The ICC is well known as the world business organization and highly respected for it’s universally acclaimed financial rules, such as the UCP 600.  The IFA is the worldwide trade association for commercial companies, financial institutions and intermediaries engaged in forfaiting.

Mr. Thierry Senechal, Policy Manager, International Chamber of Commerce Banking Commission, Paris, released the following notice on 28 May 2009: 

Launching of the Drafting of Forfaiting Rules and nomination of Drafting Group Chair 

“Negotiation” may be the most abused, misused and misunderstood word in the letter of credit business. In this regard, I am speaking only as an L/C practitioner – I am not a lawyer and not

The latest UCP 600 defines “negotiation” this way: “ Negotiation means the purchase by the nominated bank of drafts (drawn on a bank other than the nominated bank) and/or documents under a complying presentation, by advancing or agreeing to advance funds to the beneficiary on or before the banking day on which reimbursement is due to the nominated bank. “

The words “complying presentation” are defined in sub-Article 2 of the UCP 600 as “Complying presentation means a presentation that is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the credit, the applicable provisions of these rules and international standard banking practice.”

In the United States letter of credit community, the historic practical application of “negotiation” is the purchase of documents you are not obligated to purchase, i.e., in many ways it is similar to your friend endorsing a check over to you and your giving them cash for it. You are not the bank; you did not write the check, but you are assisting your friend who wants money now by “buying” the check from him, and if the check bounces, you will go back to your friend and recover your money.

More Than Examination

I also firmly believe a negotiating bank can “give value” by other actions – for example, by examining documents and providing services to the beneficiary. Note that “giving value” is as tricky a term as “negotiating”. Surely, the receipt of documents by a nominated bank and a professional document examination by a reasonable document checker, communication of noted discrepancies, etc., is a valuable service! Unfortunately, the practice in some parts of the world is to define document examination as “negotiation”. Mere document examination, while extremely valuable, does not, constitute “negotiation”.

In DCInsight, Volume 1 No. 1 Winter 1995, Charles del Busto, then Chairman of the ICC Banking Commission, responded to a question on the topic this way: “… if you want to classify yourself as a negotiating bank, if you want to have the rights and protections under the laws of the respective countries as a negotiating bank, you must do something more than examine documents. You must buy those documents, you must purchase those documents, you must give value for those documents, you must become holder in due course “, and we believe that indeed constitutes negotiation in most jurisdictions.” The full article is too lengthy to reproduce here, but it is worth the reader’s review.

Issuing and confirming banks

An issuing bank (issuer) cannot “negotiate”, because it must honor its obligation under the credit - to either accept, incur a deferred payment obligation or pay at sight – this is ITS obligation. Even if draft(s) are drawn on the applicant or if no drafts are required, it is still the obligation of the issuing bank to honor conforming documents. Some issuing banks say they have negotiated documents, but in reality they mean they have honored them.

A confirming bank (confirmer) may negotiate. If the L/C drafts are drawn on the issuing bank, a confirmer “negotiates” by purchasing the draft(s) and documents, but it does so WITHOUT recourse to the beneficiary. Therefore, a confirming bank does negotiate if the draft(s) are drawn on another party or if there are no drafts.

UCP 600 sub-Article 8(a)(ii) states the obligation of a confirming banking regarding negotiation as follows:  “a. Provided that the stipulated documents are presented to the confirming bank or to any other nominated bank and that they constitute a complying presentation, the confirming bank must:

… (ii) ii. negotiate, without recourse, if the credit is available by negotiation with the confirming bank.

Sub-Articles 8(b) and 8(c): 

b. A confirming bank is irrevocably bound to honour or negotiate as of the time it adds its confirmation to the credit.

c. A confirming bank undertakes to reimburse another nominated bank that has honoured or negotiated a complying presentation and forwarded the documents to the confirming bank.

A confirmer would become the PAYING bank if the drafts were drawn on it, or if it were a sight credit with no drafts and the credit were available by payment at its counters.  A bank that is not the drawee bank with regard to the drafts can negotiate the draft(s) and documents (i.e., the drafts are drawn on someone else and a bank decides to assist its client by advancing funds to it (making a loan) against the anticipated receipt of funds to come from the issuing or confirming bank. A bank may choose to advance funds (“give value”) with or without recourse. In my opinion, this represents true negotiation in the historic sense.

