News

ICC releases the 2020 Global Survey on Trade Finance incorporating an assessment of the impact of COVID-19

21/07/2020

The International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC) 11th annual Global Survey on Trade Finance reveals that banks are optimistic about the evolving nature of trade finance, though unsurprisingly expect various industry-wide challenges and disruption as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The 2020 ICC Global Survey report – recognised as the world’s most authoritative review of the trade finance industry – has been released based on exclusive information from nearly 350 respondents in more than 80 countries, bolstered by nuanced contributions from an international array of experts from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), AUSTRAC, Boston Consulting Group (BCG), Coriolis Technologies, HSBC, Kountable, SWIFT and TXF.

Survey responses and accompanying commentary continue to reflect evolution and greater receptiveness to innovation in the financing of international trade, whether through traditional techniques or emerging mechanisms in Supply Chain Finance (SCF). The underlying optimism reflected in past surveys is evidenced again this year, as are key topics and areas of global industry focus.

SCF and digital trade are confirmed as key growth priorities for banks, with 86% and 84% of respective respondents calling them an ‘immediate or near-future priority’. However, there is a divide between global and non-global banks on their supply chain finance offerings and investments in digitalisation. Some 64% of global banks surveyed currently offer SCF platforms, compared to just 13% of local banks and 38% of regional banks. Similarly, while 83% of global banks have a digital strategy, only 46% of local banks report having one – highlighting a growing gap between players of different scale and reach.

Other topics are also gaining traction with participants – such as sustainability and financial inclusion, whereby some 67% of respondents indicated that their bank now has a sustainability strategy. What’s more, the majority of banks surveyed are also integrating sustainability risks into their credit risk management procedures.

In terms of ongoing challenges, banks of all sizes remain concerned by the obstacles to their trade finance businesses’ growth posed by regulation and compliance policies, with 56% indicating ‘significant concern’ regarding regulatory requirements.

Assessing the impact of COVID-19

Meanwhile, to quantify the likely impact of the pandemic on the trade finance industry, the report contains results from two additional projects. The first is analysis from BCG to model scenarios on how COVID-19 could disrupt trade, suggesting that trade flow values could fall by anywhere between 11% and 30% in 2020. Findings also indicate that the longer any lockdowns persist, the more severe the global and systemic impact will be, as businesses of all sizes – domestic and international in nature – fight to meet financial and commercial obligations and to remain viable.

ICC also conducted a supplementary COVID-19 survey to understand banks’ sentiment regarding the initial impact of the pandemic on trade finance, with banks across geographies reporting an average 0-10% decrease in their trade flows in the first quarter of 2020, and most expecting at least a 20-30% decline for the full year. In addition, results from the survey reveal that many of the participating banks are supporting their customers during the crisis by extending financing terms, enhancing their digital offerings, and some even relaxing internal policies on original documentation rules.

Despite today’s challenging atmosphere, banks around the world are generally optimistic. Even in the initial, highly disruptive stages of the global COVID-19 crisis, trade finance has remained available and accessible. In turn, the Global Survey confirms and reinforces trade finance’s resilient character and adaptability.

Access to the ICC Global Survey on Trade Finance can be viewed here Please note that you need to complete some details about yourself before receiving a download link from ICC via email.


Back to recent news

Recent News

26/11/2024

The latest newsletter is now available in the members trade information section under the category of 'Newsletters'...more

ICC release Technical Advisory Briefing No. 11 - Definition of Trade Finance 19/09/2024

Recognising that there is no global standard for the defining Trade Finance, this Briefing document provides a suggested text and has been recommended for use by the ICC Banking Commisison Steering Committee...more

Latest Question

We, as the issuing bank, requested the below document, under field 46A. “Insurance policy/certificate for 10.00 percent above CIF value payable to the order of Sampath bank PLC, covering institute cargo clauses (a), institute war clauses (cargo), institute strike clauses (cargo), transshipment risks marked premium paid claims payable in Colombo irrespective of percentage.” Insurance certificate is presented containing below wording on the face side of the document. “The settlement of loss and damage will be effected, unless otherwise provided, through the intermediary of Marsh SA/NV to whom all documents are to be forwarded for this purpose, and will collect the indemnity under deduction of a commission of one percent” Also, it indicates the LC conditions as a mirror image as follows under the heading of "letter of credit conditions" whereas insurance conditions are incorporated separately in the certificate: "covering institute cargo clauses (A), institute war clauses (cargo), institute strike clauses (cargo), transshipment risks marked premium paid claims payable in Colombo irrespective of percentage" Having considered the above clauses, we have quoted below discrepancies. 1) Insurance policy indicates a deductible of 1 pct instead of irrespective of percentage. 2) Insurance not marked premium paid Beneficiary’s bank disagrees with our discrepancy and raised below argument: “Insurance policy/certificate does not indicate a deductible of 1 pct irrespective of percentage on the face of the document and banks will not examine terms and condition in insurance document as per ISBP paragraph K22 and marked as premium paid under the LC conditions. Considering above, may we have your opinion on the discrepancy quoted by us and the counter argument raised by the beneficiary’s bank.