The latest data from 18 major automakers reveals that the total accounts payable and notes outstanding has surpassed 1 trillion yuan. However, the industry's average payment turnover period has increased to over 216 days, with more than half of the companies experiencing a lengthening of their payment cycles. The implementation of the promised 60-day payment terms faces significant challenges.
As of the end of the first quarter of 2026, the combined accounts payable and notes of 18 listed automakers primarily engaged in passenger vehicles reached 1,034.407 billion yuan, maintaining a scale above the trillion-yuan mark. The industry's average payment turnover days, however, rose to 216.68 days, an increase of 27 days from the end of last year. This indicates a divergence where the total amount decreased while the payment period lengthened. In this statistical round, only four automakers managed to shorten their payment cycles, while over half of the companies saw their payment periods extend further. Haima Automobile, Zotye Auto, and SERES (Seres) are among those with the longest payment terms in the industry.
Fulfilling the 60-day payment commitment has proven difficult. Challenges include non-standard settlement rules and the imposition of unreasonable clauses. Additionally, some automakers are under cash flow pressure, with their on-book cash insufficient to cover payables, making fund management and internal coordination major obstacles. Several companies have introduced measures such as process optimization and establishing special funds to improve payment terms. However, first-quarter data suggests the industry-wide goal of fully implementing 60-day terms still faces considerable challenges.
With the conclusion of May, first-quarter financial reports for major domestic listed automakers have been fully disclosed, providing a new round of scrutiny for their commitment to compress payment terms to within 60 days.
An analysis of 18 listed automakers (all with passenger vehicle businesses) shows that as of the end of Q1 this year, their combined accounts payable and notes totaled 1,034.407 billion yuan. This represents a decrease of 87.548 billion yuan compared to the end of Q2 last year (the starting point of the first full execution quarter after the 17-company commitment). However, the average turnover days increased to 216.68 days, up 27 days from the end of last year, showing the aforementioned divergent trend of "decreasing total amount but lengthening payment period."
Looking at individual companies, SAIC Motor, BYD Company, and Chery Automobile ranked top three in terms of the amount of payables and notes. Data shows that as of the end of Q1, their respective accounts payable and notes were 251.114 billion yuan, 212.932 billion yuan, and 128.678 billion yuan, all exceeding the 100-billion-yuan mark. Measured by corresponding turnover days, Haima Automobile, Zotye Auto, and SERES (Seres) had the longest payment periods.
Only Four Automakers Reduced Payable Turnover Days
As of Q1 this year, only seven automakers saw a reduction in their accounts payable and notes compared to the end of Q2 last year. Among them, BYD Company reduced its amount by 23.754 billion yuan and Li Auto by 13.991 billion yuan.
Chery Automobile, SAIC Motor, and NIO Inc. (NIO) saw an increase in their accounts payable and notes over the same period. SAIC Motor increased by 20.561 billion yuan over three quarters, a growth of 8.92%. Chery Automobile increased by 22.364 billion yuan, up 21.04%. NIO Inc. (NIO) increased by 19.019 billion yuan, a significant rise of 54.42%.
Analysts suggest that with sales growth, SAIC Motor and Chery Automobile have correspondingly expanded procurement from upstream supply chains, leading to increased payables. Similarly, with growing delivery volumes, NIO Inc. (NIO) has gained stronger bargaining power within the supply chain, allowing more effective use of supplier financing, thus increasing its payable scale.
In terms of corresponding turnover days, as of the end of Q1, only four companies showed improvement compared to the end of Q2 last year: Geely Automobile, Li Auto, GAC Group, and BAIC BluePark. Among them, Li Auto had accounts payable and notes turnover days of 162.69 days, shortening by approximately 45 days compared to the end of Q2 last year, making it the automaker with the largest reduction in payment period.
Excluding companies where statistics could not be obtained, other automakers experienced an increase in their payable turnover days. Haima Automobile and Zotye Auto had payable turnover days of approximately 480 days and 461 days respectively as of the end of Q1, increasing by about 229 days and 132 days from the end of Q2 last year. XPeng (Xiaopeng Group) increased by 125 days. SERES (Seres) increased by nearly 70 days to around 337 days.
