Talk:Letter of credit/Archives/2013

If you are the beneficiary

TINLA. If you are the beneficiary, your bank where you are supposed to be receiving your money has ways of checking to see if the LC is genuine, i.e., if money or collateral actually exists at the upstream end of the deal. The procedures surrounding LC's have been designed to insure that the beneficiary gets paid. knoodelhed 06:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

is there any other option for LC?

[Mayank Katiyar]

There are a number of options, and this is a study of its own. The first is that an L/C can be REVOCABLE - the issuing bank claims the right to withdraw its commitment either conditionally or without prior notice. If not said, an L/C is deemed IRREVOCABLE - first issued, the bank will pay when provided evidence as stated in the L/C. A CONFIRMED vs UNCONFIRMED L/C address the issue above: The issuing bank and advising bank has exchanged information that allows the advisng bank to "CONFIRM" it. "Restricted Negotiable" vs "Freely Negotiable" L/C: The issueing bank has nominated (or not) the bank the beneficiary may use. "Revolving" L/C - is reused over time for say the purchase of the same goods every month over time - typical 1 year.

"Transfarable" vs "Non-Transferable" - if not stated the L/C is non-transferable and the nominated beneficiary cannot transfer the whole or parts of the L/C to any third party. The Transferable allows a broker to use the L/C issued by the buyer to pay for services and production to other parties that is required to complete the terms of the L/C. So the common term is "Transferable". From a producer of goods that seek protection for the production this may seek an L/C issued by a "Top 100 Bank" avoiding "MissPenny's Loansharks" dubious credit - and leave it then to the big bank to consider the risks involved by involving a bank far away. However the "Top100 Bank" will confirm the L/C first after complete "Due Diligence" procedure - where "MissPenny's Loansharks" may pass with flying colours. The issueing bank is still responsible to pay you - but the big bank has accepted to take the risk that the smaller bank will pay, and that you will be paid on exhibiting the evidence asked for ("Back-to-Back Payment). The transferable clause is relate to the term "Line of Credit" that is broken by a non-transferable L/C. See also http://www.export911.com/e911/export/particu.htm --Khflottorp 16:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Letters of credit are not always irrevocable they can be:

a) Revocable

b) Irrevocable

c) Confirmed

d) Unconfirmed

e) Transferable

f) Others i.e. Back to Back  : Revolving

….the most common are Irrevocable/Confirmed

so I edited the page accordingly.- By Paul Albinson. Visit my website 20:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What happen if the LC Value is little bit higher (IE within +1%)than the stipulated amount ?

   The UCP600 has a definition. Also look at the ISBP. Alan Davidson 14:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Covered Vs Uncovered LC

This document does not talk about Covered Letters of Credit (Wherein the issuing bank transfers the cover amount - to the beneficiary bank. This practice is in place in Russia as far as I know. Can the anchor put in some details about this aspect too?

Payment Terms Letters of Credit

Good Day

Can sombody assit me with the meanings of these abbreviations?

Payment terms are - DLC,RLC,FFDLC,FFRLC,SLC,BG or unconditional SLC/BG – —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.207.47.60 (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Examples

It would be useful to give several examples of typical "stipulated documents" that must be presented, as well as typical "terms and conditions of the letter of credit". 24.16.25.69 17:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The typical documents called under LC would be invoice, transport documents such as bill of lading, airway bill, lorry or railway receipt, packing list, insurance policy or certificate, certificate of origin and vaious certificates like certificate of analysis, inspection certificate, test report, beneficiary certificates which needs to state they have fulfiled certain conditions etc.

The terms and cnditions include the tenor of payment, the presentation period for documents to be presented, reimbursement insreuctions, regulatory conditions etc, for which a document may or may not be called for.

Day Counting

Is the day counint started from the date LC issued, or the date goods were shipped? Jackzhp 22:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to day counting in context of the tenor of payment or the presentation of documents as both have different rules. In case of calculation of tenor, the days will be counted from the next day the date from which the days are to be counted. For e.g. if tenor is 60 days from the invoice date and if the invoice date is 01-12-2007, then the 60 days will be calculated from 02-12-2007.

