A Conceptual Proposal on Blockchain: Distributed Ledger of Corporate Liquidity

Referring to the famous analogy which explains blockchain concept as “A wants to transfer money to B”, the study reverses it as “B wants to have trade credit from A” then the paradigm will rather be crediting instead of debiting. To what extent will a supplier allow trade credit upon request is a decision of accounts payable, but the extent to which a third party will offer more trade credit for the first borrower will require a reconsideration of that customer’s liquidity which is restricted by the accumulation of trade credit along with bank credit already held. The usage of trade credit and the level of bank credit are the main liquidity generators in a supply chain. The study reveals the need for a distributed ledger of liquidity based on trade credit by proposing the use blockchain technology to create zones of private distributed ledgers on liquidity. In the future, the suggested zones are expected to cooperate with government agencies and central bank in the challenge for eliminating informal transactions within the economy. Hence, trade credit in the short-term and relative liquidity indicators are presented in order to reveal the potential for an economy by giving evidence with the long-term data available in Turkey. The study depicts a conceptual proposal with the potential implications therein. Along with their blockchain challenge, the proposal in this study will strategically help the commercial banks which could consider investing on such a shared ledger of liquidity in terms of trade credits on firm-level.

Blokzincir Üzerine Kavramsal Bir Öneri: İşletme Likiditesi Dağıtık Kayıt Defteri

Çalışma, blokzincir kavramını “A, B’ye para transferi yapmak istiyor” şeklinde açıklayan meşhur analojiyi “B, A’dan ticari borç edinmek istiyor” şeklinde tersine çevirmekte ve böylece paradigmayı değiştirerek borçlanmaya yönlendirmektedir. Bir tedarikçinin; bir müşterisinden gelen talep üzerine hangi düzeye kadar ticari borç kullandırabileceği, bir ticari alacak edinme kararıdır. Ancak, üçüncü bir tarafın ilk borç alana açacağı ilave ticari borç veya kredi ise o müşterinin potansiyel olarak hali hazırdaki ticari borcunun ve/veya banka kredisinin birikimli düzeyleri ile sınırlandırılmış olan likiditesinin tekrar değerlendirilmesini gerektirecektir. Ticari borç ve banka kredisi bir tedarik zincirindeki temel likidite yaratıcıları olmaktadırlar. Çalışma, ticari borcu esas alan dağıtık bir likidite kayıt defteri gereksinimini ortaya çıkartarak, likidite konusunda özel dağıtık kayıt alanlarının yaratılabilmesi için blokzincir teknolojisinin kullanımını önermektedir. Gelecekte, önerilen bu alanların devlet kuruluşları ve merkez bankası ile ekonomideki kayıtdışı işlemlerin azaltılmasında işbirliği yapmaları beklenmektedir. Bu kapsamda, kısa vadeli ticari borç ve ilgili likidite göstergeleri ile bir ekonomideki bu yönde bulunan potansiyeli ortaya koyabilmek amacıyla Türkiye örneğinde mevcut uzun vadeli veriler çalışmada kanıt gösterilerek sunulmaktadır. Çalışma kavramsal önerisiyle ilgili potansiyel sonuçları ve etkileri de ortaya koymaktadır. Bu çalışma ile getirilen öneri, özellikle ticari borç üzerinden firma düzeyinde burada ifade edilene benzer bir paylaşımlı kayıt ortamına yatırım yapmayı değerlendirebilecek ticari bankalara, blokzincirinin yarattığı gelişime karşılık vermenin yanı sıra stratejik yararlar da sağlayacaktır.

Kaynakça

Acikgoz, A. F., and Apak, S. (2017a), A long-run and broadening credit perspective of the businesses in Turkey: trade credit to bank credit ratio in the short-term, International Balkan and Near Eastern Social Sciences (IBANESS) Conference Series, September 23-24, 2017, Kırklareli, Turkey, Proceedings Book: 152-159.

Acikgoz, A. F., and Apak, S. (2017b), Trade credit to bank credit ratio vs. liquidity on the way to generate net working capital. VI. International Balkan and Near Eastern Social Sciences (IBANESS) Congresses Series, October 28- 29, 2017, University of Agribusiness and Rural Development – Bulgaria & University St. Kliment Ohridski Faculty of Economics – Macedonia, Ohrid – Republic of Macedonia, Proceedings Book: 75-83.

Acikgoz, A. F., and Apak, S. (2017c), A long run comparison on the levels of financial liabilities and trade payables within the short-term liabilities of the businesses in Turkey, Working Paper-Article, Economic Research Foundation of Turkey, Yillik (Yearbook) 2017: 50-57.

Ahram, T., Sargolzaei, A., Sargolzaei, S., Daniels, J., and Amaba, B. (2017), Blockchain Technology Innovations, 2017 IEEE Technology and Engineering Management Conference (TEMSCON), doi:10.1109/TEMSCON.2017.7998367.

Bott, J., and Milkau, U. (2017), Central bank money and blockchain: A payments perspective, Journal of Payments Strategy and Systems, Vol. 11, No. 2: 145-157.

Burkart, M., and Ellingsen T. (2004), In-kind finance: a theory of trade credit, The American Economic Review, Vol. 94, No. 3: 569-590.

CBRT (Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey), (2017), CBRT Real Sector Statistics 1999-2016, Real Sector Balance Sheet Data and Archives for 1996–2016, last retrieved from tcmb.gov.tr on 10th of November, 2017.

