From Submission to Funding: The Real Bottleneck Is Stips

Most Merchant Cash Advance lenders don’t lose deals because they can’t source submissions.

They lose deals because they can’t move them.

After the submission hits your pipeline, the next phase is where speed quietly breaks down:

Missing bank statements
“We already sent that” threads
Attachments scattered across emails
No clear ownership on follow-ups
Underwriters waiting on the same items again and again

That’s not an underwriting issue — it’s an operations system issue.

And the fix isn’t “try harder.” The fix is turning stip collection into a predictable, trackable workflow.

The core problem: stips live in too many places

In a typical MCA shop, stips end up spread across:

Email threads (ISO + merchant)
Text messages
Shared folders
Someone’s desktop
A spreadsheet checklist no one trusts

So the team does what teams always do when the system can’t keep up: They create manual workarounds.

The result is familiar:

Files stall without anyone noticing
Follow-ups happen late (or not at all)
Underwriters waste time hunting documents
Managers can’t see what’s truly blocking funding

If your process depends on “tribal knowledge,” it won’t scale.

The goal: make stip tracking a system, not a side job

A scalable stip workflow has 5 characteristics:

A standard checklist (by product / scenario)
Clear status on each required item (received / missing / invalid / needs review)
One place where documents live (tied to the deal)
Automated follow-up so nothing goes cold
Visibility for managers (what’s blocking deals, by stage and by owner)

Once those exist, your team stops “babysitting” deals and starts processing them.

What a modern stip workflow looks like in practice

1) The deal enters the pipeline cleanly

Whether a submission comes from an ISO via email or from a direct/organic portal, the goal is the same: create a deal record with documents and communications tied to it—so underwriting starts from an organized workspace, not an inbox.

2) The system assigns a stip checklist automatically

Instead of building a checklist from memory, the deal is assigned a stip package based on rules like:

Product type / term
Deal size thresholds
Time in business / revenue band
Industry or risk flags
State/licensing considerations

This creates immediate clarity: what do we need, and what’s missing?

3) Documents are captured and validated (not just stored)

“Received” isn’t enough. Documents need a status that underwriting can trust:

Received (pending review)
Approved
Rejected (wrong doc / outdated / unreadable)
Needs follow-up (specific request)

When validation is explicit, your team avoids the most expensive loop: discovering problems late (right before contract or funding).

4) Follow-up happens automatically, with accountability

This is where throughput increases fast.

Instead of relying on someone to remember, the system triggers:

A confirmation (“We received your submission—here’s what we still need”)
Tasks for the assigned owner
SLA timers (e.g., “No contact within 10 minutes”)
Reminder sequences if the merchant goes cold

Follow-up becomes consistent, measurable, and less dependent on who’s having a busy day.

5) Underwriting works from queues, not interruptions

When stip tracking is structured, underwriting can run from an operational queue:

“Ready for review”
“Waiting on bank statements”
“Waiting on voided check”
“Ready for offer”
“Ready for contract”
“Ready to fund”

That reduces context switching and makes it obvious where volume is stacking up.

Why it matters: speed-to-fund is a competitive advantage

In MCA, merchants often submit to multiple shops at once. The winner is usually the team that is:

Fast to first response
Clear on what’s needed
Organized during follow-up
Quick to decision
Clean at funding

A structured stip workflow improves all five—without needing more coordinators to “push paper.”

What scaling without headcount actually looks like

When lenders systemize stip tracking, the operational impact usually shows up as:

Fewer touches per funded deal (less chasing, less rework)
Faster speed-to-offer (underwriting gets complete files sooner)
Higher completion rates (less fallout from confusion/missing items)
Cleaner internal handoffs (sales → underwriting → funding)
Better source performance visibility (which ISOs submit clean deals)

Instead of hiring to keep up, the same team processes more deals with less friction.

What to measure (so you can prove the improvement)

If you implement standardized stip tracking + automated follow-up, track:

Time from submission → first contact
Time from submission → “file complete”
Time from “file complete” → offer sent
% of deals stalled due to missing docs
Rejection rate by document type (helps refine guidance)
Conversion rate by source (ISO vs organic vs referral)

When these metrics improve, revenue follows.

If your stips are a spreadsheet, your scale is capped

Automated intake is the first step. But the real throughput gains happen when stip collection and underwriting readiness are structured end-to-end.

If you want to see what a modern stip workflow looks like in your operation, request a demo and we’ll map:

your current stip checklist(s)
your follow-up cadence
where deals stall today
how to standardize and automate the process

And we’ll outline exactly what it takes to roll it out without disrupting production.