The COVID-19 pandemic, described by IHS Markit as the largest black swan event since The Second World War, quickly dashed any chance of such a rebound being realized. Instead, lockdowns, restricted movement across borders and sweeping economic and social uncertainty—coupled with uncertain U.S. trade policies, Brexit and other external factors—saw 2020 become a year like no other.

Indeed, global trade was forced to adapt and continued to serve as a vital lifeline that helped to keep supply chains flowing and boost confidence wherever possible.

Banks played a vital role. They accelerated digitization strategies, with technologies such as blockchain and artificial intelligence further coming to the fore over the past 12 months. As ever, they altered their offerings, and each became more or less attractive to those corporations partaking in global trade. 

Here, we reflect on these offerings and rank the top 10 banks for global trade in 2021. 

The banks in this list are not acclaimed based on the volume or value of transactions. Rather, they have been recognized owing to their commitment to service–through innovation, targeted solutions and meeting the specific cross-border trade needs of those corporations that they serve.

Size and stature do not always equal best-in-class. Many of the banks listed here are indeed major players, but we have focused on those institutions harboring some of the key qualities to look for when selecting a provider.

A series of different criteria have factored into this, including:

-Competitive advantages

-Pricing

-Product and service innovation

-Financial robustness and security

-Knowledge of local requirements and conditions

-Customer satisfaction

-ESG compliance

Citi

Citi is globally renowned, currently operating in more than 90 markets and transacting in over 130 currencies. 

The company prides itself on a knowledge and understanding of local markets–a skillset that is particularly useful to those embarking on expansion across borders or looking to ramp up trade activities in new countries. It tailors its services to each region and country rather than taking a one-size-fits-all approach. 

Citi is also a key figure in driving global industry technological transformation. Its digital toolkit comprises key connectivity solutions such as integrated APIs (application programming interfaces), and it has also positioned itself as leading innovator in the usage of blockchain. 

HSBC

Where global trade is mentioned, HSBC is never too far behind. The bank recently took the top spot in Euromoney’s Trade Finance Survey for a fourth year running, testament to its ongoing investments into further financial skills, digital capabilities, and product innovation. 

The bank actively positions itself as a thought leader with the publication of key export insight reports, while its Trade Forecast Tool imparts crucial short- and long-term knowledge on prospects in key markets whilst prioritizing user-experience. 

Its services include a renowned Ex-Im Bank Working Capital Guarantee Program alongside currency exchange, documentary collections, export collections, FX trading, trade credit insurance and more. 

UniCredit

UniCredit offers a wide variety of global trade finance services including global securities services, export finance, internet banking and transactional sales via its Global Transaction Banking business. Despite being built on a network of more than 4,000 key banking relationships that span 175 territories globally, the bank primarily caters to its core customer base in 14 core Central and Eastern European markets alongside 18 other countries worldwide.

The firm is renowned for its innovative attitudes toward product development including its award-winning Trade Finance Gate client portal, and market leading customer service. 

Deutsche Bank

With 130 years under its belt, Deutsche Bank is one the most experienced providers of finance for global trade. Its integrated global network spans 80 locations in 40 countries, its primary area of expertise being the navigation and management the risks associated with import, export and domestic trade transactions. 

The company has a strong presence in key emerging markets spanning Asia Pacific, Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America. Here, it imparts key services including advisory and distribution services, documentary collection, documentary remittances, financial supply chain solutions, letters of credit, standard remittances, structured commodity trade finance, syndicated trade loans and trade receivables finance.

Standard Bank

Plaudits can be paid to South African figurehead Standard Bank in the realm of technological innovation. The firm leverages APIs to connect its internal systems with those of its clients. As a result, approximately 80 percent of its issuance procedures for lines of credit and guarantees are automated, with average execution time of just one minute.

The company excels in trade document management. Its core services include trade finance open account and supply chain solutions, documentary trade finance and international payments, and it’s also working closely on product development with fintech partner Traydstream.

Santander Group

Santander has positioned itself as a leading light on environmental, social and corporate governance, and is a truly valuable player in the global trade community. During the pandemic, the company sought to deliver solutions that would dampen economic hardships by addressing the needs of the individual countries in which it operates, offering financial assistance to SMEs that reached a peak of $1.2 billion daily between April and May 2020.

The company also reacted dutifully in other ways, namely through the development and deliverance of various digitization projects that prioritized public health. 

ING Group

With its 57,000 employees serving 39.3 million customers, corporate clients and financial institutions in more than 40 countries, the vast majority of ING’s business is conducted in European markets. The company offers an array of international payments, cash management and trade finance services including letters of credit, documentary collections and guarantees.

ING Group is an initiating member and key investor in Contour–a trade finance project seeking to transform the status quo through the deployment of blockchain-based technologies. 

Bank of America

As the name would suggest, Bank of America remains a stalwart and fan favorite serving the North American market. During the pandemic, the firm introduced its Intelligent Treasury Roadmap–an initiative built to optimize client treasury operations and working capital.

Through operational simplification and ongoing advisory expertise, the bank’s Global Transaction Services team was able to successfully help clients mitigate risk and detect and manage fraud during what was both a turbulent and opportunistic period.

BNP Paribas

BNP Paribas remains one of the top trade finance banks globally, operating more than 100 dedicated trade centers in 60 countries. Among its core specialties are the bank’s export and import services and solutions built to optimize cash conversion cycles.

