Lender review

When a certificate package arrives, a credit analyst runs a fairly standard routine before availability updates. Does the aging total tie to the gross AR on the certificate? Does the roll-forward end where the aging begins? Do the ineligible categories sum to the deduction taken? Are the ratios computed on the agreement's definitions? And the comparison that generates most questions: how does every major line move against last period, and does the movement make sense given sales and collections?

A package that ties cleanly gets processed. A package with a $340,000 gap between the aging and the certificate gets an email, and a borrower who generates that email monthly gets a reputation, which eventually gets priced.

Periodically, commonly once or twice a year and more often for stressed credits, the lender sends field examiners to test the reporting against reality. A typical receivables exam samples invoices, often 40 to 60 of them, and traces each one both directions: from the certificate back to the invoice, shipping document, and contract, and from cash receipts back to the invoices they paid. Examiners retest the eligibility math on the sample, rebuild concentration on the full file, verify the roll-forward against bank activity, and probe the usual soft spots: unapplied cash, unmatched credits, reissued invoices, and affiliates booked as ordinary customers.

As a concrete anchor: an examiner who finds that 4 invoices in a 50 invoice sample were misaged because the ERP due date did not match the negotiated terms will extrapolate that error rate across the pool, and an 8 percent exception rate can translate into a new reserve or a lower advance rate until a follow up exam clears it.

The most routine form of review is the variance question. Eligible receivables fell $1,400,000 while sales were flat: why? Dilution ticked from 4.0 to 4.6 percent: what changed? In a spreadsheet process each question costs hours, because the answer has to be reconstructed from extracts and formulas after the fact. Slow or vague answers have a compounding cost: they read as the borrower not understanding its own collateral, which is precisely the impression that shortens the leash.

Review is adversarial only when the numbers cannot defend themselves. A borrower whose certificate decomposes to invoice level detail, with rules versioned and every figure traced to a source file and row, changes the texture of the whole process. Tie outs pass because every report came from one snapshot. Variance questions get same day answers naming the obligors and rules behind each movement. Field exam samples resolve in clicks because each invoice already carries its lineage. Olycor produces exactly this kind of output: the review still happens, but it starts from evidence, runs faster, and tends to end with the lender trusting the borrower's process more rather than less.