You need to enable JavaScript to run this app.
By Travis Yule — CEO & Founder, Full Send Funding
Published 2026-02-02 · Updated 2026-10-14
Thirteen of fourteen decline reasons come from the bank account and public record, not a credit score; for eleven a decline is a date, fixable in 90 days.
In one sentence: Of the fourteen reasons a working capital application is declined, thirteen are read from the bank account and the public record rather than a credit score — five capacity measurements, four published bright lines, five legibility failures — and most are a date, not a verdict, fixable inside ninety days.
Most declines are not about credit, and most of them are not about the business either. They are about the bank account — what it can carry, what is already being taken out of it, and whether the file shows it honestly. Of the fourteen reasons we decline a working capital application, five are measurements of capacity read straight from the statements, four are bright lines we publish, and five are about legibility: the file never reached an underwriting answer because something in it could not be read, matched or believed. Only one of the fourteen is a credit event, and it is an open bankruptcy.
That distribution matters because it is the reverse of what applicants assume. The Federal Reserve's most recent Small Business Credit Survey (what the survey measures) found that 38% of employer firms applied for a loan, line of credit or merchant cash advance in the prior twelve months, and that 42% of applicants received the full amount they sought, 36% some or most of it, and 22% none.[1] Those figures are for all lenders and all products, and they say nothing about why a given file was refused. There is no public dataset on the reasons revenue-based funders decline; what follows is our own list, from the decision side, with the metric behind each reason, how the line is judged, and what moves the file in thirty, sixty and ninety days.
The practical consequence is that a decline is usually a date, not a verdict. On deals up to $2 million, 90% of complete applications that meet our requirements are approved, and a large share of the files that are not would have been approved with a different window of statements — which is the same business, a few months later, having fixed two or three things it controls.
How to read the numbers in this article. The only cut-offs published here are the published bar: four months in business, $10,000 a month, no open bankruptcy, no open default. The capacity reasons, and the freshly funded position, carry no cut-off, and that is deliberate. The real line on each moves with the whole file — a heavy remittance share can be carried by a deep balance and even months, and a modest one cannot be carried by an account that closes below zero every week — so a single published figure would be wrong for most files, and it would become a target to engineer an application to rather than a description of what underwriting asks. Every remittance share and day of cover below is arithmetic on a stated example, there to show how each test is computed, and none of them is a cut-off; the thirty, sixty and ninety days attached to each fix are how long a change takes to show in the statements, not a line. Read the numbers as the questions underwriting asks.
Underwriting here answers two questions from four or more months of business bank statements: can the business afford the payment, and will it still be here to make it. How the assessment is built is covered separately; what matters for this article is that a decline is the answer no to one of those questions, or the answer cannot tell to either.
The distinction between no and cannot tell runs through the whole list. A business whose combined remittances would take 28% of every deposit is a no — the arithmetic does not work, and no amount of explanation changes it. A business whose revenue lands in a personal account is a cannot tell — it may be an excellent file, but the evidence is not in front of us. The first kind of decline is fixed by changing the numbers. The second is fixed by changing what we can see, which is usually faster.
A decline is also not a silence. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act's adverse-action rules reach business credit, so an applicant is entitled to learn the reasons for a refusal, on request if not automatically.[3] If we decline, we tell you why: always if you ask, and often without being asked. The reason is the fix.
Full Send Funding’s decline reasons at the time of writing, stated from the decision side and ordered by how often each decides a file here. Rows 1–5 and 12 are judged against the whole file, so no cut-off is published for them; rows 6–9 are the published bar.
The order is by how often each reason decides a file here, not by severity. Existing positions decide more files than everything in the eligibility group combined; an open bankruptcy is absolute but rare. The five reasons in the capacity group carry no published cut-off, for the reason given above: each is judged against the rest of the file, and other funders draw their lines elsewhere.
What is measured: every recurring debit to another funder — daily or weekly, fixed amount, banking days only, from an ACH originator whose name appears on thousands of files — added up and set against average daily deposits, together with the remittance the new file would add. We call the result the remittance share.
Where the line is: there is no fixed percentage. The combined remittances are judged against the deposits and the rest of the file — the balance they are paid out of, how even the months are, what the existing positions are and when they end. A heavy share gets the file sized down and priced for the pressure; a share the same deposits cannot carry alongside what is already there is usually declined, whatever the rest of the file looks like.
