers and sellers.

Financial settlement exchange ("(exchange"): Receives the buyer's cost of funds, the seller's cost of funds, and one or more payment terms of the transaction, and whether the transaction is eligible for a change based at least in part on the received information. A computer system that facilitates financial settlement by determining and proposing a change to one or more payment terms and / or by changing one or more conditions.

The exchange will generally also consider other information, such as liquidity preferences of the buyer and seller, when determining whether a transaction is suitable for change. The exchange will also usually make the change without financial interference by a third party (eg a bank).

In most cases, the exchange computer system may be part of an entity doing business with a plurality of buyers and a plurality of sellers, but may be separate from any particular buyer or seller. However, it is also possible for the exchange to be part of a particular buyer or seller. For example, a strong buyer can install and operate a financial settlement exchange with a seller. Conversely, a strong seller can install and operate a financial settlement exchange with a buyer.

The switching computer system includes a machine readable medium having stored thereon data representing a series of instructions for operating the switching unit.

Forfait-The process of purchasing a receivable account from a seller based on a recourse and funding the purchase through an external source of the fund.

Initial terms-the terms of the transaction that were committed when the transaction was made (e.g., due date, type of payment, rapid rate of payment, etc.)

Liquidity preferences-Participant's formal desire to speed up or slow down the flow of cash in exchange for reduced or increased profits.

Marginal Borrowing Rate-Increased or marginal rate of interest corresponding to short-term borrowings. The borrowing rate is preferably a self-determined interest rate determined by the borrower, which the attendee can change from time to time. Participants have a strong incentive to pinpoint the above interests because either overstatement or understatement limits economically attractive opportunities for trade changes or causes non-economically attractive changes to occur.

Marginal Permeability-The increase or marginal interest rate that corresponds to a short-term investment. The interest rate is preferably a self-determined rate determined by the investor that the participant can change from time to time. Participants have a strong incentive to pinpoint the above interests, either because the overstatement or understatement limits economically attractive opportunities for trade changes or causes non-economically attractive changes to occur.

Participant-the party to the transaction, i.e. buyer and seller

Seller-an entity that sells goods and / or services to a buyer

Transactional Credit-A letter of credit extended by the Buyer that allows the Buyer to pay the Seller, for example, on a future date after receipt of the Goods. Transactional credits generally have a credit limit.

 Transactions-the purchase of goods and / or services

1 illustrates two example system interfaces between a participant and the financial settlement exchange 100. The participant ERP exchange unit 100 exchanges information with the exchange unit 100 via the payment account module 120, the receiving account module 130, and the communication lines (150, 160). In addition, the customer interface module 140 exchanges information with the exchange unit 100 via the communication line 170. The communication lines 150, 160, 170 may be in some form of communication networks, such as the Internet, a secure private network, or a public switched telephone network (PSTN).

FIG. 2 illustrates exemplary components of the user interface for the exchange 100, including user information 200, credit limits 210 for trading partners, net liquidity schedule 220, net liquidity. Forecast 230, data relating to liquidity preference 240, and a panel displaying transaction data received (usually stored) by exchange 100.

3 is a flowchart of an exemplary process for financial settlement of a transaction between parties with differences in their marginal costs of the fund.

In step 10, participants register with exchange 100 by providing certain information about credit limits for themselves and their trading partners. Exemplary registration information received by exchange 100 includes, without limitation:

a. Legal name

b. Participant's Address

c. Company identification code specific to the participant's business (eg taxpayer ID). The participant may have a plurality of company identification codes specific to the plurality of businesses.

d. Participant's Fund Cost

e. Participant bank information including the ABA routing number, account number, and payment to the appropriate bank account, and other information needed by the exchange 100 to direct debt payments from the spending bank account.

f. Credit limits specific to the participant's trading partner. The credit limit may be provided by automated linkage to the participant's ERP system or by manual key entry.

The exchange unit 100 usually stores registration information received from a database. However, the information may be changed by the participant as needed. For example, the participant has the ability to change the terms of a transaction to optimize the balance between financial fulfillment and cache flow requirements based on a blanket or separate transaction.