A Nominated Negotiating Bank

Having a bank nominated in the credit as the negotiating bank, or having a freely negotiable credit where any bank can negotiate, benefits the beneficiary of the L/C, because it permits the beneficiary to present its documents to the negotiating bank. This presentation of complying documents obligates the issuing bank under the terms and conditions of its credit. The documents do not have to reach the issuing bank by a specific time; mere presentation to a nominated bank per the credit terms obligates the issuer to honor.

Interestingly, the nominated bank with which the beneficiary lodges its documents is not obligated to examine or negotiate the documents. In fact, a beneficiary may attempt to present its documents to a nominated negotiating bank and, absent confirmation by that bank, the bank is not even obligated to accept the presentation! Difficult to imagine, but possible.

A nominated negotiating bank today typically examines the documents against the terms and conditions of the credit, informs the beneficiary of discrepancies (if any) and forwards the documents to the issuing or confirming bank for honor. Note this practice of receipt, examination and forwarding by a nominated negotiating bank is of value, but does not constitute “negotiation”. The critical benefit to a beneficiary of a negotiation credit is having the right to place its documents in the hands of a nominated bank within the terms and conditions of the credit, thus satisfying the initial requirement for documents to reach a given bank by a given time and obligating the issuer.

A bank nominated in the credit as a negotiating bank, that has not confirmed the credit, and that is also named in the credit as the drawee bank for the purposes of the draft(s), faces an interesting set of circumstances, particularly if the credit terms are “at sight”. Yes, this would reflect poor issuance, yet it is not an unusual circumstance today. The drawee bank may believe it is facing a conundrum: “should we negotiate or not? If we do, are we actually negotiating or are we ‘paying’, since the draft is drawn on us? We did not confirm, so will we have recourse or another right of recovery to the beneficiary if we are not reimbursed? Recourse is an important, but not necessarily the only basis for recovery. If the documents comply with the terms and conditions of the credit, are we “obligated” to pay the beneficiary because the sight draft is drawn on us? Surely, these are questions for lawyers, not laymen practitioners!

Straight vs Negotiation Credits

Affording lesser protection to the beneficiary is the “straight” credit, where the issuing bank instructs that documents are to be presented to the issuer and a negotiating bank is not nominated. To be protected, the beneficiary must have its complying documents at the proper place by the proper date.

Intelligent beneficiaries read the letter of credit with special attention to the “engagement clause” and look for answers to questions such as: “whose obligation is this? Where do I have to present my documents, and by when?”

An engagement clause might read:

“We hereby engage with drawers, endorsers and bona fide holders of drafts and complying documents drawn hereunder that the same will be duly honored by us if negotiated on or before… ” (this is the archaic language);

or

“We undertake with the beneficiary and nominated banks that documents negotiated …”;

or

“We agree with you that documents strictly complying to the terms and conditions of this credit will be honored by us if presented to us at our office at (location) on or before (expiry date).”

The first two are examples of “negotiation” engagement clauses, and the third of a “straight” engagement clause. In a “straight” credit, the obligation of the issuer runs directly to the beneficiary, and no bank is nominated to negotiate documents. The experienced beneficiary knows that, when in doubt, it should ask for clarity before manufacturing and shipping the goods!

One often wonders why a beneficiary would agree to ship under a straight credit. Even in this time of global overnight delivery services, who can guarantee that documents will be received by the issuer at a given location by a given date? Perhaps the “straight” credit is the most compelling argument for using electronic presentation of documents under the ICC’s “eUCP”. This well-drafted, yet rarely utilized, electronic supplement to UCP 500 first came into force on 1 April 2002.  The eUCP was revised slightly to conform to the UCP 600 and the ICC Banking Commission approval of the UCP 600 included approval of the revised eUCP.

Would the issuance of a “straight” credit preclude any bank from negotiating (giving value) to the beneficiary for the documents? Of course not! A bank may advance funds to its client against funds to be received in the future. The difference lies in the protection offered to the beneficiary. If the credit does not permit negotiation, the documents must still reach the stated party by the date required by the credit in order for the issuing bank to be obligated. Of course, a bank that chooses to negotiate documents under this scenario would prefer to be a nominated bank (rather than negotiating a straight credit), thereby invoking the rights given to it under UCP 600.

