MT799 vs MT760: Which One Sellers Really Accept (And Why Deals Collapse)

The truth behind SWIFT usage in EN590, Jet A1, LNG, and bulk commodity transactions.

Hidden buyer question:
“Which SWIFT message should I send so I’m not rejected?”

Introduction — The Wrong SWIFT Kills Deals Faster Than No SWIFT

In commodity trading, buyers are often told:

• “Just send MT799 first”
• “MT760 will secure the deal”

This advice collapses more deals than it saves.

MT799 and MT760 are not interchangeable. They serve different purposes, signal different risk levels, and are interpreted very differently by sellers, refineries, and banks.

Sending the wrong one at the wrong time is a guaranteed rejection.

1. What MT799 Really Is (And Why Sellers Treat It Carefully)

MT799 is a free-format bank-to-bank message.

What it actually does:

• Shows the buyer has a banking relationship
• Signals intent to transact
• Opens a technical conversation between banks

What it does NOT do:

• Guarantee payment
• Block funds
• Create legal obligation

To a seller, MT799 says:

“This buyer might be able to move forward.”

Not more.

2. Why MT799 Alone Gets Buyers Rejected

Buyers often believe MT799 equals proof of funds.

Sellers know better.

Red flags triggered by MT799-only buyers:

• No commitment instrument prepared
• Buyer unsure of next step
• Bank unwilling to issue MT700 or MT760 yet

When a buyer insists on MT799 only, sellers hear:

“This buyer is testing — not buying.”

Serious sellers move on.

3. What MT760 Really Means to Sellers

MT760 is a Standby Letter of Credit (SBLC).

Its real function:

• Guarantees payment if buyer defaults
• Transfers credit risk from seller to bank
• Signals financial readiness

To a seller, MT760 says:

“This buyer is financially committed and bank-approved.”

That is why MT760 is taken seriously.

4. Why MT760 Is Also Rejected (Yes, It Happens)

MT760 is not a magic key.

It gets rejected when:

• Issuing bank is not acceptable
• SBLC terms don’t align with SPA
• Draw conditions are unrealistic
• Expiry doesn’t cover delivery period

A bad MT760 signals:

“Buyer forced the bank, but doesn’t understand the deal.”

That is just as dangerous as MT799-only.

5. The Seller’s Real Decision Logic

Sellers do not ask:

“Which SWIFT did the buyer send?”

They ask:

• Is this buyer committed or exploring?
• Is payment risk covered?
• Is the bank acceptable?
• Is the structure executable?

MT799 answers only the first question.

MT760 answers all four — if done correctly.

6. Correct Usage Sequence (What Actually Works)

Professional buyer sequence:

1. Commercial terms agreed
2. Clean ICPO submitted
3. MT799 sent to confirm bank readiness (optional)
4. SPA signed
5. MT760 or MT700 issued per SPA

Skipping steps or reversing them signals inexperience.

7. Why Deals Collapse After MT799

• Buyer cannot upgrade to MT760 or MT700
• Bank refuses to issue binding instrument
• Seller realizes buyer is underfunded
• Timelines stretch beyond credibility

This is where 70–80% of deals die.

FAQ — MT799 vs MT760

1. Is MT799 ever enough?
   Only for initial screening — never for execution.
2. Is MT760 always required?
   No — but some form of binding instrument always is.
3. Can MT760 replace MT700?
   No — they serve different payment functions.
4. Why won’t sellers explain this?
   Because they don’t train buyers.
5. Which is worse: no SWIFT or wrong SWIFT?
   Wrong SWIFT.

Conclusion — Which SWIFT Should You Send?

If you send MT799 and stop, you look uncommitted.

If you send MT760 incorrectly, you look unprepared.

Sellers accept:

• Correct instrument
• At the correct stage
• From an acceptable bank
• Aligned with SPA reality

In commodity trading, SWIFT messages don’t impress.

They expose whether you are ready to transact — or not.

Send the right message, at the right time, for the right reason.