The firm primarily prides itself on imparting key knowledge and expertise. Its network of 350 trade finance experts is readily leveraged to provide tailored training programs based on the location and requirements of individual client companies.

Commerzbank

Commerzbank’s headline figures include 50 billion pounds in trades spanning 150 markets and 50 currencies annually. Albeit an established player with a 150-year legacy, the firm has proactively invested in new technologies including that of blockchain. 

To this end, 2020 saw the company mastermind the first Turkish-German trade finance transaction of the Marco Polo blockchain network alongside Isbank.

The post TOP 10 BANKS FOR GLOBAL TRADE 2021 appeared first on Global Trade Magazine.

B20 Saudi Arabia, the voice of the global business community to the G20, recognizes the ethical challenge posed by the COVID-19 health and economic crisis to both businesses and governments and has committed to addressing the issue of corruption by recognizing Integrity & Compliance as one of its key priority areas.

Corruption remains a significant risk for businesses across the world. The cost of corruption is estimated to be five percent of the annual global GDP, i.e. US$3.6 trillion, a price we cannot afford in these times. We have also seen corruption is a key barrier to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as the elimination of poverty and hunger, promoting a peaceful and inclusive society, improving education, quality of life, and the infrastructure of each state. The B20 Integrity & Compliance Taskforce’s work, therefore, aims to advance the global anti-corruption agenda, touching upon key relevant topics such as responsible business conduct, consumer protection, the fight against corruption, and other efforts at the foundation of a healthy business environment.

Recently I had the opportunity to interview Mathad Al-ajmi, Vice President and General Counsel at Saudi Telecom Company (stc) and Chair of the B20 Saudi Arabia Integrity & Compliance Taskforce. As a prominent attorney and business leader, Mr. Al-ajmi has been influential to the Pearl Initiative, a global coalition of business leaders from the Gulf Region aimed at fostering a corporate culture of accountability and transparency to ensure all applicable international laws and frameworks are upheld within Saudi Arabia, throughout the Middle East, and across the globe.

During my interview with Mr. Al-ajmi, he reinforced that integrity is not merely anti-bribery, but rather something much broader. He believes that to create an open, transparent and legitimate world economy, the members of the global marketplace must be in alignment with the terms and conditions of participating in that economy, both for developing and developed countries. The goal of the B20 Integrity & Compliance Taskforce is to ensure a robust compliance and controls program that is sustainable, globally successful across languages, and able to be implemented proactively.

Mr. Al-ajmi also spoke about how developing economies and micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) will bear the brunt of business loss from the pandemic, making it doubly important they are able to access monetary government support through legitimate channels. The most vulnerable populations, most often coming from developing markets, are those who are disproportionately impacted by corruption – corruption costs developing countries US$1.26 trillion every year and represents a major obstacle to investment, further negatively impacting economic growth and job prospects for these markets in the long term.

MSMEs, Mr. Al-ajmi noted, play a pivotal role in jump-starting the economy in that they account for more than half of most countries’ GDP and are responsible for almost seven in every 10 jobs. Often operating in difficult economic environments, MSMEs are highly vulnerable to corruption, although they may be less likely than large companies to be involved in large-scale influence-peddling scandals, which is why they are one of the B20’s cross-cutting focuses. Simultaneously, MSMEs typically lack the resources, knowledge, and experience to implement effective anti-corruption measures and conduct their business in compliance with international standards and the applicable international laws and frameworks, making their engagement a cornerstone of the B20’s Integrity & Compliance taskforce work.

The B20 will present its policy recommendations to the G20 during the B20 Summit scheduled for October in the form of policy papers to be drafted by each taskforce, including Integrity & Compliance. While the recommendations and priorities in those papers are not yet published, Mr. Al-ajmi outlined a number of key themes in our discussion that he and his task force feel are an integral part of supporting transparency in the global business community:

-Leveraging new technologies with regards to the management of corruption and fraud-related risks.

-Proposing an anti-corruption technology roadmap to both the private and public sector as a strategic vision by adopting technological solutions for identified risk areas.

-Developing digital identities and public national registers to reduce anonymity and increase both transparency and accountability of beneficial owners and third parties. The adoption of these solutions will further enable addressing the challenges of cross-border quality data sharing.

-Ensuring heightened integrity and transparency in public procurement through open bidding processes from multiple vendors, with specific certification criteria to ensure compliance with applicable international laws and frameworks.

-Collectively pursuing and legislating the implementation of responsible business on a global basis in each country, leveraging the applicable international laws and frameworks.

-Supporting code-of-conduct compliance programs to monitor capital spending as emerging market infrastructure projects continue.

-Continuing to align government officials with private industrial programs through compliant lobbying programs and monitoring.

-Protecting whistleblowers by adopting mechanisms and practices in line with leading global practices.

-Strengthening corporate governance in public and private sector companies, such as through yearly certifications for all employees to understand governance regulations.

-Widely and publicly prosecuting bribery to set examples.

-Partnering with and leveraging the expertise of global institutions to improve national anti-corruption plans.

-Actively empowering women across the supply chain by promoting their participation in a wide range of public, economic and political spheres in combating corruption.

As Mr. Al-ajmi reinforced to me, none of these efforts will succeed if we are not operating in a transparent, integrity-driven business environment. Ultimately, this is what the B20 hopes to accomplish through the work of this critical taskforce, ensuring integrity is part of the global business community and society writ large. I am confident the B20 and specifically its Integrity & Compliance Taskforce will have a positive influence on the G20 Summit and look forward to the release of the policy recommendations during the B20 Summit scheduled for October.