For presentation of documents, calculation of period is tricky and depends on the words used to define. The words such as "to", "till", "until", "from" is used before the period included the date. If "before" and "after" is used prior the period, it excludes the date. For e.g., if presentation period is 15 days "FROM" shipment date and shipment date is 01-11-2007, then for calculation of presentation period will start from 1st November. Bur if presentation period is 15 days "AFTER" shipment date and shipment date is 01-11-2007, then for calculation of presentation period will start from 2nd November. hope this clarifies the point.

Regards

How to resolve LC discrepancies?

Hi everyone

I’m new to Trade Financing (handling of LCs), hope someone could provide some solutions so that I can better understand the operations.

Term LC (60 days) was incorrectly established as Sight LC. Both Importer (in Singapore) and Exporter (in Korea) overlook the tenor issue (Sight vs 60 days). The LC was established in USD.

Partial Shipment arrived. However, the Shipping documents were still not available. Importer applied for Shipping Guarantee to take delivery of goods. Subsequently, the shipping documents arrived, Importer present it to the Shipping Agent to cancel the Shipping Guarantee, which was returned to Importer’s Banker.

The day before payment day (Thur), it was discovered that the tenor was wrong. The Importer’s Banker advised the Importer to contact the Exporter and request the Exporter to inform their Banker (2nd Advising Bank) to change the tenor from Sight to 60 days and instruct the 1st Advising Bank to send an authenticated telex to confirm the discrepancy so that the Importer’s Banker can pay later (i.e. 60 days). The Importer’s Banker claimed that it could be rectified if the authenticated instructions are received before 13:00 (Singapore time) on the payment date (Fri) for USD payment. The reason, Asia is 1 day ahead of US.

But the Supplier came back stating that their Banker cannot change the tenor from Sight to 60 days. Moreover, their Negotiation Bank has already credited their account with the fund.

(1) Was the solution provided by the Importer’s Banker feasible?

(2) Would the Negotiation Bank pay the Exporter first before receiving money from the Importer’s Bank?

Thanks davis57 Davis57 07:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

classification

• revocable vs. irrevocable
• confirmed vs. unconfirmed
• revolving vs non-revolving
• transferable vs. intransferable
• assignable vs. non-assignable

and what does "red clause" mean?

Jackzhp (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

deletion of link to letterofcreditforum.com

Versageek suggested that I ask contributors whether they believe that my site letterofcreditforum.com would be a good resource for the Wikipedia entry on letters of credit.

The site www.letterofcreditforum.com is a collection of articles, the text of a book whose copyright has reverted to me, sample documents, news, jobs, etc. related to letters of credits. As the name suggests, the site also hosts a forum, which has a high level of competency.

I have built the site as a hobby, having dealt with letters of credit academically and hoping to learn more and exchange opinions with experts in the field. I have co-written some articles. I believe I never created a link to my personal website and do not see how a conflict of interest could arise.

The site hosts a forum, but more importantly, a collection of documents, articles, etc. which deal with letters of credits. Hence, I believe that the Wikipedia rules regarding linking to forums do not apply, since the forum is only one aspect of the site. The fact that it is part of the domain name should not distract from the fact that it hosts relevant encyclopedic materials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.199.32 (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I checked the site and it looks academically sound to me. The material is unquestionably well researched and unbiassed. I suggest to allow the link. Cnososharp (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal issues relating to Letters of Credit.

This article states there is difficulty in establishing legal consideration between the beneficiary and the bank. This is not necessary or required in law. Under a sale and purchase agreement there is consideration shown between the buyer and seller (the exchange for goods or services for payment). When the payment obligation is to be supported by a Letter of Credit there is legal consideration shown between the buyer (applicant) and the issuing bank within the terms of the application and indemnity. There is no contractual relationship between the seller (beneficiary) and the issuing bank and therefore no consideration is required. 142.245.59.3 (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Is anything known about the history of this financial mechanism?