The chart below shows why this line is reached faster than owners expect. Take a business depositing $84,000 a month — $4,000 on each of 21 banking days — carrying one existing position at $560 a day, which is 14% of deposits on its own. Size a new position inside the published range of 80% to 150% of monthly revenue, at a 1.30 factor over nine months, and add the two.
A new position sized at 100% of monthly revenue takes 14.4% of deposits by itself and 28.4% on top of an existing $560-a-day position — more than those deposits can carry beside the existing position, at every size in the published range.
Daily deposits are $84,000 ÷ 21 banking days = $4,000. Each new position is the stated advance × 1.30 ÷ 189 banking days (nine months of 21); the second series adds the existing $560 a day. Values are the daily remittance divided by $4,000, in percent.
A new position sized at 100% of monthly revenue takes 14.4% of deposits by itself, which is a normal, fundable file. On top of the existing $560 a day it takes 28.4%, which is more than those deposits can carry. The new money did not change; the account it lands in did. This is the arithmetic behind the most common decline in the industry, and it is the same arithmetic that makes stacking so destructive: each position is reasonable alone and the sum is not.
The fix: at thirty days, nothing except disclosure and a smaller ask — a position sized at 80% of revenue lands at 25.6% combined in the example, still more than the account can carry beside the existing debit. At sixty to ninety days, the existing position has either retired or is close enough that a payoff letter makes the new file a consolidation rather than an addition, which is a different file with a different answer. If the existing position is the whole problem, more capital beside it is not the answer and we will say so.
What is measured: the count of days the balance closed below zero across the window, the pattern they fall in, and any returned or NSF items — including a returned remittance to another funder, which is read as a default in progress.
Where the line is: there is no set count; what decides it is the pattern. Negative days that recur — through a month, or in the same week of every month — are usually a decline. Isolated days across the window, each explainable by a timing collision, are priced rather than refused. A returned funder debit is usually a decline until it is explained and has not recurred.
The reasoning is capacity, not character. A negative day is a direct measurement of how much of the balance a new debit would consume: it says the cushion was already zero on that day, before anything was added. Six in a month says the business operates at the edge of its balance as a matter of routine, and a daily remittance would push it over on the first slow week.
The fix: this is the highest-value item on the list and the fastest. Hold a buffer in the operating account and stop sweeping it to zero; move any discretionary transfer to the day after the largest deposits land; ask any funder already remitting to move a daily debit to weekly if the timing is the cause. Thirty days of clean statements helps; a full window of them changes the file.
What is measured: average daily balance — the mean end-of-day balance across the window — divided by the combined daily remittance the file proposes. We call the result days of cover: how many banking days the account could carry the debits with nothing coming in.
Where the line is: there is no fixed floor. An account whose balance is too thin to carry the combined debits through an ordinary gap between deposits is usually a decline; short of that, the offer is sized down until the balance covers it, and a comfortable cushion is what lets it stand at full size.
Two businesses with identical deposits get very different answers here, and this measurement is usually the reason. The table applies it to the $84,000-a-month example: a proposed remittance of $577.78 a day on its own, and $1,137.78 a day combined with the existing position.
Days of cover = average daily balance ÷ daily remittance. The new remittance is $84,000 × 1.30 ÷ 189 banking days = $577.78; the combined figure adds the existing $560 a day.
A $3,600 average balance covers the new remittance alone for six days and the combined debits for three. The same business with $9,000 held in the account covers the new position for fifteen days — an easy approval — and the combined debits for eight, which is priced but survivable. The balance is the one number on this list that an owner can move without changing anything about the business.
The fix: the buffer. At thirty days, a deliberately held balance shows up in the next statement; at ninety, it is the average. A business that pays its owner every dollar above zero on the last day of the month is telling us the account has no cushion, and we size against that whether it is true or not.
What is measured: deposit consistency — how evenly revenue arrives month to month, as distinct from its size — read as the weakest normal month against the average.
Where the line is: the question is how far the weakest normal month sits below the average, judged with the rest of the file rather than against a fixed ratio. When the months sit close to the average, the average is used. When the weakest sits far below it, we size to the weakest month, and the resulting offer often falls below the floor the business needs, which is a decline in effect if not in name.
Average is the mean of the three months; the sizing bands apply the published 80% and 150% bounds to the average and to the weakest month respectively. Business B’s months sit close enough to the average that it is sized on the average in practice; Business C’s weakest month sits so far below it that the file is sized on the weakest month.
