Second month without payouts: lower prices or recalculate purchasing costs?

In the second month, the Wildberries account still shows the status “payment processing.” This is how sellers from Sverdlovsk Oblast describe the situation in publications dated October 15–21, 2026.

The first thing that comes to mind in this situation is to lower prices to maintain turnover. But the news about payouts does not, by itself, prove that buyers have become less receptive to the products or that competitors have slashed their prices. The publications do not establish a connection between delayed payouts and a decline in the buyout rate reported by sellers.

Delayed payouts limit working capital while suppliers’ and competitors’ prices continue to change. If you purchase using the old formula during this time, you may pay a price that no longer matches current data. Therefore, the purchasing decision should be recalculated using current prices and predetermined rules.

What the publications confirm

• Available publications dated 10/15/2026–10/21/2026 have been reviewed. Here is what they contain.
• 1. Sellers from Sverdlovsk Oblast have been unable to receive money from Wildberries for a second month; their accounts display the status “payment processing” (Federal
• Press, 10/21/2026).
  2. Complaints about unpaid payouts have been submitted to the Ministry of Industry and Trade, and some publications also mention appeals to the FAS (Eurasian News, 10/20/2026; Tagil

City, 10/21/2026; “Real Tagil,” 10/21/2026).
3. Publications appeared reporting discrepancies between official reports and the situation sellers are experiencing (IVBG.ru, 10/16/2026).
4. Wildberries reported to the Ministry of Industry and Trade that it was operating normally, while sellers reported that they were not receiving payouts (Its Own Business Plus, 10/15/2026).

Pay attention to the wording: these are complaints from sellers and appeals to government agencies. This is not marketplace statistics, nor is it Wildberries’ official position on the substance of the delay. The sample consists of those who filed complaints. The regional focus of the complaints cannot be extrapolated to the entire marketplace.

What the publications do not contain—and why it is important not to fill in the gaps

Some primary sources could not be verified: the full texts of Jurisora and “Layout” publications dated 10/20/2026 could not be opened, and only the headlines, dates, and domains were confirmed. Therefore, the article makes no claims about exactly what is being delayed: whether it is a specific accrual week, a restriction on withdrawing funds, or stalled payment processing. There is also no list of categories, regions, or seller groups from “Layout.” There are no figures on changes in payout timing or the share of canceled orders—no open data with the described calculation method could be found.

A separate point: none of the available publications identifies the cause of the decline in the buyout rate reported by sellers. The publications do not establish a connection between delayed payouts and a decline in the buyout rate. This requires further investigation and is not an established fact.

This matters not out of courtesy to the sources, but because of the money involved. As soon as you build a purchasing plan around the logic “payouts are delayed → demand is falling → prices need to be lowered,” you are relying on two unproven links. The second link presents another problem: if some sellers are not receiving money but continue purchasing, market supply may not decrease. Therefore, a competitor’s price reduction does not necessarily accompany delayed payouts, and a discount following the news may not be justified.

Why the old purchasing formula is starting to mislead right now

You may have a working formula: supplier price, inventory, turnover period, and minimum acceptable listed price. But if it was used before the payouts arrived, the input data for the calculation may have become outdated. Supplier and competitor prices continue to change regardless of the marketplace’s payment terms.

An example from the calculation. Suppose you purchased a batch on October 15 at a supplier price of 900 rubles, entered a price of 1,490 rubles into the model, and set a minimum threshold of 1,190 rubles. By October 20, the supplier had raised the price to 1,050 rubles, while a competitor had set a price of 1,390 rubles, down from 1,700. This is a hypothetical example. If you purchase from memory at that moment, using the price of 900 rubles, you acquire the product for 150 rubles more than the previously recorded supplier price, precisely when the marketplace is holding up your working capital.

This is the main risk associated with the cash gap. It is not about “saving money” or panicking. It is about the fact that two incoming cash flows—money from the marketplace and money allocated to purchasing—fall out of sync, and whichever one is based on outdated information determines the decision.

