Key takeaways
- Screen the chain before the document: a named issuing bank, a dated mandate naming the party you are speaking to, and as few intermediaries as possible.
- Legitimate instrument transactions move bank to bank over authenticated messaging in a sequence agreed in advance — not through private email verification.
- Two patterns account for most unworkable offers: pricing far from anything the secondary market supports, and a demand that the buyer block or transfer funds before the issuer commits.
- A fee protection agreement is only as good as the payment mechanism attached to it; tie the fee to the settlement instruction where you can.
No segment of the private markets generates more fabricated paperwork than bank instruments. The volume of unusable offers is not a reason to avoid the market; it is a reason to have a fixed screening sequence and to apply it before spending time on price.
Verify the chain, not the document
The document is the last thing to look at. Start with who is offering it and on what authority.
- Is there a named issuer? An instrument offered without an identified issuing bank is not an offer.
- Is the offering party mandated? A dated mandate from the issuer or the holder, naming the party you are speaking to. Not a forwarded email.
- How long is the chain? Every additional intermediary reduces the probability of closing and increases the probability that the terms you were quoted are not the terms the principal agreed to.
Insist on a bank-to-bank sequence
Legitimate transactions move through the issuing and receiving banks over authenticated messaging, in a sequence agreed in advance and written into the contract. Any structure that requires the receiver to pay a fee before the bank sequence begins, or that routes verification through a private email address rather than a bank, should be closed out immediately.
Watch the commercial shape
Two patterns account for most of the unworkable offers in circulation: pricing far away from anything the secondary market supports, and a requirement that the buyer's funds be blocked or transferred before the issuer has committed anything. Both are structural, not negotiable, and both are visible in the first term sheet.
Protect the intermediary properly
Fee agreements in this market are only as good as the payment mechanism attached to them. A fee protection agreement that depends on the goodwill of a party you have never met is a document, not a protection. Where possible, tie the fee to the settlement instruction itself.
Why we screen at the listing stage
Instrument offers are the segment where a database earns its subscription. Every MTN, BG and SBLC listing is checked for a named issuer, a dated mandate, and a bank-to-bank procedure before it becomes visible. Listings that fail are not published.
Questions this answers
- How do you verify an SBLC or MTN offer is genuine?
- Start with the chain, not the paper. Ask for the named issuing bank, a dated mandate from the issuer or holder naming your counterparty, and the bank-to-bank message sequence they propose. An instrument offered with no identified issuer, or verified through a private email address rather than a bank, is not an offer worth pricing.
- What is the difference between a BG and an SBLC?
- Both are undertakings by a bank to pay if a party defaults. A bank guarantee is typically called on first demand under the terms of the underlying contract, while a standby letter of credit is drawn on presentation of documents evidencing non-performance. In practice the commercial screening is identical: named issuer, dated mandate, bank-to-bank sequence.
Looking for the counterparty on the other side of this?
Our database matches on procedure, not just on asset and size.