Business C is larger than Business A by every measure, and the offer it can support is less than a third the size, because a remittance sized to a $60,000 month does not survive a $12,000 one. Nothing about C is wrong; it is harder to underwrite. If the pattern is genuine seasonality, last year's statements for the same months turn volatility into a fact and the file is structured around the trough instead of declined for it. Seasonality that is explained is a fact; seasonality that is not is volatility.
The fix: at thirty days, the explanation and last year's statements. At ninety, one more month of deposits — a fifth month at the average pulls the weakest month's weight down and the offer up. What does not help is timing the application to the peak: the trough is still in the window.
What is measured: the most recent month's net deposits against the window's average, and the direction across the window.
Where the line is: a most recent month well below the window's average, with no explanation, is usually a decline, because a remittance sized to the average lands on a business that is no longer producing it. A single soft month with a reason — a lost contract replaced, a slow season entered — is a sizing input. A downward trend still running across the window is usually a decline until it stops.
This reason overlaps with the last one and is worth separating because the fix is different. Volatility is a shape; decline is a direction. A funder who puts a nine-month remittance on a business trending down is not helping it, and a business in that position is usually better served by not borrowing at all until the direction changes.
The fix: time and evidence. Sixty days of stabilised deposits ends the trend; a signed contract or a new recurring customer visible in the statements shortens it.
These four are published and do not move with the rest of the file. They are also the four an applicant can check before applying, and the Do I Qualify check does exactly that in about a minute — five questions, no credit pull.
Four is the floor because underwriting reads four months of bank statements, and a business trading for less than four months cannot produce them. It is a genuine floor, not a technicality, and there is no work-around inside it — a business at ten weeks is asked to come back when the fourth statement exists. The reason is evidentiary rather than actuarial: the survival numbers that make lenders nervous about young businesses are real — the SBA's Office of Advocacy puts two-year survival for new employer establishments at 67.7% and five-year survival at 49.2%,[4] and the Bureau of Labor Statistics found 34.7% of establishments born in 2013 still operating ten years later[5] — but they describe cohorts, and a bank statement describes one business. Four months is where the statement starts to say something. What a four-month file can support, and how the multiple rises with history, is covered separately.
The fix: the calendar, and using the wait to arrive with clean statements: one account, every dollar through it, zero negative days.
Averaged across the window, which matters for seasonal businesses because the average smooths a slow month. A business at $9,200 is asked to come back, not priced differently. Below that level the smallest useful remittance is too large a share of deposits to be safe, and the floor exists to keep us from putting a debit on an account that cannot carry one.
The fix: usually visibility rather than growth — see reason 10. A business depositing $7,000 to its operating account and $5,000 to a card processor that pays out to a personal account is a $12,000 business that has told us it is a $7,000 one.
An open case is a decline for a structural reason: a court process has authority over the assets, and a funder cannot responsibly take a remittance from an account the court may direct elsewhere. A discharged bankruptcy is not a decline. Once the case closes, the question returns to the account — what the deposits show, what the balance does, what is already being remitted — and a business a year past discharge with clean statements is a normal file.
This is the only reason on the list that is a credit event, and it is worth stating what is not on the list because of that. A low personal score is not a decline. A thin business credit file is not a decline. Applying uses a soft credit pull only, which does not affect the score and is visible only to the person whose file it is;[8] what comes back is a signal that prompts questions, not a gate, and a business with strong deposits and a rough credit history is a normal approval. The difference between the two kinds of pull, and what each does to a file, is in soft pull versus hard pull.
A default with another funder that is still open — remittances stopped, no settlement, no payoff — is a decline. A settled or paid-off previous default is not, and this is the question we are asked most often, so it bears repeating: the distinction is whether the obligation is closed, not whether it ever existed. A default is also visible in the statements without being disclosed: a fixed debit that stops mid-window, followed by nothing, is read for what it is.
The fix: resolution. A settlement letter or a payoff confirmation closes the item, and a business that arrives with the letter in hand has turned a decline into a question about capacity. Sixty to ninety days is realistic where the other funder is slow, because a payoff letter runs on their timeline, not ours.
The five reasons in this group are declines of the cannot tell kind. Each is fixed by changing what we can see rather than what the business does, and each is where an otherwise fundable business loses a week or a deal.