_________________________________________________________________

If you have any questions or would like help in the area of Compliance and Controls please do not hesitate to contact me at frank@ationadvisory.com or visit my website at www.ationadvisory.com

Frank and his team at Ation Advisory Group have successfully remediated clients from FCPA and British Anti-Bribery investigations. His team has implemented over 45 global FCPA Certification Programs and Compliance and Controls improvement projects which prevented violations and Improved Goodwill and overall value for a domestic or international organizations seeking to sell, partner with a JV or obtain contracts or new business with government officials and private enterprise.

The post B20 Saudi Arabia – Leadership in Challenging Times through Integrity and Compliance appeared first on Global Trade Magazine.

Too often, these savings aren’t realized. Suppliers may ignore the negotiated terms when invoicing, and AP teams, faced with a deluge of invoices and limited time to get payments out the door, only sample select transactions and only do basic 2 or 3 way matching of volume and price. This inevitably means costly invoice problems fall through the cracks — from mismatched invoice and contract terms, to unapplied discounts, to completely bogus charges, and more.

Optimizing your AP process may seem like a big undertaking, but it’s much easier than it might seem and worth the effort. According to The International Association of Contracts and Commercial Management (IACCM), companies that work to improve controls over invoice payment will see a return of more than 4 percent of invoice value.

Even if you’re ready to improve your AP process, one pesky question remains: How do you actually do it? Once upon a time, it would have been necessary to hire more people to check every transaction. But today, technology can provide a crucial and cost-effective assist for overstretched AP teams.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming more and more common in business contexts. Nearly 90 percent of companies planned to increase AI spend in 2019, according to a Deloitte survey. However, the idea of actually using AI may feel a little unrealistic for some. While more and more corporations are automating AP processes, 30 percent of businesses still rely on manual invoice processing, according to The Institute of Finance and Management.

If you’ve already implemented other technologies in your workflow, AI can fit in seamlessly. AI-powered spend automation software integrates with existing expense management, invoice automation, contract management, and ERP systems to augment rather than disrupt your status quo.

8 common (and costly) invoice problems

Here are just a few of the problems AI-powered solutions can help your team avoid during the spend audit process:

1. Fraudulent invoices: When it comes to invoicing fraud, if you can dream it, chances are fraudsters have tried it: From inflated invoices, to completely made-up charges, to shell companies, to vendor impersonation, and more.

Too often, the calls are coming from inside the house. The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) found that occupational fraud (fraud committed by employees against employers) resulted in more than $7 billion in total losses in 2018. AI systems with a compliance component can spot risk factors commonly associated with fraud so your team has a chance to review these invoices manually before they’re paid out.

2. Duplicate invoices: Up to two percent of the average company’s invoices are duplicates, according to AuditNet. This may seem like a relatively small number, but for businesses doling out millions or billions on business activities, the figure is far from trivial.

Some vendors might double up charges on purpose, but often duplicate invoices are mistakes (after all, your vendors’ finance teams are overworked too). While some invoice automation systems try to catch these double charges, they usually only succeed if the invoices are labeled with the same number or have the exact same total — which isn’t always the case, particularly if there’s someone scheming behind the scenes.

 3. Missing discounts: You fought hard for volume discounts, but how often are you checking invoices to make sure they’re applied? AI-based systems can often compare contract and invoice terms automatically to make sure you’re not missing out on an early payment, loyalty, or quantity discounts. You’ll be notified of any missing discounts so you can remedy the situation before you pay. In the case of early payment discounts, this software notifies you that the invoice should be prioritized to get payment out in ample time.

 4. Mismatched service levels: You signed up for the standard package, but you’re being charged for the premium offering. This type of mismatch is all too easy to overlook amid your monthly deluge of invoices.

The correct AI solution can compare agreed-upon service levels in your contract with every invoice you receive to make sure that this type of costly problem doesn’t fly under the radar. When it comes to physical items, it can ensure you receive all the items you’re being billed for before you pay, by double-checking shipping documents against inventory systems.

5. Double payments: Double payments can happen as a result of vendors submitting duplicate invoices, but the problem can also originate from your own team. Accounting systems hold up an invoice for all sorts of reasons, e.g., it requires further approval or it failed a match. In many cases, an employee might intervene to get the invoice paid manually (to meet a deadline or because they’re being pestered by a supplier or don’t want to damage a relationship). Meanwhile, the invoice is still in your system and when the hold is later cleared up, it’s processed and paid… again.

This is another one of those sources of spend leakage that most companies never become aware of. AI-powered systems constantly cross-check invoices and payments and flag any duplicate payments before you send them out, so the money never leaves the front door.

6. Exorbitant pricing: It can be difficult and time-consuming to keep track of the market rate for all the various services and products your business requires. AI can regularly compare your current costs to thousands of other sources to determine whether your invoices reflect the market rate for the goods or services provided. It can also flag individual invoices where your price exceeds the market rate.

Knowledge is power, and this information helps your business negotiate more effectively with existing suppliers or look to new ones if there’s an opportunity for cost savings without sacrificing quality.

7. Unsatisfactory work activity: When it comes to hiring contractors, there are situations when it’s particularly difficult to understand and assess whether they’re fulfilling their agreed-upon duties, like professional and IT services. AI-based tools can ingest nearly unlimited data to build a profile of what comprises satisfactory work activity — e.g., regular activity in Slack or over email — and highlight changes in the typical patterns. This helps you verify that you’re paying contractors fairly for the work product they’re providing.

