Improving supply chain profit through reverse factoring: A new multi-suppliers single-vendor joint economic lot size model

Marchi, Beatrice; Zanoni, Simone; Jaber, Mohamad Y. Article Improving supply chain profit through reverse factoring: A new multi-suppliers single-vendor joint economic lot size model International Journal of Financial Studies Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Marchi, Beatrice; Zanoni, Simone; Jaber, Mohamad Y. (2020) : Improving supply chain profit through reverse factoring: A new multi-suppliers single-vendor joint economic lot size model, International Journal of Financial Studies, ISSN 2227-7072, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 1-16, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs8020023 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/257690 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ International Journal of Financial Studies Article Improving Supply Chain Profit through Reverse Factoring: A New Multi-Suppliers Single-Vendor Joint Economic Lot Size Model Beatrice Marchi 1,* , Simone Zanoni 1and Mohamad Y. Jaber 2 1Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Universitàdegli Studi di Brescia, via Branze 38, I-25123 Brescia, Italy; [email protected] 2 Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada; [email protected] *Correspondence: beatrice.mar[email protected] Received: 2 December 2019; Accepted: 3 April 2020; Published: 9 April 2020   Abstract: Supply chain finance has been gaining attention in theory and practice. A company’s financial position affects its performance and survivability in dynamic and volatile markets. Those that have weak financial performance are vulnerable when operating in environments that are uncertain and financially unstable. Companies adopt various solutions and techniques to manage, effectively and efficiently, the flow of money to and from its suppliers and buyers. Reverse factoring is an innovative technique in supply chain financing. This paper develops a joint economic lot size model where a vendor coordinates operational and financial decisions with its multiple suppliers through the establishment of a reverse factoring arrangement. The creditworthy vendor systematically informs a financial institution (e.g., bank) of payment obligations to selected suppliers, enabling the latter to borrow against the value of the relevant accounts receivable at low interest (borrowing) rates. The paper also presents a numerical example and a sensitivity analysis to illustrate the behavior of the model and to compare the economic and operational performance of a supply chain with and without a reverse factoring agreement. The results show that the establishment of a reverse factoring agreement within the supply chain improves the economic performance and impacts on the operational decisions. Keywords: supply chain management; JELS; inventory management; supply chain finance; reverse factoring JEL Classification: C61 1. Introduction European Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) have been benefitting from the EU’s economic recovery. Although those companies operated in uncertain environments with many contradictory signals, they have expressed a shared optimism with the European Commission regarding their financial positions because of the economic recovery (Kraemer-Eis et al. 2018). Despite this optimism, however, there is a strong need to manage liquidity more effectively and efficiently, especially within SMEs. Such companies continue to have difficulty securing loans to finance their operations. Lenders consider them high-risk, requiring that they pay higher capital costs to obtain funds, which suggests that significant asymmetries between small and larger firms exist. Enhancing SMEs’ access to capital facilitates a country’s transition towards a digital economy, by increasing investment in digitalization, and providing workers with on-the-job training opportunities. Financing terms and conditions differ among countries and across financial institutions. This variation is due to the uncertainty Int. J. Financial Stud. 2020,8, 23; doi:10.3390/ijfs8020023 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijfs Int. J. Financial Stud. 2020,8, 23 2 of 16 and instability of the financial markets, which affected many companies in many industries in the last decades, was behind the development of Supply Chain Finance (SCF) as a research stream. In this regard, the relationship between industrial companies and the financial sector has become a subject of great interest to researchers and practitioners (Wuttke et al. 2016). Although it has been gaining attention, researching its impact, as the literature shows, on supply chain performance is limited. Understanding the relationship helps companies and banks use their resources effectively and profitably. SCF can be defined as “the inter-company optimization of financing as well as the integration of financing processes with customers, suppliers, and service providers in order to increase the value of all participating companies” (Pfohl and Gomm 2009). It accomplishes three main goals. First, to provide visibility and control over all cash-related processes within a supply chain (Observatory