Securities Times front page commentary: Let the automotive companies actually fulfill their promise of a sixty-day payment period.

The article points out that, at present, the "60-day payment term" breeze is not fair to all suppliers. On the one hand, suppliers represented by raw materials have enjoyed the benefits of shortened payment terms relatively quickly; on the other hand, including some equipment manufacturing, infrastructure projects, and other suppliers, a certain percentage are still stuck in a long payment cycle. In the process of fulfilling commitments, whether the "hidden payment term" will spread in a concealed form is worth paying attention to. Although some enterprises have indeed shortened their nominal payment terms, they may maintain or even extend actual fund occupation through "innovative" means. For example, by delaying acceptance and confirmation of ownership, they can avoid the 60-day limit; by adding affiliated companies or intermediate links, funds are nominally transferred upstream, but in reality, the upstream supply chain is still thirsty and funds continue to be idle or trapped. This is still transferring the "price war cost" to the upstream of the industry chain, deviating from the original intention of payment term reform.