In step 20 the participant establishes liquidity preferences. Participants have a strong qualification to indicate their preferences to encourage or slow cache flows as an exchange for their decreasing or increasing benefits. For example, participants investigating the liquidity preference 240 of FIG. 2 maximize the liquidity at any cost, maximize liquidity up to a certain premium above the marginal borrowing interest, and at a higher or equal cost for the marginal borrowing interest. A preference may be selected to maximize, or maximize liquidity, up to a certain discount rate for marginal borrowing interest. The preference may be indicated for a single date, a range of dates, or for future notifications. Conversely, participants reduce liquidity at certain premiums above the marginal investment rate, reduce liquidity at any premium above the marginal investment rate, reduce liquidity at certain premiums above the marginal borrowing cost, or exceed marginal borrowing interest. At any premium, preference may be indicated to reduce liquidity. The preference may be indicated for a single date, a range of dates, or for future notifications. The participant may indicate a preference that increases or decreases liquidity but cannot both increase and decrease. Participants may also indicate preferences that do not increase or decrease liquidity. The participant has the ability to approve the opportunity for a transaction change identified by the exchange 100 on an individual or blanket basis. In addition, the participant may be allowed to automatically change the terms of the transaction after the opportunity is identified.

  In step 30, the participant integrates their ERP system with the exchange 100. The integration allows the exchange 100 to receive details of the transaction (eg payment terms) that may be suitable for the change. In one embodiment, the exchange 100 allows the participant to upload a batch or real-time output from the payment and receiving account open application to the secure network, and download the batch or real-time input from the network. Have a standardized interface to a mainstream ERP package (eg, SAP, PeoplSoft, Oracle, or Baan).

The standardized link eliminates the need for custom-made EDI transaction sets or other organized protocols or the need for manually keyed transaction data. In the present embodiment, the participants realize fully automated integration with the exchange 100. As shown in FIG. 1, the integration occurs by incorporating any open request of the participant's ERP system 110 with the exchange 100. Almost usually, this integration is between the participant's payment account module 120 and the exchange 100; It will occur between the participant's receipt account module 130 and the exchange 100.

In another embodiment, the participant may be integrated with the exchange 100 by manually entering transaction data into the exchange 100 via the customer interface module 140 corresponding to the exchange 100. In this embodiment, the participant can manually key in payment account and payment account information using the customer interface module 140. Additional embodiments may also be used that indicate the degree of change in Electronic Invoice Presentment and Payment (EIPP) known to those skilled in the art.

The network architecture (shown schematically by the communication links 150, 160, 170 in FIG. 1) that connects the participant to the exchange 100 may be viewed by the networks (eg, the Internet, a secure private network, or a PSTN). It is not required to be described in detail because it is known to those skilled in the art.

In step 40, the buyer and seller make a transaction with the initial payment terms. For example, the purchaser agrees to purchase goods or services from the seller for $ 1.0 million and pay the seller 30 days after receipt of a valid invoice.

In step 50, the participant (i.e. buyer and seller) sends information regarding the transaction including payment terms and exchange 100 receives that information.

In step 60, the exchange 100 evaluates the transaction to identify the opportunity to change the payment terms of the transaction. The initial transaction terms must match (ie, the terms and amount must match the data received from the buyer and the data received from the seller). The exchange unit 100 determines whether the transaction is suitable for a change based on many factors. The factors include the cost of the fund of the buyer and seller, respectively, and the conditions of payment. In addition, the liquidity preferences of buyers and sellers, credit limits established from sellers, and sellers' creditworthiness are usually evaluated.

In step 70, the exchange 100 suggests a change to one or more payment terms if it determines that the transaction is suitable for a change. In this embodiment, as in a fully automated system, this step may be omitted if the buyer and seller had previously agreed that the exchange 100 would automatically change.

Many methods can be used to distribute the financial returns of transaction changes among buyers, sellers, and exchanges 100. Usually, there may be an inverse relationship between the relative costs of the participants' funds and the proportional profits resulting from trade changes. In other words, a high credit party enjoys a higher return on a transaction change.

However, the inverse can be replaced if allowed by the participant's liquidity preference. For example, a seller with a high cost of the fund associated with the buyer may indicate a liquidity preference that allows for transaction changes only if the resulting cost is actually lower than the fund's seller's cost. If the buyer indicates a liquidity preference to approve the change of the transaction at an interest rate equal to or greater than the cost of the fund, the seller has the opportunity to enjoy the de facto share of all revenue associated with the change of the transaction.

