Finance application assessment workspace
The assessor receives the application information, risk conclusion and price calculation. The terms of the decision are retained for the preparation of the contract, and non-standard issues are passed on to specialists.
The figures and facts taken from the documents are not related to the source, period and verification performed. The risk assessor repeats the verification or relies on incorrectly interpreted data.
How the solution works
- Checking the facts needed for the decision
- The assessment process used adapts the investor-approved product rules and the risk model version.
- A price with its assumptions and version is obtained from an approved pricing source.
- Examining the unclear case and making a decision
- Transfer Terms and Save Decision Version
Key challenges
- The contents of the documents are not reliably transferred to the evaluation
- Risk Solution Fragmented
- Pricing exemptions vary
Solution capabilities
Data verification
Relates the document's value to a page, period and verified role. The automatically extracted number is not confirmed solely due to successful recognition.
Product evaluation
Fulfillment of the user's obligations, business cash flows, leasing object and factoring account eligibility are assessed by different rules.
Risks and Limits
The valuation shall be accompanied by a date, general obligations and applicable limit. In the case of factoring, additional checks shall be made on the buyer and the account in question.
Composition of price
Separates funding, risk, administration and commercial components by product. The customer is provided with required price indicators from the same version.
Decision and review
Preserves motive, conditions, validity and authority. The mandatory rule cannot be circumvented by simple manual approval; sufficient data is provided for human review.
Business context
- The contents of the documents are not reliably transferred to the evaluation
- The figures and facts taken from the documents are not related to the source, period and verification performed. The risk assessor repeats the verification or relies on incorrectly interpreted data.
- Risk Solution Fragmented
- The result of the application model, expert's conclusion and approvals of exceptions are managed separately. It is not always visible what solution is still missing and who is responsible for it. The client waits for an unspecified length of time to be specified, and the service team cannot explain the progress of the application. It is more difficult to comply with the deadlines set for examination.
- Pricing exemptions vary
- The risk price, partner commissions and individual discount are calculated in different locations. Changing the offer does not always verify its full price and required approvals. Unmatched terms are provided to the customer or the margin of the transaction becomes smaller than planned. The offer must be recalculated already during negotiations.
- The client receives a consistently prepared funding offer
- The amount and cost of funding may depend on the decisions of several assessors. When they are linked, it is easier for the sales team to explain the approved terms and the necessary supplements. The customer can compare the offer and plan the purchase, and the same agreed solution is passed on to the drafting of the contract.
Core features
- Data verification
- Product evaluation
- Risks and Limits
- Composition of price
- Decision and review
Key integrations
- Sources of applications and documents
- Data, source version and checks performed.
- Contract and portfolio system
- The terms of the decision made, the limits used and the subsequent outcome of the contract.
Potential impact (%)
The ranges indicate an illustrative relative change in the metric under the stated assumptions. Results depend on the starting position and actual use of the solution. Percentages for different metrics must not be added together.
Time for re-checking funding documents
16–42%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that 40-70% of information searches and repeated cross-checks can be addressed. That share is assumed to fall by 40-60%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable workload and the resulting change.
Measure employee time for re-checking a financing solution of similar complexity.
Number of decisions with unexplained cost of funding
5–25%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that 20-50% of missed actions can be identified through task and deadline tracking. That share is assumed to fall by 25-50%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable share and the resulting change.
Count the solutions identified during the verification, the price of which cannot be recovered from the retained facts.
Conditional calculation scenarios. The assumptions have not been validated against client measurements.
When this solution is relevant
- Application data, evaluation findings and approved conditions are collected from letters and spreadsheets.
- It is unclear who has already been checked, what information is missing and who makes the next decision when submitting applications between evaluators.
Project scope and implementation
The first thing to do is to evaluate how the funding system used manages applications, rules and approvals. Missing checks or document links can be implemented in addition to it. The evaluation rules and decision validation rights are determined by the funder.
Further development options
- Additional products or models only after separate verification of their data, decision rules and monitoring of subsequent results.