When a low supplier price becomes an expensive import

An international negotiation may show an apparently competitive price and still produce an unsatisfactory financial result. This happens when the decision focuses on the goods and overlooks the period between the first supplier payment and the effective recovery of the capital invested.

Import costs arise throughout a sequence that may include a deposit, production, payment of the balance, international freight, insurance, duties, customs expenses, storage, inland transport and inventory. Comparing only the FOB price or a conversion at one day’s exchange rate is therefore not enough.

An import operation uses more than one exchange-rate reference

The same operation may involve different exchange references. The supplier can be paid on different dates; duties follow the rules in force when the declaration is registered; the financial institution applies its own rate and exchange-closing charges; and accounting may use specific criteria to recognize liabilities and exchange variation.

PTAX is an important official benchmark, but it is not necessarily the final rate contracted to pay the supplier. On September 21, 2026, for example, LFAA displayed sell PTAX rates of BRL 5.1575 per US dollar and BRL 5.9126 per euro; on the preceding business day they were BRL 5.1521 and BRL 5.9141.

The change between those dates was small, but operations with long production and transit periods face several currency movements. Management should consider exposure throughout the cycle, not only at negotiation.

Time also has a cost

Weeks or months may pass between order confirmation and the arrival of goods in inventory. During that period, funds can remain tied up before the product is available for sale.

If the company uses financing, receivables advances or working capital, the financial cost belongs to the operation even when it is absent from the supplier’s or freight forwarder’s proposal. The cycle also continues after customs clearance: slow-moving goods keep consuming capital.

A lower freight quote may not mean a lower total cost

A cheaper freight proposal may involve longer transit, more transshipments, less predictability or different commercial conditions. The nominal saving must be considered together with the complete operation.

• a longer period of tied-up capital
• additional safety stock
• risk of stockout or loss of the commercial window
• greater exposure to storage or demurrage
• later sales and a longer need for credit

Small differences gain scale

Minor differences become material in larger or recurring shipments. Exchange movements, extra storage days, production delays and longer sales periods can affect margin and cash flow.

A company may believe it imported at a good margin but lack liquidity for the next operation. This is especially relevant to small and mid-sized companies with less capacity to absorb deviations.

The decision should cover the complete cycle

A consistent assessment should connect, at a minimum, the following factors:

• supplier payment terms and currency
• production and transport times
• estimated duties and logistics and customs expenses
• working-capital needs
• expected inventory and collection periods
• the margin required to absorb variations

Planning reduces surprises

These factors should not be analyzed in isolation. Changes in timing, transport mode, Incoterm or payment terms can alter the project’s financial result. Comparing scenarios before confirming the order will not predict every variable, but it can reveal those that threaten margin, liquidity or delivery.

The opportunity is not simply to buy more cheaply abroad. It is to turn international price, time, taxation and logistics into a sustainable business result. Material operations should be evaluated before shipment and preferably before final order confirmation.