Accounts payable and notes turnover days, also known as the average payment period, are not entirely equivalent to the payment cycle automakers give suppliers but serve as an indicator of how long a company takes to pay its supplier debts. An analyst noted that Q1 is subject to seasonal influences, and a slight rebound in the automotive industry's turnover days to 80-130 days is considered normal seasonal fluctuation.
Optimization Measures Underway at Some Automakers
After adjusting for Q1 seasonal volatility, a comparison of payable turnover days at the end of last year versus mid-year clearly reflects that optimization measures have entered the implementation phase at some automakers. Regarding this metric, only a minority of companies saw an increase in this indicator at the end of last year compared to the end of Q2 last year; most companies experienced a shortening of these turnover days.
Notably, some automakers have explicitly stated in their financial reports that they have taken measures to shorten payable turnover days. For example, BYD Company mentioned in its 2025 annual report that its accounts payable and notes turnover days are at a relatively low level in the automotive industry and continue to improve, having further shortened compared to the same period in 2024.
In February this year, the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM) released a research report on the implementation status of payment term commitments by key automakers to suppliers. It pointed out that since 17 automakers pledged to keep payment terms to suppliers within 60 days, the vast majority of key automakers have compressed their terms to within 60 days, with an average term of about 54 days (approximately 10 days shorter than the same period last year). Four companies had average terms below 50 days, with this improvement mainly concentrated in the second half of 2025.
CAAM stated in its report that the 17 surveyed automakers all attached high importance to fulfilling the payment term commitment. Many established dedicated task forces to promote it, issued specific institutional documents, established long-term mechanisms for commitment fulfillment, and have completed payment term adjustments including for existing contracts.
"Some companies have further optimized financial processes, improved information systems to enable regular automatic payments, reducing delays caused by manual operations. Some have changed the calculation start date from the bookkeeping date to the delivery acceptance date, and settlement frequency from monthly to ten-day settlements, optimizing processes to enhance settlement efficiency. Multiple companies have prepared special funds exceeding tens of billions of yuan to improve payment terms," CAAM added.
In the view of an industry expert, payment terms are an important condition affecting the virtuous cycle of the automotive industry and a foundational condition for its healthy and standardized development. Currently, a series of requirements and measures targeting issues like automaker payment terms and unfair competition in the industry have produced certain effects.
The 60-Day Commitment: A Battle of Cash Reserves
However, based on financial reports up to Q1 this year, some automakers still face issues regarding payment terms. CAAM's February research also mentioned that some automakers still have problems in supplier payment that require ongoing efforts to resolve.
"There are different methods for calculating the start point of the payment term, such as goods delivery acceptance, centralized reconciliation, invoice receipt, and vehicle installation verification. Although nominally all are 60-day terms, the time from supplier delivery to receipt of payment varies significantly. Process management is not standardized enough, leading to de facto extension of payment terms. A few companies, using the shortening of payment terms as a reason, require suppliers to lower product prices or accept other unreasonable clauses," CAAM stated.
An industry association secretary-general noted: "The biggest obstacle to implementing 60-day terms likely lies in the fund management capabilities and internal coordination mechanisms of some automakers. For example, how to adjust cash flow within a short time to ensure timely payment to suppliers is a significant challenge. Furthermore, coordination between internal departments like finance, procurement, and production needs strengthening to ensure timely fund allocation and payment."
Regarding automakers not yet fulfilling the "60-day term" commitment, a researcher commented: "Automakers themselves are under cash flow pressure, having to prioritize the stability of their own capital chains, thus delaying payments."
This also indicates that shortening payment terms is first and foremost a "battle of cash reserves." Whether the book cash can fully cover accounts payable and notes is the critical line determining whether the "60-day settlement" promise can truly be realized.
Observing from the cash and cash equivalents perspective, among the automakers analyzed, only SERES (Seres), Li Auto, GAC Group, and Haima Automobile had book cash that could completely cover their accounts payable and notes. If restricted cash, short-term investments, and time deposits are included in the "cash reserves" statistical scope, the cash reserve scale of companies like XPeng (Xiaopeng Motors) could fully cover their payables.
However, even when estimated by cash reserve scale, some automakers still cannot fully cover their accounts payable and notes. For example, the reserve scale of companies like SAIC Motor, BYD Company, and Chery Automobile remains lower than their corresponding payables, indicating pressure on short-term偿付能力 (repayment ability). Looking across the industry, the "60-day payment term" commitment remains an unfinished "cash test."
Comments