Three hypothetical scenarios during the cash gap

For example, consider a single SKU with a price of 1,490 rubles and a minimum purchasing threshold of 780 rubles.

1. The supplier’s price has increased, while the competitor’s price and availability have not changed. The decision is not to purchase at the old supplier price: above the permissible threshold, this is no longer a purchase but an overpayment at a time when funds are being held up.
2. The supplier has raised its price, while the competitor has gone on sale and taken the product off the market. You need to consider not only the price but also availability.
3. The source price could not be confirmed or differed from the competitor’s data. The listing remains at its current price and switches to monitoring mode, and no new price is listed.

In all three cases, the decision is made by a rule with established thresholds, not by a manual review based on memory.

What to record for each SKU before the payouts arrive

For each item, record the set of data that the rule will subsequently rely on. The fields that are genuinely available and verifiable are:

1. The current price and pre-discount price of your product.
2. Availability: whether the product is in stock.
3. Category, brand, seller, product identifier, and a direct link to the source.
4. The supplier’s price as of the check date.
5. The competitor’s price and pre-discount price, and the competitor’s stock availability status.

Using this data, you can then calculate two figures that you most likely do not currently have explicitly defined: the minimum and maximum purchasing thresholds. The minimum is the purchase price below which a transaction does not proceed under any scenario. The maximum is the price at which purchasing still makes sense, even if the listed price subsequently falls.

These thresholds remain parameters of your purchasing rule. Pricerio’s confirmed capabilities allow you to retrieve data for calculations, monitor prices, and apply pricing formulas, but a separate function for setting purchase thresholds is not specified in the provided registry.

If the source price cannot be confirmed or differs from the competitor’s data, the purchase is not completed automatically: the current price is retained, and the item switches to monitoring mode. Automatically uploading a new price requires a confirmed source price and an active linked product card. This is not a formality—it is what distinguishes a rule-based decision from one based on instinct.

How to set thresholds in rubles

It is more convenient to set thresholds in rubles and units than in percentages. For example, for an item with a current price of 1,490 rubles: the maximum purchase threshold is 1,000 rubles when a competitor’s discount ranges from 1,700 to 1,390, and the minimum is 780 rubles, below which the volume no longer covers storage and logistics costs. Everything between these numbers is the range in which your rule applies.

What to do today

1. Compile the current price, pre-discount price, availability, category, brand, seller, identifier, and source link for each SKU. This is the baseline for calculating thresholds.
2. Update the supplier’s price and the competitors’ prices along with their availability status. Competitor availability must also be taken into account when making a purchasing decision.
3. Set the minimum and maximum purchase thresholds in rubles and record why they are set at those levels. Without a documented rationale, a threshold will turn into something that “seemed reasonable” a month from now.
4. Review the price-change history for the past 90 days—that is how long the website check data is retained. Repeated changes in the supplier’s price and the competitor’s response may indicate how sustainable the previous price benchmarks are.
5. Recalculate decisions using the rules rather than manually from memory. A manual check may rely on outdated prices.

Five questions before each purchase

At what supplier price was the latest batch calculated, and since what date has that figure not been updated? What are the current prices and availability levels of two or three competitors for this SKU? What is the lowest purchase price for you at which the deal still makes sense? Does the current supplier price fall within your thresholds? Are you answering these questions using current data or relying on memory? If you are relying on memory, the decision has already been made—just not by you.

What this does not solve

Neither this article nor the price-monitoring service speeds up Wildberries payments or eliminates the reasons buyout rates are falling. It has not been confirmed that the delays result from a marketplace-side outage: the mechanism behind the delays remains unknown. We do not use this as a basis for any calculations.

But the second half of the problem is yours. While payments are delayed, the supplier’s price, the competitor’s price, and your purchase thresholds continue to evolve and change. Establishing them according to rules rather than memory is exactly where Pricerio can help: it monitors competitor and supplier prices, stores price-change history, and allows you to apply pricing formulas.