Loan approval workflow, explained.

The commercial loan approval process: who says yes, and how the decision is recorded

A $23 million request, from the ask to the recorded decision

1. The borrower asksTarrow Precision Components asks for $23.0 million to buy Ardent Tool & Die. The relationship manager gathers the papers.
2. An analyst underwrites itSpreads, cash flow, collateral, a risk rating and a credit memo with three exceptions to policy. Finished Wednesday, October 7.
3. The deal is routed and decidedThe whole relationship is added up, the right approver found, members' questions answered, the vote taken with reasons and conditions, the minutes written.
4. Conditions are met and the loan closesThe borrower's largest customer must consent to the contract passing to the merged company before any money moves.
5. The record outlives the dealExceptions go on a register the board reviews. Examiners and loan review read the minutes and the file months later.

Step 3 is the subject of this guide. The bank, the companies, the people and the figures in this example are fictional.

Lending limits count the whole relationship, and other surprises

Authority matrix, aggregate exposure, policy exception, recusal

Fourteen terms are defined in the one-page summary.

Delegated lending authority: how a board hands out the power to approve loans

In shortEvery approval is the board's power, delegated through the lending policy to named people and committees, each with a limit. The OCC lists three ways to do it (individual, laddered or joint, and committee) and says each trades speed and accountability against shared judgment. It does not prefer one. Small banks send large loans much higher up than large banks do.

The OCC's lending booklet, rewritten in 2026, defines the term in one sentence: "Lending authorities describe who is authorized to approve loans, make changes in terms, and grant exceptions to policy." Limits "can be set as a dollar threshold or as a percentage of capital".3 Three powers sit in that sentence, and a matrix needs all three. Approving a new loan is the obvious one. Changing the terms of an existing loan, such as extending a maturity or releasing collateral, is the second. Granting an exception is the third, and the easiest to forget when the matrix is written.

Three ways to delegate, and what each costs

The OCC adds one more piece: an independent approver, such as a senior credit officer "whose primary goal is credit quality", can "introduce more objectivity to the loan approval process". Then it declines to choose: "The OCC does not recommend one approach over another."3 What examiners do check is narrower and harder. In the booklet's words, they "should determine if the documentation and analysis are sufficient to make an informed credit decision, and that the approver had sufficient authority based on the bank's established limits".3

The Federal Reserve's manual says how limits are usually set. An officer's limit "is usually based on his or her experience, tenure, and past adherence to the bank's loan policy", and the policy "should describe the manner in which loans will be approved and ultimately reported to the board of directors, as well as the frequency of any loan committee meetings".1 Credit unions have the same rule in regulation: a commercial loan policy must set "levels of loan approval authority commensurate with the individual's or committee's proficiency in evaluating and understanding commercial loan risk".5

Small banks send big loans higher

The FDIC's survey of about 1,300 banks6 shows how differently banks of different sizes delegate. Almost every bank lets a first-level lender sign a $25,000 small-business loan alone. By $1 million the paths part: about one small bank in eight still leaves it with the first level, against nearly a third of large banks.7 In the survey, small means under $10 billion of assets.6

The FDIC's explanation is proportion: "a $1 million loan is a larger share of assets to a small bank than to a large bank and thus may merit a larger degree of scrutiny." The consequence is that a community bank's chief executive, chief credit officer and directors carry a heavy approval load. In the same survey 76% of small banks involve an executive in small-business loan decisions and 62% involve a board member or the whole board when a loan is large and complex enough, against 42% and 9% at large banks.7

The rules behind a commercial loan approval, and what changed in 2026

In shortNo federal rule says who at a bank must approve an ordinary commercial loan. The law draws two hard lines, the legal lending limit and Regulation O for insiders, and the supervisors examine everything else against the bank's own written policy. In 2026 the OCC replaced its lending handbook, the model risk guidance was rewritten, and the Federal Reserve proposed the first full rewrite of Regulation O since 1979.