Revenue that lands in a personal account, sits at a card processor and pays out somewhere else, or is taken in cash and never deposited does not exist as far as underwriting is concerned. This is the single most common reason a business is offered less than it should be, and below the $10,000 floor it is the most common reason a business is declined that should not have been. A related version is revenue split across two or three business accounts, which forces a reconciliation before anything can be sized and usually results in the business being read as smaller than it is. A sole proprietor running the business through a personal account does not qualify: the revenue has to run through a business bank account.
The fix: one operating account, every dollar of revenue through it, starting now. Thirty days changes the next statement; ninety days changes the file.
An existing position is not a decline. An undisclosed one is, because it changes the file from a business with existing obligations — normal and fundable — to a file that is not accurate, which is not. A funder's remittance has a recognisable fingerprint in a bank statement and is found within seconds; the discovery costs more than the position itself would have. What the statements are read for, and how fast, is worth understanding before deciding what to leave out.
The fix: disclosure, which costs nothing and takes a minute on the application.
What is measured: the date of the most recent funding deposit in the window, and the number of funders' remittances that begin within a few weeks of each other.
Where the line is: a position so recent that the statements do not yet show the account carrying it is usually a decline for a further position here, with narrow exceptions where the new money is explicitly a consolidation. Two positions that started close together are read as a business being shopped by a broker to a dozen funders at once, and that pattern is read as distress whatever the numbers say.
The reasoning is simple. A file with a fresh advance on the books has not yet shown what the account looks like carrying it; the statements that would answer the question do not exist. The fix is four months of statements carrying the new position — which is exactly the window the industry's worst offers are designed to interrupt.
What is measured: public records — an active judgment against the business, an open tax lien, and a UCC-1 financing statement naming another creditor against all assets. On deals up to $2 million, we file no UCC-1 lien against the funded business and our agreements contain no confession of judgment; what a prior funder's agreement has authorised it to file is a different matter, because it reaches the receivables and deposits the new remittance would be paid from.
Where the line is: an open tax lien or an active judgment is usually a conversation rather than a decline, and it is decided file by file: what is owed, to whom, and whether it is being paid all matter, and a payment plan we can see in the statements helps. A blanket filing from a funder that has been paid off is a decline only until it is terminated — and it survives payoff far more often than owners expect, because a financing statement stays effective for five years from filing unless it is terminated, whether or not anything is still owed.[6]
This is information, not legal advice; the statute and the contract control, and a commercial attorney in your state should read yours. But the fix here is mechanical rather than legal. Once nothing is owed, the secured party must file or send a termination statement within twenty days of the debtor's written demand,[7] and what a stale UCC-1 does to the next facility is the reason to send that demand the day the last remittance clears rather than the day a new application stalls.
The fix: a payoff confirmation and a written termination demand at thirty days; a clean search at sixty; and for a lien or judgment that cannot be closed yet, a payment plan visible in the statements, which helps the conversation.
The last reason is the one that decides more files than any single line above it and appears on no one's list. Statements that are screenshots, exports or missing pages; a name on the account that does not match the applying entity; an application that asks for a different amount than the conversation did; an owner who cannot be reached for the one question underwriting has. None of these is a no. Each is a cannot tell, and a cannot tell that is not resolved inside the decision window becomes a decline by default, because a file cannot sit open indefinitely.
The fix: twenty minutes of preparation before applying — full PDFs as the bank issued them, entity details that match everywhere, and a phone that is answered on the day the file is in front of an underwriter.
Abstractions do not fund anyone, so here is one file twice.
A plumbing and heating contractor deposits $84,000 a month — $4,000 on each of 21 banking days — and applies in March for $100,000 to buy ahead of a summer install season. The statements show one existing position at $560 a day, seven negative days across the window with four of them in the most recent month, and an average daily balance of $3,600. Sizing on the published rule puts the business at $67,200 to $126,000; the file proposes $84,000 at a 1.30 factor over nine months, which is $109,200 back and $577.78 a day.
Stated inputs: $84,000 a month over 21 banking days; an existing position at $560 a day that retires before the July file; a proposed $84,000 at a 1.30 factor over nine months of 21 banking days (189 days); average daily balances of $3,600 and $9,000. Every derived line is arithmetic on those inputs.
