Andreas Schweitzer, Founder & Managing Director of the Artis Trade Invest concept invest in collateralised trades.
In trade finance, performance is protected as much by the transactions a manager refuses as by those it funds. A quantitative investor questioned whether trade finance risk-return models are mature enough for institutional investors to rely on. The question is reasonable, but can the process behind those models identify and reject a weak transaction before capital is deployed?
What Trade Finance Actually Involves
For readers less familiar with this asset class, trade finance supports real commercial transactions. It funds purchase orders, shipments, invoices, receivables and payments between buyers and sellers.
Unlike corporate lending, which focuses on a borrower’s overall cash flow, trade finance assesses whether a specific transaction can be converted into cash. Hence, the question should be whether transactions are clear, documented and enforceable.
Why Trade Finance Risk Is Under Scrutiny
The Financial Stability Board’s May 2026 report on private credit vulnerabilities highlighted concerns about opacity, leverage and valuation across private credit markets. Trade finance is often grouped within private credit, yet its risk profile depends on transaction-level controls.
Recent events have brought attention to this question. In November 2025, the Financial Times reported that U.S. prosecutors were investigating telecom firms after HPS Investment Partners, BlackRock’s private credit unit, alleged more than $400 million in fraud involving loans backed by receivables that appeared to be forged.
The lesson is not that receivables finance is flawed. It is that documentary proof, buyer confirmation and rejection discipline matter before capital is deployed.
In my article titled “What Are German Family Offices Really Underwriting In Private Credit?” I noted that the label “private credit” has become too broad to provide category-level comfort. Investors allocating to trade finance should ask more specific questions than the category alone can answer.
Before asking how a transaction performs, investors should ask why it was added to the portfolio.
Two Invoices, Two Different Risks
Consider two invoices on an underwriter’s desk due in 90 days. Both appear to be insured. On a spreadsheet, they look nearly identical.
The first invoice confirms delivery, buyer acceptance of the obligation, a clean assignment of the receivable and clear insurance conditions that match the underlying transaction.
The second has an unclear delivery trail, no formal buyer acceptance, loose assignment language and a possible dispute that could delay or block payment.
The model identifies two similar invoices. The underwriter sees one transaction and one problem. That is the difference between superficial approval and real underwriting.
Where does trade finance due diligence begin? Not in the data both transactions share, but in the details that set them apart. Invoice finance risk and receivables finance risk lie in those details.
8 Questions Worth Asking
The difference between a fundable transaction and a weak transaction comes down to a few simple, practical themes that separate disciplined underwriting from superficial approval.
1. Has the buyer accepted the obligation? A buyer’s name on an invoice does not constitute acceptance of an obligation. An invoice becomes stronger when the buyer formally accepts it, leaving less room for dispute.
2. Is delivery confirmed? Delivery is part of the risk, not an administrative detail. If goods are not delivered, documents do not match or performance remains uncertain, so is the path to payment.
3. Is the receivable assignable? If the receivable cannot be cleanly transferred, the investor’s claim may not hold under stress. Assignment language matters.
4. What could trigger a payment dispute? Disputes are among the most common red flags in trade finance. A dispute need not be legitimate to delay payment. It only needs to exist.
5. What does the insurance cover? Credit insurance risk is often misunderstood. The question is not whether insurance exists, but what it covers, under what conditions, and what could prevent a claim from being paid. In a previous article, “Why Trade Credit Insurance Remains Strong Despite ESG Pressures,” I explored how insurance requires transaction-level discipline, not merely policy-level coverage.
6. Where does concentration hide? Concentration arises across buyers, sectors, countries, originators or insurers. Even diversified portfolios may have hidden overlaps.
7. Why was this transaction approved rather than rejected? This may be the most revealing question an investor can ask a trade finance manager.
8. What type of transaction would the manager refuse to fund? The answer reveals more about a manager’s discipline than any return figure.
The rejection process may offer the clearest window into a manager’s discipline.
These questions may sound basic, but applied consistently, they are what separate careful underwriting from passive reliance on category assumptions.
Where Risk Models Help In Trade Finance
None of this means models are irrelevant. A good model does not replace the underwriter. It should make it harder for the underwriter to be fooled.
Models help identify buyer concentration, country and sector exposure, originator patterns, overdue behavior, insurer exposure, document similarities and insurance basis risk. The ICC Trade Register 2025 continues to show low default experience across core trade finance products, while indicating early stress in smaller and midsized segments. Historical performance reflects what was selected, not what was available.
The useful model is not the one that reduces every trade to a simple score. It is the one that helps ask better questions.
Verification: Faster, Not Automatic
The DCSA’s May 2025 milestone on electronic bill of lading interoperability is a meaningful step. Digital trade documents can improve transparency and speed verification. In a previous article, “Tokenized Trade Finance: An Emerging Opportunity For Investment Firms,” I discussed how digital infrastructure may reshape the movement of trade assets. Better digital evidence should improve rejection discipline rather than encourage automatic approval.
Where Due Diligence Should Begin
The Asian Development Bank’s 2025 Trade Finance Gap Survey estimates the global trade finance gap at $2.5 trillion. The gap is substantial, but a large financing gap does not mean every unfunded transaction is investable. Some trades are underserved, while others are unsuitable. The difference is where underwriting begins.
For trade finance and other investors, the real test of a model’s discipline rests not only on the deals that entered the portfolio but also on those that never did.
The information provided here is not investment, tax or financial advice. You should consult with a licensed professional for advice concerning your specific situation.
Forbes Finance Council is an invitation-only organization for executives in successful accounting, financial planning and wealth management firms. Do I qualify?