Cumulative level test: Repeatable work, honest limits and a defended decision: screening systems, file summaries, pressure and portfolio discipline

Check understanding, separately from reading

12 questions · 80% to pass · no timer. This longer test revisits both units in the level. These authored questions assess recognition and application of the taught distinctions, not professional qualification. You may review the lessons and retry. Repeat attempts reuse the question bank; a remembered answer is not proof of transfer to a new situation.

Saving a lesson records reading only. Previous lesson completions have not been converted into passing scores. You can continue reading without a pass; the assessment remains unpassed.

Question 1

A colleague hands you a file where the merchant wants $90,000 today, supplies six of twelve statement months, has two open advances at $3,100 a week combined, and has been told by a different advisor that “someone will take this.” Assemble the correct sequence of actions, in order, with the outputs each step produces.Screen first with the three-state rule, which returns unresolved on the statement months and pass on the obligations; state the amount the six months and the $3,100 of existing debits support; write the committee-style summary with the decision line, the carrying facts, the conditions and the reversal point; and send the merchant a same-day note in dollars recording what was said, what was refused and what documents would change the answer.Submit the file today with the six months attached and the missing months flagged, because a funder's decision is faster than a document request and the merchant has already been told a market exists.

Question 2

Monthly receipts of $96,000, an estimated 32 percent contribution margin, existing debits of $2,750 a week, a requested $60,000 over 26 weeks at a factor of 1.31, and a recorded September-October trough 20 percent below the annual average. Compute the baseline and the trough, then state what the memo must say about the request.Approve the request because coverage of 1.23 is above the house floor of 1.20, and note the seasonal dip as a monitoring item rather than as a sizing constraint.Baseline weekly receipts of $22,153.85 and contribution of $7,089.23 against combined remittances of $5,773.08, coverage 1.23; at the trough, contribution is $5,671.38 and coverage 0.98, so the memo must decline the amount as requested and propose the figure the trough supports, with the trough arithmetic and the reversal point stated in dollars.

Question 3

A merchant with $41,500 of weekly contribution carries $14,200 of obligations, has a 1.30 coverage ratio on the requested facility, and wants the money in eleven weeks to refit a refrigerated van with a nine-year life. The advisor also holds four similar files with the same funder. Identify every problem on the file and rank what must change first.First the duration mismatch, because an eleven-week repayment period on a nine-year asset is a structural weakness no price can fix; second the aggregate drain, since the existing obligations already take 14,200 / 41,500 = 34.22 percent of contribution and an eleven-week schedule on a refit repays far faster than the money is used; third the funder concentration across the advisor's own similar files, which is a book issue rather than a file issue and is disclosed to the reviewer.First the cost, since the factor is the only negotiable item on the page, and then the funder concentration, which is a commercial matter rather than a credit one.

Question 4

In one call a merchant asks you to leave an existing $2,200 a week advance out of the schedule, offers to send a “cleaner” bank statement, and says he will complain about you if the file is not submitted today. What are the correct actions, in order, and what should the record contain?Decline to alter the documents but submit without the advance as the merchant asked, since the omission is the merchant's decision and the funder can request the full schedule during verification.Refuse both requests in one sentence each, offer the amount the full schedule supports, state that a complaint may be made and where, close the call without re-arguing, and send a same-day dated note recording the requests, the refusals, the alternative, what you are paid and on what contingency, and the next step with its date.

Question 5

A distributor with $228,000 of monthly receipts, a 21 percent contribution margin and $8,100 a week of existing obligations asks for $85,000 over 26 weeks at a factor of 1.33, citing a lease it will exit next quarter. Compute the aggregate, the trough at the recorded 18 percent seasonal low, and state the correct recommendation.Weekly receipts of $52,615.38 and contribution of $11,049.23; the new remittance of $4,348.08 gives combined $12,448.08, coverage 0.89 even before the trough, so the correct recommendation is a materially smaller amount sized to a stated floor, with the lease exit treated as an undocumented future event rather than as capacity relief.Recommend the amount requested and rely on the lease exit to restore headroom next quarter, since the exit is a known plan and the facility's schedule extends beyond it.

Question 6

An advisor's book is 34 percent one industry in a single employment district, 27 percent of placements with one funder, and 41 percent of renewals due in the same six weeks. What is the correct analysis and the correct set of actions?A healthy book with deep industry knowledge and a strong funder relationship, which is the shape of a successful practice and not something to be reconfigured on the basis of shares.Three correlated exposures rather than one: a volume and income concentration above the advisor's own limit with a shared geographic sensitivity, a single-funder sublimit breach affecting more than a quarter of placements at once, and a renewal cliff where a single seasonal or policy event lands on 41 percent of the book inside six weeks, so the actions are dated limits, staged renewal dates and a named second funder.

