Vendor terms

[MTSpace]

Is anyone aware of a vendor open to extending net 30 terms to a big, well-known group buy once the shipment lands in the US?

That seems like a fair ask whenever there's an existing relationship. Just musing here, but it could benefit everyone: a shipper who cares about what gets sent and how much of it, since repeat orders depend on delivering for the whole group. And in return the shipper locks in a big, steady demand pipeline as long as both sides keep pulling toward the same win/win goal.

 

[Herkimer P Shagnasty]

I buy from Chinese suppliers regularly, though not in peptides, and not one of them would even consider an arrangement like that. It simply isn't how their business model works. Over on the US side my suppliers ship premium packing materials, run toll-free lines, print full color brochures. You don't see any of that coming out of China, which makes me wonder whether the budget just isn't there?

 

[Skidude]

MTSpace said:

Is anyone aware of a vendor open to extending net 30 terms to a big, well-known group buy once the shipment lands in the US?

That seems like a fair ask whenever there's an existing relationship. Just musing here, but it could benefit everyone: a shipper who cares about what gets sent and how much of it, since repeat orders depend on delivering for the whole group. And in return the shipper locks in a big, steady demand pipeline as long as both sides keep pulling toward the same win/win goal.

My read is that nearly all of them are salespeople, either working with a thin supply or themselves borrowing on credit.

Beyond that: I've arranged terms in a few of my own businesses, and the usual price of entry is bank statements, credit references, that sort of thing.

If you want to ship first and bill later, you need somebody backing you with capital.

 

[BNLFL]

I really doubt it.

 

[Skidude]

Herkimer P Shagnasty said:

I buy from Chinese suppliers regularly, though not in peptides, and not one of them would even consider an arrangement like that. It simply isn't how their business model works. Over on the US side my suppliers ship premium packing materials, run toll-free lines, print full color brochures. You don't see any of that coming out of China, which makes me wonder whether the budget just isn't there?

And on top of that - if the bill never gets paid, what exactly is their recourse?

 

[woundcarping]

MTSpace said:

Is anyone aware of a vendor open to extending net 30 terms to a big, well-known group buy once the shipment lands in the US?

That seems like a fair ask whenever there's an existing relationship. Just musing here, but it could benefit everyone: a shipper who cares about what gets sent and how much of it, since repeat orders depend on delivering for the whole group. And in return the shipper locks in a big, steady demand pipeline as long as both sides keep pulling toward the same win/win goal.

For them there's no upside that I can see, and you haven't laid out why you'd want it either.

If the goal is cutting risk, escrow is the standard route for anything outside the grey market.

Being generous about it, I could picture terms built as a deposit to kick off manufacturing, a progress payment when it ships, and the rest due on arrival - though I'd expect a higher price for the favor.

 

[BigRed1]

net-30 strikes me as a stretch, honestly.

Something closer to wound's version seems more realistic - smaller payments up front, the balance handed over once the goods land. I've structured deals that way with Chinese suppliers outside peptides.

It hinges on a handful of things: the relationship you've built, whether you rank among their larger buyers, and how booked their line is at that moment.

When a supplier can already move every unit at list price before shipping, there's little reason for them to accept your terms.

 

[5byfive]

Big American firms do this all the time, and the reason is bookkeeping, not because the buyer is short on cash. Better start filling the piggy bank - vendor credit won't be what launches a peptide business for you.

 

[MTSpace]

There's a vendor I work with, a Taiwan, China-based company that sources out of the mainland and extends us net30 terms on non-peptide business. When a competitor of his caught wind, I got a second offer of terms. Business comes down to managing risk alongside supply & demand. Today the leverage in peptides sits entirely with the seller. Splitting that risk would be an improvement.

In business, the relationship is the whole ballgame.

 

[indolent]

A CN businessman has a solid video series going on social media, walking through how the manufacturing supply chain there is shifting - partly to drum up his own business as a middleman for foreign buyers importing from that region.

His headline point is how brutally competitive the players there are on efficiency, shaving fractions of a penny off every unit. That means just-in-time output rather than goods - finished or half-done - parked in a warehouse waiting on customers while capital sits tied up.

I can't imagine ultra-shady peptide sellers having the slightest appetite for slowing their cash flow or locking their capital down that way. Even less than the people making knockoff luxury Luis Vittelle or Kat Spayed handbags.

 

[MTSpace]

Hold the payment and reopen the terms. When demand dries up, suppliers get inventive about how much risk they'll carry. Prices might tick up to cover it, but the fakes and the weak players get filtered out. The paradigm needs shifting, and it's already working for me in a different market.

 

[Elgordoboy]

MTSpace said:

Hold the payment and reopen the terms. When demand dries up, suppliers get inventive about how much risk they'll carry. Prices might tick up to cover it, but the fakes and the weak players get filtered out. The paradigm needs shifting, and it's already working for me in a different market.

