What follows is a trading protocol that is utilized by my provider. I am wondering what you think of it and if you feel it is a viable method. If it is a solid procedural method could you assist me in locating a buyer who would feel the same way about my providers trading policies?

They are as follows:

1) Shows the protocols and qualifier paper work and defines it for the purchaser. [Future documentation will be sent to the purchaser straightaway as necessary]

2) Confirm and authenticate for the purchaser that the agreements to work on behalf of the purchaser are properly prepared and set up – [Provider is unable to get reimbursed or pay out and fees from deals; you need to rely upon your principal to take care of this].

3) The purchaser must point out the crude oil or refinery goods they need and bring together the purchaser and provider. [The parties need to be working with a signing authority or a party to the trade that is able to endorse any purchase].

4) Discussion with the purchaser will provide the necessary information to prepare a proposal agreement for the purchasers endorsement [an agreement number will be issued that categorizes this transaction from that point onward].

5) To this point, the purchaser needs to recognize that the provider is being utilized to arrange all logistics and set up for transport ships.

6) Purchaser and provider both endorse the agreement

7) Purchaser gives communication or SWIFT message provided by their funding center to HSBC Canada declaring their capacity to finance the transaction. [Detailed wording will be forwarded straight to the purchaser].

8 ) Agreement and funding center notice proceed to HSBC Moscow for ultimate approval. [“Approval” in this scenario is when HSBC approves the purchaser’s funding center and the notice].

9) Provider buys replacement crude oil via Transneft to provide for agreement terms.

10) All paper work is given back as per the agreement stipulations for the provision of product. Proposed Laycan schedule is incorporated as well.
Purchaser selects Laycan dates and transport is carried out as dictated in the agreement. [To this point, Charter Company contracts need to be paid to CIBC Canada or the purchaser’s ships must be endorsed. Transporting times will be impacted by how long it takes to put the charter company’s contracts in place].

11) When the cargo consignments are put aboard and surveilled, compensation is conducted via transfer from the purchaser’s funding center to the account of the provider at HSBC Canada.

12) Reiteration as per Laycan dates being schedules and approved

Answer:

If you are the intermediary introducing the purchaser to the provider in the first spot – say goodbye to your deal – the trade is unmanageable for an intermediary who is involved.

At the point of which you lose the ability to manage the transaction yourself you lose the transaction and are out. The trade will be completed by the purchaser and the provider and you will not know what hit you.
YOU NEED TO BECOME THE PURCHASER TO THE PROVIDER AND THEN THE PROVIDER TO YOUR FINAL PURCHASER – this will secure the trade in your favor and you’ll be safeguarded.

As far as the remaining part of this trading protocol is concerned…it is entirely ridiculous.

FAQ

© admin for Commodity Trading Manual, 2011. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under FAQ.

Once again I am here looking for your assistance. The first question I have is:

1) I need to know the distinction between the Non Operative DLC and a Pre advised DLC?

2) I have a provider for agricultural products to trade and he is utilizing this protocol – I need you to tell me if this is a viable and accurate course of action:
• Official demand is forwarded to the provider from the purchaser as LOI & BCL set up;
• Provider releases an official corporate proposal for the purchaser;
• With written approval of this proposal, the provider releases the trading agreement to the purchaser for endorsement and returned;
• Upon receipt by the provider, the purchaser is directed to arrange a non operative DLC in support of the provider;
• Upon receipt of the non operative DLC, the provider’s funding center releases the POP to the purchaser’s funding center in order to activate the funding method making it functional;
• The cargo consignment is readied based upon selected Incoterms 2000;

3) The provider utilizes this type of guarantee:
Guarantee of deliverance: In the event of non compliance regarding the delivery of products by the provider or a postponement of the agreement from the purchaser will be sanctioned via a penalty clause within the agreement at a sum the purchaser favors. We will not convey “PB”. This phrase makes certain the lawful and complete fulfillment by the two parties to the agreement – the purchaser and the provider. We propose a one hundred percent [100%] guarantee of transport and deliverance in the agreement.

Is this considered a correct method of providing a guarantee?

As per usual, your answer is very much appreciated and I am optimistic that others reading your replies will benefit from your answer as well.

Answer:

Carefully track these answers to your question in the following – The majority of these are answered in URPIB rules and my book.

