The global trade finance gap remains an estimated $2.5 trillion, according to the Asian Development Bank. For a smaller exporter, that gap can mean having a customer willing to buy but no affordable way to fund production or protect the payment.
The estimate comes from ADB’s 2025 survey, published in December and promoted in January 2026. It uses 2023 and 2024 data, alongside opinions collected during 2025. It is not a new October measurement.
MBN’s earlier coverage of financing an export order examined the gap between making a sale and receiving payment. The bank’s survey also explains why a lender may be unable or unwilling to bridge that gap.
What is the trade finance gap?
The trade finance gap is an estimate of unmet demand for financial services supporting international trade. These include lending and arrangements that reduce the risk of a buyer failing to pay.
It does not mean that $2.5 trillion of exports definitely disappeared. A rejected application may be replaced by another source of finance, or the transaction may have been too risky to proceed.
Imagine a small manufacturer receiving an overseas order. It must buy materials, pay staff and arrange shipping before its customer pays. Financing can cover that interval, but the lender needs evidence that the money will come back.
Payment protection serves a different purpose. A letter of credit is a bank’s commitment to pay when the seller presents documents complying with specified conditions. It is not a promise that the goods will satisfy every commercial expectation.
Why a confirmed order may not be enough
The exporter needs financing, while the lender needs an acceptable borrower and transaction. Those requirements do not always coincide.
A bank may assess the exporter’s financial history, the buyer’s ability to pay and risks in the destination country. It must also check the parties involved and comply with financial-crime rules.
A smaller company may have a short trading history or limited collateral, assets pledged as security for a loan. The cost of reviewing a small transaction can also consume a large share of the lender’s potential income.
Some constraints arise inside the bank. ADB found that insufficient dollar liquidity or local-currency funding was the leading obstacle for more than 22% of respondents. More than 63% placed it among their three principal concerns.
Liquidity here means access to funds the bank can use. Even an attractive customer does not solve a shortage of the currency needed for a transaction.
ADB reports that more than 82% of traditional trade finance transactions use US dollars. That creates an additional hurdle for banks with limited access to dollar funding or the international banking connections needed to process it.
Lower rejection rates need careful interpretation
The survey’s reported rejection rate for small and medium-sized enterprises was about 41%, close to the 40% reported for mid-sized and corporate clients. That is encouraging compared with the wider differences found in earlier surveys.
It does not establish equal access. ADB says some smaller firms may have stopped applying after previous rejections. If discouraged businesses disappear from the applicant pool, the rejection rate can improve while their financing needs remain unmet.
The survey did not establish why the rates converged. Better support for smaller clients and changes in the borrowers applying could both be involved.
For an exporter, comparing interest rates alone is consequently insufficient. Eligibility requirements, document preparation, fees, currencies and the timing of disbursement all affect whether an offer can support the order.
The right finance has to arrive at the right stage
Supply chain finance can provide early payment against an invoice approved by a larger buyer. The financier can assess that buyer’s creditworthiness, potentially making finance more accessible to the supplier.
It still leaves a timing problem if the supplier needs money before producing anything to invoice. Pre-shipment finance addresses that earlier stage by helping fund materials and production.
ADB also points to digital trade documents as a way to reduce administrative friction. Recognized electronic records and compatible systems could make checking transactions less costly. They cannot remove an unreliable buyer or create funding a bank does not have.
An exporter therefore needs to connect its financing arrangement to the actual payment schedule. Money released after shipment cannot buy the materials required beforehand. Payment protection cannot by itself pay the next wage bill.
An overseas order becomes deliverable only when the business can fund each step between accepting it and collecting the customer’s payment.
Cover: Representative container handling at Clydeport, Scotland, and invoice paperwork. Neither photograph is connected with an application in the ADB survey. Photographs by Ollie Craig (Pexels License) and MART PRODUCTION (Pexels License). Cropped and combined.
