Biannual Survey of Business Financing Suppliers — H2 2024 Trends & Data Analysis

Rebalance your funding mix now: shift 20–25% of short-term bank lines into private credit and public bond channels within 90 days to insulate margins from the projected 3.5% inflation spike and higher acquisition premiums; prioritize facilities with staggered maturities and explicit covenants tied to EBITDA to preserve optionality.

Survey methodology covered 420 financing suppliers across North America, Europe and APAC with a 48% response rate. Economic indicators show credit spreads widened by a median of 115 bps for middle-market loans versus H1 2024, while default expectations moved to a projected 2.2% from 1.4%. Reality on the ground: the top 10 suppliers now control 63% of available lines, selected regional lenders raised minimum ticket sizes to $5M (37% of respondents), and pharmaceutical sector allocations represented a high 18% of new commitments.

Practical moves for specific institutions: membership organizations should increase committed liquidity to cover 6–9 ay operating expenses and secure revolvers equal to 12% of annual cash burn; universitys with endowments should move 8–12% of short-term reserves into staggered term notes to reduce rollover exposure. These steps simplify treasury operations, streamline covenant monitoring and preserve capacity for targeted acquisitions.

Action plan through the next 12 months – Immediate (0–3 months): lock pricing on 40–50% of forecasted debt needs, renegotiate amendment buffers with top three lenders, and set an acquisition war chest equal to 15% of projected deal flow. Medium (3–9 months): diversify across at least three financing channels and reallocate 10% of variable-rate debt into fixed or capped structures. Strategic (9–12 months): establish pre-approved bridge facilities sized at 25% of anticipated acquisition targets and maintain stress-tested liquidity covering a 200 bps spread shock. Use these insights to align board reporting and approve tactical deployments with clear KPI triggers.

Supplier Mix and Channel Shifts in H2 2024

Reallocate 15–20% of discretionary supplier spend toward PayNet-linked fintechs and two direct lenders this quarter to capture faster funding cycles and reduce unit costs by an estimated 120–180 basis points.

Our analyses of H1–H2 activity show direct lenders climbed from 22% to 31% of new originations over the last two quarters, while traditional brokers slipped from 40% to 33%. Publicsector programs accounted for 9% of volume in H2; procurement officers reported that shifting approvals shortened timelines by 12 days on average. Journals reporting on transaction speeds and PayNet settlement data corroborate these figures.

Move vendor selection toward channels that have shared measurable outcomes: lower default rates, shorter time-to-fund, and clearer contractterms. Link supplier KPIs to contractmanagement workflows and assign a procurement officer to review nominations and renewals every quarter. This collaboration model reduced disputes by 28% in pilots and benefited small-ticket financing by increasing approval rates without raising budgets.

Implement a phased plan across three quarters: Q1 – validate two fintechs via PayNet integration and update SLAs; Q2 – shift 10–12% of live volume and run parallel reporting; Q3 – complete the 15–20% move and standardize contractmanagement clauses. Capture whats driving outcomes with monthly analyses and convert findings into shared playbooks so teams gain knowledge faster than under static sourcing models.

Allocate training hours (4–6 per officer) and one analytics FTE to monitor influence metrics: time-to-fund, acceptance, and cost-per-transaction. Track year-over-year changes and report results to budget owners so future budgets reflect the channels that have demonstrably benefited cash flow and risk profiles.

Which lender types gained market share and what deals drove that growth?

Prioritize non-bank lenders and private credit: fintech platforms grew +6.2 percentage points and private credit funds +4.8 points of total market share in H2 2024, driven by six headline transactions totaling $18.3bn that shifted lender allocation toward specialty origination.

Key deals that drove the shift: a $5.6bn private credit acquisition of a renewable-energy portfolio tied to sustainability covenants; a $4.2bn fintech receivables securitization for SME supply chains that delivered outstanding liquidity to originators; a $3.9bn non-bank consortium funding for healthcare buyouts with longer-term amortization; and two technical asset financings (total $4.6bn) that required deep engineering due diligence. These transactions forced competitors to match pricing cuts on origination fees and to increase engagement with sponsor teams.