Summary and conclusion

In negotiation, you advance funds to the beneficiary (or promise to do so) against documents you believe to meet the terms and conditions of the credit. A statement to the effect “We will pay you when we receive money from the issuing or reimbursing bank” does not constitute negotiation.  Banks typically have negotiation agreements with beneficiaries that spell out whether the negotiation is without recourse to the beneficiary or with recourse. If “with recourse”, the agreement spells out what the bank has recourse for: commercial risk (for example, failure to receive reimbursement within YYY days from the issuer), country risk or examination risk, such as a dispute with the issuer over the compliance of the documents, etc.

I have seen many types of negotiation agreements. Some incorporate language that warrants the beneficiary has presented documents to the bank that conform to the credit in all respects; some make no such representations; some request the negotiating bank to do a “superficial” examination; some request an advance of funds from the date of receipt by the negotiating bank, et al. They come in all shapes and sizes.

Negotiation is a loan. A negotiation agreement is a lending document. It spells out the terms of the loan, the conditions for repayment. The latest draft of the UCP 600 revision has made a clear statement in this respect.

There is hope for the salvation of the concept of negotiation for those of us who have faith in the practice. Of course, “faith” is frequently defined as a belief in things not seen, especially without logical proof.

A previous draft of this article appeared in DC Insight, Vol. 12, No. 3.

Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

ICC Austria May 2009

Donald Smith will be speaking on Fraud in Bank Guarantees, the UNCITRAL Convention on Independent Guarantees and Standby Letters of Credit, and Standby LC vs Commercial Credits.   ICC Austria International Trade Finance Conference Week,  May 11 – 15, 2009. 

 www.ecla.org/documents/activities/ECLA.ICC.pdf

I recall an eye-opening experience as I was thumbing through an article in an older copy of the National Geographic Magazine recently, a picture of some clay tablets captioned something to the effect: “used by merchant traders in the Phoenician days.”

I thought, “WOW! Letters of Credit! They’ll be around forever.”

A bit of history

This instrument of trade payment has long existed and appears to have a delightfully changing future as we anticipate the joys and groans of users of the latest revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, ICC Publication No. 600. The UCP, as it is referred to by practioners, has a history going back to the 1920’s in the United States and was first published by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in 1933.

 A fly in the ointment?

However, regardless of the quality of the new UCP 600 revision, there is a fly hovering perilously above the traditional bank Letter of Credit product ointment: the “e-Commerce” enthusiasm of the 1990’s that opened the eyes of many importers and exporters who have traditionally used Letters of Credit as their payment mechanism.

Buyers and sellers now have a wider range of payment solutions available to them that mimic some of the benefits of the traditional bank-opened LC, yet lack a critical component, the “neutral paymaster” whose presence in the midst of the transaction would assure the seller of payment and the buyer of title documents.

These alternatives to traditional bank Letter of Credit solutions include several electronic “Purchase Order” systems developed in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, some of which with the capability to ‘examine’ the seller’s data electronically to ensure compliance with the purchase order. These Purchase Order products are often characterized by large corporate importers as “Open Account Trade.” A second alternative is the rapid growth of the non-bank Letter of Credit.

As service providers, buyers, sellers, and carriers worked through the process and their needs, other projects/products, such as Bolero, appeared to promise much more: the electronic secure transfer of title to the goods. While Bolero commercial transactions have taken place, this solution does not appear to have gained noticeable traction in the market.

Another somewhat similar provider does appear to be gaining momentum: TradeCard. By their mere continued existence – no small feat considering the number of companies that disappeared as the e-Commerce bubble burst – TradeCard has gained credibility, clients and volume. While the future success of any company in this rapidly changing environment cannot be predicted, TradeCard appears to continually increase traction in the slippery marketplace.

 The Major Threats to Traditional Bank Letter of Credit

Purchase Order/Open Account Trade

Open Account Trade appears to be the generic description of the product now being offered by a multitude of service providers, banks and carriers as well as 3rd party service companies, such as TradeCard, and even SWIFT has a legitimate proposition in this space.

The basic scenario is that Buyer and Seller agree on their business deal; the Buyer issues an electronic Purchase Order and transmits it to the Seller (through an intermediary Service Provider, such as a Bank – which typically transmits the information via SWIFT); the Seller ships the goods and provides electronic “documents” such as invoices to the Seller through the Service Provider.