8. Overpaying for software: Are you licensed for seven software seats, but only using three? It’s not uncommon for organizations to overpay for software licenses without even realizing it. AI-based software keeps tabs on your organization’s software usage and compares it to the charges on your monthly invoices to help alert you to savings opportunities.

How AI can help

Implementing a best-in-class AI solution can support a consistent process and add an additional layer of scrutiny. These solutions make it possible to audit 100% of invoice spend prior to payment, automatically and near-instantaneously checking every invoice in your system for risk factors before they’re paid, and flagging the highest risk items for your team to review. This will help your team get ahead of problems and potential leakage, rather than try to recover it afterwards.

Below are the critical requirements for considering an AI solution for AP spend management:

Audit 100%, prepayment. Automatically audit 100% of invoices before reimbursement with AI.

Understand documents. Instantly scan every line of every invoice to understand charges and track the correct spend category.

Enrich with intelligence. Check online sources to identify better prices for similar goods and services.

Assess and refine risk. Flag suspicious addresses or billing changes to avoid fraud. Spot duplicate charges from other invoices, other invoice systems, or expenses.

Streamline process. Integrate into your existing AP automation system to audit every invoice in real-time to spot errors, waste, and fraud.

Conclusion

The best AI software can help your team regain control over your spending by checking every single transaction to identify high-risk invoices in your pipeline — saving time, streamlining processes, and ultimately reducing spend leakage.

If your AP team’s efforts to find problematic spend feels neverending, you’re not alone — but it doesn’t have to be that way. AI has changed the paradigm for modern finance teams, giving them greater visibility into their AP process and the time they need to address the highest risk issues. Not only can AI transform the way finance teams operate, but it also saves the business money by spotting problems consistently and before invoices are paid. By implementing a leading AI solution, your team can audit 100% of spend, make sure that every invoice complies with its contract terms, and ensure you’re receiving every savings opportunity you’re entitled to — all while paying your bills on time.

_______________________________________________________________

Anant Kale founded AppZen in 2012 to bring AI into back offices around the world. As CEO he is responsible for the product vision and execution of the company’s broad mission. Previously he was the VP of Applications at Fujitsu America from 2009-2012, responsible for product management, and delivery of Fujitsu’s applications and infrastructure for enterprise. He has 15+ years of experience in software development. He has an MBA and a BS in Finance and Engineering from Mumbai University.

The post 8 Ways Your AP Process Leaks Spend – and How AI Can Prevent It appeared first on Global Trade Magazine.

Pencils remind us of simpler times, when writing was an adventure and erasing life’s mistakes was easy.

In the classic 1958 essay I, Pencil, Leonard Read opened a window for readers into the surprisingly complex global supply chain of something everyone holds in their hand, the pencil. Read helps us realize that countless individuals are involved in logging, mining, processing, transporting, and manufacturing the California cedar, Sri Lankan graphite, Mississippi clay, and foreign and domestic copper, zinc, wax, and coatings combined to produce an elegantly simple pencil.

To Read, a pencil is a miracle. No single individual could make one and no “master mind” directs its production. Pencils are made nonetheless because of the “invisible hand” of free markets. In the decades since Read’s essay, commentators have observed that pencil making is not entirely the result of free-market activity. Governments, too, support pencil production by managing forests, educating workers, and building ports and roads.

The question of where and how pencils are made has resurfaced in the current debate over American trade policy. In a recent campaign video by Senator Elizabeth Warren, she criticizes “giant ‘American’ companies” and their U.S. and foreign shareholders for “hollowing out” American communities. Warren offers as a proof point that “the maker of the famous no. 2 pencil” now largely imports pencils made in China and Mexico.

With pencils in the spotlight, we revisit what can they teach us about the complexity and nuances of modern American trade.

Is Trade Erasing U.S. Manufacturing?

American pencil production has plummeted over the last 25 years. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), the number of U.S. pencil manufacturers fell from 11 in 1993 to four in 2016.

Dixon Ticonderoga — maker of the iconic green-banded yellow pencil — shuttered plants in Ohio and Missouri in the early 2000s, shedding hundreds of jobs. With the end of production by Sanford L.P. in 2014, U.S. production and capacity plunged further — by more than half. During this period, the domestic share of America’s $557 million pencil market declined markedly, while imports from China, Brazil, Mexico, and elsewhere more than quadrupled, growing from 6.7 million gross in 1993 to 28.8 million gross in 2016. (A gross is 144 pencils.)

What’s at the Core?

There has been a significant “hollowing out” of American pencil manufacturing. But is the pencil industry representative of U.S. manufacturing and trade generally? The data suggest it’s not.

America has lost five million manufacturing jobs since the mid-1980s. During this period, however, U.S. manufacturing output has doubled. America is making more stuff with fewer workers largely because U.S. factories are more efficient. Studies show that the loss of American manufacturing jobs is due primarily to improved technology, not trade. Economists at Ball State estimate that, overall, 87 percent of U.S. manufacturing job losses between 2000 and 2010 were due to automation, while 13 percent resulted from trade. (Automation was by far the predominant cause of job loss for 15 of the 18 manufacturing sectors studied.)

