The No-Upfront-Fee SBLC Fantasy

Photo by Leohoho on Unsplash

Spend enough time around standby letters of credit and you will eventually encounter the same enquiry.

Someone wants a USD 5 million, USD 20 million or USD 100 million SBLC. They want it issued quickly. They have little or no collateral. They do not want to pay an advisory retainer. They do not want to cover structuring costs. They do not want to commit meaningful capital before issuance. And, just to complete the picture, they want the issuance guaranteed before anybody has underwritten the transaction.

These enquiries consume an extraordinary amount of time.

In our experience, many come from one of three groups: time wasters, intermediaries circulating transactions they barely understand, or people with virtually no financial capacity trying to persuade everyone else to participate in their fantasy.

The common denominator is simple. They want everybody else to have skin in the game except themselves.

Everyone Is Supposed to Finance Their Dream

The applicant will often describe an enormous opportunity.

There is supposedly a USD 50 million commodity contract waiting. A buyer is ready. A seller is ready. Margins are attractive. The transaction can supposedly generate millions of dollars.

There is only one small problem.

The person promoting the transaction has no money.

So the solution becomes finding someone else who will absorb every cost required to make the transaction real.

The advisor should work for free. The lawyers should prepare documents without being paid. The arranger should spend weeks structuring the transaction at its own expense. The bank should perform compliance and underwriting. Someone else should provide collateral. Someone else should pay issuance costs.

Once everyone else has done all of that, the promoter generously proposes to pay everyone from the profits.

This is not finance.

It is recruiting passengers onto a fantasy train.

Every new participant is expected to contribute something tangible while the person who originated the transaction contributes a contract, a story and promises about future profits.

“No Upfront Fee” Is Usually a Financial Capacity Problem

There is nothing inherently unusual about negotiating fee structures. Sophisticated transactions can involve retainers, milestone payments, success fees and combinations of all three.

But refusing to spend a single dollar before receiving a multimillion-dollar banking instrument is something different.

If someone claims to control an extremely profitable transaction but cannot commit even a modest amount toward professional execution costs, that tells you something important about the transaction sponsor.

Imagine asking a private jet operator to position an aircraft, reserve the crew, fuel the plane and block its schedule without a deposit. You promise to pay after the flight because the meeting you are attending will supposedly make you rich.

Nobody serious would accept that proposition.

Imagine ordering a custom industrial machine and telling the manufacturer to purchase the raw materials, manufacture the equipment and ship it to you. You will pay them after the machine starts generating profits.

Again, ridiculous.

Yet somehow people believe banking should work this way.

They want a financial institution to consider a multimillion-dollar contingent obligation while the applicant refuses to risk USD 25,000 or USD 50,000 of their own capital getting the transaction executed.

The mismatch is almost comical.

You want somebody else comfortable with millions of dollars of exposure while you are terrified of a five-figure professional invoice.

Then Comes the Demand for “Guaranteed Issuance”

This is where the conversation becomes even more absurd.

The prospect says they will consider paying a retainer, but only if SBLC issuance is guaranteed.

Guaranteed by whom?

Before what underwriting?

Based on what financial information?

Subject to what compliance review?

An SBLC is a banking instrument. A legitimate issuing institution has to assess the transaction.

The bank may review the applicant, underlying contract, commercial purpose, counterparties, jurisdiction, sanctions exposure, financial capacity, collateral, credit enhancement and proposed structure.

That process is called underwriting.

Underwriting exists because the answer has not been predetermined.

Demanding guaranteed issuance before underwriting is effectively saying:

“Approve my risk before you are allowed to examine it.”

No credible credit committee works that way.

A mortgage lender cannot guarantee your mortgage before checking your income, credit history and property.

An insurance company cannot sensibly guarantee coverage before examining the risk.

A private credit fund cannot guarantee a USD 50 million facility before its investment committee reviews the transaction.

A bank cannot responsibly promise an SBLC before determining whether it is willing and able to issue it.

The demand itself exposes how little some prospects understand about institutional finance.

Scammers Love the Same Language

There is another reason the phrases “no upfront fee” and “guaranteed issuance” deserve scrutiny.

They are perfect language for fantasy transactions.

A legitimate transaction involves uncertainty. There are conditions. There are compliance requirements. There is underwriting. There are counterparties whose decisions cannot simply be dictated.

Fantasy finance eliminates all of that.

Everything is guaranteed.

Nobody needs money.

Nobody needs collateral.

Nobody needs meaningful financial statements.

Nobody needs to take commercial risk.

A mysterious provider will issue the instrument, the transaction will close and everybody will become rich.

It is an extremely attractive story for people who have no capital because it allows them to pretend financial capacity is optional.

It also creates an ecosystem where scammers can thrive. The prospect wants to hear that everything can happen without money. The scammer tells them exactly that. Another intermediary repeats the story. Another broker adds themselves to the chain. Before long there are fifteen people discussing a USD 100 million transaction and none of them could fund a serious legal bill.

