Main summary

BTU researchers calculate that Georgian non-financial corporations’ cash and deposits increased by 31.2% in 2025, faster than their total financial assets. Combining this official financial context with BTU’s research materials brings payment timing into the assessment of a commercial offer: who finances the period between an order and final payment?

Key Takeaways

• BTU’s calculation from Geostat’s October 22 release shows that Georgian non-financial corporations’ cash and deposits rose by GEL 2.776 billion, or 31.2%, between year-end 2024 and year-end 2025. These are nominal balance-sheet stocks.
• BTU calculations from Geostat show that cash and deposits increased from 26.9% to 28.5% of Georgian non-financial corporations’ financial assets between year-end 2024 and year-end 2025. This aggregate does not identify which buyers or suppliers can access those resources.
• BTU’s analytical assessment of Georgian business buyers treats payment terms as part of a commercial offer’s economic value: advances, deferred payments and milestones allocate financing and performance risk differently between buyers and suppliers.

Businesses are often assessed through two numbers: what they sold and what they earned. Markets between businesses also depend on a third question: when will the sale be paid for? A competitively priced product or a high-quality service can still be inaccessible to one party because of its payment conditions. This matters beyond the finance department. It concerns manufacturers, distributors, retailers, construction suppliers, technology businesses and professional-service providers.

Geostat’s new release, published on October 22, 2026, provides a useful setting for that question. At the end of 2025, non-financial corporations held GEL 11.680 billion in cash and deposits, compared with GEL 8.904 billion a year earlier. BTU researchers calculate an increase of 31.2%, against 23.9% growth in total financial assets for the same group. The cash-and-deposit component consequently occupied a larger share of the financial-asset portfolio. [1]

The comparison reveals more than an increase in assets: their composition changed too. The next useful step is to identify how a transaction allocates the financing burden: does the buyer fund it before receiving the product, or does the supplier wait for payment after delivery? This connects official statistics with BTU’s analytical research on Georgian business buyers’ decisions.

Reading the new financial picture

An increase in cash and deposits means that their combined nominal value was higher at year-end. Its business significance also depends on the distribution of money, the maturity of obligations and the purpose for which a particular firm holds funds. Money reserved for wages, taxes or completing an existing order is not automatically a budget for another purchase.

Financial assets: amounts in GEL million, shares in percent

Source: Geostat, October 22, 2026; year-end 2024 and 2025. Changes: BTU calculations. pp = percentage points.

Amounts are year-end stocks. A percentage-point change describes a change in a share, not the growth rate of an amount. [1]

The release reports total liabilities of GEL 92.5 billion at year-end 2025, including GEL 23.8 billion in short-term liabilities. Geostat defines liabilities broadly: loans, debt securities, trade credit, wages payable, taxes and other obligations. The short-term figure therefore does not represent overdue supplier invoices or money all falling due on a single day. [1–2]

That distinction is practical. A company may hold cash to settle commitments it has already made. Another may have a claim on a customer but need to pay employees before collecting it. The agreed settlement date becomes essential for planning resources, because one company’s receivable is another company’s payable.

Timing also matters when interpreting the release. The publication is new, but its balance-sheet figures describe the end of 2025, not October 2026. A year-end observation does not show the movement of payments throughout the year. It provides sectoral background, without identifying each firm’s available funds or the incidence of delayed payment. Assessing a contract requires the actual timetable, delivery and payment records of its buyer and supplier.

Who finances the transaction

Payment terms are not a separate appendix to price. With an advance, the buyer provides money before receiving the product or service. That may help the supplier purchase materials or begin work, while the buyer bears exposure to waiting for performance. When payment follows delivery, the buyer retains resources for longer and the supplier funds the intervening period.

A payment extension looks like a free benefit only from one side. For the other party, it can mean financing costs, resources tied up for longer or postponing another order. If a powerful buyer lengthens its payment period, money remaining in that buyer’s account is not automatically an improvement for the whole supply chain. Both sides matter: who retains resources, and who must obtain funding in their place?