1) Non operative DLC has no meaning. As far as PA-ITDLC

Concerning its use with an intermediary – A pre advised irrevocable transferrable DLC when released as a UCP600 signed method of funds, means the purchaser releases a PA ITDLC, the provider presents to perform one term of the credit – upon getting this the funding center exchanges the PA ITDLC to a full functional DLC that is then capable of being transferred. If the stipulation is left unfulfilled the credit can’t be transferred. [For Instance - Stipulation: Proof of products certificate as described in the agreement]

According to UCP600 as long as the stipulation has been achieved – the releasing funding center NEEDS to make the financing good to go and because of this it can’t be withdrawn – when the provider is identified – therefore it is less expensive for the purchaser to arrange as is perfect for utilization by the intermediary. A pre advised credit even as released by a UCP600 loyal funding center is not utilized by every funding center therefore the purchaser must request from his funding center whether they are able to arrange a PA ITDLC prior to the agreement being endorsed.

2) The final purchaser operating with the provider can utilize whatever procedure they like – they could use oranges to complete a transaction if this is what they agreed to – heading to court as so many have, when the product deliverance falls through. When the intermediary is part of the equation LOI/ BCL and this sort of thing can’t be utilized – as mentioned so often in previous responses – provider, final purchaser and intermediaries NEED to use the most superior and secure protocols – these are the quotes, offers, payments, [P.G] delivery, collection are the best and most secure means of functioning.

3) Guarantee: Already this too has been replied to often in prior answers – performance guarantee isn’t a typical trading function in the industry but whenever this comes up then the purchasers DLC is released and approved initially, the provider then releases a performance guarantee formatted as such as a UPC600 SLC or ISPB 98 SLC equating to and no more than two percent of the total worth of the cargo consignment – 1.5% is fine. DO NOT EVER ATTEMPT TO RELEASE AN SLC P.G FIRST – NEVER!

An SLC can’t AND MUST NEVER BE utilized for product payment though it is fine for paying out commission and certain other things like performance guarantee – [NOT A ‘PERFORMANCE BOND’ AS IT IS SO OFTEN CALLED – EVEN BY FUNDING CENTERS!]

When the provider does not deliver the product on schedule for whatever reason then the purchaser can make a call upon the provider P.G 9SLC – that is paid out by default without any questions asked due to the one condition of release – In the event that delivery is delayed, the purchaser makes the call and receives the P.G totaled sum.

Therefore, the SLC is an ‘unconditional method’ when just one stipulation is not achieved [non performance of deliverance] the SLC can be collected…and there can be no argument. Whereby, a DLC is a ‘conditional’ method reliant upon numerous deliverance policies/ paperwork in order to become viable prior to collection processes being started.

Hence, ‘the non fulfillment regarding the transport of products by the provider or the postponement of the agreement’ is ridiculous – that is a violation of the agreement – The purchaser supplies the DLC when this is approved [within five days] in return; the provider presents the binding SLC PG – quite easy. No delivery – purchaser receives SLC – Cargo consignment arrives, or next consignment is transported.
I hope I have been able to assist you – you should take for granted that there is much more that could be discussed for each of these questions – you at least get the basics described here.

FAQ

© admin for Commodity Trading Manual, 2011. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under FAQ.

For the last couple of months we have been dealing with a provider’s mandate. The question is could you define the typical rate of commission paid on transactions within the energy segment – and what would this fee be based upon?

Answer:

You must read the URPIB rules in my book.

A true mandated “provider” works for his identified primary and the intermediaries such as us act for the unidentified primaries.

In the event that the mandated provider has not yet given you the mandate ship paper work that identifies the primary provider then this should indicate that he in fact has no mandate – no provider and is simply one more misguided intermediary out there.

An actual mandate holder will be reimbursed by his primary – therefore his primary must also permit or approve commission fees paid to each intermediary taking part in the transaction – normally this won’t occur since the primary is just obliged to pay his mandate holder – therefore the opportunity to bypass others fees is ample.

When the mandate holder is verified he is then dealt with in the same manner as the “provider” which means the individual who manages the entire group “purchases” the products from the “provider” in order to resell all the a “final purchaser” at an elevated cost – utilizing the same funding from the final purchaser according to the estimate provided.