Chong, B., and Yi, H. (2011), Bank loans, trade credits, and borrower characteristics: Theory and empirical analysis, Asia-Pacific Journal of Financial Studies, Vol. 40: 37-68.

Christidis, K., and Devetsikiotis, M. (2016), Blockchains and Smart Contracts for the Internet of Things, IEEE Access: Special section on the plethora of research in internet of things (IoT), 2016, Vol. 4, doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2566339.

Cocco, L., Pinna, A., and Marchesi, M., (2017), Banking on Blockchain: Costs Savings Thanks to the Blockchain Technology, Future Internet 2017, Vol. 9, No. 3, 25: 1-20, doi:10.3390/fi9030025.

Crosby, M., Nachiappan, Pattanayak, P., Verma, S., and Kalyanaraman, V. (2016), Blockchain technology: Beyond bitcoin, Appl. Innov. Rev., June 2016, No. 2: 6–19.

De Blasio, G. (2003), Does trade credit substitute for bank credit? Evidence from firm-level data, International Monetary Fund Working Paper, WP/03/166.

Demirguc-Kunt, A., and Maksimovic, V. (2001), Firms as financial intermediaries: evidence from trade credit data, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 2696.

Gupta, J., Wilson N., Gregoriou A., and Healy, J. (2014), The effect of internationalization on modelling credit risk for SMEs: Evidence from UK market, Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Vol. 31: 397-413.

Gupta, V. (2017), A Brief History of Blockchain, Harvard Business Review, Technology, February 2017, available at: hbr.org/2017/02/a-brief-history-of-blockchain.

Harris, C. (2015), Trade credit and financial flexibility, Banking and Finance Review, Vol. 1: 47-57.

Khan, C., Lewis, A., Rutland, E., Wan, C., Rutter, K., and Thompson, C., R3 (2017), A Distributed-Ledger Consortium Model for Collaborative Innovation, Computer, September 2017, Vol. 50, No. 9: 29-37, doi:10.1109/MC.2017.3571057.

Larios-Hernández, G. J. (2017), Blockchain entrepreneurship opportunity in the practices of the unbanked, Business Horizons, Vol. 60: 865-874.

Lavanya, B. M., (2018), Blockchain Technology Beyond Bitcoin: An Overview, International Journal of Computer Science and Mobile Applications, Vol. 6, No. 1: 76-80.

Lewenberg Y., Sompolinsky, Y., and Zohar, A. (2015), Inclusive block chain protocols, International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security, Springer, Heidelberg: 528-547.

Lootsma, Y. (2017), Blockchain as the Newest Regtech Application-the Opportunity to Reduce the Burden of KYC for Financial Institutions, Banking and Financial Services Policy Report, Vol. 36, No. 8: 16-21.

Martinez-Sola, C., Garcia-Teruel, P. J., and Martinez-Solano, P. (2014), Trade credit and SME profitability, Small Bus Econ, Vol. 42: 561-577.

Martinson, P. J., and Masterson, C. P. (2014), Bitcoin and the Secured Lender, Banking and Financial Services Policy Report, Vol. 33, No. 6: 13-20.

Mik, E. (2017), Smart contracts: terminology, technical limitations and real world complexity, Law, Innovation and Technology, Vol. 9, No. 2: 269–300, doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2017.1378468.

Molina, C. A., and Preve, L. A. (2012), An empirical analysis of the effect of financial distress on trade credit, Financial Management, Spring: 187-205.

Namiot, D., Pokusaev, O., Kupriyanovsky, V., and Akimov, A. (2017), Blockchain applications for transport industry, International Journal of Open Information Technologies, Vol. 5, No. 12: 130-134.

Nofer, M., Gomber, P., Hinz, O., and Schiereck, D. (2017). Blockchain, Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng., Vol.59, No.3: 183-187.

Olnesa, S., Ubacht, J., and Janssen, M. (2017), Blockchain in government: Benefits and implications of distributed ledger technology for information sharing, Editorial, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 34: 355-364.

Petersen, M. A., and Rajan, R. G. (1997), Trade credit: Theories and evidence, The Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 10, No. 3: 661-691.

Psillaki, M., and Eleftheriou, K. (2015), Trade credit, bank credit, and flight to quality: evidence from French SMEs, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 53, No. 4: 1219-1240.

Reuter, T. W. (2015), Bitcoin: A New Tool for Structuring Agreements and Managing Entities, The Computer and Internet Lawyer, Vol. 32, No. 1: 16-20.

Troya-Martinez, M. (2017), Self-enforcing trade credit, International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 52: 333- 357.

Webster, N., and Charfoos, A. (2018), How the Distributed Public Ledger Affects Blockchain Litigation, Banking and Financial Services Policy Report, Vol. 37, No. 1: 6-15.

Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., and Smolander, K. (2016), Where is current research on blockchain technology? A Systematic Review, PLoS ONE Vol. 11, No. 10: e0163477: 1-27, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0163477.

Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H. N., and Wang, H. (2016), Blockchain challenges and opportunities: A survey, Int. J. Web and Grid Services, Work. Paper.

Zuberi, M. M. (2017), A Silver (“Chain”) Lining: Can Blockchain Technology Succeed in Disrupting the Banking Industry?, Banking and Financial Services Policy Report, Vol. 36, No. 3: 1-4.

Kaynak Göster