for Supply Chain Finance 2017). Second, to optimize the financial flows at an inter-organizational level (Hofmann 2005). Third, to implement a set of solutions, either by financial institutions or technology providers (Caniato et al. 2016). The ultimate objective is to align financial flows with the coordination of traditional flows within the supply chain (i.e., product and information flows), improving cash-flow management from a supply chain perspective (Wuttke et al. 2013). The success of SCF depends on the cooperation between the actors in a supply chain, which can result in several benefits, e.g., lower debt costs, new opportunities to obtain loans (especially for weak supply chain players), or reduced working capital within the supply chain. Moreover, an SCF approach often improves trust, commitment, and profitability throughout the chain (Randall and Farris 2009). SCF focuses on creating liquidity in a supply chain by exploring various solutions with or without a facilitating technology (Gelsomino et al. 2016), which is either supplier-based finance, buyer-based finance, or both, where Figure 1shows a possible breakdown of supply chain financing mechanisms. Int. J. Financial Stud. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 17 industries in the last decades, was behind the development of Supply Chain Finance (SCF) as a research stream. In this regard, the relationship between industrial companies and the financial sector has become a subject of great interest to researchers and practitioners (Wuttke et al. 2016). Although it has been gaining attention, researching its impact, as the literature shows, on supply chain performance is limited. Understanding the relationship helps companies and banks use their resources effectively and profitably. SCF can be defined as “the inter-company optimization of financing as well as the integration of financing processes with customers, suppliers, and service providers in order to increase the value of all participating companies” (Pfohl and Gomm 2009). It accomplishes three main goals. First, to provide visibility and control over all cash-related processes within a supply chain (Observatory for Supply Chain Finance 2017). Second, to optimize the financial flows at an inter-organizational level (Hofmann 2005). Third, to implement a set of solutions, either by financial institutions or technology providers (Caniato et al. 2016). The ultimate objective is to align financial flows with the coordination of traditional flows within the supply chain (i.e., product and information flows), improving cashflow management from a supply chain perspective (Wuttke et al. 2013). The success of SCF depends on the cooperation between the actors in a supply chain, which can result in several benefits, e.g., lower debt costs, new opportunities to obtain loans (especially for weak supply chain players), or reduced working capital within the supply chain. Moreover, an SCF approach often improves trust, commitment, and profitability throughout the chain (Randall and Farris 2009). SCF focuses on creating liquidity in a supply chain by exploring various solutions with or without a facilitating technology (Gelsomino et al. 2016), which is either supplier-based finance, buyer-based finance, or both, where Figure 1 shows a possible breakdown of supply chain financing mechanisms. Figure 1. Supply chain finance solutions. Among the buyer-based financing mechanisms, Reverse Factoring (RF) is one that has received considerable attention from both the business and research communities. This interest is because it allows for the reduction of both the net operating working capital and the cash-to-cash cycle of a company and to improve supplier financial rating. Many firms use this scheme to induce their strategic suppliers, who usually are difficult to replace, to grant them flexible, mostly lenient, payment terms. Recent advancements in technology allowed firms to offer reverse factoring and to effectively manage it despite the challenging economic conditions (Hurtrez and Salvadori 2010). In reverse factoring, a buyer systematically informs a financial institution (e.g., a bank) of payment obligations to selected suppliers, enabling the latter to borrow against the value of the relevant accounts receivable at low interest (borrowing) rates (Klapper 2006; Van Der Vliet et al. 2015). In Supply Chain Finance Supplier financing Buyer financing Trade credit Agency cost of debt Reverse factoring Financial guarantees Purchase order finance other Cash pooling Debt financing for inventory and investments Self-financed for inventory and investments Revenue-sharing contracts Figure 1. Supply chain finance solutions. Among the buyer-based financing mechanisms, Reverse Factoring (RF) is one that has received considerable attention from both the business and research communities. This interest is because it allows for the reduction of both the net operating working capital and the cash-to-cash cycle of a company and to improve supplier financial rating. Many firms use this scheme to induce their strategic suppliers, who usually are difficult to replace, to grant them flexible, mostly lenient, payment terms. Recent advancements in technology allowed