The median managing intermediary – the stated “purchaser/ provider” – then receives the commission fees subsequent to the transaction being completed and reimburses the approved commission fees to every intermediary who took part in the transaction from all parties. Essentially, an actual mandate holder IS NOT PERMITTED TO REQUEST ANY PORTION OF THE INTERMEDIARY FEE, SINCE IT IS INAPPROPRIATE AND UNPRINCIPLED AND MAYBE EVEN UNLAWFUL TWO RECEIVE A COMMISSION FEE “TWO TIMES”.

Therefore, follow the thread below for a representative kind of agreement:

1) Provider/ and or registered mandate holder
2) Locating intermediary
2) Locating intermediary
2) Locating intermediary
2) Locating Intermediary
3) INTERMEDIARY PURCHASER/ PROVIDER
4) Locating intermediary
4) Locating intermediary
5) FINAL PURCHASER/ AND OR REGISTERED MANDATE HOLDER

NUMBER ONE IS A SINGLE PARTY – 2-3-4: ARE RELATED INTERMEDIARY PARTY – NUMBER FIVE IS A SINGLE PARTY – NO ONE MOVES BEYOND NUMBER THREE (3) INTERMEDIARY THE PURCHASER/ PROVIDER – NUMBER (3) INTERMEDIARY TRADES THE PRODUCTS TO THE FINAL PURCHASER FOR AN ELEVATED COST – NUMBER (3) RECEIVES COMMISSION FEE PROTECTED WHEN THE DLC IS REASSIGNED – NUMBER (3) RECEIVES COMMISSION UPON DELIVERANCE OCCURRING – NUMBER (3) REIMBURSES EVERY INTERMEDIARY FROM NUMBER FOUR (4) AS WELL AS NUMBER TWO (2) PARTIES – NO POSSIBILITY TO BYPASS COMMISSION FEES EXCEPT IF NUMBER THREE (3) TURNS OUT TO BE A SCAM ARTIST.

THEREFORE YOU SHOULD JUST TRANSACT WITH NUMBER (3) WHO OSTENSIBLY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE TRANSACTION AND YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE AND HAVE FAITH IN THIS PERSON – UNFORTUNATELY ALMOST EACH AND EVERY PURCHASER/ PROVIDER FOUND ON THE INTERNET TODAY IS MISINFORMED AND HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT THE INDUSTRY IS ALL ABOUT OR HOW TO COMPLETE A TRADE.

THEREFORE IF YOU WISH TO BE ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAIN YOUR COMMISSION FEE WILL BE SECURE THAN YOU MUST MAKE SURE YOU ARE IN POSITION NUMBER THREE (3) AND IN ENTIRE CONTROL OF THINGS. BEING IN THE NUMBER THREE POSITION MEANS YOU MUST HAVE A SOLID BASIS OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE INTERMEDIARY TRADING PROTOCOLS OR YOU CAN KISS ANY FEES FAREWELL.

In the event you are not in the third spot (3) then you need to connect yourself with a trusted and competent trader that can secure that third spot (3) if you are able to source one out capable of managing the transaction properly.

This is simply the only method of being certain you are going to be paid on an effectual transaction.
I do not know how to make the above wording any clearer. The trade procedures online (LOI, ICPO, MPA, NCNDA…etc…and so on) are inadequate and ineffective intermediary protocols.

As far as the standard rates are concerned – this can be found at the ITSI website under URPIB rules – Fuel trades are usually coming in a $1.00 U.S. for a barrel for each person in the trade from (2) to (4) and splitting with number (3) who receives the biggest split – if the reduction provided is larger – the final purchaser would receive this as an incentive to purchase – not the intermediaries. When you trade anything such as crude oil purchaser end $4.00 for a barrel – providers end at $4.00 for a barrel – you should toss out the transaction because you are spinning your wheels and wasting your effort.

Commission fees cannot be hidden – they are written into the providers bill of lading as a “consultancy fee” and the final purchaser won’t permit his funds to be utilized for reimbursing the intermediaries at $8.00 per barrel for their commission fees – this just is not going to occur – however, he will not protest if he was given a reduction of $7.00 per barrel and the intermediaries all split $1.00 per barrel between them.

FAQ

© admin for Commodity Trading Manual, 2011. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under FAQ.

I have spent the past year working to secure a crude oil provider based in Qatar. The issue I have is that I continuously keep bumping into these lousy purchasers. For whatever reason, they just don’t work out in the end. This is beginning to make me lose my credibility in the eyes of my provider since I continue to supply them with less than adequate purchasers.

