The MCA Stip Package: What Funders Actually Look At (And What Kills Your Tier)
"Stips" — short for stipulations — are the documents a funder requires alongside an MCA application to underwrite the deal. Most brokers submit them sloppily, blame the funder when deals get declined, and quietly drop a tier with that funder. This article walks through what every funder actually reviews in your stip package and the 5 mistakes that cost you the most tier movement.
Standard MCA stip package — what's actually in it
Across virtually every MCA funder, the baseline stip set is:
- Signed MCA application — funder's own form, or sometimes a universal application. Owner's full legal name, DOB, SSN, business address + EIN.
- 3-4 months of business bank statements — most recent, full pages (not screenshots), continuous (no gaps).
- Owner's photo ID — driver's license front + back, sometimes passport.
- Voided business check — for ACH setup post-funding. Sometimes a recent bank letter.
- Business verification — recent utility bill in the business name OR business license OR Articles of Organization.
Some funders add: most recent business tax return (rarely required for under $100K advances), proof of property ownership/lease (for retail), MCA contracts on currently-open positions (if stacking).
That's the baseline package. Where 80% of broker tier-loss happens isn't the document list — it's the quality of the docs in the list.
What the funder is actually looking at (page by page)
When a funder underwriter pulls your stip package, here's what they're scanning for in the first 90 seconds (the fast decline/approve window):
1. Bank statement gross deposits + average daily balance
The headline number every funder calculates: monthly gross deposits divided by remit ratio. If they're underwriting a 12% holdback, they need to see at least $X deposits/month for the advance amount to fit. The fastest decline is "deposits don't support the request" — usually because the broker put down a larger ask than the deposits actually justify.
Pro tip: before submitting, calculate yourself: (advance amount × factor rate) / (holdback × business days per month). If that number is greater than 80% of the merchant's average daily deposits, the deal won't fund at the requested amount. Reduce your ask before submitting.
2. NSFs (non-sufficient funds) + negative days
The death-penalty check. Most funders count NSFs across the 3-month window:
- 0-2 NSFs: standard underwriting
- 3-5 NSFs: reduced offer, higher factor
- 6-9 NSFs: usually declined by tier-1; tier-3 funders may take with high factor (1.45+)
- 10+ NSFs: declined everywhere
"Negative days" (days ending in negative balance) are the related metric — more than 5-7 negative days in 3 months trips most funders.
3. Deposit consistency / business model fit
The funder is checking: do the deposits LOOK like the business model the application claims? Application says "restaurant in Miami" but deposits show twice-monthly wires of $25K from one source? That's a red flag — the deposits don't match a restaurant cash-flow pattern, and the underwriter will scrutinize harder.
Best application/deposits match: small, steady, daily deposits from card processors (Stripe, Square, First Data) for retail/restaurant. Larger weekly batches for service businesses. Irregular large deposits suggest a broker-edited application that doesn't match reality.
4. Existing MCA positions (stacking detection)
Funders look for: daily ACH withdrawals from companies with names ending in "Capital," "Funding," "Cash Advance," or known funder names. Each one is a likely current MCA position. The application form asks how many MCA positions you have; if the bank statements show 3 but the application says 1, your tier with that funder is over.
This is the #1 cause of broker tier-drops. Honest disclosure is non-negotiable. If the merchant has 3 stacks, submit only to funders who accept that level of stacking (usually tier-3 only at high factors). Don't lie up to tier-1.
5. Application/ID consistency
Does the name on the driver's license match the application's owner name? Does the SSN match? Does the business address on the application match the bank statement mailing address? Funder underwriters cross-check all of this. Inconsistencies (Sr/Jr suffix mismatch, address apartment number missing) generate a stip request that delays funding 24-48 hours. Multiple stip requests in your last 5 submissions and you drop a tier.
The 5 mistakes that drop your broker tier
Submitting screenshots instead of original PDF bank statements
Almost every funder requires the original PDF that came from the bank — not a screenshot, not a printed-then-scanned version. The reason: edit detection. Original PDFs have metadata + a continuous-page structure; screenshots break this.