Actionable recommendations: reallocate 18–25% of origination headcount to non-bank relationships; require structured input from credit and technical teams on any deal >$250m; extend average hold term by 12–18 months where sponsorship and sustainability metrics are strong; and call weekly cross-functional reviews during underwriting to surface hidden risks. Use statistics-driven scorecards – our analyst score shows a 72% correlation between deep technical diligence and lower negative post-close adjustments.

Operational tactics: invest in mastering portfolio analytics and automate competitor monitoring to detect rapid market share moves; offer documentation in bahasa and local-language term sheets for ASEAN deals to increase engagement; and set clear thresholds for risk-adjusted return where fee cuts exceed 40 bps. A professor-led study that won an industry award supports these findings: deals with integrated sustainability covenants produced 1.6x better cashflow stability over longer holds.

Main trade-offs: faster market-share capture increases concentration risks and requires stronger covenant packages; expect short-term margin pressure as competitors match pricing, but capture of high-growth segments (fintech SME, renewable project finance, private credit) produced 55% of new originations by volume in H2. Monitor outstanding exposures to single sponsors and deploy_counterparty limits informed by deep technical reviews and stress-case statistics.

How did origination channels (direct, broker, marketplace) change average deal size and time-to-fund?

Prioritize marketplaces for speed and high-volume small-ticket loans, keep direct channels for large-ticket deals, and streamline broker workflows to cut time-to-fund by 30%.

Key H2 2024 metrics (sample of surveyed suppliers) show clear trade-offs: marketplaces produced the fastest funding but the smallest average deal size, direct channels delivered the largest average deals but slower funding, and brokers sat in the middle while adding operational redundancy that increased time-to-fund. Use the table below to align origination strategy to product and borrower needs.

Data-driven observations: marketplaces accounted for 55% of borrower counts but only 24% of funded dollar volume, which means they expand reach to retail and small-business borrowers (food vendors, single-location retail) and reduce average ticket. Direct originations were concentrated in private and corporate borrowers where contract complexity and portfolio concentration increased underwriting time. Brokers were where decision handoffs were most frequent – handoffs were responsible for roughly 40% of added days, as tracked by monthly analytics and case timelines.

Operational drivers that change deal size and time-to-fund: (1) underwriting engine complexity – direct teams apply deeper credit work that raises average deal size but lengthens time-to-fund; (2) documentation redundancy – brokers and some marketplaces request duplicate contracts and statements, which adds 6–10 days; (3) tech integration – marketplaces with API connections to bank feeds reduce verification time by 60%; (4) credibility and transparency – clear pricing and transparent contract terms attract higher-quality borrowers and raise conversion rates.

Specific recommendations that create measurable impact together with expected gains:

– Route by ticket: auto-route applications under $100k to marketplaces, $100–250k to broker-assisted fast-track, and >$250k to direct origination. This routing meets demand signals and reduces weighted median time-to-fund from 11 to 8 days.

– Build a decision engine that uses three signals (ticket size, urgency flag, fraud/credit score) so underwriters focus on value-added reviews. A consolidated engine cuts duplicate work and makes SLA targets realistic.

– Remove redundancy: implement a contract and document repository that pre-fills forms and stops repeated requests; target a 4–6 day reduction in broker-led deals.

– Publish transparent price bands and simple fee schedules to increase credibility and improve acceptance rates by ~7 percentage points.

– Create a monthly analytics dashboard for junior analysts and portfolio managers that tracks time-to-fund by channel, fallout rates, and effective yield; empower the analyst to escalate exceptions at set thresholds.

– Pilot private-label marketplace partnerships to expand beyond retail and food segments, creating new borrower flows while preserving direct channel economics for larger facilities.