The exchange 100 may also earn a reward for that service. The reward may be a financial return of a transaction change and / or a fixed reward. For example, financial revenue may be divided into 80/10/10 among strong participants, weak participants, and exchange 100, respectively. In addition, the exchange unit 100 may receive a fixed reward divided by 90/10 of the financial income remaining between the strong and weak participants. Many other dividend methods known to those skilled in the art are also possible.

In step 80, the exchange unit 100 changes the payment terms of the transaction. In some embodiments, the step is performed by the buyer and the seller rather than by the exchange 100.

In step 90, the exchange unit 100 notifies the participants of the change. If the participant has integrated their ERP system with the exchange 100, the participant's ERP system is updated by the exchange 100 with the changed payment terms.

In step 95, in some embodiments, the exchange 100 handles the transfer of the fund from the buyer to the seller on the payment date and updates the participants' ERP system.

To further describe the process of the present invention, three different example scenarios will occur that will occur when using the exchange 100; (1) strong buyer / weak seller scenario, (2) weak buyer / strong seller scenario, (3) forfeit scenario.

4 is a schematic diagram illustrating the flow of funds and information between the exchange 100 and participants for a strong buyer / weak seller scenario.

In the above example, an investment stage buyer 410 with borrowing interest of (LIBIO + 0%) has a million-dollar value from seller 400 of the lower investment stage with borrowing interest of (LIBOR + 5%) with a payment date of 30 days. Purchasing goods or services. Thus, even after subtracting the small clearing difference earned by the exchange 100, there is an opportunity to distribute the difference ($ 1.0 million × 5% × 30/365 = $ 4,109.59) so that both parties obtain them.

After the transaction under the initial condition, the seller 400 and the buyer 410 upload the transaction information to the exchange unit 100. As mentioned previously, the uploading can be accomplished completely, semi-automatically, or manually.

After receiving the upload from each participant, the exchange 100 evaluates the transaction to determine whether it is suitable for the transaction. The exchange unit 100 determines whether the uploaded transaction matches with respect to the trading partner's IDs, amounts, dates, invoice numbers, and other conditions and remittance information. In the example shown in FIG. 4, the uploaded transactions match. If the uploaded transactions do not match, the problem will be notified to the councilors for investigation and resolution.

The exchange 100 also determines whether the liquidity preferences match. In the present example, the seller 400 wants to receive a faster payment in exchange for a lower price, and the buyer 410 will be willing to make a quick payment in exchange for a drop in price. Thus, liquidity preferences are consistent.

The exchange 100 evaluates the revenue that can be shared between the buyer 410, the seller 400, and the exchange 100 by changing the payment terms of the transaction. In the example shown in FIG. 4, the amount obliged to pay the difference in the cost of the fund (5%) between the seller 400 and the buyer 410 by a time reduction 30 of the date divided by 365 days per year. The revenue calculated by multiplying by $ 4,109.

After evaluating the transaction, the exchange 100 suggests to the participants that the terms of payment have changed by lowering the price and early payment due date. The proposal may be fully automatic, semi automatic, or manual. In the above example, the buyer 410 (payer) may benefit by reducing the cost, which is greater than the cost of the fund resulting from the faster payment to the seller. The seller (the payee) can benefit by reducing the cost (eg, selling cost, interest expense) by an amount greater than the discount rate for the selling price. In addition, the exchange unit 100 may confirm a change opportunity or may receive a case fee for realizing the change.

In the above example, because the buyer is strong and the seller is weak, the payment terms may be changed such that the financial return of $ 4,109 is divided by 80/10/10 to each of the strong buyer, the weak seller, and the exchange 100. For example, the selling price can be reduced to $ 3287 (ie, 80% of $ 4109) and the payment can be as fast as 30 days, and exchange 100 can receive a $ 411 reward (ie, 10% of $ 4109).

5 is a schematic diagram illustrating the flow of funds and information between participants and the exchange 100 for a weak buyer / strong seller scenario.

In this example, an investment stage seller 500 with borrowing interest of (LIBOR + 0%) pays $ 1 million to the buyer 510 of the lower investment stage with borrowing interest of (LIBOR + 5%). Selling goods or services. Thus, there is an opportunity for the participant to benefit by changing the transaction by extending the date of payment as an exchange of a rise in selling price.