There is no string happening here – only me and my provider the oil company. Where can I turn to so I can get a transaction completed finally? When I request a PC DLC they propose that I get a MT 799 as an alternative. I understand that with that in hand they will simply shop my provider about until they secure a final purchaser. I need your help since I am becoming discouraged by all this nonsense.

Answer:

Refrain from any of these BCL, MT, ASWP, LOI, NCNDA, MPA, ICPO…etc and the like. What you must do is begin utilizing precise and effective protocols to be effectual at trading – I am talking about a number of months of learning and studying on a full time basis.

The intermediary becomes the purchaser/ provider – if you do not understand how this works then you must become connected with someone you can trust and can also manage the entire transaction for you. Unfortunately, only a minute number of intermediaries who reside on the Internet know anything about the proper protocols of completing a transaction.

You must protect your provider and do not see him again until you have sourced out and secured a final purchaser – providers are quite difficult to source and you will burn their connection if you continuously return with another question each few minutes

Therefore, you need to deal with all the nonsense at least until you connect with that final purchaser – and not until that time should you go back to the provider and complete a transaction with them.
The most difficult portion of any transaction is to protect superior and desirable products.

FAQ

© admin for Commodity Trading Manual, 2011. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under FAQ.

First and foremost I would like to offer a huge thank you for providing such useful information on this website and in your books. I have absorbed much thanks to these regarding the trading business.

A year ago I was in Argentina meeting with a new Hispanic/ Latin American exporter who dealt in agricultural products such as vegetable oils, powdered milk, cereal and grains and the like. I had a previous working relationship with them and enjoyed a solid friendship with the company president who requested that I serve as their mandate to trade their commodities. Over time now I have started my own company and website but having commenced studying your materials I realize I was kidding myself.
I know I am enjoying a position of advantage compared to many in this field but I also know I have so much more to learn from URPIB, URITI, FYBR, UCP600 and URC522 financial methods etc.

This is why I have come to you concerning this situation because though I have this major agricultural business with faith in me I don’t think I am capable of completing any deals for them.

Could you please help me?

Answer:

This is a process you are beginning – the process cannot be taught from this web based forum. I also cannot cooperate with you regarding this situation since you have not begun studying the business or learning from any of my books and will be unable to discuss anything on the same tier from the beginning. – I just do not have the time to give direction and training to everyone who makes a request of me.

My book is packed with more than one hundred fifty thousand words and yet it is still lacking in all of the necessary information.

It requires many months of studying and maybe even years to reach a full understanding of this industry and the numerous circumstances that arise when trading as a mandate holder – working for someone that is a disclosed chief principal

You are working with a source of supply rather than as a provider working for an undisclosed primary which is a much better scenario for numerous reasons.

There is not much sense in having a mandate ship if you have no idea how to work the protocols – Since there are principal’s instructions you are REQUIRED to keep – therefore your privileges and rights are now ‘conditional’.

I myself have turned down a number of proposals for mandate ship just because they were unworthy of the amount of work that was necessary from me.

I have no idea why a confidential autonomous intermediate believes that working for a disclosed primary is such a great position to be in. It just isn’t.

I believe there are several websites that have virtually ripped off my statutes as their own work – but the small number I have discovered in only the last week have no practical knowledge as it applies to trades. So many have perused my articles and have not understood that there are actually much more to many of the topics being discussed.

When you are a mandate holder it is to put it fundamentally – not a good position to be in – when you are the purchaser/ provider you are in the best spot to be in for an intermediary – you now manage the entire transaction – you are the head man in charge – just as long as you receive a proposal from a genuine provider then the authority belongs to you to be able to resell the products as the “provider” working for an undisclosed primary.

You make this happen by utilizing the funding from your final purchaser to pay for the products –
You trade in deliverance paperwork – your final purchaser trades in deliverance paperwork and control of the products – YOU never retain control of the products so essentially you just need to trade title of the products and the trade is completed.

As the mandate holder all of the just discussed procedure cannot be implemented – You arrange for the final purchaser to meet the principal – your trade prices are approved – the provider completes the trade with your final purchaser and forwards the stated commission fee to you.

However, the commission fee is paid from his own pocket – therefore what he proposes to pay you will be peanuts – in comparison to if you were the purchaser/ provider – and when all is said and done you will have to have faith in your primary at the same time. – If he says your trade from a month ago was squashed – will you be able to confirm this? No Way!