There are, however, certain largely lower-tech U.S. manufacturing sectors where trade has had a much greater impact. Foremost among these are furniture and apparel (Senator Warren’s video also highlights foreign production of Levi’s jeans) where economists estimate that trade accounted for some 40 percent of job losses. Pencil manufacturing is an example of a “mature” industry where there’s little room for manufacturing innovation but space for makers of high quality products for niche markets. Indeed, for American specialty manufacturers like New Jersey-based General Pencil, the process and equipment used to make pencils has hardly changed from over a century ago.

Can Protection Sharpen U.S. Production?

Policymakers often try to revive trade-impacted low-tech sectors through trade protection. The pencil industry’s experience highlights the difficulties of this approach.

In 1994, the United States imposed antidumping duties on pencils from China, after finding that sales of Chinese imports at “less than fair value” were injuring U.S. manufacturers. Imports of pencils from China fell sharply in 1995. By 1998, however, the volume of “subject imports” from China (six million gross) actually exceeded the volume during the original investigation.

The antidumping duty order was continued in 2000, 2005, 2011, and 2016 after the USITC found that revoking the order would cause further injury to U.S. pencil makers. However, despite duties as high as 114.90 percent imposed on “unfair” imports, subject imports continued to grow to 9.2 million gross in 2004 and 10.5 million gross in 2009, and were 8.5 million gross in 2016.

The pencil industry isn’t the only manufacturing sector where efforts at protection have seemingly failed. Over 97 percent of clothing and footwear sold in America is made overseas, despite the fact that America has, for decades, imposed tariffs on these imports that often exceed 30 percent.

Back to School – With Trade, the Consumer Wins

Is “Big Pencil” to blame for the loss in U.S. manufacturing jobs? Or, are big retailers who seek lower-cost pencils from overseas? While Dixon Ticonderoga isn’t a large company, it’s now owned by a larger Italian firm and imports most of its pencils. And, according to the USITC, there has been increasing consolidation among U.S. wholesale purchasers of pencils. Office Depot and Office Max have merged and big box stores like Target and Walmart are buying larger volumes and seeking low prices.

These retailers are responding to demand for lower-cost imported pencils — in no small part from America’s parents.

Although there has been a resurgence in demand for high-quality, specialty pencils like the Palomino Blackwing and coloring pencils for stressed-out Boomers, most “commodity” pencils are sold during the “back to school” season. In recent years, schools are increasingly requiring parents to buy student supplies like pencils.

In 2018, American parents paid an estimated $941 for school supplies and fees for each middle school child. These costs can be a significant burden, especially for low-income parents. Imported pencils — and binders and backpacks — can help moderate these costs. Studies show that middle-income, and especially lower-income Americans, gain significant buying power, stretching their dollars further, from imports.

Pop Quiz

The pencil has a storied history. According to pencils.com, Ancient Roman scribes introduced the use of thin metal rods as a stylus. In the 1800s, the best graphite was sourced from China. Although the first mass-produced pencils were unpainted to show off high-quality wood casings, pencil makers later painted them yellow, a regal color in China, to demonstrate the quality of the graphite within.

The simple pencil continues to both transcribe and itself illustrate complex stories, including the growth and effects of global trade. It can also evoke fond memories like the time mine saved me on a pop history quiz in the 5th grade:

Question 3: Name three Colonial forts.

My answer: Fort Pitt, Fort William Henry, and . . . uh . . .oh yeah! Fort (Dixon) Ticonderoga!

______________________________________________________________

The post Pencils: Still Teaching Us Lessons About Trade appeared first on Global Trade Magazine.

Their arguments strike a political nerve but don’t offer a complete picture of this complex and evolving industry. The USMCA debate reflects a domestic difference in views. While the United States works to develop its regulatory framework for newer drugs, many other markets are further behind. As important as it is, the issue of data protection for biologic drugs is not well understood. We’ll try to cover the top lines.

Pieces of the Intellectual Property Puzzle

For American innovators of biopharmaceuticals, gaining access to overseas markets requires not only securing regulatory approvals; the policy environment must also be conducive to marketing their products, which includes a value-based approach to pricing, procurement, reimbursement policies – and intellectual property protections.

There are various facets to the intellectual property (IP) protections needed to incentivize massive investments in pharmaceutical innovation and to enable the recovery of those costs once a drug is commercialized. Patents are part of the package and so is the protection of proprietary data, the issue at the fore in discussions about USMCA.

These protections are particularly important to American companies. The intellectual property attached to 57 percent of the world’s new medicines was created in the United States. That’s no accident. Research and development activities flourish in countries where IP frameworks are well developed and enforced.

What is Data Protection?

To achieve marketing approval from a regulatory oversight agency such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and its counterparts in other countries, innovator pharmaceutical companies submit data on the outcomes of their research and years of clinical trials demonstrating the drug is effective and safe. The cost and risks of developing the original data and product fall to the inventor.

When a generic producer or producer of a “biosimilar” seeks approval, they are often afforded the short cut of relying on the inventor’s data. To ensure a balance between incentivizing drug discovery and development while also providing opportunities for lower-cost copies to become available, the inventor’s data may be protected for a period of time against disclosure to generic or biosimilar producer. During this time, any competitor is free to undertake their own data and seek marketing approvals on that basis.

For How Long?

Provisions on data protection are not new in domestic regulations or in trade agreements. Since the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) in 1995, World Trade Organization (WTO) members have agreed not to disclose clinical data submitted to regulatory authorities to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical products, thereby protecting such data “against unfair commercial use”.

