Match the file to funders who write that paper, that industry and that size, and submit to a small number in a considered order rather than blasting everyone at once. Shotgunning produces duplicate pulls, an inconsistent story across funders, worse pricing when several come back at once, and a reputation that gets your future submissions read less carefully.
Every broker starts by sending each file to everyone, because it feels like maximising the chance of a yes. It does the opposite once you have any volume: funders see the same merchant from four brokers, price defensively, and start reading your submissions as unqualified.
| Record for each funder | Why |
|---|---|
| Paper grades they actually write | Stops you generating declines |
| Industries they refuse | The most common avoidable decline |
| Advance size range | A funder for $250k rarely wants $18k |
| Position tolerance | Decides where stacked files can go at all |
| Typical turnaround | Decides who gets the urgent file |
| Their commission structure | Decides ties |
That table is worth an afternoon once and pays for itself continuously. Most brokers hold it in their heads and lose files to the parts they misremember.
Funders who trust your submissions read them faster, ask fewer questions, and stretch further on the borderline files. That is earned by sending files that fit, disclosing positions before they find them, and not resubmitting a declined deal under a different entity name. It is the cheapest edge available to a broker and it compounds.
To a small number, in a considered order — not to everyone at once. Shotgunning produces duplicate approaches to the same merchant, defensive pricing and a reputation that gets your later files read less carefully.
Match paper grade, industry, advance size and position tolerance first, then turnaround speed, then commission. Keeping a written table of what each funder actually writes is worth an afternoon and pays for itself continuously.
Yes. When several funders see the same merchant simultaneously they price defensively rather than competitively, and the merchant ends up with worse offers than a considered single submission would have produced.
Only as a tiebreaker between funders who fit equally well. Choosing the higher-paying funder over the better-fitting one is how a fundable file becomes a decline, and the decline costs more than the extra point.
Faster reads, fewer questions, and more flexibility on borderline files. It is earned by sending files that fit, disclosing positions up front, and never resubmitting a declined deal under a different name.
We will tell you straight up if we cannot help you. No commission deals, no free trials, no chasing you for three weeks.