This might cost you thousands of dollars to go through the courts – the majority of intermediaries don’t ave that type of money anyways – any agreement they had with their primary would have to be iron clad – just to be able to attempt such a court action.

I apologize, Martin – these are the stated facts. If you have a source of supply, make offers to other intermediaries who could protect a purchaser and hence secure the commissions and this is the best and safest counsel I can give to you when you finally have some basic knowledge of efficient intermediary practices.

Study past answers to these subjects that are on this website when you eventually read this response.
I hope what I have added is helpful.

FAQ

© admin for Commodity Trading Manual, 2011. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under FAQ.

How do I go about arranging for introductions with actual legitimate purchasers or the purchaser’s mandate for crude oil? I am having nothing but trouble finding purchasers however; I am not having problems sourcing providers. Please help.

Answer:

The chances are quite likely that the whole lot of them is phony mandate holders – in previous responses I have answered quite extensively regarding mandate ship – You need to study my book.

FAQ

© admin for Commodity Trading Manual, 2011. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under FAQ.

I have an authentic purchaser for Diesel D2 – along with all the documentation. The buyer has stipulated that he will work on for mandate and does not want to bother with brokers or intermediaries. I have been trying to reach refineries to no avail but this business is no easy task. I need your help to find a product provider and I need to know how I can become a mandate?

Answer:

You need to read my prior answers and learn – You cannot simply just “become” a mandate holder – many of these arrangements are phony at any rate.

As an intermediary you are the product provider for the final purchaser and the purchaser to your product provider who will be holding the products. If your current final purchaser only wishes to deal with provider or an authorized mandated negotiator, then you need to tell this one to take a hike! They must make the deal with you or there is simply no transaction.

AS THE PURCHASER/ PROVIDER YOU ARE LEGALLY LIABLE – THEREFORE YOU NEED TO BE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THAT YOU HAVE THE BUYING SITUATION TOTALLY UNDER CONTROL – YOU CANNOT BE JUST 99 PERCENT SURE – BUT ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAIN! YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PURCHASE FROM SOME OTHER BAFFLED THIRD PARTY INTERMEDIARY – YOU CAN ONLY DEAL WITH THE ACTUAL PROVIDER OF THE PRODUCT.

YOU MAKE THE PURCHASE OF THE PRODUCTS FROM THE PRODUCT PROVIDER AT A DECLARED PRICE AND YOU DO THIS WITH THE END PURCHASERS FUNDS.

NOW YOU SELL THE PRODUCT AT AN ELEVATED PRICE – WITH YOUR FEE ADDED – TO YOUR END PURCHASER.
Now this previous scenario I just discussed takes many years to learn – you will master it with practical experience – so it is a waste of time to ask me “how do I make this happen?” or “how do I do that?”

This can only be studied by way of FTN exporting, the developers of the intermediary – and there is so much to learn. You should be reading and learning the URPIB rules of trade which are explained in detail in my book. And you must not forget that you are both the Purchaser AND the Provider.

FAQ

© admin for Commodity Trading Manual, 2010. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under FAQ.

I am dealing with a D2 agreement in China and my purchaser lacks a D2 import license. I have sourced another company with the proper credentials but they are an unknown and I fear I may get scooped for my fee. How and what is best method to save myself from this problem?

Answer:

[Currently I am dealing with a D2 transaction out of China and the purchaser I have is lacking a D2 import license] –

What does this have to do with you carrying out your transaction?

The Incoterms200 rules of delivery are quite upfront on these situations – the product provider is accountable – and so is the purchaser – the purchaser has to make sure they have import certification and this has zero to do with the product provider.

The provider must be certain they are in possession of any export certification…etc. If the purchaser pays for product, endorses the agreement and issues DLC but falls short of acquiring the import certification then this is his headache, the DLC still goes forward at site depository. If he indeed endorsed the agreement and reneges on his promise to perform due to an inability to acquire proper certification, this places him squarely in violation of the terms of the agreement and he is now in some very deep and hot water.

If he has failed to endorse the agreement and he cannot acquire the import certification than there simply is no agreement.

It is just that simple not at FOB/ CFR or CIF sales – if the goods were processed via DEQ Incoterms, then this might potentially be your problem and potential liability, based upon the way the agreement is written up – since intermediaries are not permitted to transact a delivery DEQ agreement. [it is my assumption that this is not a DEQ delivery term].

