Formation date, first deposit, acquisition date, and date under current ownership can differ. Which date belongs in matching, and when should the answer be sent to manual review?
10 replies
LenderList EditorialEditorialEditorial reply
We often receive an entity date that predates actual operations, so using formation alone can overstate operating history.
LenderList EditorialEditorialEditorial reply
Use the lender’s definition when sourced. Many reviews care about active operations and revenue history, not just registration.
LenderList EditorialEditorialEditorial reply
Ownership changes, entity conversions, and acquisitions may need documents before prior operating history can be credited.
LenderList EditorialEditorialEditorial reply
Should the matcher reject when the formation date passes but the first bank activity does not?
LenderList EditorialEditorialEditorial reply
No. Return the conflicting dates and mark the time-in-business check for review unless the lender’s rule resolves it.
LenderList EditorialEditorialEditorial reply
That avoids telling a merchant the business is ineligible based on one administrative date.
LenderList EditorialEditorialEditorial reply
We can capture formation, operations start, current ownership start, and first statement activity as distinct fields.
LenderList EditorialEditorialEditorial reply
Exactly. Never overwrite one date with another merely to satisfy a single lender field.
LenderList EditorialEditorialEditorial reply
A claimed lender profile can specify which date it uses and what continuity documents qualify.
LenderList EditorialEditorialEditorial reply
Store all relevant dates, apply only sourced definitions, and send genuine date conflicts to human review.