The leak has a number.
You do not know what it is.
Your borrower acquisition system leaks every year. Most regional banks and credit unions are leaking six to seven figures a year to outdated technology. You can feel it in the abandoned applications. You cannot put a dollar figure on it, so it never becomes a board decision. This report puts the figure on it, built from your own numbers, for $1,500.
Buy, fill out a short online intake form, and the report is delivered digital, formatted to print if you want it on the table in front of your board.
Want the gaps named first, before you price them? Start with the BFI Signal Report, $149.
You cannot take a feeling to your board.
You already know borrowers are quitting your application. You have watched the pipeline. You have heard it from your loan officers. What you do not have is the one thing that moves a board: a number.
So the conversation stalls in the same place every time. You say the digital experience is costing us. Someone asks how much. You do not have an answer that survives the follow-up question, and the budget goes somewhere that does.
That is not a persuasion problem. It is a measurement problem. Abandoned applications do not show up on a P&L. They are revenue that never arrived, so nothing flags them, and a loss nobody counts is a loss nobody funds a fix for.
The industry numbers tell you the leak is real and large. They do not tell you what yours is.
Two more lines from people who work inside these systems, because the second one is the reason the first one stays invisible:
“Most loan origination systems have a significant abandon rate.” Laura Turianski, Director of Accounts, Geear
“Many credit unions simply have no mechanism to capture the people who leave before hitting submit. The leads are invisible.” Geear
Invisible leads are still lost revenue. This report makes them visible, in dollars, on your institution's own figures.
Your numbers. A deterministic engine. Every assumption labeled.
There is a version of this offer that would be instant. I could scrape your public pages, apply an industry average, and email you a big scary figure inside an hour. It would also be worthless the moment your CFO asked where the number came from.
I do not produce a gap estimate without named data to support it. So the flow works like this.
You buy
Pay securely via Stripe. No call to schedule, no proposal to route through procurement.
You fill out a short online intake form
Which lending products to size, your application starts, your completion rate, your pull-through, your average revenue per funded loan. Whatever you track. Leave blank anything you do not.
Your inputs drive the model
The engine is deterministic. Same inputs, same outputs, every time. Nothing in the figure is a matter of my opinion, and any figure in the report can be traced back to the input that produced it.
Every gap becomes a labeled assumption
Where you left a field blank, the model uses a planning assumption and says so, on the page, next to the number it drives. You always know which figures are yours and which are assumed.
You receive the report
Delivered digital once your intake is in, and formatted to print if you want it on the table in front of your board.
This is why it is not instant, and why it survives a board meeting.
The intake step is the product, not a delay. A number built from your named inputs can be defended line by line in front of people whose job is to question it. A number built from public data alone cannot, and everyone in that room will know it inside two questions. Replacing an assumed input with a real figure sharpens the model, and every label tells you exactly which figure is worth going to get.
A figure, a map, and a price on every drop-off point.
The annual dollar figure
What your current borrower acquisition system leaks in a year, on your inputs. One number, stated plainly, with the arithmetic shown.
Where the leak happens
The drop-off points across your online application, mapped in order, so the figure has an address instead of floating free.
What each point is worth
Each drop-off point priced on its own, so you can see which one to fix first and what fixing it is worth.
Delivered digital once your intake is in, and formatted to print if you want it on the table in front of your board.
Observation. Cost. Cause. In that order, every time.
Every finding in the report follows the same three steps. The order matters. It keeps the report from turning into opinion, and it keeps me honest.
Observation before cost means no number appears without something real behind it. Cost before cause means nobody argues about the fix before agreeing on the size of the problem. That is the sequence that gets a room to a decision.
What this report is not.
I would rather lose the sale here than have you open the report expecting something it does not do.
Not a guarantee of revenue
This report does not promise you will recover a dollar of it. Evidence is defensible. Guarantees are not. Anyone who promises you a specific revenue outcome from a diagnostic cannot support it, and you should treat that as the tell it is.
Not a promise of an outcome
It tells you what your current system costs on the inputs you supplied. What you do about it, and what that returns, depends on decisions this report does not make for you.
Not a number invented from public data
I do not apply an industry average to your logo and call it your figure. Public signals show the gaps. They cannot price them. Only your funnel numbers can, which is why the intake form exists.
What it is: a planning model
A planning estimate tied to your named inputs. Deterministic, reproducible, every assumption labeled. Built to be questioned, and to hold up when it is.
Questions executives ask.
Why is this not instant?
What if we do not track some of those numbers?
Is this a guarantee that we will recover that revenue?
How is the report delivered?
How is this different from the $149 BFI Signal Report?
Can I apply this toward the Borrower Experience Review?
Put a number on it. Then decide what it is worth fixing.
Revenue Leak Report
- The annual dollar figure your current system leaks, on your inputs
- Where the leak happens across your online application
- What each drop-off point is worth on its own
- Every assumption labeled, every figure traceable to its input
- Delivered digital, formatted to print if you want it on the table in front of your board
Buy, then a short online intake form. Your numbers build the report.
One rung of four. Take them in any order.
Each of these is sold on its own. This one prices the problem. The rungs below and above it name the problem, show it to you on screen, and build the fix.
Want all four in one engagement? The Borrower Experience Review, $7,000, bundles the BFI Signal Report, this report, the Borrower Walkthrough Audit, and the Prototype + Presentation.
About Shanelle Roberts
Shanelle Roberts is a customer acquisition researcher and systems designer based in Waco, Texas. She has spent 20 years in product and systems design across T-Mobile, Wilmington Trust, M&T Bank, Microsoft, Expedia, and the UN World Food Programme, including 2.5 years inside a regional bank where she led the design team that built the first secure digital payment experience for an institution where fraud had cost mid eight figures across three prior years.
She holds a U.S. Utility Patent from T-Mobile and designed the iOS version of Scam Shield, which stopped over two billion robocalls in its first 18 months.
Every report is built personally by Shanelle. There is no account team and no outsourced analysis. You work directly with the person who builds the model.
Smart Chic Systems, Inc. is based in Waco, Texas. All client engagements are delivered by US-based practitioners.
The leak is already costing you. The only question is whether you can name the figure.
Buy the report, fill out the intake form, and get an annual dollar figure built from your own numbers, with every assumption labeled.