After making a transaction under the initial condition, the seller 500 and the buyer 510 upload the transaction information to the exchange unit 100. As mentioned previously, the uploading can be accomplished completely, semi-automatically, or manually. After receiving the upload from each participant, exchange 100 evaluates the transaction to determine whether it is suitable for the change. The exchange 100 determines whether the uploaded transaction matches with respect to the trading partner's IDs, amounts, dates, invoice numbers, and other conditions and remittance information. In the example shown in FIG. 5, the uploaded transactions match. If the uploaded transactions do not match, the problem will be notified to the councilors for investigation and resolution.

The exchange 100 also determines whether the liquidity preferences match. In the present example, the seller 500 would like to extend the payment due in exchange for a price increase, and the buyer 510 would want to pay 60 days rather than 30 days in exchange for a price increase. Thus, liquidity preferences are consistent.

The exchange 100 evaluates the credit limit that the seller 500 commands the buyer 510 to determine whether the extension of the period or the increase in the amount is within the credit limit. In this example, the credit limit will not be exceeded by changing the payment terms.

The exchange 100 evaluates the revenue that can be shared between the buyer 510, the seller 500, and the exchange 100 by changing the payment terms of the transaction. In the example shown in FIG. 5, the amount obliged to pay the difference (5%) in the cost of the fund between the buyer 510 and the seller 500 by a time extension 30 of the date divided by 365 days per year. The profit calculated by multiplying by (million dollars) is $ 4,109.

After evaluating the transaction, the exchange unit 100 suggests that the payment terms have been changed by raising the price and extending the payment date. The command can be fully automatic, semi automatic, or manual. In the above example, the buyer 510 (payer) reduces costs (eg, interest costs) by an amount greater than the increased purchase price incurred as a result of paying the seller 500 30 days later than the original period. This can be gained. Seller 500 (the payee) may benefit by increasing the purchase price by a fund incurred as a condensation that received payment 30 days later than the original period. In addition, the exchange unit 100 may confirm a change opportunity or may receive a case fee for realizing the change.

In the above example, because the buyer is weak and the seller is strong, the payment terms may be changed such that the financial return of $ 4,109 is divided by 80/10/10 to each of the weak buyer, strong seller, and exchange 100. For example, the selling price may be reduced to $ 3287 (ie, 80% of $ 4109) and the payment may be extended for 30 days, and exchange 100 may receive a $ 411 reward (ie, 10% of $ 4109).

If the participant has indicated a desire to promote liquidity but there is no other participant in favor, the exchange 100 will present a forfeit option. The forefit option is an option to sell a designated and eligible receivable account based on non-return claims for the exchange 100, a company affiliated with the exchange 100, or a company not affiliated with the exchange 100. Permit participants to the initiative. The selling price may be a discount on the par value of the paying account by a discount rate based in part on the seller's credit rate, the payer's credit rate, and the due date of the paying account. Once again, after considering the transactional differences to be deducted by the exchange 100, participants can make a profit by being able to accurately control the daily liquidity in a way that increases the profitability of the entity.

The various embodiments described above should be considered as merely illustrative of the invention. The various embodiments do not exclude or limit the invention to the forms disclosed. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that other variations and modifications may be made without departing from the spirit of the invention described herein. Accordingly, it is meant that the invention is defined by the following claims.

Claims (23)

