Common mistakes and how to avoid them
Top originator mistakes
status: draft
Top originator mistakes
Ten mistakes that cost originators money, time, and relationships. Every item here comes from deals that went sideways and the post-mortems that followed.
The pattern across most of these is information asymmetry: you didn’t know something your capital provider assumed you knew, or you made assumptions about the deal process that nobody tested until it was too late.
status: draft
1. Insufficient data quality
The mistake: Sending a loan tape before running your own data quality audit.
What it looks like in practice:
You deliver a tape with 18% of FICO fields missing, inconsistent state codes, and three different date formats in the origination date column. Your capital provider’s analytics team spends two weeks cleaning the tape and returns with a list of 47 data quality questions. The diligence call that should have been about your credit performance becomes an interrogation about your data infrastructure.
Worse: the capital provider starts wondering what else is sloppy in your operations. If you can’t produce clean data, can you produce clean servicing reports? Can you calculate covenant compliance correctly?
The cost:
- A 3-6 week delay while data issues are remediated
- Repricing or reduced advance rate by 2-3 points to account for data uncertainty
- On a $50M warehouse, a 2-point advance rate reduction means $1M less available capital
- Reputational damage with the capital provider’s diligence team that persists through the relationship
Warning signs you’re making this mistake:
- You’ve never exported your loan tape to Excel and reviewed it manually
- Different systems generate different fields and nobody reconciles them
- Your data dictionary was written 18 months ago and not updated since
- You’ve been asked “what does this field mean?” by internal staff
How to fix it:
Run your own data quality audit before sending any tape. Use a basic Python or Excel script to flag null values, out-of-range figures, and inconsistent field formats. Target fewer than 2% missing values on any field that drives credit decisions: FICO, LTV, DTI, payment history.
Provide a data dictionary with every tape delivery. Define every field, explain any known data gaps, and describe what you’ve done to address them. Your capital provider’s analyst shouldn’t be guessing whether “state” means origination state or current borrower state.
Build data quality into your operations from day one. A quarterly data audit costs $5K-$10K if outsourced. The cost of sending bad data is 10-20x that.
status: draft
2. No static pool history
The mistake: Presenting aggregate delinquency statistics without vintage-level loss curves.
What it looks like in practice:
You have 18 months of track record and aggregate delinquency stats that look good: 2.3% 30+ day delinquency, 0.8% charge-off rate. But when a capital provider asks “show me how the 2023 cohort performed through 12 months,” you can’t produce the analysis. You’ve been tracking portfolio-level metrics, not cohort-level performance.
This matters because aggregate statistics mask vintage deterioration. If your 2022 originations are performing well and your 2024 originations are performing poorly, the blended aggregate looks acceptable. But a capital provider making a 3-year commitment needs to know whether your underwriting is getting better or worse.
The cost:
- Disqualifying for many capital providers outright
- Those who proceed require significantly higher credit enhancement
- A capital provider that might have offered 80% advance with 3-year vintage data will offer 70% without it, costing $5M in funding capacity on a $50M facility
- Alternatively, the deal gets structured with a “seasoning” ramp-up: advance rates start at 65% and step up quarterly as performance is observed
Warning signs you’re making this mistake:
- You report portfolio-level delinquency and loss rates without cohort breakdowns
- You’ve never built a static pool table
- You can’t answer “what was the cumulative loss rate on your Q1 2023 originations at 12 months?”
- Your investor deck shows trailing 12-month metrics but no vintage analysis
How to fix it:
Start building vintage cohorts from day one of origination. Track each cohort’s loss rate, prepayment speed, and delinquency rate monthly. The format: static pool table showing cumulative net loss rate by origination month cohort, measured at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24 months.
Minimum threshold for most capital providers: 12 months of data on the earliest cohort, with at least 3-4 cohorts visible to show consistency.
If you’re behind on this, backfill your data now. Pull your historical originations, assign them to monthly or quarterly cohorts, and calculate performance at each measurement point. This is a weekend project for a competent analyst.
status: draft
3. Engaging lawyers too early
The mistake: Instructing deal counsel before you have a signed term sheet.
What it looks like in practice:
You get three interested capital provider calls and immediately instruct counsel to begin drafting transaction documents. “We want to move fast when a term sheet comes in,” you tell yourself. Six weeks and $75,000 in legal fees later, two of the three providers have passed and the third hasn’t yet issued a term sheet.