What the 2026 Regulation O proposal would change

On July 31, 2026 the Federal Reserve Board proposed rewriting Regulation O, which it said had not been comprehensively updated since 1979. The proposal "updates outdated thresholds" and "indexes them to economic growth going forward".13 The staff memo lists the change that matters most for approval workflows: the size of an insider credit that needs the board's prior approval would rise "from $500,000 to $2 million". The exception for unsecured "other purpose" lending to executive officers would rise from $100,000 to $400,000.14

The FDIC proposed the same increases for the banks it supervises.16 Both agencies first set an October 5 deadline and then extended it: comments on both proposals close November 4, 2026.15,16,20 One law firm's summary notes that the proposal would make clear that "every director with an interest in the transaction must abstain".21

What goes in an approval authority matrix, and what sends a loan up a level

In shortA matrix has one row per approver and one column per rule that can change the answer: the limit, what it is measured on, what happens to a weak risk rating, an exception or an insider, and how long the approver has. Most banks add a level for size and for weak debt service coverage. A matrix that says "larger or riskier credits go to committee" cannot be applied the same way twice.

The matrix is credit policy in table form. The board approves it, credit administration keeps it, and examiners test approvals against the version in force on the day. Here is the one used throughout this guide, from a fictional $4.6 billion bank with $468 million of capital and surplus.

Fictional: Brennwood Bank & Trust's matrix, version 12, effective July 1, 2026. Under Regulation O, credit that takes an insider's total above $500,000 needs the board's approval in advance, whatever this table says.

Six decisions behind every matrix

What adds a level of approval at most banks

The FDIC asked banks which features of a small-business loan add a level of approval. Size came first, as expected. Weak debt service coverage came second, at two banks in three, which means the analyst's ratio can decide the route as surely as the amount. Being a good customer rarely takes a level away: only 21% of banks would lower the levels for a good deposit relationship and 26% for a good loan relationship.7

The levels add up. Asked the most levels a large, complex small-business loan with policy exceptions could need, 41% of banks said three, 20% four, 6% five and 6% six or more. Only 5% decide even that loan with a single level or an automated decision.7

Aggregate exposure and the legal lending limit: the sum that decides the approver

In shortApproval limits are measured on the whole relationship: every loan and unused commitment to the borrower and to the companies and people tied to it. The legal lending limit uses a narrower test written in federal rules; the bank's approval policy may add up more widely, and usually does. The most common routing error is a related company's loan left out of the sum.

Take the example from the top of the page. Tarrow Precision Components asks for a $20.0 million term loan to buy Ardent Tool & Die and an increase in its revolving line from $6.0 million to $9.0 million: $23.0 million of new money. The memo adds the existing $4.2 million equipment loan and arrives at $33.2 million. The loan system also holds a $2.6 million mortgage on the plant, made to Tarrow Building LLC. That company is owned outright by the same two people who own Tarrow Precision, so the bank's policy treats it as related. The relationship is $35.8 million.

Against the bank's matrix, both totals land in the same place, above the chief credit officer's $15 million and inside the Senior Loan Committee's $40 million. That is luck. Shift every number down by $19.2 million and the memo would say $14.0 million, inside the chief credit officer's own limit, while the true relationship would be $16.6 million, outside it. She would sign a loan she had no authority to approve, and nothing in the file would show it.

Two tests that are easy to confuse

The legal lending limit, worked

Brennwood reports $468 million of capital and surplus. Fifteen percent is $70.2 million, the most it may lend Tarrow on ordinary security. Another $46.8 million would be allowed only for exposure fully secured by readily marketable collateral, such as listed securities, which a machine shop secured by equipment, inventory and receivables does not have.17 Tarrow's $35.8 million is 51% of the legal limit. The bank's house limit of $40 million is 57% of it, a cushion the board chose so that no single relationship reaches the legal edge.

Breaches are personal. In February 2025 the OCC banned a former chief credit officer and a former chief lending officer of BancCentral, N.A., in Alva, Oklahoma, for "failing to secure cash collateral required for certain new market tax credit loans … which caused the bank to violate its legal lending limit".23 The approvals had conditions. The conditions were never met. A well-run approval carries its conditions all the way to funding.