Negotiators of the TRIPS Agreement contemplated specifying that data protection should be no less than five years, but ultimately refrained from including a specific timeframe, leaving it to the discretion of WTO members in their national regulations. NAFTA, which took effect in 1994, provides a minimum of five years.

Enter a New Type of Drug

The timing of these provisions is relevant to the debate today. The TRIPs and NAFTA provisions apply to new “chemical entities,” meaning small molecule drugs – that is, most drugs on the market to date. These types of drugs are capable of being replicated through chemical synthesis to make generic drugs. For this reason, regulators tend to agree that requiring duplicate data from generics would be an inefficient use of resources and unnecessary testing of patients, as long as the generic product is proven “bioequivalent” to its reference product.

Biologics are newer medicines. They are large, complex molecules that are made from living cells to produce the required proteins. This manufacturing process is vastly more complex. A follow-on product is not identical, but rather structurally similar and thus called a “biosimilar”. An exact replica is not possible, and patients cannot automatically be switched from a biologic to its biosimilar without risk of adverse effects.

Given the differences between biologics and small molecule drugs, they are regulated differently, and the IP protections have been applied differently. Biologics are largely defined by their manufacturing processes and regulatory approval of biosimilars does not require identity with the reference product, so biologics must often rely only on process patents versus a product patent. Innovator companies argue a longer term of data protection is needed to bridge the differences in patent protection or to offset the lack of patent protections in some countries, while allowing them to recover the increased cost of generating the original data.

New Trade Provisions for Biologics

Given the longer innovation cycle and the increased cost and complexity of biologics, many governments have provided longer periods of data protection for biologics than for small molecule drugs.

In the United States, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act signed into law by President Obama in 2016, provides for a 12-year period of regulatory data protection for biologics. American companies have sought the same standards from trading partners.

With new agreements in the WTO largely stalled, the focus of trade negotiations over the last decade has shifted to bilateral and regional trade agreements where provisions are often more detailed and tailored. In negotiations toward the Transpacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), the United States pushed for 12 years, but agreed to eight years for biologics from the date of first marketing approval and allowed flexibility in how data protections could be administered. When the United States withdrew from the TPP, the remaining members suspended the relevant provisions.

In the USMCA, American biopharmaceuticals again did not get everything they wanted. Canada and Mexico do not have to match the United States in providing 12 years but agreed to increase the duration of data protection to 10 years from the current standard of five years in Mexico and eight years in Canada.

Why Push Trading Partners to Increase Data Protections?

Beyond North America, the so-called “pharmerging” markets (generally the large developing countries) are growing faster than the stable developed markets. China is by far the largest emerging market for pharmaceuticals. In many developing countries, patent systems are weak or poorly enforced. Regulatory data protection provides some buffer against IP exposure, making it viable and more attractive for companies to introduce their products in that market.

Less data protection and lack of enforcement diminish the potential for U.S. exports. It also leaves the door open for competitors to access unprotected U.S. data without the originator’s authorization. Trade agreement obligations help guard against the unfair commercial use of proprietary data and expand the degree of IP protections in global markets, which is a precursor to greater diffusion of innovative drugs to patients worldwide.

Back to the Core Concerns – Availability and Costs to Patients

Critics of USMCA’s provisions argue data protections keep the prices of biologics high by delaying the introduction of biosimilars. The first biosimilar product was approved in the U.S. market in March 2015. By March 2019, 18 had been approved. Many experts suggest biosimilars have lagged in the U.S. market due to slower changes to the U.S. regulatory system and patent litigation as the industry goes through the same growing pains it did with generic regulation.

As well, drug development is an inherently expensive and risky business, characterized by high failure rates. On average, the process of discovery and commercialization takes 10-15 years at a cost of $2.6 billion. Less than 12 percent of drug candidates make it all the way from lab to patient.

Because of the complexity and high fixed costs required to develop the capacity to manufacture biosimilars, it takes eight to 10 years for biosimilars to come to market, there are fewer entrants than is the case with generics, and the cost savings realized are 10 to 30 percent off the brand, versus an average of 80 percent achievable by generics. Considering the length of time normally required to achieve safe and reliable production of biosimilars, the data protection period in USMCA is unlikely to be a cause of undue delay in getting them to market. Data protection terms are also often less than the remaining patent term.

Your Loss is My Gain

The prominent healthcare research firm, IQVIA, forecasts the biopharmaceutical industry stands to lose $121 billion between 2019 and 2023 as periods of market exclusivity end. Eighty percent of that impact, or loss for innovators, will be in the U.S. market as nearly all of the top branded drugs will have generic or biosimilar competition.

IQVIA says competition among biosimilars is on a path to grow three-times larger in 2023 than it is today. If that’s so, savings over branded biologics could produce approximately $160 billion in lower spending just over the next five years, even as overall spending on biologic drugs grows.

This is part of the business cycle of the pharmaceutical industry and why the innovators maintain strong pipelines because they have limited exclusive time in the market before competitors arrive. That’s good for patients. The data protections in USMCA are not likely to materially impact this cycle or spending. When Canada and Japan lengthened their duration of data protection, drug spending as a percentage of GDP remained nearly flat.

Reason for Optimism

Biologics are called the drug of tomorrow. They comprise nearly 70 percent of the innovation pipeline which includes some 4,500 drugs in development in the United States and another 8,000 globally.