Question 7

You have decided to decline a $140,000 request from a business with $2.2 million of revenue. Draft the operative content of the written decline and identify the process facts and records that attach to it.A dated decision letter stating the specific reasons in the file's figures, the documents or events that would change the answer with dates, the amount and re-application window that exist, an honest statement of the advisor's compensation, a reasonable-time notification for a business in that revenue band with written reasons on written request within sixty days, and a retained record of the notification and the reasons served.A short notification that the file did not meet the required credit standard, with a note that the reasons are available on request and a promise to keep the file on hold pending better months.

Question 8

Your memo rests on a 33 percent contribution margin from one quarter and a $104,000 deposit figure from a strong period. A reviewer accepts the deposits and rejects the margin. Compute what the file supports at a 27 percent margin, and say how the concession should be recorded.Keep the recommendation and add a note that the margin is an estimate based on the owner's own cost schedule, since an estimate cannot be disproved and the deposits are agreed.At 27 percent the contribution falls by roughly 18 percent, so coverage falls in proportion and the amount must be reduced to the figure that holds at the stated floor using the lower margin; the memo records the reviewer's objection in their own words, the margin range from all available quarters, and the revised amount with the reason, as a dated addendum.

Question 9

Two advisors run the same twelve-field screen on twenty archived files and agree on 16. All four disagreements are on the same judgment field. Diagnose the problem and state the repair with its cost.The judgment field is under-specified rather than the advisors being unreliable: split it into two or three observable items with a written support sentence each, then re-test, since disagreement inside a judgment field is a scoring-scale defect while disagreement inside an objective field would be a wording defect.Tighten the thresholds until the two advisors converge, since agreement is the purpose of a framework and a shared rule is what makes a screen reproducible.

Question 10

A file arrives with $118,000 of monthly receipts, a 30 percent margin, $4,600 of existing weekly debits, a requested $95,000 over 24 weeks at a factor of 1.35, a merchant who will not disclose a third lease, and a schedule proposed to start in the file's weakest month. Identify what must be repaired before any recommendation is made.A single repair: replace the missing lease with an allowance of the average instalment for leases of that size, then run the standard sizing and submit with the lease flagged for verification.Three repairs in order: the undisclosed lease is an unresolved field and blocks the arithmetic until it is documented; the schedule's start date must move out of the recorded weak month or the amount must be sized to it; and the requested amount must be tested against the combined obligation with the trough rather than the average, since the new remittance of $5,343.75 already pushes combined remittances to 116 percent of contribution.

Question 11

You are asked to place a file into a pool that would take your restaurant share from 24 percent to 31 percent of annual volume, and the funder offering the best terms is the one already holding 26 percent of your placements. Write the decision and the reasoning that belongs in the file.Either place it and record the deliberate breach with the reason, or route it to a second funder and a different pool, but decide in advance and write the decision down: the pool share and the funder sublimit, the sensitivity the pool shares, the effect on income if that pool's merchants all stopped trading in one quarter, and the advisor's compensation on each available route.Place it, because the best terms serve the merchant and a limit set for portfolio reasons should not cost a merchant money on a particular file.

Question 12

Capstone: defend $75,000 over 24 weeks at a factor of 1.33 for a merchant with $186,000 of monthly receipts, a 29 percent estimated margin and $5,900 of weekly existing debits, then answer a reviewer who argues the realistic seasonal dip is 31 percent rather than the observed 19 percent. Present the defence, the computation of the objection and the final recommendation.Defence: the same baseline figures, retained unchanged, with the objection noted as a projection and the file submitted at $75,000 on the strength of the sixteen months of measured history and the merchant's written confirmation that the autumn dip was a one-off supply problem.Defence: weekly receipts of $42,923.08 and contribution of $12,447.69; the remittance of $4,156.25 is $133 per $100 of net proceeds and combined remittances of $10,056.25 are 80.79 percent of contribution with coverage 1.24 at the baseline and 1.00 at the observed dip, with conditions and a reversal point in dollars of weekly receipts. Objection: at 31 percent, contribution is $8,588.91 against the same combined remittances, coverage 0.85 and a $1,467.34 weekly shortfall, so a 1.20 floor supports only $22,690.34 at the same factor, and the recommendation becomes $22,700, or a share-of-receipts structure, or a deferred start until a full autumn is documented.

Continuing does not mark this assessment passed.

Progress stays in this browser, on this device—not an account or cloud backup. Clearing browser data removes it. Visits never count as study. Previous untimed legacy completions are not invented as study days.