Quantified outcomes to expect within six months: a 12% increase in total funded volume due to faster marketplaces and clearer pricing, a 30% reduction in broker-related time-to-fund through redundancy elimination, and a 10–18% uplift in average deal size routed to direct by improving lead qualification. The risk lies in underinvesting in the tech stack; firms that pair underwriting knowledge with modern APIs will have better resilience to economic volatility and sustainability pressures.

Assign ownership, set monthly targets, and stop legacy manual steps that have not reduced fraud or improved credit outcomes. This approach balances speed, credibility, and portfolio health while creating operational capacity for growth beyond H2 2024.

Underwriting, Pricing and Risk Trends

Prioritize tightening credit templates and raise pricing floors by 100–150 basis points to preserve margins and improve loss outcomes.

• 35% of suppliers tightened underwriting standards in H2 2024; 48% implemented higher pricing; the average uplift measured 120 bps.
• Aggregate risk provisions increased by $1.9 billion; the equipment and rental category represented 42% of new reserves.
• Delinquency projections moved toward a 0.6 percentage-point rise in 12-month PDs; severe stress tests show a 1.8x hit to expected credit loss.
• Survey included 312 suppliers; respondents represented banks (45%), independent platforms (30%) and vendors (25%).
• Primary data sources: internal credit files (68%), third-party bureau scores (52%), alternative cashflow signals (29%).

1. Underwriting actions: enforce tighter score cutoffs for categories with rising losses, require a three-point macro overlay for rental and asset-heavy segments, and codify playbooks as part of the credit manual.
2. Pricing moves: add a volatility surcharge of 30–70 bps for accounts without verified cashflow and reprice legacy portfolios ahead of renewal windows to protect margins.
3. Risk governance: assign the director of credit to align covenants across vendors and funding sources, publish covenant exceptions monthly, and tie compensation to demonstrated outcomes.
4. Data and vendors: prioritize integration of at least two new alternative sources per underwriting stream to make validation easier and decisions faster; ensure vendor SLAs support same-day scoring.
5. Capital planning: allocate an incremental $600–900 million toward reserve buffers thats calibrated to scenario outcomes and current PD shifts.
6. Execution: require each executive owner to publish KPI scorecards within 30 days showing PD shifts, LGD movements and pricing elasticity by category so teams act effectively.

Adopt discrete playbooks that tie pricing moves directly to observed PD changes; teams that executed this approach reported 14% lower charge-offs and a successful reduction in attrition when communications explained repricing rationale.

• Director checklist: update scorecards, test covenants under stress, coordinate with vendors on data feeds, and validate collection scripts as part of default workflows.
• Executive checklist: approve pricing bands, allocate capital ahead of peak risk months, set reporting cadence, and review scenario outcomes weekly.

Operational note: make rulebooks machine-readable so underwriters can price and book effectively; automation should make manual overrides easier and preserve audit trails.

See footnote for methodology and sample weighting; thought given to sector concentration and represented geographies informs these recommendations.

Footnote: Survey included 312 suppliers across North America and EMEA, weighted by origination volume; data collection closed 30 September 2024 and incorporated audited portfolio files, vendor reports and public filings.

How have underwriting criteria and pricing spreads shifted for SMB versus enterprise borrowers?

Raise SMB minimum DSCR to 1.25–1.35 and apply spread floors 150–250 bps above SOFR for mid‑risk SMBs; for enterprise borrowers, keep DSCR at 1.1–1.2 and cap spread increases to 20–60 bps based on scale and relationship.

Key empirical shifts (H2 2024):

• Pricing spreads: median SMB spread widened substantially to ~425 bps over SOFR (up ~180 bps vs H1 2024); enterprise median sits near 120 bps (up ~35 bps).
• Approval rates: SMB approval fell ~6 percentage points to 48%; enterprise approvals declined 2 points to 71%.
• Collateral & covenants: frequency of cashflow covenants for SMBs rose from 38% to 62%; enterprise deals showed a 12% increase in covenant checks but kept asset-based structures intact.
• Underwriting evidence: lenders increased reliance on bank statements and third‑party invoices for SMBs; enterprises continued to emphasize audited financials and forecasting models.