Regulation O, recusals and conflicts: who has to leave the room

In shortCredit to a bank's own directors, executive officers and principal shareholders, and to companies they control, needs the board's approval in advance above a threshold, on terms no better than strangers get, and the interested party must stay out of the discussion and the vote. Banks apply the same discipline to members with other conflicts, and to the officer who brought the deal. The minutes must say who stepped out.

Regulation O defines an insider as an executive officer, director or principal shareholder, and a related interest as "A company that is controlled by that person" or a political or campaign committee the person controls.22 Above the threshold, the credit must be "approved in advance by a majority of the entire board of directors", and "The interested party has abstained from participating directly or indirectly in the voting". The regulation closes the obvious loophole: "Participation in the discussion, or any attempt to influence the voting … constitutes indirect participation in the voting."2 A draw on a line the board approved within the previous 14 months needs no fresh vote.2

The Federal Reserve expects the approval to be "documented within the board's minutes".1 The OCC's examiners check that "the abstention was noted in the board of directors' minutes", which the OCC treats as prudent practice although the regulation does not require it in those words.24

When insider lending goes wrong

In August 2022 the Federal Reserve fined EagleBank $9.5 million for violating its insider lending regulation. Between 2015 and 2018 the bank extended nearly $100 million of credit to entities its chief executive owned or controlled "without making appropriate disclosures to, or obtaining required approvals from, a majority of the bank's board of directors", and its supervision of lending staff failed to stop him taking part in matters where he had a conflict.25 The weakness was in the routing and the record, the two places an approval workflow controls.

Recusal, abstention and dissent are different things

Credit to insiders must also be on terms "substantially the same" as comparable credit to outsiders, under no less strict underwriting.2 The workflow's job is to make sure the right people approve in advance; whether the terms pass is the credit officers' job.

Approving exceptions to credit policy: naming them, justifying them, tracking them

In shortAn exception is a decision to lend outside the bank's own credit policy. Supervisors accept them when they are named in the approval, justified, approved by the right authority and tracked on a register the board sees. What worries examiners is an exception nobody named, and a pile of exceptions nobody added up.

The OCC's 2026 booklet is plain about it: "Examiners should not criticize a loan solely because it has an exception." Sound practice "generally includes identifying, approving, and tracking exceptions", and underwriting exceptions "are typically documented in the credit approval, generally along with justification or mitigating factors, and approved by the appropriate person(s) or committee".3 The Fed's manual adds that "The directors' loan committee or a similar body should review and approve all exceptions at reasonable intervals".1

Three exceptions on one deal

Fictional, from the example. Senior funded debt at close: $20.0M term loan + $8.0M drawn on the revolver + $4.2M equipment loan = $32.2M.

Each exception has a mitigant the memo can point to. Together they describe a more leveraged borrower, dependent on one customer, with less personal support behind it. The OCC has a name for that: risk layering, when "a combination of risk factors … may, in aggregate, convey a higher level of risk than the individual risk factors would suggest".3 A committee that votes on exceptions one at a time can miss it. A good pack puts them side by side.

Exceptions slow the review at most banks

What examiners read in the register

The register is where single decisions become a pattern. The OCC tells examiners to "determine whether the bank tracks and analyzes exceptions in a thorough and timely manner and whether corrective action follows when necessary". It reads the pattern both ways: "an excessive volume or a pattern of exceptions could signal an unintended or unwarranted relaxation of underwriting practices", while "The absence of policy exceptions could indicate the policy is overly broad". And it warns that "when aggregated, even well mitigated exceptions can increase portfolio risk significantly".3 Banks commonly set exception limits "as a percentage of the loan portfolio and capital", in aggregate, by portfolio and by type, and "Some banks track exceptions by loan officer, broker, or dealer".3

Loan review closes the loop. The 2020 interagency guidance tells credit risk review to include "those credits approved as exceptions to policy" in its sample, and to be staffed by people who "are not part of or influenced by individuals associated with the loan approval process".9 A reviewer who finds an exception the approval never mentioned has found two problems.