What to do instead: ask the merchant for the bank's official "download statement" feature output. Most banks (Chase, Wells, Bank of America, regional banks) have a PDF download button in online banking. The merchant downloads the most recent 3-4 months as PDFs and you submit them as-is.
Redacting the wrong things (or not redacting at all)
Some funders require partial redaction of SSN + DOB on bank statements; others want the originals unredacted. Inconsistent redaction across funders is fine — but redacting THE WRONG things (account numbers, business address, contact info on the statement) tanks underwriting because the funder can't verify the deposits match the claimed business.
What to do instead: ask each funder's submission guide what they want redacted. Most funders are clear in their broker portal. If unclear, submit the original unredacted statement and let the funder redact internally.
Submitting incomplete bank statements (cherry-picked pages)
Brokers sometimes submit pages 1-4 of a 6-page bank statement when pages 5-6 contain unfavorable detail (NSFs, MCA daily ACHs). The underwriter notices missing pages immediately — bank statements have "Page X of Y" in the footer. This is a fast decline + a tier-drop.
What to do instead: always submit complete statements. If the truth is bad (heavy NSFs, deep stacking), tell the merchant honestly: this deal needs to go to tier-3 funders at a higher factor, OR you need to fix the underlying cash-flow issue before applying. Don't try to hide the truth via cherry-picking.
Lying on the application about positions
"Position count" on the MCA application is the question funders verify hardest. They scan the bank statements for any daily ACH that looks like an MCA. If the application says "0 positions" and the statements show 3 known MCA withdrawal patterns, the funder marks the application fraudulent and you take a permanent tier hit with them.
What to do instead: count positions yourself before submitting. If you see daily ACHs from MCA-named companies, the merchant has positions. Disclose them honestly. Submit to funders who accept that stack level (with the higher factor it requires).
Submitting the same merchant to 4+ funders simultaneously
"Shotgun submitting" to maximize chance of approval. Funders share data on submission velocity — they see when the same EIN got submitted to 3 of their competitors in the same week. They infer: "This broker is desperate, this merchant probably already got declined elsewhere." Tier-drop or instant decline.
What to do instead: submit to your strongest-fit funder first (the one whose underwriting box this merchant best fits). Wait 24-48 hours for a real response. If declined, submit to the next-best fit. Sequential, not parallel. The tier preservation alone pays for the small calendar delay.
The clean-submission checklist (use this before every submission)
Before you click submit, verify:
- Bank statements are ORIGINAL PDFs from the bank's portal (not screenshots, not photos)
- All pages present, no skipped pages, continuous date range
- Most recent statement is < 60 days old
- Application matches statements: legal name, DOB, SSN, business address, EIN
- Position count is honestly disclosed (count the daily ACHs yourself)
- Owner ID is current (not expired), readable, both front + back
- Voided business check or recent bank letter for ACH setup
- Business verification doc (utility bill / license / Articles) in the business name
- Advance request fits the deposit math (avg daily deposits × holdback × business days ≥ daily remit)
- You haven't submitted this same merchant to 3+ other funders in the past 7 days
Run this list every time. After 20-30 submissions, you internalize it; you'll spot a missing piece in 5 seconds. Funders notice. Your tier moves up. Each tier-up means higher comp + faster approvals + more deals.
Why tier matters more than most brokers realize
Tier-1 status at a funder gets you:
- Higher commission (10-13% vs 8-10% at tier-2)
- Faster approvals (4-hour pre-approval vs 24-hour)
- Better factor rates for your merchants (1.30-1.35 vs 1.40-1.45)
- Early access to renewal opportunities (90 days before remit completion)
- Direct underwriter contact (not the broker-relations call center)
Across 30 deals/year, the tier-1 vs tier-2 difference is roughly $40-$60K in your pocket. Sloppy submissions cost real money compounded over a career. Clean submissions don't take more time after the habit forms; they take less time because you're not chasing stip requests after the fact.
What we do at JLFG
For Florida brokers sub-broking through Lending by JLFG, we review every submission before it hits a funder. Not to micro-manage — to catch the patterns above before they cost you tier movement. If a stip is incomplete, we ping you back with the gap before the funder sees it. Brokers who work with us for 6+ months consistently see their tier ratings improve across the funders we share.