The secondary effect is worse: $75K in sunk costs creates pressure to close any deal to justify the legal spend. You accept terms you shouldn’t because you’re already in too deep.
The cost:
- $50K-$150K in legal fees with no deal to show for it
- Psychological pressure to close on suboptimal terms
- Cash runway burn at the worst possible moment (pre-facility)
- If you do close, the deal is underwater from day one due to setup costs
Warning signs you’re making this mistake:
- You’ve engaged counsel before receiving a term sheet
- You’re rationalizing “getting ahead” of the process
- Your law firm is billing hours without a defined scope
- You can’t articulate what deliverables counsel is producing this week
How to fix it:
Do not engage deal counsel until you have a signed term sheet or, at minimum, a written indicative offer with specific economic terms.
You can (and should) engage outside counsel earlier for a limited-scope engagement: reviewing the term sheet before signing, identifying issues to negotiate, and scoping the documentation work. This costs $5K-$15K, not $75K.
Budget for legal fees from closing proceeds where possible, not from operating cash. Most originators can negotiate to pay lender’s counsel fees from the initial facility draw.
status: draft
4. Not understanding your own cost of capital
The mistake: Calculating your cost of capital as the headline spread on the facility.
What it looks like in practice:
You accept a warehouse at SOFR+250 bps on a 75% advance rate, plus a 1% origination fee and 0.5% unused fee, and believe your “cost of capital is 7%.” You price your loans assuming a 7% cost of funds, targeting an 11% net yield.
In reality, when accounting for the equity required to fund the 25% retention, the cost of servicing the unfunded portion, and facility overhead, the all-in cost is closer to 12-14%. You’re losing money on every loan originated and don’t know it.
The cost:
- Mispricing of your own product
- Scaling aggressively while losing money on every loan
- This has destroyed several fintech originators who realized too late their unit economics were negative
- Recovery requires either repricing (losing volume) or raising expensive equity (dilution)
Warning signs you’re making this mistake:
- Your “cost of capital” in internal models equals the facility spread
- You haven’t modeled the cost of your equity retention
- You don’t know your servicing cost per loan or as a percentage of balance
- You haven’t reconciled your loan-level economics against your P&L
How to fix it:
Build a cost-of-capital model before signing a term sheet. Here’s the framework for a $100M warehouse, 80% advance, SOFR+250, 1% origination fee, 0.5% unused fee, 150 bps servicing cost, 20% equity hurdle on the 20% retention:
| Component | Annual Cost |
|---|---|
| Debt cost on $80M at ~7.5% | $6,000,000 |
| Equity cost on $20M at 20% | $4,000,000 |
| Servicing on $100M at 1.5% | $1,500,000 |
| Fees annualized | $1,500,000 |
| Total all-in cost | ~$13,000,000 |
| All-in cost as % of portfolio | ~13% |
This framework matters more than the specific numbers. Build it for your facility and update it as terms change.
status: draft
5. Over-promising origination volume
The mistake: Committing to utilization and origination volume covenants that your projections don’t support.
What it looks like in practice:
You commit to a $100M warehouse with a 75% minimum utilization covenant and $50M/quarter minimum origination volume. Your sales team says $50M/quarter is achievable. Your finance team’s model shows $40M in Q1 ramping to $55M by Q4.
You hit $30M in Q1, $25M in Q2. By mid-year you’re in covenant breach, the capital provider has rights to trigger early amortization, and the relationship is strained.
The cost:
- Covenant breach remediation typically costs $25K-$75K in amendment fees plus legal costs
- If the capital provider loses confidence, they reduce advance rates or decline to extend at maturity
- You’re forced to find replacement capital from a compromised negotiating position
- In extreme cases, early amortization is triggered and you lose access to the facility entirely
Warning signs you’re making this mistake:
- Your origination covenant equals your base case projection
- You haven’t modeled your stress case against the covenants
- Sales team projections drive covenant levels without finance haircut
- You’ve committed to quarterly volume without understanding seasonality
How to fix it:
Project origination volume conservatively. Use 70% of your base case forecast when negotiating volume covenants. If your base case says $50M/quarter, commit to $35M/quarter.