How a loan committee meets, votes and writes minutes an examiner can follow

In shortA committee runs in a fixed order: agenda closes, pack goes out, questions come in, the chair confirms a quorum and asks for conflicts, each deal is presented and questioned, members vote with reasons, conditions are set, and the secretary writes minutes the committee approves at its next meeting. Supervisors want minutes that record each vote and abstention and show real deliberation.

Banks commonly run two tiers. A senior or officers' loan committee meets weekly and decides relationships up to a house limit. A directors' loan committee of board members meets less often, takes the largest relationships and insider credit, and reviews the exceptions and reports sent up from below. The OCC's guide for directors gives a board credit committee the job to "approve loans as outlined in the bank's lending policy for credits involving large dollar amounts relative to the bank's size and capital levels" and to "monitor the loan portfolio's performance, exceptions, and the [allowance]".26

One meeting, item by item

1. The agenda closes at a fixed time, for example 5:00 p.m. the Friday before a Tuesday meeting. A memo finished later waits a week.
2. The pack goes out to every member: memo, spreads, appraisal, exceptions. When a number changes, the corrected page and the date it went out belong in the file. The OCC's guidance for boards says the record should include "all materials distributed".26
3. Quorum and conflicts come first. Members with an interest declare it before any deal is discussed.
4. Each deal is presented and questioned, then members vote: approve, approve with conditions, decline. The count must add up.
5. Minutes are drafted, checked against the record, signed by the chair and approved at the next meeting. Exceptions go to the register and conditions to closing.

The vote on the example deal

Seven voting members, a quorum of four. The officer who brought the deal presented it and stepped out of the vote under the bank's policy, leaving six voting, so a majority meant four approvals. Five approved with conditions. The chief financial officer declined, and gave his reason: "Leverage and one customer on the same deal. I would want the full guaranty."

The committee added a fourth condition at the meeting: the largest customer's written consent to its supply contract passing to the merged company, before any money is advanced. That condition came from a question the chief financial officer asked the night before. The answer was that the contract allowed assignment only with consent, and the consent was not in the file.

What good minutes contain

The OCC's guidance for directors sets the standard. "Minutes should record the attendance of each director, other attendees, and directors' votes or abstentions." They should "include sufficient information to reflect that directors were fully informed about the relevant facts, carefully deliberated the issues, provided credible challenge when necessary". They should be "presented for approval at the next meeting".26 The Fed adds that most committees review new loans "either before or after funding", so a committee's minutes carry both its decisions and the loans it saw after the fact.1

Committee time is scarce. No US figure is published, but a randomized trial at a Colombian small-business lender gives a sense of it: committees spent an average of 4.68 minutes per application and saw about 15 a day.4 A US committee spends longer on a $23 million acquisition, but its members read the pack at night alongside their day jobs.

Economists who study lending describe the problem plainly: a committee "has limited time and attention to devote to each decision" and needs information "boiled down to what is important".27 Most large banks also ask for "some sort of written justification of the grade as part of the loan approval package", so the committee approves the risk rating along with the loan.28

How long a commercial loan approval takes, and why big loans wait longest

In shortMost US banks approve a typical small-business loan within two weeks, but four in ten say a large, complex loan can take more than 20 business days. Those are the loans that climb to committees and boards. Nobody publishes how much of that time is analysis and how much is waiting for an approver or a meeting.

The FDIC asked each bank three questions: the fewest business days it needs for a small and simple loan, the days a typical loan takes, and the most a large and complex loan takes. The typical case is quick. More than three quarters of banks approve their typical small-business loan within ten business days.7,6

The large and complex end is different. Asked the most a loan could take, 27% of banks said 21 to 30 business days and 13% said more than 30.7 Those are the loans with several levels of approval, policy exceptions and a committee date to wait for.

Banks know their customers care about speed: in the same survey they ranked lending speed second only to customer service in importance to small-business customers.7 Vendor figures for commercial deals run longer, and come without data behind them: one software vendor's 2026 press release says "intake-to-decision on a commercial credit still runs 30 to 45 days" at a typical community bank, and a 2020 vendor survey of more than 300 lenders found nearly a third saying it took five to seven weeks to close a commercial loan.29,30 Both cover more than the approval itself.