The Service Provider checks some of the data in the electronic documents, notifies the Buyer, and the Buyer authorizes the Service Provider to effect a payment to the Seller. Remember – this is not a Letter of Credit – it is an open account transaction. The Service Provider is typically not obligated to make a payment if they receive electronic documents that conform to the Purchase Order.

The process appears to be:

1. The buyer gives the bank electronic purchase order information

2. The bank transmits the same info via SWIFT MT710 message to a bank in the seller’s country

3. The bank in the seller’s country ‘authenticates’ the communication and sends it to the seller

4. Seller ships goods and presents documents to the bank which advised the communication to them

5. That bank transmits the documents to the buyer’s bank

6. Buyers bank “examines” the documents for specific data – such as Purchase Order number, SKU numbers, Amounts, Shipment Date, total amount claimed for payment

7. Buyer’s bank sends the documents to Buyer

8. Buyer authorizes their bank to effect payment

The problems

There are a few immediately apparent problems with this process:

1. What does the Seller’s Bank THINK they are receiving if the communication arrives via SWIFT 710 category message type?

2. If the Seller’s Bank has an automated interface to a back-office system that automatically generates an advice to the Seller and uses LC terminology (such as Issuing Bank, Beneficiary, Advising Bank), it is likely this bank sends the advice to the seller without realizing exactly what they are sending.

3. What if this Seller’s Bank is requested by the Buyer’s Bank to “confirm” this transaction?

4. Some Sellers may realize they are receiving a Purchase Order, others may think they are receiving an LC – and ONLY if unpaid will they realize it is not an LC.

Curiouser and curiouser!

I know of cases where the importer wants its bank to assume responsibilities in checking certain fields in documents that are being transmitted through the bank.

If the information in those fields does not agree with the Open Account Purchase Order, payment is not to be made.

If the information in those fields agrees with the Open Account Purchase Order, payment is to be made. The Seller receiving this instrument may or may not be aware of the Buyer’s ability to influence the Bank examining these documents.

The importer then has a period of time, pre or post-payment, to review the documents itself and decide if payment is or was appropriate.

Several things come to mind:

1. IF it’s NOT an LC, what is it? A new open account/LC hybrid?

2. Against what rules will the bank examine the fields in the documents?

3. What would governing law be? UCC Article 5? Or perhaps Contract Law?

4. Is there an Asset/Liability to be booked?

5. PRESUMABLY, the importer is not using the documents to obtain the goods first, and THEN making up its mind over the documents – but who knows?

6. What sort of Reimbursement Agreement would be needed between an importer and a bank examining these documents and making payment?

7.  Perhaps this is the REAL opportunity for SWIFT, the SWIFT Trade Services Utility, and the SWIFT Bank Payment Order proposition. 

Corporate LCs

Letters of Credit are not a proprietary product of banks and bankers. Corporations have been issuing Letters of Credit directly to their vendors for a number of years.

Recently, however, it appears some creative banks filling the ’service provider’ role have worked with their import clients to provide additional services, such as advising corporate Letters of Credit via the SWIFT MT710 message type.

It is rumored that the same service may be being provided for the transmission of Purchase Orders as well. This permits the Buyers and Sellers to achieve the cost effective use of the highly formatted and automated SWIFT messaging system while also increasing the volume of messages passed through SWIFT, thus lowering the costs of messages through increased usage.

It has been estimated that approximately 2 million SWIFT messages annually may now be related to this practice of Banks advising corporate Letters of Credit, and all related messages for discrepancies and payments, through the SWIFT system.

A case of mistaken identity?

Electronic systems for the sending and receiving of SWIFT messages are typically an integral part of a bank’s Letter of Credit system.

So, buyers transmitting their corporate Letters of Credit or Purchase Orders through an intermediary “advising” bank’s system might receive an unintended “benefit”.

A bank in the Seller’s country, receiving a SWIFT formatted MT710 message into their Letter of Credit system might automatically generate an advice of a Letter of Credit addressed to the Beneficiary and evidencing an Issuing Bank.

This bank may find itself advising a Letter of Credit when, in fact, it received a Purchase Order.