Everyone is waiting for somebody else to introduce the magical provider who will finally put real money behind the deal.

The Endless Broker Chain

These transactions often become particularly ridiculous in commodities.

Someone knows someone who supposedly knows the seller.

Another person knows the mandate.

Another person has a buyer.

Another person knows someone with a banking relationship.

Another person knows an SBLC provider.

Nobody controls the transaction.

Nobody has demonstrated liquidity.

Nobody wants to spend money.

Yet everyone has already calculated their commission.

There may be more intermediaries than actual commercial principals.

The entire structure survives because each person hopes the next participant will contribute the missing piece.

This is why some transactions circulate for months or years without closing.

They are not transactions.

They are stories being forwarded.

A Contract Does Not Make You Bankable

One of the most common responses is:

“But I have a USD 100 million contract.”

Good.

That still does not mean you have USD 100 million of creditworthiness.

A purchase contract does not automatically provide collateral.

A purchase order is not cash.

An LOI is not liquidity.

Projected profits are not working capital.

An attractive spread between purchase and resale prices does not magically finance the period between paying the supplier and collecting from the buyer.

Real businesses understand this.

That is precisely why trade finance exists.

The problem begins when somebody believes having a contract entitles them to unlimited financial infrastructure without contributing capital toward its execution.

Future Profit Cannot Pay Today’s Bills

Another favorite proposal is:

“Deduct your fee from the proceeds.”

That sounds wonderful until you ask who pays for the work required to reach those proceeds.

Professionals have salaries.

Law firms issue invoices.

Compliance costs money.

Due diligence costs money.

Banking relationships require resources.

Structuring requires experienced people.

Third-party providers often require deposits.

None of them can pay today’s operating expenses using your theoretical profit six months from now.

This is basic commercial reality.

A success fee can align incentives. It can reward an advisor when a transaction closes.

It does not magically eliminate the cost of doing the work required to reach closing.

Otherwise you are effectively asking your advisors to become unsecured lenders to your company.

That is rarely what they signed up to do.

Serious Applicants Sound Completely Different

A serious applicant generally wants to understand what is required.

They ask about underwriting criteria. They provide financial information. They explain the underlying transaction. They discuss collateral. They identify the applicant and beneficiary. They understand their banking relationships. They ask what documentation will be needed.

They also understand that there is execution risk.

Perhaps the transaction passes underwriting.

Perhaps the structure needs modification.

Perhaps another institution is a better fit.

Perhaps the transaction cannot be completed at all.

That is finance.

The outcome comes after the analysis.

A serious client pays professionals to perform that work because obtaining a credible answer has value.

A time waster wants everyone to perform the work for free because they have nothing invested in the process.

That distinction matters.

The Funniest Contradiction

The prospect will sometimes say:

“I cannot risk USD 25,000 unless you guarantee the USD 10 million SBLC.”

Read that sentence again.

The applicant considers USD 25,000 too dangerous to risk.

But they expect another institution to become comfortable with a USD 10 million obligation connected to their transaction.

Apparently everyone else should possess unlimited confidence in the deal while the person promoting it refuses to risk anything.

That is probably the cleanest summary of the entire problem.

If you have so little confidence in your own transaction that you will not invest in getting it executed, why should everybody else have more confidence than you do?

There Is No Magic SBLC Provider

There is no secret corner of institutional finance where serious banks issue multimillion-dollar instruments because an intermediary sent them a PDF and promised substantial profits.

Banks care about risk.

Credit committees care about risk.

Compliance departments care about risk.

Professional advisors care about whether the transaction is executable.

Capital has a cost.

Expertise has a cost.

Time has a cost.

The people pretending otherwise are usually selling a dream to someone who desperately wants to believe it.

And that is how the fantasy train keeps moving.

One broke intermediary recruits another. That intermediary recruits another. Eventually somebody approaches a legitimate institution and becomes angry when asked for financial statements, collateral information, KYC documentation or professional fees.

Reality has interrupted the story.

The Bottom Line

If you need an SBLC, expect underwriting.

Expect questions.

Expect documentation.

Expect compliance.

Expect conditions.

Expect professional fees.

Expect to demonstrate that you have the financial capacity to participate in your own transaction.

And expect that issuance cannot legitimately be guaranteed before the institution responsible for the risk has completed its work.

There are perfectly legitimate ways to structure SBLC transactions. There are legitimate advisory mandates. There are legitimate issuance costs. There are legitimate collateral structures. There are also legitimate circumstances where a transaction is rejected.

What is not legitimate is expecting banks, lawyers, advisors and financial institutions to donate their resources to someone else’s speculative transaction while simultaneously guaranteeing the outcome.

If your entire transaction depends on finding people willing to work for free, provide capital for free, take risk for free and guarantee that everything will succeed, you probably do not have a financing structure.

You have a fantasy.

And you are looking for other people to finance it.