firms to offer reverse factoring and to effectively manage it despite the challenging economic conditions (Hurtrez and Salvadori 2010). In reverse Int. J. Financial Stud. 2020,8, 23 3 of 16 factoring, a buyer systematically informs a financial institution (e.g., a bank) of payment obligations to selected suppliers, enabling the latter to borrow against the value of the relevant accounts receivable at low interest (borrowing) rates (Klapper 2006;Van Der Vliet et al. 2015). In forward factoring, a supplier makes arrangements with a bank regarding its accounts receivable. Reverse factoring is the opposite. It is the buyer who arranges to borrow against its accounts payables to fulfil its commitments to its suppliers. Reverse factoring aims to reduce working capital in supply chains and promote the stability of cash flows (Dello Iacono et al. 2015). Figure 2classifies solutions by their impact on the working capital, the degree of innovation, and the extent of digitalization (Observatory for Supply Chain Finance 2016). Traditional solutions to supply chain finance can further be improved when firms make better use of digital technologies. Advanced use of those technologies will result in innovative solutions and more benefits to the supply chain. For instance, unlike traditional Reverse Factoring, Advanced Reverse Factoring makes use of full and better use of the exchange of information between an entity closer to the market in a supply chain and a financial institution to improve suppliers’ access to credit. Most innovative solutions have great potential and exciting opportunities for growth in the future; however, currently, they are still far from widespread adoption. Int. J. Financial Stud. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17 forward factoring, a supplier makes arrangements with a bank regarding its accounts receivable. Reverse factoring is the opposite. It is the buyer who arranges to borrow against its accounts payables to fulfil its commitments to its suppliers. Reverse factoring aims to reduce working capital in supply chains and promote the stability of cash flows (Dello Iacono et al. 2015). Figure 2 classifies solutions by their impact on the working capital, the degree of innovation, and the extent of digitalization (Observatory for Supply Chain Finance 2016). Traditional solutions to supply chain finance can further be improved when firms make better use of digital technologies. Advanced use of those technologies will result in innovative solutions and more benefits to the supply chain. For instance, unlike traditional Reverse Factoring, Advanced Reverse Factoring makes use of full and better use of the exchange of information between an entity closer to the market in a supply chain and a financial institution to improve suppliers’ access to credit. Most innovative solutions have great potential and exciting opportunities for growth in the future; however, currently, they are still far from widespread adoption. Figure 2. Classification of the main supply finance solutions (Observatory for Supply Chain Finance 2016). The increased interest in Supply Chain Finance (SCF) defined it as a niche research area in supply chain management. The traditional SCF research, as shown in the literature, assumes there is an entity (a company) in a supply chain that plays a pivotal role in determining and implementing the financial mechanisms that affect operational decisions. Those studies in the literature investigated the production and/or inventory models using the Economic Order/Production Quantity (EOQ/EPQ) models and their variations within a firm’s boundary. However, the link to other supply chain management topics and moving to a supply chain perspective beyond a firm’s boundary is still under-investigated (Xu et al. 2018). One stream of supply chain management research that enjoyed increased popularity in recent years is the Joint Economic Lot Size (JELS) model, which studies the coordination of order and production quantities in supply chains. This paper contributes to the literature by developing a JELS model consisting of two-levels (suppliers–buyer) where the players in the supply chain financially collaborate using reverse factoring. In this model, a group of decisionmakers representing the players in the supply chain determines the production and inventory policies that increase supply chain profitability. Specifically, the present study relates the operations and inventory management and the financial strategy, while the existing literature dealt with both topics independently. The proposed model is particularly useful in the current manufacturing context since the average purchase costs of materials, components, and services across manufacturing firms frequently exceed 60% to 70% of the total cost of operations (Wagner 2006). This paper has four remaining sections. The next section, Section 2, gives an overview of the existing literature on the main topics relevant to this study. Section 3 lists the notations and assumptions and develops the two mathematical models, with and the other without reverse Figure 2. Classification of the main supply finance solutions (Observatory for Supply Chain Finance 2016). The increased interest in Supply