Request a cure period (60-90 days is standard) before a utilization breach becomes an event of default.
Negotiate a ramp-up period (6-12 months) where minimum utilization requirements are lower or absent.
Build in seasonality adjustments if your origination has seasonal patterns. Don’t commit to flat quarterly minimums if your Q1 is historically 30% below Q4.
status: draft
6. Ignoring covenant headroom
The mistake: Signing covenants calibrated to your current balance sheet without modeling forward.
What it looks like in practice:
You sign a warehouse with a minimum tangible net worth covenant of $5M. At closing you have $8M TNW, giving you $3M of headroom. Six months later, after two quarters of operating losses while the facility ramps up, TNW is at $4.8M. The capital provider issues a technical default notice.
Even a “technical” breach triggers negotiation costs, reputational damage, and often a required equity injection to cure. At worst, it triggers cross-default provisions with other lenders, causing cascading covenant breaches.
The cost:
- $25K-$75K in amendment fees and legal costs
- Required equity injection to cure, often on unfavorable terms
- Reputational damage that persists through the relationship
- Potential cross-default triggering on other facilities
Warning signs you’re making this mistake:
- Your covenant levels are set at your current balance sheet values
- You haven’t modeled 24-month projections under stress scenarios
- You don’t know what counts toward TNW (goodwill exclusions, intercompany items)
- You’ve never tested your projections against covenant limits
How to fix it:
Model your financial covenants forward for at least 24 months at close, using a stress scenario with 20% lower revenue than your base case.
Build in a covenant headroom buffer: at close, target at least 30-40% cushion above minimum levels.
For TNW covenants specifically, understand what counts: goodwill exclusions, intercompany receivables, treatment of mark-to-market on retained interests.
If you anticipate getting close, proactively reach out to your capital provider 90 days before breach. Do not wait for the default notice. Early disclosure almost always results in better outcomes than surprise.
status: draft
7. Underestimating closing costs
The mistake: Budgeting closing costs based on a single data point from a peer company without scoping your own deal.
What it looks like in practice:
You budget $150K based on what someone else mentioned at a conference. The actual tab: $85K in legal fees (both sides, since you paid lender’s counsel), $40K for backup servicer setup, $25K for trustee acceptance fee, $15K for UCC filings and lien searches, $10K for third-party diligence, and $20K in miscellaneous setup costs. Total: $195K.
The cost:
- A cash flow surprise at the worst possible moment, right before the facility you need for liquidity is available
- Some originators are forced to draw down on the facility immediately just to cover setup costs, creating an immediate negative carry position
- Budget overruns may require emergency equity infusions
Warning signs you’re making this mistake:
- Your closing cost budget is based on a single data point
- You haven’t gotten fee estimates from each counterparty
- You don’t have a line-item budget for closing
- You haven’t asked your capital provider what costs they’ll pass through
How to fix it:
Use this baseline for a first warehouse facility ($25M-$100M):
| Item | Typical Range |
|---|---|
| Originator’s legal counsel | $50K-$100K |
| Lender’s legal counsel (if originator pays) | $25K-$75K |
| Trustee acceptance and annual fee | $20K-$40K |
| Backup servicer setup | $15K-$50K |
| UCC filings and lien searches | $5K-$15K |
| Third-party due diligence | $15K-$40K |
| Rating agency (if applicable) | $100K-$500K |
| Miscellaneous (account setup, etc.) | $10K-$25K |
| Total (unrated) | $140K-$345K |
| Total (rated) | $240K-$845K |
Get written fee estimates from each counterparty before signing the term sheet. Add 20% contingency.
status: draft
8. Not reading the final documents
The mistake: Relying on counsel to review the final agreements without reading the key sections yourself.
What it looks like in practice:
You negotiate a term sheet over six weeks, give your lawyers a general briefing, and sign a 180-page indenture and purchase agreement without reading them. Two years later, you discover your facility has an unrestricted right for the capital provider to reduce the advance rate with 30 days’ notice and a broad MAC definition that includes any “material adverse change in market conditions.”
You have no recourse on provisions you agreed to. In a market downturn, the advance rate drops from 80% to 70% with minimal notice, forcing an immediate equity infusion of $10M to maintain funding levels.