The committee calendar sets the floor

Eight ways a loan approval goes wrong, and the cases that show what they cost

In shortApproval failures cluster in the joins between systems: the loan system that holds a related company's loan, the insider list, the matrix in force, the conditions that never reach closing. Few of them are arithmetic. Three published cases show where such failures lead: a penalty, bans, and a failed bank.

Three cases from the public record

All three turned on approvals that never happened, authority that was too broad, or conditions that were never met. Each began as a failure of routing or record-keeping, the part of the approval a workflow controls, and only then became a failure of judgment.

The US business lending market in 2026, and who approves most of it

In shortUS banks held $2.54 trillion of commercial and industrial loans at June 30, 2026. Banks under $10 billion hold about 13% of them, but they are 96% of the banks, and they send large loans to executives and directors. After net tightening in almost every quarterly survey since mid-2022, banks reported unchanged standards for business loans in mid-2026.

At June 30, 2026 there were 4,238 FDIC-insured institutions. Community banks were 90% of them, and 2,395 were in the FDIC's "commercial lenders" group, whose business, construction and commercial real estate loans exceed 25% of their total assets.32 Business loans grew $46.6 billion in the second quarter.32

Credit conditions changed during 2026. The April survey of senior loan officers found banks had, "on balance", tightened standards on business loans to firms of all sizes.33 By July, banks reported "basically unchanged standards" for firms of all sizes and "stronger demand for C&I loans from large and middle-market firms".34 More demand under steady standards means more deals reaching approvers.

A positive number means more banks tightened than eased. Survey dates are when banks answered; each survey covers roughly the quarter before.

Automation and AI in credit approval: what software may do, and what stays with people

In shortAutomated approval exists, but for small loans: auto-approval is rare above $250,000 even at large banks. For commercial credit the decision belongs to people the board named. Software can add up, route, check, retrieve, draft and record. The 2026 model guidance leaves arithmetic and fixed rules outside its definition of a model and generative AI outside its scope, so the controls for reading documents come from the bank's own policy and its vendor oversight.

The OCC's booklet notes that "Many banks automate approval processes for certain loan types (e.g., automobile loans, credit cards, or small business loans)", and that "Models used for credit underwriting and decisioning should be subject to sound model risk management".3 The FDIC survey shows how far that goes for business loans.7

Where approval software sits under the 2026 model guidance

On April 17, 2026 the Federal Reserve, OCC and FDIC replaced the 2011 model risk guidance. SR 26-2 defines a model as a method that applies "statistical, economic, or financial theories", and the term "excludes simple arithmetic calculations, such as those found within spreadsheets, as well as deterministic rule-based processes". A footnote calls generative AI, and AI built to take actions on its own, "novel and rapidly evolving" and puts both outside "the scope of this guidance". The letter is "expected to be most relevant to banking organizations with over $30 billion in total assets".11

Adding up a relationship and applying a board-approved matrix is arithmetic and rules. Reading a supply agreement to answer a member's question is neither, and its controls must come from elsewhere.

What supervisors say about AI in credit approval

Approval rules software cannot change

• Authority is personal. The board delegated it to named people and committees. A recommendation from software is an input to their decision.
• Answers need sources. A member who relies on an answer must be able to open the page it came from, and "the file does not say" must be an allowed answer.
• Reasons must be statable. When a committee declines a business, or approves on terms the business did not ask for and does not accept, Regulation B treats it as adverse action, and the bank must be able to give the reasons.19
• Records belong to the bank. Examiners ask the bank itself for the minutes and the approval files, whoever hosts them.3,10

How banks run loan approvals today: who is involved, the hand-offs, and where the days go

In shortThe analyst finishes the memo, someone adds up the exposure and picks the approver, the secretary builds the pack and the agenda, members ask questions by email, the committee votes, and the secretary writes the minutes days later. Most of the elapsed time is spent waiting in one of those hand-offs.

