The short answer
A decline rate on its own is close to meaningless, because it depends entirely on what you submit. The useful measurement is the split between declines caused by facts about the merchant — negative days, positions, time in business — and declines caused by how the file was prepared and placed. If most are in the second column, the fix is cheap and entirely yours.
Brokers ask what a normal decline rate is, hoping for a number to compare against. There is not a useful one: a broker who submits everything has a high rate and may be doing fine, and one who submits only perfect files has a low rate and is leaving deals unsubmitted.
Split them into two columns
| Unfixable — facts about the merchant | Fixable — facts about your process |
|---|---|
| Negative days | Unrealistic ask |
| Too many existing positions | Incomplete or illegible file |
| Under time in business | Wrong funder for that paper |
| Restricted industry | No context on an anomalous month |
| Balance too low for any ask | Undisclosed position found later |
Count them monthly, by column. That single number tells you where to spend the next month, and it is far more actionable than any market benchmark could be.
Ask for the specific reason, always
- A pattern across declines is worth more than any single answer.
- Record the reason as a structured field, not free text, or you cannot count it.
- Track it by funder too — a file declined by one and funded by another was a placement error.
- Diarise the ones that fail on time in business or a single bad month. Those become fundable later.
That last habit is where the return is. A decline on time in business is a calendar entry, not a dead file, and almost nobody follows up on them.