The cost:
- Provisions documented differently from how they were negotiated
- Adverse terms you didn’t know existed that trigger in stress scenarios
- No ability to renegotiate once the documents are signed
- Potential for catastrophic outcomes in market downturns
Warning signs you’re making this mistake:
- You haven’t read any of the transaction documents personally
- You can’t articulate the MAC definition or trigger levels from memory
- Your “deal summary” was prepared by someone else
- You’ve never attended a document negotiation session
How to fix it:
Read the key sections of every agreement yourself, in addition to having counsel review:
- The definitions section (especially MAC and Event of Default)
- The advance rate mechanics and adjustment provisions
- The waterfall priority
- The trigger definitions and their consequences
- All originator covenants
- Amendment consent requirements
Maintain a deal summary sheet: a plain-English 2-3 page summary of your facility’s key terms. Update it at every amendment.
Attend (or read notes from) every significant document negotiation session.
status: draft
9. Failing to build relationships before needing capital
The mistake: Beginning capital market outreach only when you need a facility.
What it looks like in practice:
At $30M in annual originations you decide to seek a warehouse. You begin cold outreach. Eight weeks into diligence, you discover that the capital providers you’ve approached have minimums of $50M facility size. The ones willing to do smaller facilities have 12-week diligence processes. You need capital in 6 weeks.
Time pressure destroys negotiating leverage. An originator who says “I need to close in 6 weeks” is signaling distress, and capital providers will price accordingly.
The cost:
- Forced closings cost 50-100 bps in additional spread
- Often result in worse structural terms (tighter covenants, more triggers)
- You may have to accept the only offer available rather than the best offer
- The relationship starts from a position of weakness
Warning signs you’re making this mistake:
- You don’t know 3+ capital providers by name who know your business
- You’ve never shared performance data with a capital provider on an informal basis
- You’re starting outreach within 90 days of needing to close
- Your target list was assembled this week
How to fix it:
Begin capital market relationship-building 12-18 months before you need a facility. Attend SFIG, SFA, and CREFC conferences. Get introductions through your lawyers and advisors.
Host informal briefings with 3-5 prospective capital providers to introduce your platform, share early performance data, and start the education process.
Build a target list of 8-10 capital providers sorted by fit (asset class, deal size, stage appetite).
Aim to have at least two relationships at the “warm” stage (they know you, they’ve reviewed your data) before you go to market.
The relationship you build with your capital provider before you need an amendment or a waiver is the most valuable insurance policy you can buy. It costs nothing to invest in early.
status: draft
10. Not investing in reporting infrastructure
The mistake: Closing the deal without first building and testing your reporting pipeline.
What it looks like in practice:
You close a warehouse in March. By June, you’ve missed two monthly servicer report deadlines, delivered reports in inconsistent formats, and had three sets of numbers that don’t reconcile with the trustee’s calculations. The capital provider puts you on informal watch status, stops approving new asset purchases, and begins exploring their options.
Non-compliance with reporting obligations is a covenant breach that can lead to early amortization. Even before that point, a capital provider who can’t get clean data will stop approving new purchases, effectively freezing the facility.
The cost:
- Facility freeze while reporting issues are remediated
- Potential covenant breach triggering early amortization
- For an originator dependent on the warehouse for operating capital, this is existential
- Even after cure, permanent reputational damage with the capital provider
Warning signs you’re making this mistake:
- You haven’t produced a sample monthly report before closing
- You don’t know where every required data point comes from
- Nobody owns reporting as their primary responsibility
- You’ve never tested reconciliation between your systems and the trustee’s
How to fix it:
Before closing, build and test your reporting pipeline end-to-end. Produce three months of “practice” reports using deal documents as the template.
Identify your data sources for every required field: loan-level data, payment processing data, reserve account balances, calculation inputs. Map the data flow.
Budget $15K-$50K for reporting infrastructure (technology setup, template development) before going to market for capital.
Assign a dedicated reporting owner internally. Don’t rely on the CFO to manage this alongside everything else.
status: draft
Related topics
- Preparing your data room covers Mistakes 1 and 2 in detail with templates
- The economics of ABF for originators expands on Mistake 4 with full worked examples
- Covenants provides context for Mistakes 5 and 6
- Finding your capital partner addresses Mistake 9 with relationship-building strategies