Moreover, the Seller may believe they have received a Bank Letter of Credit. Also, the Seller’s bank may potentially finance the purchase of raw materials, the manufacturing process and the shipping of goods based on a purchase order when they thought they were financing a Letter of Credit transaction.

More thought and further discussion is needed in this area to ensure the identities and roles of those participating in the transaction in any manner are clearly disclosed.

Conclusion

What do these alternatives mean for the revision of the UCP and for the traditional Letter of Credit product? They may be the forerunner of the long-forecast death of the instrument, or they may mean absolutely nothing. World Trade continues to increase, and according the US Department of Commerce, it is estimated that some 14 – 15% of trade continues to use the Letter of Credit instrument as the payment vehicle. Whether this represents solely bank-issued instruments or includes data on corporate issued letters of Credit is unknown.

The revision of the UCP provided a wonderful opportunity to recognize these new developments in the traditional way of conducting business and to embrace change. The electronic supplement (the “e-UCP”) to the UCP was a great leap forward in the recognition of the potential of electronic trade. The danger is a “can’t see the forest for the trees” vision – failure to recognize the changing trade landscape and the opportunities wrought by automation will inevitably hasten the demise of the traditional bank Letter of Credit due to cost and inefficiencies when compared to the alternatives.

The big challenge facing the parties charged with primary responsibility for the revision – Drafting Group, the Consulting Group and the ICC National Committees – is to draft a revision that truly reflects the current “Custom and Practice” of all Letter of Credit users.

Time alone will tell.

NOTE:  An earlier version of this article appeared on DC Professional (www.coastlinesolutions.com)

Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it. 

1) People fear what they don’t understand.

UCP 600 is a vast improvement in clarity over UCP 500 and preceding versions. Combined with extensive training on the UCP, this clarity has led to interesting results as applicants, bankers, and beneficiaries have become aware of the rules’ impact on them. Having failed to grasp certain principles in UCP 500, some individuals object to them in UCP 600. Why object to something you’ve lived with perfectly well in the past? Perhaps there has been a change in personnel at the applicant, bank, or beneficiary or perhaps there’s an “unintended consequence” resulting from “insourcing” or “outsourcing” of the work.

2) A knowledge gap exists and is widening.

Unfortunately, today we find new document examiners being trained with “decision trees”: everything is “yes” or “no,” “black” or “white.” In the LC universe, however, document examination decisions often contain shades of grey. Professional document examiners should know what a clean report of findings looks like and recognize an SGS hologram. LCs are both an art and a science: Clients make their own deals, and banks issue credits as neutral paymasters. If the documents comply, the bank honors; if they don’t, the bank is not obligated to honor. Sound LC practice, including the ability to examine documents, starts with “know your customer” and includes proper issuance and amendment, advising and confirmation, and transfer of credits. It doesn’t start when documents arrive.

3) Exclusions may be the death of the UCP.

To take one example, credits are being issued stating, “Article 7c is excluded”—period. It appears the issuers aren’t considering the impact of such an action on the beneficiary and nominated bank. Failure to comprehend the UCP 600 rules and how they work together is a fatal mistake for an issuing, advising, confirming, or transferring bank—not to mention an applicant or beneficiary. UCP 600 is a body of practice that facilitates the role of a credit issuer as a neutral paymaster. One cannot simply exclude an article without thinking through the ramifications of such an action on all the remaining articles and on the other parties to the transaction. Simply excluding an article does not mean the reverse of the article is automatically invoked.

4) Regulatory compliance clauses may beat exclusions to the punch.

If the law prohibits you from making payment, you obey the law. However, confusion has arisen from the recent practice of explicitly stating in a credit that the issuer will follow the law. Why this insertion of regulatory compliance clauses into credits? Most likely it results from banks’ fear of being caught in a “conflict of law” situation. For example, an overseas branch must, under its local law, pay a set of documents reflecting a violation of the law in the country of its head office. The head office responds, “You cannot pay, because it violates our law and as a branch, you are also subject to our law.” By inserting such compliance disclaimers, issuers attempt to put beneficiaries on notice that the head office law applied to the transaction.

5) The move to open account and letter of credit has accelerated.

No, this isn’t an oxymoron: Different clients in different countries are moving to LC from cash in advance, while other clients in the same or other countries are moving to open account from LC. Savvy trade pros with global credit responsibilities know they must determine the creditworthiness of their clients and require the method of payment appropriate to the sale. In turn, bankers should consult with their clients regarding appropriate methods of payment.