A method of changing the payment terms of a transaction between a buyer and a seller, At the computerized financial settlement exchange: Receiving buyer costs and one or more liquidity preferences of funds presented by the buyer, seller costs and one or more liquidity preferences of funds presented by the seller, and one or more payment terms of the transaction Steps; Whether the transaction is suitable for a change based at least in part on the buyer cost and one or more liquidity preferences of the funds, the seller cost and one or more liquidity preferences of the funds, and the one or more payment terms. Determining; If the determining step finds that the transaction is suitable for a change, suggesting a change to the one or more payment terms; Changing the one or more payment terms of the transaction without financial intervention by a third party. A method of encouraging a change in payment terms of a transaction between a buyer and a seller, In the computerized financial settlement exchange: Receiving buyer costs of funds, seller costs of funds, and payment terms of one or more transactions; Determining whether the transaction is suitable for a buyer's cost of the funds, a seller's cost of the funds, and a change based at least in part on the one or more payment terms; If the determining step finds that the transaction is suitable for a change, suggesting a change to the one or more payment terms. The method of claim 2, Receiving the costs of funds from a plurality of sellers at the financial settlement exchange. The method of claim 2, Receiving the costs of funds from a plurality of buyers at the financial settlement exchange. The method of claim 2, Receiving the costs of funds from the plurality of buyers and sellers at the financial settlement exchange. The method of claim 2, Receiving one or more liquidity preferences from the buyer at the financial settlement exchange. The method of claim 6, Determining whether the transaction is suitable for a change based at least in part on the buyer's one or more liquidity preferences. The method of claim 2, Receiving one or more liquidity preferences from the merchant at the financial settlement exchange. The method of claim 8, Determining whether the transaction is suitable for a change based at least in part on one or more liquidity preferences of the seller. The method of claim 2, Receiving liquidity preferences from the plurality of buyers and sellers at the financial settlement exchange. The method of claim 2, Modifying one or more payment terms of the transaction. The method of claim 11, And said modifying step does not involve financial interference by a third party. The method of claim 2, And the exchange is part of the buyer. The method of claim 2, And wherein said exchange is part of a seller. The method of claim 2, And the exchange is not part of the buyer and seller. The method of claim 2, The buyer cost of the funds is presented by the buyer and the seller cost of the funds is presented by the seller. A method of changing the payment terms of a transaction between a buyer and a seller, In the computerized financial settlement exchange: Receiving buyer costs of funds, seller costs of funds, and one or more payment terms; Determining whether the transaction is suitable for a buyer's cost of the funds, a seller's cost of the funds, and a change based at least in part on the one or more payment terms; If the determining step finds that the transaction is suitable for a change, changing the one or more payment terms of the transaction. In a way to encourage changes in the payment terms of a transaction between participants: One or more payment terms of a transaction between a first participant and a second participant may be based at least in part on the first participant cost of funds, the second participant cost of funds, and the one or more payment conditions. Sending to the computerized financial settlement exchange configured to determine whether the change is suitable for change; And if the exchange determines that the transaction is suitable for a change, receiving a proposal from the exchange to change the one or more payment terms of the transaction. In how to change the payment terms of a transaction between participants: One or more payment terms of a transaction between a first participant and a second participant may be based at least in part on the first participant cost of funds, the second participant cost of funds, and the one or more payment conditions. Determining whether the transaction is suitable for a change, and if the exchange determines that the transaction is suitable for a change, sending to the computerized financial settlement exchange configured to change the one or more payment terms of the transaction; Receiving a notification of said change from said exchange. A financial settlement exchange system comprising at least one computer, The at least one computer is: Receive buyer costs of funds, seller costs of funds, and one or more payment terms of a transaction; Determine whether the transaction is suitable for a purchaser cost of the funds, a seller cost of the funds, and a change based at least in part on the one or more payment terms; If the determination finds that the transaction is eligible for the change, it proposes a change to the one or more payment terms. A financial settlement exchange system comprising at least one computer, The at least one computer is: Receive buyer costs of funds, seller costs of funds, and one or more payment terms of a transaction; Determine whether the transaction is suitable for a buyer's cost of the funds, a seller's cost of the funds, and a change based at least in part on the one or more payment terms; And if the determination finds that the transaction is eligible for a change, changes the one or more payment terms. When executed by a computerized financial settlement exchange, a machine-readable medium for storing data indicative of sequences of instructions that cause the exchange to execute a method for promoting a change in payment terms of a transaction between a buyer and a seller. , The method is: Receiving buyer costs of funds, seller costs of funds, and one or more payment terms; Determining whether the transaction is suitable for a purchaser cost of the funds, a seller cost of the funds, and a change based at least in part on the one or more payment terms; If the determination determines that the transaction is suitable for the change, suggesting a change to the one or more payment terms. A machine-readable medium for storing data indicative of sequences of instructions that, when executed by a computerized financial settlement exchange, cause the exchange to execute a method of changing payment terms of a transaction between a buyer and a seller. The method is: Receiving buyer costs of funds, seller costs of funds, and payment terms of one or more transactions; Determining whether the transaction is suitable for a purchaser cost of the funds, a seller cost of the funds, and a change based at least in part on the one or more payment terms; And if the determining step determines that the transaction is suitable for the change, changing the one or more payment terms.