Chain Finance (SCF) defined it as a niche research area in supply chain management. The traditional SCF research, as shown in the literature, assumes there is an entity (a company) in a supply chain that plays a pivotal role in determining and implementing the financial mechanisms that affect operational decisions. Those studies in the literature investigated the production and/or inventory models using the Economic Order/Production Quantity (EOQ/EPQ) models and their variations within a firm’s boundary. However, the link to other supply chain management topics and moving to a supply chain perspective beyond a firm’s boundary is still under-investigated (Xu et al. 2018). One stream of supply chain management research that enjoyed increased popularity in recent years is the Joint Economic Lot Size (JELS) model, which studies the coordination of order and production quantities in supply chains. This paper contributes to the literature by developing a JELS model consisting of two-levels (suppliers–buyer) where the players in the supply chain financially collaborate using reverse factoring. In this model, a group of decision-makers representing the players in the supply chain determines the production and inventory policies that increase supply chain profitability. Specifically, the present study relates the operations and inventory management and the financial strategy, while the existing literature dealt with both topics independently. The proposed model is particularly useful in the current manufacturing context since the average purchase costs of Int. J. Financial Stud. 2020,8, 23 4 of 16 materials, components, and services across manufacturing firms frequently exceed 60% to 70% of the total cost of operations (Wagner 2006). This paper has four remaining sections. The next section, Section 2, gives an overview of the existing literature on the main topics relevant to this study. Section 3lists the notations and assumptions and develops the two mathematical models, with and the other without reverse factoring. The supply chain’s total profit is the performance measure. A numerical example to illustrate the behavior of the model and the benefits of reverse factoring are in Section 4. The paper concludes in Section 5with a summary, main findings, and suggestions for future research. 2. Literature Review 2.1. Supply Chain Finance and Reverse Factoring The work of Modigliani and Miller (1958) has been a cornerstone paper in corporate finance. It stated that the market value and financial decisions of a firm are independent of its capital structure and its dividend policy. This statement implies that a firm’s capital structure does not affect its operations decisions. However, this theorem assumed a perfect capital market, while in reality, this is not true since entities are dependent. In the last decade, the management of financial flows has received more and more attention within the concept of supply chain management (Pfohl and Gomm 2009). Gelsomino et al. (2016) reviewed the SCF literature and classified it, according to their perspective, into two groups: finance-oriented and supply chain-oriented. The studies of the first group have usually focused on a set of financial schemes aiming at optimizing accounts payable and receivable along the supply chain. The latter focuses more on the collaboration of the supply chain actors than on the financial products. However, those studies considered financial schemes to optimize working capital, including inventories, and to improve supply chain performance. Xu et al. (2018) proposed a different categorization. They identified four research clusters, including deteriorating inventory models under trade credit policy based on the EOQ/EPQ model, inventory decisions with trade credit policy under more complex situations, the interaction between replenishment decisions and delay payment strategies in the supply chain, and the role financial services play in supply chains. From the review, seven research directions emerged. The first is to study multi-level SCF. The second is to relax existing assumptions for modelling. The third is to adjust and extend the research models to adapt to a more turbulent environment for SCF. The fourth is to study the impact of different financial factors (e.g., tax or exchange rates). The fifth is to link SCF with supply chain management (SCM) topics such as sustainability. The sixth is to study SCF in a specific industry (e.g., agricultural sector). The seventh and last is to investigate different research methods more focused on case studies. The linkage between supply chain finance and sustainability has recently received the attention of scholars since suppliers and retailers have begun to care about the environmental and social sustainability of their supply chains. For instance, Marchi et al. (2018) proposed a model to evaluate how the cooperation among members of a supply chain on investment decisions allows a chain to overcome, or at least mitigate, the several barriers currently existing for the implementation of energy efficiency measures. Aljazzar et al. (2018) investigated delay-in-payments as a means of reducing carbon emissions in supply chains. Their findings showed that adopting