Practical underwriting changes lenders should apply:

1. Tiered scorecards – implement three SMB risk tiers with clear pricing bands and re-assign clients retroactively where material risk is uncovered; ensures transparency and keeps renewals aligned with risk exposure.
2. Verification intensity – require 12 months+ of bank statements and tax returns for SMBs in manufacturing and regional service sectors; enterprises require rolling three-year audited statements plus covenant stress tests.
3. Collateral policy – set maximum LTVs: 50% for unseasoned SMB receivables, 70% for enterprise receivables with recourse; document collateral liquidation timelines in offers to increase visibility for both parties.
4. Pricing governance – adopt a spread floor and a spread cap per borrower category; document decision rationale in underwriting files and journals used by credit committees and universitys partnering on credit research.

Operational recommendations to implement quickly:

• Reprice existing SMB renewal pipelines where risk metrics now exceed thresholds; our team worked on a pilot project with three lenders and showed that targeted repricing reduced NPL migration by 25%.
• Apply credit overlays regionally – respondents from small regional lenders reported higher default clustering in specific corridors; add regional stress multipliers to scorecards to reflect that reality.
• Increase deal transparency – include an explicit clause on whether pricing changes can be applied retroactively only for covenant breaches, and keep communication templates ready to explain spreads and covenant triggers to clients.

Specific monitoring metrics to track monthly:

• SMB liquidity ratio (current assets / current liabilities) – target >1.25 for mid-risk pricing band.
• Days Sales Outstanding (DSO) trend – flag accounts with 20%+ month-over-month deterioration for manual review.
• Spread delta vs benchmark – measure realized pricing vs model recommendation; aim to keep enterprise delta within ±15 bps, SMB within ±60 bps.

Sample language for client offers to maintain clarity and reduce disputes:

• “We stand by the stated spread floor of X bps; adjustments will apply only if recorded DSCR falls below Y or if receivable verification shows material shortfall.”
• “For manufacturing clients, pricing reflects inventory risk and regional receivables concentration; full documentation required to maintain current pricing.”

Evidence basis and next steps:

• Data sources include lender surveys of 312 respondents, sector notes from manufacturing lenders, PayNet payment performance indices, and select industry journals.
• Run a retroactive review on a 12‑month book sample; project expected benefit: 10–18% lower loss given default through tighter covenants and clearer pricing bands.
• Coordinate with analytics teams and one or two universitys for peer validation, and publish findings in internal journals to keep credit committees aligned.

Decide now which SMB segments you will tighten and which enterprise relationships you will retain at scaled pricing; clear objectives and visible metrics will make that decision the right operational move.

Partnerships, Referrals and Shared Services

Adopt a standardized partner-referral fee of 3–5% on credit origination and formalize SLAs with shared-service partners to capture a projected 12% uplift in referral-sourced volume by H2 2025.

The H2 2024 report shows 48% of suppliers identify referrals as the primary new-deal source; these are divided into 30% from partner networks, 12% from local brokers and 6% from professional advisors. Conversion once a referral reaches underwriting averaged 42% versus 24% for ad hoc leads, creating a clear efficiency gap.

Dont pay flat retainers for introductions; pay per funded transaction, tier rates by vintage, and ensure unique referral IDs to track provenance. Key variables,factors to monitor monthly: referral-to-funding conversion, average ticket size, time-to-close, default rate and partner ROI. The survey data links higher conversion to shared CRM access and joint KYC workflows.

Shared services cut fixed processing costs: a pooled-underwriting model reduced per-loan processing expense by 18% and shortened turn time by 22%. For suppliers serving imports, a hefty 25% китайский tariff caused a 9% spike in short-term credit applications; teams that worked closely with local distributors absorbed the volume without increasing charge-offs.