FAQ

© admin for Commodity Trading Manual, 2010. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under FAQ.

After importing some USB devices from China for a client I found the items were not working and not the memory capacity they claimed they were. In other words, my client is upset and wants their money back and I would like to know if there is some organization or establishment in Canada or China that can assist me in retrieving my money?

Answer:

Your problem rests in the cost of taking this matter to a local jurisdictional court and then collecting on any judgment you could earn and it would cost an arm and a leg to enforce this. I will not provide any legal advice but will try and give you some insight – Say so long to your money – which you should simply assume.

You should Immediately contact the commercial section at the Chinese consulate located nearest you and bombard them endlessly with letters and emails every couple of weeks. Stay on top of them and make sure they realize you have lost profit, your costs and integrity.

Now come up with an amount. [you are permitted to file a claim for profit loss and as well as potential profits].
You should ask for this number.

State in no uncertain terms that you are going to be black listing this exporter globally inside of twenty one days. [black listed by FTN exporting and bigger corporations functioning internationally – we are quite visible in China also]

Your assistance can be found though the consulate and the consumer affairs office in the nation where it originated that should take charge of occurrences such as this.

When you place this kind of pressure on a manufacturer in China, occasionally you will be rewarded since they can’t take the risk of potentially losing their export standing and authorization.

There really are no other organizations you can move against – your intimidation and grievance need to be targeted directly at the manufacturer.

Refrain from threatening legal consequences since they will see the impotence in that threat. This kind of court hearing might cost over a hundred thousand to pursue. Take aim at their export standing and their license – this will definitely grab their attention.

FAQ

© admin for Commodity Trading Manual, 2010. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under FAQ.

Since reading your book I have begun searching out providers of scrap metal and located a guy who has over 170 suppliers globally. My concern is that he might be trying to secure a commission for himself beyond the measly one percent he offered me after he handles product details and delivery – on an IRDLC.

Does this sound like he might be trying to leverage the buyer and supplier for further fees for himself? Due diligence shows him to be cleared alright. I would appreciate your opinion based on the meager information I was able to provide you.

Answer:

“Ostensible Authority” – Currently are you in possession of an offer from a product provider that actually has product? This is the basis of any transaction.

FIRST YOU LOCATE THE PRODUCT – WHEN YOU ARE SURE OF THE PRODUCT MAKE AN OFFER WITH CERTAINTY.

You present as the purchaser. You are on the hunt for product. If you cannot find a source of product straight to you, then there is no product or source for one. At this stage you could only mull over any offer presented through an intermediary – IF THAT AGENT IS WILLING TO REVEAL HIS PRODUCT PROVIDER AND IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE – MOVE ON, DROP THE TRANSACTION AND LOOK ELSEWHERE.

You have to be sure of your product provider and that they truly do have product in their “pocket”
It could be the President of the United States telling you he has secured product but business is business and friends are secondary to the transaction.

If he requested a TDLC from you – then he is not a product provider.

Hence, you could just request that he present an offer and state your primary concerns – YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN MANAGEMENT OF THE TRANSACTION AS THE PURCHASER AND THE PROVIDER –
UPON MAKING THIS APPEAL FOR A BID YOU MUST DEMAND:

• We are requesting an offer for – [what mt per month? at FOB from a product provider who has secured product]
• YOU ARE GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COVERING A NON TRANSFERRABLE IRDLC
• YOU WANT THE INITIAL DELIVERY TRANSPORTED WITHIN NINETY DAYS
• RULES OF DELIVERY USING INCOTERMS 2000. RULES OF IMBURSMENT UCP600

Now you include your commission fee to the price and present the offer to your final purchaser.
If everything just described actually occurs and the offer is from an intermediary who in turn has revealed the provider to you then offer to pay him a commission fee that is in accord with URPIB rules of trade or even higher.

Then, Paul – whether you have secured a product provider or you have not is the single question that you need answered. It appears to me that this is not the case. I think he is seeking a commission while asking you to make the imbursement; therefore, he is the one who maintains power over the transaction – not you – he is working to develop into the purchaser and the seller both.

IF IT WAS YOU WHO HAD THE POWER IN THIS TRANSACTION, THEN THE PROCEDURE WOULD BE UP TO YOU AND THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO EVEN ASK THIS QUESTION.

Try out what was just discussed and see what you can do with it.

FAQ

© admin for Commodity Trading Manual, 2010. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under FAQ.