delay-in-payments leads to improvements in both the environmental and economic performance of the supply chain. Zhan et al. (2018) proposed a model to introduce the role of financing mechanisms in promoting supply chain sustainability and efficiency. Reverse Factoring (RF) is one of the most addressed financing schemes in the literature. Several qualitative studies have highlighted the relevance of RF for suppliers driven by high working capital requirements and, contextually, have high costs or difficulties accessing other forms of working capital financing, such as direct factoring (Gelsomino et al. 2016). Tanrisever et al. (2015) investigated how RF can influence operational decisions. They found that RF generates value and is affected by the spread in external financing costs, the extension of the payment period, the operational characteristics Int. J. Financial Stud. 2020,8, 23 5 of 16 of SMEs (i.e., volatility in their cash flows and working capital policy), and the risk-free interest rate. Van Der Vliet et al. (2015) developed a periodic review base-stock model with alternative sources of financing. They focused on the duality between discounts and extending payment terms, and found, using simulation, that suppliers experienced non-linear cost. Lekkakos and Serrano (2017) studied the implications of RF on the buying firm’s capital investment decision in the face of deadweight costs for external financing. They found that the implementation of RF with extended payment terms allows higher investment to the benefit of the integrated supply chain. Recently, Wu et al. (2019) proposed a comparative study of three supply chain finance schemes (i.e., early payment, delayed payment, and RF). They focused on the financial performance of the supplier and retailer to provide more insights that better help them understand the benefits, the applicable conditions, and the influential factors of each financial scheme. 2.2. Joint Economic Lot Size Models JELS models have been studied extensively in the literature. They represent a fundamental reference for supply chain management, illustrating how inventory replenishment decisions and related actions influence the profit and costs of the entire supply chain. The concept of JELS was first introduced by Goyal (1977), who considered an instantaneous replenishment lot size model with a vendor and a buyer coordinating to minimize their joint costs. Later on, Banerjee (1986) modified the work of Goyal (1977) by assuming a finite production rate and a lot-for-lot inventory policy. The literature has a large number of studies on JELS. Conducting a comprehensive review of those studies is, therefore, not within the scope of this paper. However, we present a brief overview of JELS models relevant to the work at hand. The reader may refer to Glock (2012) for a structured literature review of JELS model. Few works in the literature consider a Multi-Vendor Single-Buyer (MVSB) supply chain. Kim and Goyal (2009 ) were one of the first to investigate an MVSB supply chain in a JELS model. They studied two delivery policies. The first allows for lumpy deliveries, where all vendors ship their lots at the same time to the buyer. The second one has them spaced (or phased) where the buyer receives a shipment from a vendor when its inventory level reaches zero. Glock (2011) considered the option where the buyer selects vendors from a pool of pre-selected ones. Glock and Kim (2014), on the other hand, assumed that the buyer group vendors to enable shipment consolidation to save on transportation costs. Jaber and Goyal (2008) proposed a JELS model for a three-level supply chain with multiple suppliers and buyers and a vendor in between. Another research stream, which is of interest to this paper, considers the JELS model where players financially collaborate to improve profitability. Currently, the focus is mainly on the integration of the opportunity to delay payments offered by the suppliers to the buyers through trade credit. Ouyang et al. (2009) discussed a supplier and a buyer supply chain problem with order-size dependent trade credit. Aljazzar et al. (2017) developed a three-level supply chain with a delay in payments where its length (given by the supplier to the vendor and by the vendor to the buyer) is a decision variable. Marchi et al. (2016) investigated different SCF solutions, i.e., the joint financing of investments across the supply chain. Specifically, it considered a two-level supply chain consisting of a vendor and a buyer and assumed that the vendor has the option to invest in increasing its production rate. Due to different abilities in accessing capital, the vendor and the buyer may also share the investment and the uncertain outcome through revenue sharing mechanisms. It becomes evident now, from the above-surveyed studies, that JELS and RF are central topics in supply chain management and have never been considered jointly in the literature. Marchi et al. (2020) extended the inventory theory by proposing a JELS model under two different coordination policies, combining the operation management with two specific financial techniques that may allow the commodity risk mitigation; i.e., the warehouse financing practice, and the use