Breakthrough products are expected for cancer treatments, autism and diabetes. This is great news, but specialty and niche products tend to come at a higher price so spending may increase as these new drugs enter the market. According to IQVIA, average spending on the brand versions will nonetheless decline from 8.2 percent of the U.S. market to 6.7 percent, a demonstration there’s a healthy market for originals and copies.

There would be no copies without the originals, which is why pharmaceutical regulatory and legal frameworks are full of public policy trade-offs to strike a balance that will support return on innovation while not impeding the availability of affordable drugs. As we make scientific progress, the systems that include IP protections must evolve to accommodate new types of drugs, new capabilities in data analytics and clinical practices, and even changing business models. Not doing so can imperil the pace of progress at precisely the moment when breakthroughs are on the horizon.

___________________________________________________________

The post WHAT TODAY’S USMCA DEBATE HAS TO DO WITH THE DRUGS OF TOMORROW appeared first on Global Trade Magazine.

It’s at times like this that the link between politics and economics comes into sharp focus. With political matters precarious, it’s no exaggeration to say that the fate of businesses rests in the hands of world leaders and their ability to navigate a course through choppy waters.

But how much power and influence do individual leaders have? What is the fallout from a tweet from Donald Trump, a speech from Theresa May or a snap election from Shinzo Abe?

Forex experts DailyFX have taken these questions and used them as the basis for a new research project. Looking at 59 key dates for six major world leaders it assessed the impact of their words and actions on the value of their respective currencies.

Browse the results to find out which events had the biggest impact—and which were merely measured in terms of their political fallout. To access the interactive information, click here.

The post How world leaders impact markets appeared first on Global Trade Magazine.

The re-imposition of sanctions is also likely to be brutal, with the US pressing for Iran to be excluded from the SWIFT international banking transaction system.

French automakers Renault and Peugeot-Citroen had already announced they were withdrawing from Iran, where they imported complete knock-down (CKD) kits, in anticipation of the renewed sanctions. That cargo can amount to hundreds of thousands of TEUs per year. Reports indicate, however, that Chinese automakers will try to take their place.

The Chinese may also benefit from the logistical complications that result from the renewed sanctions. The leading western container lines have withdrawn from services into the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas, requiring shippers to arrange their own feeder services from Dubai. Chinese carriers appear to be the only option for filling that gap.

Bandar Abbas is Iran’s largest non-oil port, and it is in need of redevelopment. Currently, the port is unable to accommodate ships larger than 11,000 TEU. Trucks carrying cargo over the country’s less-than-stellar road system is how most cargo gets to and from the port. The port is in need of rail connections and some development in that area is going on, driven by, you guessed it, the Chinese.

Iran is badly in need of investments in logistics. Western companies are constrained from developing ports, airports, roads, and rail facilities, thanks to US sanctions. That won’t change until political and strategic conditions head in another direction. The vacuum is likely to be filled by China.

The post Renewed US sanctions creates opportunities for China appeared first on Global Trade Magazine.

However, increased economic uncertainty in China and escalating trade tensions with the United States led the RMB to depreciate 5.2 percent between March and June 2018. The RMB’s value against the dollar is now back at a level similar to where it was pegged in 2008 to 2010. The significant currency depreciation has alarmed some global investors, who fear the Chinese government is intentionally allowing its currency to weaken in order to support exports.

Chinese policymakers believe managing the RMB’s exchange rate is necessary for preventing significant depreciation and reassuring global and domestic investors about the stability of China’s economy, according to a recent report from the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission. However,

Beijing’s control over the exchange rate also presents a potential tool for responding to US trade enforcement actions. If China’s economic growth begins to slow as a result of US tariffs, Chinese policymakers could weaken the RMB, increasing demand for Chinese products abroad.

Brad Setser, a senior fellow for international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote that  a 10-percent RMB depreciation will raise net exports by about 1.5 percentage points of GDP, potentially offsetting any economic slowdown from US tariffs. However, using RMB devaluations as a tool to offset the impact of trade tensions is risky because currency devaluations could spark capital outflows. If capital outflows do surge, the PBOC would likely buy RMB with its foreign reserves to artificially create demand and support the RMB’s value, much like it did in 2015 and 2016.

Chinese policymakers have pledged not to use the RMB as a tool in trade conflicts, with PBOC Governor Yi Gang saying, as reported in Bloomberg, that China will “keep the…exchange rate basically stable at reasonable and balanced level.” If Beijing wants to keep its currency’s value stable, it has the ability to do so. The PBOC maintains around $3.1 trillion in foreign reserves that it could sell off to support the RMB’s value, while China’s state banks have a net foreign asset position of over $500 billion and the China Investment Corporation (a sovereign wealth fund) has $270 billion in its foreign portfolio.

The post RMB Value Falls—Is China Back to Currency Manipulation? appeared first on Global Trade Magazine.

With Bill.com International Business Payments, users can now pay both international and domestic vendors electronically using one simple process, while getting visibility and control with detailed payment information all in one place. In addition to significant time savings, Bill.com saves its users over 50 percent on the cost of international wire transfer fees compared to most banks. Bill.com International Business Payments is available in more than 25 countries where crossborder business payments are most common with additional countries due to launch in the coming months.

The expanded service provides users with all of the popular Bill.com features. It includes the same automated approval process, seamless integration with leading accounting software, simple vendor management, and online document storage.