Someone has told me that this method of doing business was started by a particular businessman in the 20th century. Another person tells me that it was started out of Baghdad in the 9th century. What are the historical origins of the letter of credit? 72.74.241.10 (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Sally Shabaka

I worked as a programmer on a Letters of Credit system for a money-center NYC bank (now no longer with us) in the 1981 to 1988 period. Not that we were ever shown any primary documentation to prove the claims, but we were told that the roots of LCs could be traced back to the Phoenicians in umpty-ump BC. DEddy (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

transferrable letter of credit

Hi,

could anyone give me a guide for below question :

1. a transferrable L/C must be authenticated by both buyer and seller? 2. how to detect if this L/C is genuine which mean collateral is there as the deposit of the buyer to the issuing bank? 3. can first beneficiary hold the payment from the buyer before payment paid to second beneficiary? B3ngelm (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Which entity is "they"? Please fill in the name. Thanks.

A business called the InCosmetika from time to time imports goods from a business called BLISS, which banks with the ABC Bank. InCosmetika holds an account at the Commonwealth Bank. InCosmetika wants to buy $500,000 worth of merchandise from BLISS, who agrees to sell the goods and give InCosmetika 60 days to pay for them, on the condition that ??they?? are provided with a 90-day LC for the full amount. The steps to get the letter of credit would be as follows 65.212.108.131 (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that "they" are BLISS (the exporter). Vandiroska (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would anyone compare an LC with a surety bond?

I'm preparing an article on surety bonds and ran into a comparison of surety bonds with letters of credit, explaining why surety bonds are better.

Under what circumstances would someone consider an LC instead of a surety bond? Have I missed something? Georgia Yankee (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

At one point I worked on a money center bank Letter of Credit system. While most of the emphasis was on trade (the work was in the "Trade Services" department of the bank), there were also stories of how LCs were used by municipalities to "earn" a lower bond interest rate. Story was that with the presence of an LC the bond rating agencies would ignore the municipality & look at the credit rating of the LC issuer. DEddy (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate information

In the section "The price of letters of credit" a large chunk of that text appears to have been directly copied and pasted from the beginning of the same page. I removed the text that had been copied from the beginning of the page, but then someone reverted it back saying that my edit was not constructive. However, I don't see why it would be beneficial to have a large chunk of information written twice on the same page. Also, the information I removed doesn't even belong in the "The price of letters of credit" but it does belong in the introduction where it is also written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlameTheMedia (talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. You probably wouldn't have been reverted if you had explained the deletion in your edit summary. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hard to read

The current form of the article has very long sentences and reads like legalese, even though the basic concept of an LC is pretty easy to understand. It would be nice to have a clear description at the top identifying the different roles (appliciant, beneficiary, etc) without using to many this-or-that formations or semicolons or parentheses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.18.85.235 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Totally agree with you and maybe one day some bright spark may attempt such a task. As for me I don't fully understand it and am making a hack at understanding it for a exam in 1 and a half days time, so even if I did understand I just don't have the time. Maybe after exams I will repay the favour of the kind contributors who have done the article so far by simplifying but not now. - By Paul Albinson. Visit my website 00:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. Wikipedia is not a law and trade textbook and because of that should avoid legalese. --SweetBadger (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I slogged about halfway through the article before I realized I still hadn't been given a basic understanding of how they work; that is, what the process is. I worked in an import business years ago and we dealth with LC's; I thought I understood them; after trying to read this article, I'm not so sure. Georgia Yankee (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a native English speaker, but is the text at paragraph Types of Letter of Credit really true English? It appears to me that the author has great technical knowledge but lacks sufficient knowledge of English grammar and vocabulary. Please revise. --My2Cents (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be really nice if a native speaker could fix this part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.188.202.2 (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Self-published source

The source link to "Letter of Credit, its Relation with Stipulation Pour Autrui" by Andres Menendez, [1], is a link to a paper uploaded to SSRN. Date posted: March 12, 2012 ; Last revised: October 4, 2012. Linked into Wikipedia on October 4, 2012 [2] by 199.67.138.49 (talk · contribs). This appears to be a self-published source. --John Nagle (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Very clever paper by the way... It does explain why the Common Law excluded letters of credit as contracts and proposes a viable theorie of the contractual nature of letters of credit.

I agree with the self published paper, is very clear, I think that it doesn’t matter if it was not published in a law review journal or a book. Can a knowledgeable person on the subject provide comment why such theory wouldn’t be valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.149.156 (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)