of futures contracts. Int. J. Financial Stud. 2020,8, 23 6 of 16 3. Model Development Before embarking on developing the mathematics, we list the notation used in the models. Vendor’s notation: jpart index, j=1, 2, ...,k; ujnumber of units of part type jthat go into one unit of the finished product, j=1, 2, ...,k(unit); Avvendor’s fixed order cost ($/order); av,jcost for placing a purchase order for the jth part ($/order); c0unit cost ($/unit); Dannual demand rate (unit/year); hv,PF unit holding cost of finished product per year, consisting of two components, one physical ( hv,PF,p ) and the other financial (hv,PF,f) ($/unit/year); hv,junit holding cost of part jat the vendor’s warehouse per year, consisting of two components, one physical (hv,j,p) and the other financial (hv,j,f) ($/unit/year); knumber of part types in the finished product; pvproduct unit selling price ($/unit); Pvvendor’s production rate (unit/year); qlot size quantity (unit); ρvinterest rate the bank offers to the vendor (%/year); Svendor’s setup cost ($/setup). Suppliers’ notation: ssupplier index, s=1, 2, . . . ,m; mtotal number of suppliers; As,jsetup cost that supplier sincurs when producing the jth part, j=1, 2, ...,k($/setup); cs,junit production cost of part jfor supplier s($/unit); hs,j,0 unit holding cost per unit of time for part j supplied by supplier s , when there is no coordination of the financial flow. It consists of two contributions, one physical (hs,j,p) and the other financial (hs,j,f,0) ($/unit/year); hs,jholding cost per unit of time for jth part supplied by supplier s, consisting of two contributions, one physical (hs,j,p) and the other financial (hs,j,f) ($/unit/year); ns,jnumber of shipments for part jsupplier ssends to the vendor; Ps,jproduction rate of supplier sfor part j(unit/year); ps,jsupplier sunit selling price for part j($/unit); ρs interest rate the bank offers to supplier s when there is collaboration of financial flows in a supply chain (%/year); ρs,0 interest rate the bank offers to supplier s when there is no financial collaboration (%/year); Ys,jbinary parameter assuming value 1 if the part jis supplied by supplier s; 0 otherwise. 3.1. Problem Description and Assumptions This paper deals with the coordination of inventory and financing decisions in a two-level supply chain with multi-suppliers and a vendor. Replenishments follow an equal-sized shipment policy. Hence, the vendor orders a lot size of ujq for every part j at regular time intervals and starts its production process at a rate of Pv manufacturing lot of size q . The suppliers manufacture lots of size ns,jujq at a finite production rate Ps,j with a single setup that is delivered to the vendor in ns,j shipments of equal size ujq . The suppliers incur a setup cost for each production run, while the vendor incurs an ordering cost for each order placed. A vendor may receive one or more (product) parts from a supplier to assemble the product that it sells to costumers. Figure 3shows the behavior of inventory overtime for the suppliers and the vendor for different produced and shipped parts. The vendor, whose role is central to the supply chain, adopts a reverse factoring agreement through a financial institution (e.g., a bank) to manage its accounts payables with its suppliers at the least possible cost. Figure 4is a schematic representation of the supply chain consisting of multi-suppliers and a vendor, with a bank (third party) managing the financial flows. Int. J. Financial Stud. 2020,8, 23 7 of 16 Int. J. Financial Stud. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 17 Figure 3. The inventory behavior for the suppliers and the vendor. Figure 4. Schematic representation of a supply chain consisting of multi-suppliers, a vendor, and a bank (third party), who manages the financial flows. Reverse Factoring (RF), specifically, is a financial solution where the vendor (who is ordering) contacts its bank to arrange for early payments to its supplier to finance their accounts receivables 0 0 Inventory level, I(t) Time, t SUPPLIER 1 Ite m 1 Ite m 2 … 0 0 Inventory level, I(t) Time, t VENDOR PF Item 1 Item 2 Item k 0 0 Inventory level, I(t) Time, t SUPPLIER m Ite m k Figure 3. The inventory behavior for the suppliers and the vendor. Int. J. Financial Stud. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 17 Figure 3. The inventory behavior for the suppliers and the vendor. Figure 4. Schematic representation of a supply chain consisting of multi-suppliers, a vendor, and a bank (third party), who manages the financial flows. Reverse Factoring (RF), specifically, is a financial solution where the vendor (who is ordering) contacts its bank to arrange for early payments to its supplier to finance their accounts receivables 0 0 Inventory level, I(t) Time, t SUPPLIER 1 Ite m 1 Ite m 2 … 0 0 Inventory level, I(t) Time, t VENDOR PF Item 1 Item 2 Item k 0 0 Inventory level, I(t) Time, t SUPPLIER m Ite m k Figure 4. Schematic representation of a supply chain consisting of multi-suppliers, a vendor, and a bank (third party), who manages the financial flows. Reverse Factoring (RF), specifically, is a financial solution where the vendor (who is ordering) contacts its bank to arrange for early payments to its