Who takes part in a loan approval, CCO to secretary

A finished memo's five stops before the decision

Waiting fills most of a committee deal's 16 days

Only a small part of that time is anyone working on the deal. The rest is queues: a deal with an approver on leave, a pack re-sent because a figure moved, a question waiting on the analyst, a meeting date. The same estimate gives a day and a half to adding up the relationship and finding the approver, work that depends on knowing which entities belong together.

Inboxes, loan system, meeting software or approval workflow tools

The Tarrow acquisition loan through committee: the related loan, the route, the vote and the signed minutes

In shortThis is the example from the top of the page, inside the product. Six agents add up the relationship, route the deal, list the exceptions, answer members' questions from the file, keep the clock and draft the minutes. Renata Okafor, the chief credit officer, chairs the committee; the members vote with their reasons; Lena Whitford, the secretary, checks the minutes and Renata signs them.

1

Two minutes after the memo, the related loan is found

Pooja Ranganathan, the senior credit analyst, finished the Tarrow memo on Wednesday, October 7 at 9:12 a.m. Two minutes later the deal router had added up the relationship facility by facility. The memo said $33.2 million. The router found Tarrow Building LLC's $2.6 million plant loan, owned by the same two people, and put the relationship at $35.8 million.

It shows the route against the bank's matrix, version 12: above the chief credit officer's $15.0 million, inside the Senior Loan Committee's $40.0 million, 51% of the legal lending limit. The insider and conflict checker found no director's interest; the originating officer presents but does not vote.

2

Members' questions answered from the file, with citations

Six questions came in during the week. The last two arrived on Monday evening. Mark Delacroix, the chief lending officer, asked where the deal left manufacturing concentration. Howard Stiles, the chief financial officer, asked whether the customer's supply agreement could pass to the merged company.

The committee question answerer searched 412 pages in 23 documents. Manufacturing would reach 112% of capital against a 150% limit. The agreement, at §14.2, passes only with the customer's written consent, and the consent was not in the file. The answer said so and suggested it as a condition. A person adds conditions; the agent only suggests.

3

On Tuesday morning, the committee room is ready

Renata opens the committee room before the meeting. Quorum is met, seven of seven confirmed with four needed; all three items sit inside the committee's $40 million authority. On the Tarrow item, each member's seat shows when they read the pack. Ben Castellano's seat is marked recused because he brought the deal.

The checks before the vote are listed: quorum, authority with the related loan added, the recusal, no insiders, four of six questions answered, and three conditions from the memo with the customer's consent suggested. The two overnight answers are pinned to the deal as drafts, each with a button that sends it to the members.

4

Anyone can ask the file in plain words

At 8:45 a.m. Renata types a question: "How much of the revolver is drawn at close?" The answer comes back pinned to the deal with two citations: $8.0 million of the $9.0 million line, so $1.0 million stays available for working capital.

Then she asks something the file cannot answer: "What is Ardent's backlog today?" The reply says it is not in the credit file and has not been guessed, and pins the question for the relationship manager to answer before the vote.

5

The seats fill as members vote, each with a reason

The customer's consent goes on the table as condition 4, and the vote opens. Renata, Samuel Reyes, Mark Delacroix and Alicia Moreno approve with conditions, and the meter fills at four of four needed. Howard Stiles declines: "Leverage and one customer on the same deal. I would want the full guaranty."

Diane Kowalczyk, head of special assets, approves only with the consent before closing. The item is decided at 10:24 a.m., 5–1 with one recused, and the row turns green: authority met, minutes drafted.

The memo was finished on a Wednesday and decided the following Tuesday. The solution's design target is four days from a finished memo to a recorded decision, against the sample bank's 2025 median of 16 business days. Both are targets and sample figures, to be measured on your own deals.

The rest of the approval desk: ratios, exceptions, votes, minutes, record, board and rules

In shortOne deal is the story. These screens show the rest: the ratios against policy, the exceptions with their sections, every vote with its reason, the conditions, the signed minutes, the decision record an examiner reads, the board of every deal waiting, the authority matrix with a route calculator, the exception register and the rules as settings.

