Daily Archives: September 27, 2016

A Financial Health Check Should Be a Pre-Qualification of Every Supplier Qualification

And every organization should review a financial health or risk report, comprised of, or augmented with, third party data, and, unless they are (or have in-house) financial experts, this should preferably be done by a third party. The reality is that in today’s data driven world, no organization should be surprised by a bankruptcy of a mid-size or larger supplier that has been in business for at least three years. The probability of the vast majority of these bankruptcies are now predictable by financial analysts and while they may get a few wrong (as some companies may shape up just in time and others may fail faster than expected for a non-financial reason), they get a lot right.

And it’s not like financial ratings are hard to get anymore. While they are not as insightful, as they work exclusively on credit data and stock data compared to released financial statements (which is where the early warning indicators hide), most of the big data / credit services track enough data to come up with a reasonable financial risk score that at least lets you know whether, from a financial perspective, the supplier could be reasonably safe or is currently very risky — and needs a detailed analysis. Moreover, a financial health-focused offering by RapidRatings, and their FHR (Financial Health Rating) Report (which has been around for almost a decade), with an open example here, provides not only deep insight into potential risk, but the magnitude of the risk and the hard data for the risk — as well as the insights — and can detect risks from early warning signs that have not yet manifested in observable behavior (such as late payments).  In addition, RapidRatings’ new Financial Dialogue offering, which works in conjunction with the FHR, identifies the most important questions you should be asking your suppliers based on their health rating.  (An when you look at just the FHR report, you wonder why every organization is not doing at least this detailed level of supplier financial health analysis before committing a large or strategic spend to a supplier when all the data they need can be summarized in an easy to understand fashion.)

Now, you might say that because only one vendor, today, offers this depth of a report, which wasn’t previously available, and because the organization has done just fine without it for almost a decade, that you don’t need it, but SI would like to disagree. With global sourcing constituting so much of your supply chain, you don’t really know that much about your suppliers, their health, or the conditions in which they operate. And if they are supplying a custom made component, a raw material in limited supply, or a specialized service, the cost of recovery could be much greater than the initial cost of supply. These reports are becoming a necessity as part of your risk management.

SI is not saying you have to use RapidRatings or subscribe to their FHR reports (although they should be on your shortlist), but that you should at least do deep financial analysis on all of your strategic suppliers and use a platform to do it.  And while SI expects that other vendors with the same degree of analytic capability, financial know-how, and supplier insight — specifically Resilinc, FusionOps, and Simfoni — will soon attempt to release similar offerings, with their own unique spin, SI doubts that these other providers will be able to match the depth provided by RapidRatings for quite some time, as they are, respectively, focused on supply chain resilience, big data insights, and analytics on the go.  (However, if you are  currently using any of these vendors, you should work with them on their new analytic offerings as they can still offer other insights into the suitability of the supplier for your operation, assuming the supplier is financially viable enough to work with in the first place.)

While financial risk or financial health is only one KPI that should be used to analyze suppliers before qualifying them for inclusion in an event, it is an important one — the organization needs a supplier that will stay in business. Another KPI that should be included is a comprehensive CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) assessment, as you want responsible and sustainable suppliers, and this can be obtained as well from vendors such as Sedex Global and Ecovadis. Finally, once the supplier has been deemed financially stable and sufficiently responsible, an overall supply chain risk rating should be computed (based on geography, risk of natural disaster, political interference, etc.). This will require either a risk management vendor (such as Resilinc, Risk Methods, etc.) or an analytics vendor that pulls in feeds from one of these vendors.

It’s a lot, but if you can be sure in your supplier, that’s one less worry in your overly complex supply chain.