supplier to finance their accounts receivables Int. J. Financial Stud. 2020,8, 23 8 of 16 (from purchases) at interest rates lower than the market (Van Der Vliet et al. 2015). The vendor is assumed to have a better financial position (liquidity and solvency) than its suppliers. Once the vendor receives invoices of orders, it immediately notifies its bank to make payments to its suppliers without delay or by the due date specified in the trade agreement. At the same time, the bank provides an approved-invoice-based financing solution to the suppliers through early payments, as shown in Figure 5. This arrangement furnishes the necessary capital for its suppliers to start production with minimal financial risks since mostly they are carried by the vendor (Lekkakos and Serrano 2016). RF reduces the unit cost of borrowing for the suppliers since the vendor leverages the cost of capital (Lekkakos and Serrano 2017). Int. J. Financial Stud. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17 (from purchases) at interest rates lower than the market (Van Der Vliet et al. 2015). The vendor is assumed to have a better financial position (liquidity and solvency) than its suppliers. Once the vendor receives invoices of orders, it immediately notifies its bank to make payments to its suppliers without delay or by the due date specified in the trade agreement. At the same time, the bank provides an approved-invoice-based financing solution to the suppliers through early payments, as shown in Figure 5. This arrangement furnishes the necessary capital for its suppliers to start production with minimal financial risks since mostly they are carried by the vendor (Lekkakos and Serrano 2016). RF reduces the unit cost of borrowing for the suppliers since the vendor leverages the cost of capital (Lekkakos and Serrano 2017). Figure 5. Schematic representation of the reverse factoring mechanism. The following straightforward JELS assumptions are made in addition to the properties already described (Jaber and Goyal 2008): • Deterministic demand and constant over time which is lower than the production rate of the vendor 𝑃; • The final product requires 𝑘 different parts; • Shortages are not allowed; • Lead time is assumed to be zero; • An infinite time horizon is considered. The JELS with reverse factoring is developed in Section 3.2. A reference case model, JELS without reverse factoring, is presented in Section 3.3. The two models are then compared. 3.2. Model Development 3.2.1. The Vendor’s Annual Profit Function The vendor’s annual revenue from selling the final product to the end customer is 𝑝𝐷. Its annual cost components are explained next. The ordering cost of parts (components) from its suppliers is 𝐴+∑𝑎,  𝐷𝑞 ⁄. The purchasing cost of raw materials and components required to produce the final product is ∑∑𝑢𝑝,𝐷    𝑌,. The production setup cost is 𝑆𝐷𝑞 ⁄. The transforming cost of purchased components of a unit of the final product is 𝑐𝐷. The costs of stocking raw materials and components at the vendor’s warehouse are ∑ℎ,𝑢𝑞𝐷2𝑃 ⁄  andℎ,(1− 𝐷𝑃 ⁄) 𝑞/2, respectively. Furthermore, due to the establishment of the reverse factoring agreement, the vendor pays interests to the bank for each unit of raw material and component paid in advance by the financial institution to the suppliers. The interest rate of the vendor (𝜌) is applied to the value of the purchased parts in each production cycle, 𝑝,𝑢𝑞, multiplied by the advance period, ∑𝑢𝑞𝑃, ⁄+(𝑖−1)𝑞𝐷 ⁄  ,  . The total annual profit of the vendor, 𝑇𝑃, is thus the sum of the revenues minus the costs as defined in Equation (1). Figure 5. Schematic representation of the reverse factoring mechanism. The following straightforward JELS assumptions are made in addition to the properties already described (Jaber and Goyal 2008): • Deterministic demand and constant over time which is lower than the production rate of the vendor Pv; •The final product requires kdifferent parts; •Shortages are not allowed; •Lead time is assumed to be zero; •An infinite time horizon is considered. The JELS with reverse factoring is developed in Section 3.2. A reference case model, JELS without reverse factoring, is presented in Section 3.3. The two models are then compared. 3.2. Model Development 3.2.1. The Vendor’s Annual Profit Function The vendor’s annual revenue from selling the final product to the end customer is pvD . Its annual cost components are explained next. The ordering cost of parts (components) from its suppliers is Av+Pk j=1av,jD/q . The purchasing cost of raw materials and components required to produce the final product is Pm s=1Pk j=1ujps,jDYs,j . The production setup cost is SD/q . The transforming cost of purchased components of a unit of the final product is c0D . The costs of stocking raw materials and components at the vendor’s warehouse are Pk j=1hv,jujqD/ 2 Pv and hv,PF(1−D/Pv)q/ 2, respectively. Furthermore, due to the establishment of the reverse factoring agreement, the vendor pays interests to the bank for each unit of raw material and component paid in advance by the financial institution to the suppliers. The interest rate of the vendor ( ρv ) is applied to the value of the purchased parts in each production cycle, ps,jujq , multiplied by the advance period, Pns,j i=1hujq/Ps,j+(i−1)q/Di . The total annual profit of the vendor, TPV , is thus the sum of the revenues minus the costs as defined in Equation (1). Int. J. Financial Stud. 2020,8, 23 15 of 16 Hofmann, Erik. 2005. Supply Chain Finance: Some conceptual insights. Logistik Management: Innovative Logistikkonzepte 80: 203–14. [CrossRef] Hurtrez, Nicolas, and Massimo G. S. Salvadori. 