top of page
Search

Cheap can be expensive: how much it can cost a company not to have the right guarantee. Business guarantees.

  • Writer: Eduardo Ramos
    Eduardo Ramos
  • Jun 22
  • 4 min read
Executives comparing the cost of a business guarantee against much larger financial losses.
Executives analyze the cost-benefit relationship of a corporate guarantee against potentially devastating economic losses, visually illustrated on the screen.

Every company seeks to optimize costs.

It's normal.


Reducing expenses improves margins and increases profitability.

However, there is an important difference between reducing costs and eliminating protections.

And that's precisely where many companies make mistakes that end up costing much more than they intended to save.


It's common to hear phrases like:

  • “I don’t think it’s necessary.”

  • “We’ve never had any problems.”

  • “Let’s save that expense.”

  • "The probability of something happening is very low."


Until something happens.


And when it happens, the cost often far exceeds what it would have cost to implement an adequate guarantee from the beginning.

The business reality is simple:

The cost of a warranty is usually predictable.

The cost of a default is rarely that.


Business guarantees. The mistake of measuring only cost and not risk.


When a company evaluates a warranty, it typically considers:

  • premium

  • commission

  • financial cost

  • budget impact

What he rarely calculates is:

  • potential cost of non-compliance

  • loss of opportunities

  • flow impairment

  • reputational damage

  • legal consequences

And that's where the problem arises.

The strongest companies do not make decisions solely based on cost.

They are made based on risk.


Case 1: The tender that was lost by saving too much


Let's imagine a company that participates in an important tender.


The contract represents:

  • relevant income

  • growth

  • new customers

  • market expansion


But the company decides not to participate because it considers the requested guarantee to be an unnecessary expense.

Result:

  • misses the opportunity

  • loses position

  • loses future income


What seemed like a saving ends up becoming a much greater opportunity cost.

This is where bid bonds come in, the purpose of which is to allow companies to compete for major projects with adequate backing.


Case 2: The contract that ended up costing more than expected


A company obtains a construction or supply contract.

Everything seems positive.


But later the following arise:

  • delays

  • operational differences

  • claims

  • penalties


Without an adequate guarantee structure, the financial impact can grow rapidly.

Administrative performance bonds exist precisely to support these types of obligations and generate trust between the parties.

The cost of the guarantee is usually much lower than the cost of a contractual dispute.


Case 3: The customer who never paid


This is one of the most common stories.

The company sells.

Bill.

Delivery.

And then the waiting begins.

Payments are delayed.

The promises are increasing.

The explanations are multiplying.

Finally, the overdue portfolio appears.

The problem is not just the amount owed.

Also appearing:

  • flow pressure

  • collection costs

  • loss of liquidity

  • missed opportunities


How ZRS helps to avoid this scenario


Many companies analyze the product they sell too much and the customer who buys it too little.

That's where tools like ZRS (Zone of Risk Score) can generate enormous value.

ZRS allows:

  • assess risk before selling

  • identify warning signs

  • improve business decisions

  • reduce the probability of default

It's not about selling less.

It's about selling better.


Case 4: The tax problem that paralyzed the operation


Many companies consider a tax problem to be unlikely.

Until it happens.


A tax credit or a dispute with the tax authority can generate:

  • financial pressure

  • uncertainty

  • operational impact


Tax guarantees allow certain obligations to be secured and, in many cases, help to maintain operational continuity while the corresponding situation is resolved.

When comparing the cost of the warranty against the potential impact of an operational disruption, the difference is usually obvious.


Case 5: The lease that seemed simple


Another common mistake is assuming that all leases are the same.


But when it exists:

  • default on payment

  • damage to the property

  • contractual disputes

the cost can be considerable.


This is where solutions like NOWO help to protect leasing operations in a more efficient and modern way.

The important thing is not just signing a contract.

The important thing is to protect it.


Case 6: When the problem is already legal


Some companies discover too late that a conflict can evolve into legal proceedings.

Depending on the case, needs may arise related to:

  • pecuniary penalties

  • repair of the damage

  • obligations determined by authority

  • judicial guarantees


Court bonds are often little known until they become necessary.

And when that moment arrives, having the right solution can make a significant difference.


The true cost of not having a warranty


When a company only analyzes the cost of the warranty, it often ignores much larger costs:


Financial costs

  • affected flow

  • loss of liquidity

  • additional financing


Operating costs

  • wasted time

  • diverted resources

  • interruptions


Commercial costs

  • lost customers

  • lost contracts

  • missed opportunities


Reputational costs

  • loss of trust

  • deterioration of trade relations


The strongest companies do not seek to cut costs


They seek to eliminate unnecessary risks.

They understand that:

  • Not every warranty is an expense.

  • Not all protection comes at a cost.

  • Some investments reduce future losses.


The most successful organizations often ask themselves:

How much does it cost to protect ourselves?


But also:

What would it cost not to do it?

And that second question is usually the most important.


Many companies believe they are saving money when they eliminate a warranty.

But in reality, they are only transferring risk to their operation.

The cost of a warranty is usually visible.

The cost of non-compliance usually appears when it is already too late.

That's why the strongest companies don't make decisions based solely on price.

They make them considering the potential impact of the risk.

Because in business, as in many other areas, cheap can end up being very expensive.


Is your company protected or is it simply taking risks?


Business guarantees. At We Link , we help companies identify risks and structure protection solutions using:

  • Administrative bonds

  • Tax bonds

  • Court bonds

  • Credit guarantees

  • Risk analysis with ZRS

  • Tenancy protection with NOWO

Our goal is not to sell a guarantee.

It's about helping you protect your company's growth.


Learn more at:

 
 
 

Comments


bottom of page