Milestone payments are one way to negotiate these competing interests. A portion may support the start of work, another may follow an agreed result, and the remainder may be due on completion. Yet the word “milestone” alone does not make a contract better. If completion criteria are vague, a supplier may finish the work while the payment date remains uncertain. A defined result, acceptance procedure and payment deadline together constitute meaningful terms.

This has wider market implications. Identical prices and identical advances do not imply identical accessibility for companies of different capacities. A larger business may be able to wait longer, while the same order absorbs a substantial part of a smaller supplier’s available resources. Alongside company size, the relevant factors include the order’s scale, other commitments and the point at which completed work produces a cash receipt.

What BTU adds

BTU’s research materials on Georgian business buyers do not reduce purchasing decisions to finding the lowest price. Their treatment of payment terms distinguishes needs for lower upfront expenditure, risk sharing linked to delivery stages, and prepayment in return for improved overall conditions. This is a modeled and analytical decision framework. It suggests why one standard offer cannot address every buyer’s problem.

Combining that framework with official figures, BTU’s analytical assessment is that a larger aggregate cash balance does not make payment capacity a sufficient description of a business buyer. A buyer may have funds but require stronger evidence of performance. Another may want the product while its own receipts arrive later. A third may be comfortable paying in advance if the corresponding improvement in terms has real value.

For suppliers, recognising these differences enables a more substantive conversation than automatically offering a discount. A lower price cannot resolve uncertainty about delivery. A longer payment period cannot always replace evidence of quality. The underlying issue needs to be distinguished: the amount to be paid, the timing of payment, or uncertainty about the result. Different problems call for different responses.

BTU’s materials on changing suppliers also emphasise relationships and integration. Choosing a new partner may require changes to processes, renewed quality checks or training employees in another way of working. Predictable settlement is therefore part of the economic quality of an existing commercial relationship. A comparison should consider the new partner’s potential advantages alongside the resources required to switch and the quality of the existing relationship.

The opportunity for smaller suppliers

For Georgia, the importance of this question extends beyond large corporations’ balance sheets. Procurement conditions can influence which suppliers are able to bid and fulfil an order. A capable smaller business may struggle to participate when a contract requires a prolonged period of self-financing. In such a situation, the buyer is selecting not only a product, but also a supplier capable of financing the requested wait.

Buyers have legitimate interests too. They should not accept prepayment simply because the supplier needs money. They need an agreed outcome, accountability and a way of checking delivery. A more accessible market does not eliminate risk or transfer it entirely to buyers. It makes both parties’ commitments and use of resources understandable.

This changes the quality of comparisons. When evaluating two prices, it matters whether payment occurs at the same time, what delivery includes and how acceptance is established. The same nominal amount under different conditions is not necessarily the same economic offer. For a particular business, this distinction may matter more than a small discount, although its value must be calculated from the actual contract rather than assumed.

The connection to households runs through supply chains. The terms negotiated by a shop, food-service business, service provider or manufacturer affect the resources required to fulfil an order. Whether these effects reach retail prices or quality must be investigated separately in each case. The systemic market question nevertheless remains clear: under what conditions can suppliers compete, and where does the economic burden of waiting accumulate?

The new release shows that cash and deposits gained a larger share of non-financial corporations’ financial assets in 2025. BTU’s conclusion is not that this establishes universal financial comfort. The opportunity lies in connecting financial information with more carefully designed commercial terms. Payment timing, evidence of performance and risk allocation deserve the same serious attention as the headline price.

Questions and answers

Why are payment terms part of the price?

They determine how long a transaction uses the buyer’s or supplier’s resources. The financing burden can change even when the nominal invoice amount does not.

Does the 31.2% increase mean every company is better placed?

It is the aggregate nominal increase in cash and deposits for the non-financial corporations covered by Geostat. It does not identify the distribution or unrestricted availability of funds at individual firms.

Are milestone payments always best?

No. Their usefulness depends on clearly defined results, acceptance procedures and both parties’ financing needs. Some transactions require other arrangements.

What does BTU add to official statistics?

BTU recalculates growth and asset composition, then relates the results to its analytical framework for Georgian business buyers, bringing price, time and risk into the same assessment.