2010. Supply chain finance: From myth to reality. In McKinsey on Payments. pp. 22–28. Available online: https://www.finyear.com/attachment/252360 (accessed on 7 April 2020). Jaber, Mohamad Y., and Suresh K. Goyal. 2008. Coordinating a three-level supply chain with multiple suppliers, a vendor and multiple buyers. International Journal of Production Economics 116: 95–103. [CrossRef] Kim, Taebok, and Suresh K. Goyal. 2009. A consolidated delivery policy of multiple suppliers for a single buyer. International Journal of Procurement Management 2: 267. [CrossRef] Klapper, Leora. 2006. The role of factoring for financing small and medium enterprises. Journal of Banking and Finance 30: 3111–30. [CrossRef] Kraemer-Eis, Helmut, Antonia Bostari, Salome Gvetadze, Frank Lang, and Wouter Torfs. 2018. European Small Business Finance Outlook. Luxembourg: European Investment Fund. Lekkakos, Spyridon D., and Alejandro Serrano. 2016. Supply chain finance for small and medium sized enterprises: The case of reverse factoring. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 46: 367–92. [CrossRef] Lekkakos, Spyridon D., and Alejandro Serrano. 2017. Reverse factoring: A theory on the value of payment terms extension. Foundations and Trends in Technology, Information and Operations Management 10: 270–88. [CrossRef] Marchi, Beatrice, Jörg M. Ries, Simone Zanoni, and Christoph H. Glock. 2016. A joint economic lot size model with financial collaboration and uncertain investment opportunity. International Journal of Production Economics 176: 170–82. [CrossRef] Marchi, Beatrice, Simone Zanoni, Ivan Ferretti, and Lucio E. Zavanella. 2018. Stimulating Investments in Energy Efficiency through Supply Chain Integration. Energies 11: 858. [CrossRef] Marchi, Beatrice, Lucio E. Zavanella, and Simone Zanoni. 2020. Joint economic lot size models with warehouse financing and financial contracts for hedging stocks under different coordination policies. Journal of Business Economics. [CrossRef] Modigliani, Franco, and Merton H. Miller. 1958. The cost of capital, corporation finance, and the theory of investment. The American Economic Review 48: 261–97. Observatory for Supply Chain Finance. 2016. Supply Chain Finance: Opportunities in the Italian Market. Milano: Politecnico di Milano. Observatory for Supply Chain Finance. 2017. Supply Chain Finance: Tomorrow Is Already Here! Milano: Politecnico di Milano. Ouyang, Liang-Yuh, Chia-Huei Ho, and Chia-Hsien Su. 2009. An optimization approach for joint pricing and ordering problem in an integrated inventory system with order-size dependent trade credit. Computers & Industrial Engineering 57: 920–30. [CrossRef] Pfohl, Hans-Christian, and Moritz Gomm. 2009. Supply chain finance: Optimizing financial flows in supply chains. Journal of Logistics Research 1: 149–61. [CrossRef] Ramezani, Majid, Ali M. Kimiagari, and Behrooz Karimi. 2014. Closed-loop supply chain network design: A financial approach. Applied Mathematical Modelling 38: 4099–119. [CrossRef] Randall, Wesley S., and Martin Theodore II Farris. 2009. Supply chain financing: Using cash-to-cash variables to strengthen the supply chain. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 39: 669–89. [CrossRef] Tanrisever, Fehmi, Hande Cetinay, Matthew Reindorp, and Jan C. Fransoo. 2015. Reverse Factoring for SME Finance. SSRN. [CrossRef] Van Der Vliet, Kasper, Matthew J. Reindorp, and Jan C. Fransoo. 2015. The price of reverse factoring: Financing rates vs. payment delays. European Journal of Operational Research. [CrossRef] Wagner, Stephan M. 2006. A firm’s responses to deficient suppliers and competitive advantage. Journal of Business Research 59: 686–95. [CrossRef] Wu, Yaobin, Yingying Wang, Xun Xu, and Xiangfend Chen. 2019. Collect payment early, late, or through a third party’s reverse factoring in a supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics 218: 245–59. [CrossRef] Int. J. Financial Stud. 2020,8, 23 16 of 16 Wuttke, David A., Constantin Blome, and Michael Henke. 2013. Focusing the financial flow of supply chains: An empirical investigation of financial supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics 145: 773–89. [CrossRef] Wuttke, David A., Constantin Blome, Sebastian Heese, and Margarita Protopappa-Sieke. 2016. Supply chain finance: Optimal introduction and adoption decisions. International Journal of Production Economics 178: 72–81. [CrossRef] Xu, Xinhan, Xiangfeng Chen, Fu Jia, Steve Brown, Yu Gong, and Yifan Xu. 2018. Supply chain finance: A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Production Economics 204: 160–73. [CrossRef] Zhan, Jizhou, Shuting Li, and Xiangfeng Chen. 2018. The impact of financing mechanism on supply chain sustainability and efficiency. Journal of Cleaner Production 205: 407–18. [CrossRef] © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).