Based on feedback from over 1,000 corporate users in the past year, applicants and beneficiaries move away from LCs for two primary reasons: 1) cost and 2) cost. Cost 1 results from the “pile-on” impact of fees applied by issuers for advising, negotiating, transferring, and amending. Usual practice is that the banking fees in the applicant’s country are the responsibility of the applicant and the fees in the beneficiary’s country are the responsibility of the beneficiary. In the 1980s, a practice developed whereby some banks started issuing credits for certain applicants without charge and then deducted their fees from the amount paid to the beneficiary. A further variation occurs when banks on both sides of the transaction try to deduct their fees from both parties—a classic “double-dip.”

Cost 2 results from discrepancy fees and delays in payment. Discrepancy fees started as a “nuisance fee” deducted from the amount paid to the beneficiary to draw the beneficiary’s attention to mistakes they were making. This has now turned into a profit center for some banks, who find “mythical discrepancies” in documents. UCP 600 attempted valiantly to deal with such mythical discrepancies, only to see applicants and banks “excluding” those articles.

Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Recent comments from the ICC Transport Commission and ICC Commercial Law and Practice (CLP) Commission regarding whether a party was signing as the carrier or as an agent for the carrier provide a good example. LC bankers in the banking commission were undecided and turned to their colleagues in transport and CLP for aid. The resulting feedback on “carrier” and “agent” will likely lead to more confusion and needless litigation.

Current discussion of an ICC opinion regarding release of documents without presentation of original bills of lading furnishes a second example. The four banks I’ve worked for each utilized legal resources slightly differently. The most effective, in my opinion, was the bank that let the trade business—not the lawyers—run the trade business. Few lawyers are trained in the intricacies of the practice of trade. By contrast, trade bankers are faced every day with the decision to “honor” versus “dishonor” a set of documents, based on their examination of the documents, the rules, and the credit and international standard banking practice. At many banks, document examiners make that decision 12 to 20 times a day.

7) Time limits on amendments refuse to go away.

The unprofessional attempt by some issuers to place a time limit on the beneficiary for the acceptance or rejection of an amendment has crept back. Although quashed following publication of position papers post-UCP 500, it is widely reported to again be a problem. Refusal to participate in transactions reflecting bad practices is the most effective way to end them. This author hopes advising banks will simply decline to advise such credits, and beneficiaries will refuse to ship, rather than participate in an exercise that will inevitably lead to litigation claims by beneficiaries and applicants.

‘On board’ means ‘on board.’

There is a distinction in UCP 600 between Articles 19 and 20. An Article 20 document is required to evidence “on board,” while an Article 19 document is not mandated to do so. This has led to discussions on bulletin boards, most of which fail to remember the last sentence of UCP 600 Article 1, which permits variance. Net result: A credit that specifically requires an Article 19 document to evidence “on board” at the named port of loading requires “on board.”

9) Understanding ISBP (and isbp) is mandatory for correctly applying UCP.

Understanding International Standard Banking Practice (ISBP) for the Examination of Documents under Documentary Credits (ISBP-ICC Publication No. 681) and international standard banking practice (isbp) as used in Article 2 of UCP 600 requires practitioners to know the rules, what the credit states, and how ISBP and isbp apply to the credit. Gary Collyer recently wrote an excellent article that comments on the difference between ISBP Publication No. 681 and the phrase “international standard banking practice” as employed in Article 2. (DCInsight, Vol. 14, No. 2, April-June 2008; www.DCProfessional.com). In summary, isbp includes ISBP, subsequent ICC opinions, Docdex decisions, and regional practices that become isbp due to their cross-border nature.

10) Reports of the death of the LC are greatly exaggerated.

With apologies to Mark Twain (his May 1897 statement is often misquoted as: “Recent reports of my death are greatly exaggerated”), LCs have withstood the test of time. They have existed from the earliest clay tablets promising payment by wealthy merchants until today’s highly automated, encrypted, and almost instantaneous computerized messages. They will exist as the yet-to-be-dreamed-of credits of tomorrow, because the need for an instrument from a neutral paymaster will remain with us.

 A previous draft of this article appeared in Managing Imports and Exports, August 2008.

Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.