"Dosing" where he meant "doing" - the old Freudian slip lol

 

[Calm Logic]

Because their culture differs so greatly, the Chinese do not operate the way we do. Even when dealing with fellow Chinese, they have a reputation for fairly weak customer service. Within the peptide market, the main driver tends to be making a fast profit—that is the very reason they are in the peptide business at all, even with possible "inspections" hanging over them.

On the payment side, a Chinese peptide vendor is far more apt to pull an exit scam than to extend us any trust.

 

[Elgordoboy]

MTSpace said:

There's a vendor I work with, a Taiwan, China-based company that sources out of the mainland and extends us net30 terms on non-peptide business. When a competitor of his caught wind, I got a second offer of terms. Business comes down to managing risk alongside supply & demand. Today the leverage in peptides sits entirely with the seller. Splitting that risk would be an improvement.

In business, the relationship is the whole ballgame.

So who's on the hook as guarantor? A group buy splits the risk into tiny slivers across scores or hundreds of buyers, each one chasing the cheapest possible price on a big order. You'd be asking a supplier to swallow every bit of that risk alone. I'm not claiming nobody is foolish enough, but what set of circumstances would actually push a supplier into it?

The problem has already been solved: buy from a vendor who carried the risk, made the investment, and holds stock domestically. The tradeoff is a higher price. Best of luck pulling it off.

 

[MTSpace]

Elgordoboy said:

MTSpace said:

Hold the payment and reopen the terms. When demand dries up, suppliers get inventive about how much risk they'll carry. Prices might tick up to cover it, but the fakes and the weak players get filtered out. The paradigm needs shifting, and it's already working for me in a different market.

"Dosing" where he meant "doing" - the old Freudian slip lol

Appreciate it - fair point, you've got me there. Lol

 

[Herkimer P Shagnasty]

Calm Logic said:

Because their culture differs so greatly, the Chinese do not operate the way we do. Even when dealing with fellow Chinese, they have a reputation for fairly weak customer service. Within the peptide market, the main driver tends to be making a fast profit—that is the very reason they are in the peptide business at all, even with possible "inspections" hanging over them.

On the payment side, a Chinese peptide vendor is far more apt to pull an exit scam than to extend us any trust.

100% - spot on, every word of it!

They'll hand you steel that doesn't meet spec.

Then the bridge comes down, five people die, and they'll be laughing because you never tested that steel before you raised it.

 

[Amino Lair]

Now my head's throbbing...

 

[lessthanhalf]

MTSpace said:

There's a vendor I work with, a Taiwan, China-based company that sources out of the mainland and extends us net30 terms on non-peptide business. When a competitor of his caught wind, I got a second offer of terms. Business comes down to managing risk alongside supply & demand. Today the leverage in peptides sits entirely with the seller. Splitting that risk would be an improvement.

In business, the relationship is the whole ballgame.

I get that the US treats peptides as a legal grey zone, but is importing them actually lawful? And at volume? Nobody is going to extend terms when customs can seize the shipment - which rather implies importing is not legal - or when there's some other legal cloud hanging over it.

 

[HereKittyKitty]

MTSpace said:

Hold the payment and reopen the terms. When demand dries up, suppliers get inventive about how much risk they'll carry. Prices might tick up to cover it, but the fakes and the weak players get filtered out. The paradigm needs shifting, and it's already working for me in a different market.

Which other market are you rewriting the CN business playbook in?

 

[MTSpace]

Elgordoboy said:

MTSpace said:

There's a vendor I work with, a Taiwan, China-based company that sources out of the mainland and extends us net30 terms on non-peptide business. When a competitor of his caught wind, I got a second offer of terms. Business comes down to managing risk alongside supply & demand. Today the leverage in peptides sits entirely with the seller. Splitting that risk would be an improvement.

In business, the relationship is the whole ballgame.

So who's on the hook as guarantor? A group buy splits the risk into tiny slivers across scores or hundreds of buyers, each one chasing the cheapest possible price on a big order. You'd be asking a supplier to swallow every bit of that risk alone. I'm not claiming nobody is foolish enough, but what set of circumstances would actually push a supplier into it?

The problem has already been solved: buy from a vendor who carried the risk, made the investment, and holds stock domestically. The tradeoff is a higher price. Best of luck pulling it off.

HereKittyKitty said:

MTSpace said:

Hold the payment and reopen the terms. When demand dries up, suppliers get inventive about how much risk they'll carry. Prices might tick up to cover it, but the fakes and the weak players get filtered out. The paradigm needs shifting, and it's already working for me in a different market.

Which other market are you rewriting the CN business playbook in?

Tier two manufactured parts for the transportation sector. That relationship goes back more than 20 years.