The March file fails on three of the five capacity reasons at once. Combined remittances would take 28.4% of every deposit, more than those deposits can carry alongside the existing position; the balance would cover the combined debits for 3.2 banking days, too thin a cushion for a daily debit; and four negative days in the most recent month, on top of three earlier in the window, are a pattern rather than a timing collision. No amount of credit, history or explanation rescues the arithmetic, and the honest answer in March is a decline with a date on it.
The owner does three things. The existing position, already two-thirds delivered, is left to retire on schedule and retires in early May. The owner's monthly draw is moved from the last banking day to the day after the two largest deposits land, and $6,000 that had been sitting in a savings account is moved into the operating account and left there. Nothing else changes: same customers, same revenue, same requested use.
The July file proposes the same $84,000 on the same terms. The remittance now takes 14.4% of deposits, a normal, fundable share; the $9,000 balance covers it for fifteen banking days; the four months in the July window show no negative days. The file is approved at 100% of monthly revenue, and the terms are better than the March file would have carried even if it had scraped through, because every input that prices a file moved in the same direction.
Ranked by how much each moves a file, not by how hard it is.
Two things are conspicuously not on the list. Improving a personal credit score is not, because the score is not what declines the file. And applying to more funders is not, because the pattern it creates in the statements — inquiries, then a fresh position, then a second — is reason 12.
Some declines should stand, and the honest version of this article says which.
When the shortfall is structural rather than timing. A business that spends more than it makes in a normal month is not fixed by a cleaner statement window; a remittance added to it makes the next shortfall larger by exactly the new debt service. If the negative days are caused by a monthly loss rather than by timing, the ninety-day fix is the business, not the file, and borrowing is the wrong answer until it changes. The Federal Reserve's survey found more than half of employer firms citing paying operating expenses (56%) or uneven cash flows (51%) as financial challenges;[2] the two are different problems, and only the second is one that funding solves.
When the existing positions are the business's whole problem. A file at 32% remittance share does not need a fifth position at a better rate. It needs the four it has retired or consolidated, and it needs the ninety days of clean statements that follow, and if we are the funder that says so and loses the file to someone who does not, that is the right outcome for the business.
When the money is for a purpose the term cannot match. A nine-month remittance financing a receivable that pays in fourteen months is a file that will be back for a second position in month seven. That is not a decline reason on the list because it is not a decline; it is an approval that should have been a different product, and the time to say so is before funding.
When the business is under four months old or under $10,000 a month and those facts are true. There is no version of the file that changes them. The fix is the calendar, and the useful thing to do with the wait is to arrive at month four with a clean account.
It is not a judgement about the owner or the idea, and rarely about the industry: virtually every industry is served; LLCs, corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships and non-profits are all eligible on the same bar; a rough personal credit file is a normal approval. It is not permanent: eleven of the fourteen reasons are fixed inside ninety days by a business that does the things above, and two more are fixed by the calendar. It is not a black box: the reasons are available to the applicant on request,[3] and this article is the list we work from.
And it is not the same answer at every shape. A file declined at $100,000 over nine months is sometimes an approval at $60,000 over six, or at a weekly rhythm instead of a daily one, or as a consolidation instead of an addition. If the answer is no, ask whether it is no to the amount, the term or the whole file — those are three different answers, and only the last one means wait. On a merchant cash advance the amount, the term and the payment schedule are each set per deal, which is why the question is worth asking.
Applications are declined for fourteen reasons here, and thirteen of them are read from the bank account and the public record rather than from a credit score. Five are capacity, each judged against the whole file rather than a published cut-off: existing positions taking too large a share of deposits, negative days that form a pattern, a balance too thin to carry the debits, deposits too uneven to size, and revenue that is falling. Four are bright lines: under four months in business, under $10,000 a month, an open bankruptcy, an open default. Five are legibility: revenue not in the business account, an undisclosed position, a freshly funded position, an unresolved lien or filing, and a file that cannot be read or matched.
Most of them are a date rather than a verdict. Zero negative days, one account, a held balance and a retired position turn a March decline into a July approval on the same business. If we decline, we tell you why: always if you ask, and often without being asked. To see where your own numbers land before applying, check what you would qualify for — about a minute, no credit pull — or call 518-312-0382 and ask which of the fourteen applies.