The need to process international payments is increasing everyday for businesses of all sizes. According to a study by Deloitte Consulting, cross-border payments make up 26 percent of total US B2B payment value. The most common method for making these payments is issuing a bank wire transfer.

“Bank wires typically cost $25 to $40 dollars each,” said René Lacerte, CEO and founder of Bill.com. “International payments through a bank requires a separate bill payment process with many extra steps. There are no automated approvals or accounting software integration, which means less controls and more errors. Bill.com is changing that.”

The New Stack  is a tech media startup that pays vendors from around the world for their services. “I previously used my bank for international wiring and ACH payments which was very complicated and time-consuming to set up,” said Judy Williams, the company’s operations manager. “Each pay day was a complete hassle.

“Bill.com on the other hand was a breeze to set up for international payments,” she added. I’m able to pay international vendors as easily as I pay vendors from the US, and I only use one app.”

The new service is now available to a select number of Bill.com customers and will be generally available to all customers at the end of August.

The post Bill.com introduces international business payments appeared first on Global Trade Magazine.

Subsequent developments—from the Brexit vote to the inauguration of Donald Trump—have increased risks for international traders, including US exporters and the financial institutions that serve them. Enhanced regulatory scrutiny has also increased the cost of capital, making trade finance services more expensive.

All of this means that many United States exporters—and small and midsized ones especially—may be, or should be, looking for new banking relationships to help them with international trade. Here are seven key questions to ask your prospective banker in the quest to make that decision.

What can you do for me?

It’s not as flip as it sounds, as today’s rigorous banking regulatory environment has adversely affected the practice of trade finance. Banks are taking steps to lower their exposure to risk, which in some cases has meant they have dropped entire portfolios of business, including trade finance. So it’s necessary as a first step to ascertain whether, and to what extent, that bank is in the trade finance business.

The good news is those banks that have maintained international trade departments are likely to be the ones most dedicated, experienced, and expert in that craft. These tend to be larger national and multinational banks, but these increasingly feel comfortable serving the trade finance needs of all sizes of exporters, including relatively small ones.

What can I do for you?

This may sound counterintuitive, but it’s related to the de-risking phenomenon discussed above. In some cases, banks have exited individual customers they consider to be too risky, so exporters should be looking to put their best foot forward and to groom themselves as attractive customers for international banks.

Again, the regulatory environment—such as anti-money laundering regulations and sanctions regimes—make international trade transactions particularly sensitive. These days, banks must know their customers—and their customers’ customers as well. All this means that you, as an exporter and prospective bank client, need to educate yourself on what banks will require from you. Be prepared to provide the bank with in-depth information about your businesses, flows, and counterparties. Know which are the sanction countries. Do your homework and be transparent.

What relationships do you have with correspondent banks?

Banks of all sizes have terminated large numbers of relationships with correspondent banks in recent years. Correspondent banks are located in foreign markets and cooperate with your bank to facilitate international trade deals. Unless your bank has a presence in all the markets you export to, your bank will need such a relationship to make your deals happen.

Some regional banks still identify international trade as a core competency, and may be attractive to deal with because of their lack of mammoth proportions and nearby location. (On the other hand, they may be less keen to take exposures in risky markets.) Those banks will almost certainly not have much or any international presence and will need robust relationships with financial institutions in your current and prospective overseas markets if they are to be of use to your business.

What other business can we do with each other?

In many ways, banking is a relationship business, and, as banks become more selective about their clients, customers with wide ranging relationships with their financial institutions are more likely to come out ahead. Banks tend to focus on clients with which they have holistic banking relationship—not a one-off export transaction. The more business the bank have done with a customer, the more the bank is willing and able to tailor services to those clients and to cater to their individual needs.

What trade instruments do you offer?

Traditional trade instruments, such as letters of credit, discredited by some in an era of open terms and for being expensive and cumbersome, have made a resurgence in new guises. Documentary letters of credit and collections has evolved into supply-chain finance, with banks becoming involved in import/export transactions and adding value at an earlier stage in the process. Technology is making it easier for banks to match purchase orders against invoices and then settling the transaction between buyer and seller. This allows the bank to assess the transaction and offer financing through a receivables program.

Exporters are increasingly using letters of credit to offer more aggressive sales terms and to access financing to manage cash flow. Exporters bidding on deals that can offer not only a great product at a good price but financing to help the customer, are in a position to crush it.

How are you on technology adoption?

Technology has long been touted as a potential game changer for international trade and finance, and new technology developments are starting to take hold. Electronic presentation of documents is speeding up payments and blockchain technology is also making inroads in the area of trade finance.

Blockchain works across borders and counterparties and has the benefit of providing more visibility and reliability of data. That’s a good fit in the current banking regulatory environment. Experts say blockchain should also allow banks to approach financing and risk management more flexibly, offering credit across product lifecycles. Technology leaders are creating efficiencies and lowering the costs of trade finance by offering greater technological integration with their customers and with artificial intelligence.

What parties do you work with to manage risk?

The Export Import Bank of the U.S. is the obvious reference here, but it’s not the only one. Exporters might be selling themselves short if EXIM is the only party available to them to reduce risk. The US Small Business Administration provides export support on deals EXIM won’t touch. Private-market insurance companies might be more willing to take exposures in emerging markets, as are private investors like insurance companies and pension funds, which are available to take trade-finance positions and spread the risk.

The post Banking: Seven questions to ask a prospective banker about their global capabilities appeared first on Global Trade Magazine.