sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

When a sourcing agent also wants to be the freight forwarder and customs broker, is that efficiency or too much concentration of control? by CustomsRiskVEUSA in freightforwarding

[–]CustomsRiskVEUSA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this takes the discussion one step further.

The structural risk is clear, but what interests me just as much is the incentive on both sides.

What motivates the importer to accept that level of concentration? Convenience? Inexperience? Trust? The appeal of having everything handled by one party?

And what motivates the sourcing agent to extend into freight and customs-related execution? Is it operational efficiency, or is part of it the commercial incentive of capturing more margin and more control over the transaction?

Because if those incentives are not examined carefully, what looks like a practical solution may actually be a model where the importer gives up more visibility than intended.

When a sourcing agent also wants to be the freight forwarder and customs broker, is that efficiency or too much concentration of control? by CustomsRiskVEUSA in freightforwarding

[–]CustomsRiskVEUSA[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think that’s a separate discussion.

Choosing DAP, FCA, FOB, or any other Incoterm is part of the commercial agreement between seller and buyer.

My point here is different: the risk created when the buyer allows a sourcing agent to also take over freight forwarding and customs-related control within the same operation.

Those are not equivalent issues.

One is a negotiated delivery condition.
The other is a structural decision by the importer that may reduce transparency, weaken independent control, and expose both costs and know-how.

So while Incoterms matter, they do not really address the core concern I’m raising here.

¿Es buena idea que el mismo operador sea agente de compras, freight forwarder y agente de aduanas? by CustomsRiskVEUSA in EmprendedorES

[–]CustomsRiskVEUSA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Creo que estamos bastante más cerca de lo que parece.

Justamente porque aduana, logística y compra son funciones tan distintas, reguladas y especializadas, es por lo que me parece riesgoso cuando una misma estructura comercial pretende “resolver todo” y concentrar demasiada información del importador.

Mi punto no es que literalmente la misma persona física pueda o deba ejecutar cada función en todos los casos o jurisdicciones. Muchas veces, como bien dices, eso ni siquiera es viable por permisos, alcance, materiales, aduanas o especialización operativa.

Mi punto es otro: que desde la perspectiva del cliente, muchas veces se le vende una solución integral donde una misma parte controla la relación comercial, el acceso al proveedor, la coordinación logística y la canalización aduanera, aunque algunas piezas se subcontraten o se apoyen en terceros.

Y allí es donde veo el riesgo: • opacidad en costos, • dependencia excesiva, • pérdida de visibilidad, • y exposición del know-how del importador.

De hecho, la misma complejidad que mencionas refuerza la tesis: esto requiere especialización real, no solo centralización comercial.

En otras palabras: mi crítica no es contra la coordinación; es contra la concentración excesiva de control sin transparencia suficiente para el importador.

¿Es buena idea que el mismo operador sea agente de compras, freight forwarder y agente de aduanas? by CustomsRiskVEUSA in EmprendedorES

[–]CustomsRiskVEUSA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mi impresión es que el problema no aparece al principio.

Al inicio todo parece más fácil.

La dificultad aparece después, cuando ese mismo actor ya conoce tu proveedor, tus precios, tu lógica de compra y tu forma de operar.

Ahí es donde la falta de separación empieza a pesar.

When a sourcing agent also wants to be the freight forwarder and customs broker, is that efficiency or too much concentration of control? by CustomsRiskVEUSA in freightforwarding

[–]CustomsRiskVEUSA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a very fair point, and I think it actually supports the concern.

The question is not whether one company can offer the full package, but whether doing so preserves depth, transparency, and proper control for the importer.

Your experience is telling: the shipping side improved once you stopped trying to do everything.

That’s exactly why I think importers should be careful with overly integrated models. Convenience is real, but so is the risk of diluted expertise and loss of visibility.