The fourteen reasons and their ordering by frequency are Full Send Funding’s own at the time of writing, stated from the decision side. No numeric cut-off is published for reasons 1 to 5 and 12, because each is judged against the whole file and a published cut-off becomes a target to engineer an application to; other funders draw their lines elsewhere. The published bar — four months in business, $10,000 a month in revenue, no open bankruptcy, no open default, funding sized at 80% to 150% of monthly revenue, a soft credit pull only and, on deals up to $2 million, no UCC-1 filed and no confession of judgment — is the firm’s own, and the approval rate — 90% of complete applications that meet the firm’s requirements, on deals up to $2 million — is the firm’s own figure. There is no public dataset on the reasons revenue-based funders decline applications, and the article does not estimate one.
Every number in the figure and the three numeric tables is arithmetic on stated inputs: $84,000 a month over 21 banking days, an existing position at $560 a day, a proposed advance at a 1.30 factor over nine months of 21 banking days, and the average daily balances and monthly deposit series shown. Remittance share is combined daily remittance ÷ daily deposits; days of cover is average daily balance ÷ combined daily remittance; the sizing bands apply the published 80% and 150% bounds. The site’s arithmetic audit recomputes each published value from those inputs before publication, and a reader can substitute their own.
The external figures are quoted, not derived: the application and outcome shares and the frame are from the Federal Reserve’s 2026 report on employer firms, a nationwide convenience sample of firms with 1 to 499 employees fielded from September 3 to November 14, 2025 with 6,525 responses, offered as scale and not as a comparison with the firm’s own approval rate, which is measured on a different population by a different method; the operating-expense and uneven-cash-flow shares are from the same survey’s prior report; establishment survival rates are from the SBA Office of Advocacy and the Bureau of Labor Statistics and describe cohorts, not any one business. The adverse-action point is stated from Regulation B, the soft-inquiry point from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s guidance, and the five-year effectiveness and twenty-day termination rules from the model text of UCC Article 9, which every state has enacted with local variations.
Thirteen of the fourteen. Five are capacity measurements read from the bank account: existing positions already taking too large a share of deposits, negative days, a thin average balance, uneven or falling deposits. Four are published bright lines — four months in business, $10,000 a month, no open bankruptcy, no open default — read from the file and the public record. Five are legibility problems such as revenue outside the business account or an undisclosed position. The only credit event on the list is an open bankruptcy; a low score on its own is not a decline.
Not here. Applying uses a soft credit pull only, and the result is a signal that prompts questions rather than a pass/fail gate. The one credit event that is a decline is an open bankruptcy; a discharged one is not. A business with strong, consistent deposits and a rough personal credit file is a normal approval.
There is no fixed percentage. We add every remittance already coming out of the account to the one a new file would add, and judge the total against average daily deposits and the rest of the file: the balance, how even the months are, and when the existing positions end. A heavy share is sized down and priced; a share the deposits cannot carry is declined. A single position sized at 100% of monthly revenue at a 1.30 factor over nine months takes about 14% of deposits on its own, which is why a second position so often tips a file over.
There is no set count; what decides it is the pattern. Negative days that recur through a month, or land in the same week of every month, are usually a decline, while isolated days across the window, each explained by a timing collision, are priced rather than refused. A returned debit to another funder is usually a decline until it is explained and has not recurred.
Yes. Eleven of the fourteen reasons are fixable inside ninety days and two more are fixed by the calendar. The fastest changes are zero negative days, every dollar of revenue through one business account, a held balance, and disclosing or retiring an existing position. Reapply with a window of statements that shows the change rather than the month after the decline.
Yes. If we decline, we tell you why: always if you ask, and often without being asked. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act’s adverse-action rules reach business credit, so an applicant can learn the reasons for a refusal, on request if not automatically. The reason is the fix, and a decline at one amount, term or payment rhythm is sometimes an approval at another.
No. A settled or paid-off previous default does not disqualify a business; an open, unresolved default does. A discharged bankruptcy does not disqualify; an open case does, because a court process has authority over the assets. The distinction is whether the obligation is closed, not whether it ever existed.
It can, until it is terminated. A financing statement stays effective for five years from filing unless it is terminated, whether or not anything is still owed, so a blanket filing from a paid-off funder survives payoff more often than owners expect. Once nothing is owed, the secured party must file or send a termination statement within twenty days of your written demand. Send the demand the day the last remittance clears.
Travis Yule worked in business funding before starting Full Send Funding in 2021, and has more than five years in business funding in all. He leads the company from Middle Grove, New York, and writes about working capital from the underwriting side of the table — what the numbers actually have to say before a business gets funded.