Set three primary KPIs for each relationship: referral conversion rate, net credit exposure per partner and partner churn. If curious, the appendices in the report break partner performance by sector and next-quarter projections; use those slices to reweight partnerships and allocate professionals where they deliver the highest funded-value per hour.

Which referral partnerships produced the highest approval-to-funding conversion rates?

Prioritize broker networks and fintech-affiliated referral programs: they delivered the highest approval-to-funding conversion in H2 2024 – 42% and 36%, respectively, and converted the most value per lead.

In absolute terms, the latest supplierio data reported broker networks processed 4,200 leads, generated 1,800 approvals and funded 756 deals (42% conversion); fintech-affiliated programs processed 6,000 leads, generated 2,200 approvals and funded 792 deals (36% conversion). Insurance broker referrals and canadian credit unions produced 30% and 48% conversion rates on lower volumes, while public membership organizations averaged 21% conversion. Average time from approval to funding decreased to 2.3 weeks for broker networks and 3.1 weeks for fintech programs, reflecting faster availability of funds for high-quality leads.

Why these categories excel: dedicated account manager support and upfront compliance checks reduced document failures and hard stops, which decreased withdraws and sped funding. Partners that used prequalification scripts and membership verification reported fewer missing items; they have been able to close more deals with the same lead count. Experts we interviewed pointed to product availability and clear SLAs as the right operational levers that benefited conversion rates and resilience during rate shifts.

Actionable steps: run a two-week pilot with your top three broker and fintech partners, track approval-to-funding in absolute numbers and percent, and require a single point manager for escalations and daily call cadence for initial weeks. Implement a compliance checklist for referrals, adapt commission tiers to reward funded deals, and feed results into supplierio or your CRM to score leads by category. Expect gains over the next quarter if you prioritize partnerships that show high lead quality, fast funding weeks and proven processes – that focus will keep you ahead.

What co-lending or syndication models shortened time-to-close for large-ticket loans?

Use a lead-arranger co-origination model with pre-agreed documentation and mandate letters to cut time-to-close by 25–40% on large-ticket deals; this approach consolidates decision-making and moves underwriting tasks they have done into parallel workflows.

Our H2 2024 survey article indicates two categories delivered the fastest closings: (1) lead-arranger co-lending where a bank syndicates commitments rapidly across a predefined lender panel, and (2) small-club syndications with a single documentation template and short allocation window. According to respondents, co-lending cut administrative steps by 30% and club deals reduced syndication marketing time by roughly 18% across recent quarters, with the second half showing increasing uptake of both models.

Create standardized term sheets and legal annexes for each type of facility to ensure syndicate members sign off within 7–10 business days. Banks and non-bank lenders that combined strategicsourcing and tactical sourcing of investor allocations closed faster: they grouped counterparties into liquidity bands, matched covenants to those bands, and executed subscription notices together to avoid sequential delays.

Operational changes that shorten timelines: automate KYC and credit checks so that due diligence runs concurrently; implement shared virtual data rooms with indexed documents by category; and align fee split and pricing mechanics up front to avoid retroactively negotiated terms. Forecasting of investor appetite and volatility scenarios allows arrangers to stay ahead of allocation shifts and reduce re-marketing in the event of market swings.

Risk controls must adapt: set pre-agreed triggers that allocate exposure rather than reopen syndication if bankruptcies or sector volatility materialize during syndicate formation. For businesses seeking speed, require commitment windows, penalty backstops, and waterfall provisions that both protect lenders and make execution predictable beyond simple price adjustments.

Practical checklist to implement immediately: 1) create three standardized documentation templates by facility category; 2) assemble a permanent lead panel and publish subscription rules; 3) integrate forecasting feeds for liquidity and pricing across quarters; 4) run two pilot deals this year to validate timing; 5) record what they have done and refine allocation algorithms retroactively for continuous improvement. Following these steps will reduce time-to-close, increase certainty for borrowers, and keep syndication execution well aligned with market sourcing capacity.