Select any screen to open it larger. The bank, borrowers, people and figures are fictional. A few screens open only at the size shown, because the rest of the screen carries sample text this guide does not use.

Agents route the deal and draft the minutes; approvers and the committee cast every vote

In shortEach agent has one job and a line it does not cross. None of them votes, lowers an authority, waives an exception or adds a condition. The approving officer decides within a personal limit; above it the committee votes; the chair signs the minutes. Every answer cites its page, every exception its policy section, every vote its reason.

Six agents, from deal router to minutes drafter

Officers decide within limits; the committee votes above them

A reason is required with every decline and every approval with conditions. Nothing an agent drafts becomes the record until a person accepts it. Rule changes are versioned, need the chief credit officer, and are on the audit trail.

The committee chair, secretary, members and the deal team

Your authority matrix between the finished memo and the decision record an examiner reads

In shortThe solution reads the credit files you already produce and applies the matrix and policy your board already approved. It leaves behind an approval queue with clocks, cited answers to members' questions, every vote with its reason, conditions, exceptions on the register, drafted minutes and an exportable decision record. Your loan system stays the system of record.

Loan system, credit file and insider register to connect

For each, check whether it has an API, a file feed or only screens, and who owns it.

Four days to a decision: the approval desk's design targets

These are design targets and sample figures from the fictional bank, to be measured on your own deals in a pilot.

What waiting deals and scattered reasons cost a commercial lender

In shortStart from your own numbers, because nobody publishes the days between a finished memo and a decision. A few published figures frame them: how often complex loans take over four weeks, how many banks say exceptions slow them down, what examiners ask to see, and what a missing approval has cost a bank.

Dating 20 deals from memo to decision

Lost borrowers and approvals outside authority

What deciding deals sooner is worth: earlier interest, fewer side questions, minutes drafted for the secretary

In shortPut in your own numbers. The calculator values three things: interest earned on deals that fund earlier because they were decided earlier, analyst time no longer spent answering side questions, and secretary time no longer spent on minutes. Only the interest margin is a published figure; every input marked illustrative is an assumption to replace.

Deals decided sooner, the right approver every time

Margin earned on deals decided days sooner

Many acquisition and real estate deals close on a date the parties set, whatever day the bank decides; for those, a faster decision gives the borrower certainty sooner and earns no extra interest. Put only the deals that would fund sooner into the share.

Score your bank's approval process: authority matrix, data, committee practice and governance

In shortPick the answer closest to your bank today. Eight questions score 0 to 2; the last is for reflection. The meter adds up your score as you go, and each question says why it matters and what a strong answer sounds like.

Low approval scores start with a precisely written matrix

Questions that show how loan committee software works out the route, checks insiders and records who decided

In shortAsk every vendor the same questions, us included. The answers show how the route is worked out, whether exceptions and insiders are checked or left to habit, whether answers carry their sources, who decides, and how you would measure it on your own deals.

We found no published independent test of any loan approval or credit committee software, as of October 2026. Replaying your own decided deals is the fairest comparison, and it measures your current process too.

A ten-week trial on one committee's deals: replay decided loans, then run live ones in parallel

In shortMeasure first, replay decided deals second, run live deals in parallel third, then decide on four numbers. None of these steps commits you to a vendor, and the baseline is worth having whatever you decide.

1. Date-stamp 20 recent deals above individual limits: memo finished, routed, decided, minutes signed.
2. Write the matrix as rules, including what each limit is measured on, and gather the credit policy by section.
3. Replay the 20 decided deals: compare the route, the exceptions found and the answers to members' real questions with what happened.
4. Run one committee in parallel for five meetings, with members voting as usual and the secretary keeping both records.
5. Decide on four numbers: routing differences found, exceptions the memo missed, days from memo to decision, and hours on minutes.

Routing differences and exceptions the memo missed

Authority matrices, lending limits, insiders and committee minutes: what credit teams ask about loan approval

In shortThe questions credit teams and buyers search for most, each answered on its own.