1.1
Cancellations before MID — approximate breakdown (mature cases only)
Every distinct failed merchant, matched across the four source tabs and assigned to exactly one owning source (precedence: Sendback > Bank Feedback > Failed Apps > PBI) and one MECE category. Three live exclusions are then applied, but only to the "Not onboarded" column — "Cancelled by the onboarder" and "Failed Apps" are unfiltered and match the all-time table exactly.
263
Total distinct failed merchants (mature)
37.6%
Not onboarded (99)
41.8%
Cancelled by onboarder (110)
20.5%
Failed apps (54)
What's excluded, in short
- Sendback merchants whose latest status is less than 5 days old
- Bank feedback merchants assigned on or after the sendback-analysis cutoff date
- PBI attempts where every attempt's last status is less than 5 days old
In short: this strips out merchants who simply haven't had time to resolve yet, so what's left in "Not onboarded" is a more mature, more reliable read.
All time
| Owning source | Not onboarded | Cancelled by the onboarder | Failed apps | Total | % of failures |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Senback chase merged | 102 | 17 | 0 | 119 | 25.5% |
| Bank Feedback Chase | 71 | 0 | 0 | 71 | 15.2% |
| Failed App Comms | 0 | 0 | 54 | 54 | 11.6% |
| PBI Onboarding attempts unique | 130 | 93 | 0 | 223 | 47.8% |
| Total distinct failed merchants | 303 | 110 | 54 | 467 | 100.0% |
*"Not onboarded" doesn't mean 100% cancelled — it means the merchant hasn't onboarded yet and could still end up cancelled, or could still go on to onboard. It's a status, not a final outcome.
Mature cases only (excl. immature/recent for "Not onboarded")
| Owning source | Not onboarded | Cancelled by the onboarder | Failed apps | Total | % of failures |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Senback chase merged | 47 | 17 | – | 64 | 24.3% |
| Bank Feedback Chase | 31 | – | – | 31 | 11.8% |
| Failed App Comms | – | – | 54 | 54 | 20.5% |
| PBI Onboarding attempts unique | 21 | 93 | – | 114 | 43.3% |
| Total distinct failed merchants | 99 | 110 | 54 | 263 | 100.0% |
Effect, summarised
- Not onboarded drops from 303 to 99 merchants once immature/recent cases are excluded — Cancelled (110) and Failed Apps (54) don't move, so the grand total falls from 467 to 263.
- Because only one column is filtered, the mix flips: Cancelled rises from 23.6% to 41.8% of all failures and becomes the single largest category, while Not onboarded falls from 64.9% to 37.6%.
- In short: a lot of the raw "Not onboarded" number is cases that just haven't resolved yet — once you strip those out, cancellation is the dominant real outcome.
1.2
Why merchants fail, by owning source (mature cases)
Full reason/status breakdown for the merchants counted in each source row above. Merchants can carry several reasons on the sendback and bank-feedback trackers, so those two tables sum to slightly above 100% of merchants.
3a. Sendback reasons — merchants owned by 'Senback chase merged' (64 merchants) ▾
| Sendback reason | Merchants | % of 64 |
|---|---|---|
| Contract - Other | 12 | 18.5% |
| Proof of Address - Missing | 9 | 13.8% |
| Bank Statement - Other | 9 | 13.8% |
| ID - Missing | 8 | 12.3% |
| Contract - Missing Signature | 7 | 10.8% |
| Sole Trader - LTD Co Exists | 6 | 9.2% |
| Info Request - Proof of Existence | 5 | 7.7% |
| ID - Missing from 2nd Owner | 4 | 6.2% |
| Rule - TPV Statement Missing | 4 | 6.2% |
| Contract - Missing | 4 | 6.2% |
| Rule - Pricing Link Missing (Field Sales) | 3 | 4.6% |
| Process - TPV Statement Missing | 3 | 4.6% |
| ID - Expired | 3 | 4.6% |
| ID - Other | 2 | 3.1% |
| Bank Statement - Too Old | 2 | 3.1% |
| Bank Statement - Missing IBAN | 2 | 3.1% |
| Info Request - Business Type | 2 | 3.1% |
| Bank Statement - Missing | 2 | 3.1% |
| Rule - Prohibited Merchant Type | 1 | 1.5% |
| Company Number - Incorrect | 1 | 1.5% |
| Bank Statement - Too Blurry | 1 | 1.5% |
| Proof of Address - Other | 1 | 1.5% |
| Merchants with 1+ reason | 65 | 100.0% |
3b. Bank feedback reasons — merchants owned by 'Bank Feedback Chase' (31 merchants) ▾
| Feedback reason (Bank) | Merchants | % of 31 |
|---|---|---|
| Info Request - Prepayments / Deposits | 9 | 28.1% |
| Info Request - Business Model Query | 7 | 21.9% |
| Info Request - Business Type | 5 | 15.6% |
| Info Request - Proof of Existence | 5 | 15.6% |
| Info Request - Ownership Values | 3 | 9.4% |
| Bank Statement - Other | 3 | 9.4% |
| ID - Missing from 2nd Owner | 2 | 6.3% |
| ID - Missing | 1 | 3.1% |
| Info Request - Processing History | 1 | 3.1% |
| Bank - Source of Funds / Wealth Check | 1 | 3.1% |
| Merchants in scope | 32 | 100.0% |
3c. Rejection reasons — merchants owned by 'Failed App Comms' (54 merchants) ▾
| Rejection reason | Merchants | % of 54 |
|---|---|---|
| Outside of risk appetite - Cannot be onboarded with other acquirer | 19 | 34.5% |
| Blocked - Inside Sales Fraud List | 15 | 27.3% |
| Failed KYC checks (no further information to be given) | 8 | 14.5% |
| Rule - Prohibited Merchant Type | 6 | 10.9% |
| Outside of risk appetite - Can be onboarded with other acquirer | 4 | 7.3% |
| Sole Trader - LTD Co Exists | 1 | 1.8% |
| Contract - Other | 1 | 1.8% |
| (blank) | 1 | 1.8% |
| Merchants in scope | 55 | 100.0% |
3d. Current status — merchants owned by 'PBI Onboarding attempts unique' (114 merchants) ▾
| Status (col H) | Attempts | % of attempts |
|---|---|---|
| Cancelled by onboarder | 92 | 75.4% |
| Sending images to Finaro | 5 | 4.1% |
| Ready for confirmation | 5 | 4.1% |
| Telesale - Missing or bad information | 3 | 2.5% |
| Transferred to Teleclose | 3 | 2.5% |
| Said no | 3 | 2.5% |
| Delivered | 2 | 1.6% |
| Active | 2 | 1.6% |
| Apps have been installed | 1 | 0.8% |
| Missing meeting | 1 | 0.8% |
| Sending to create request to Finaro | 1 | 0.8% |
| Awaiting documents | 1 | 0.8% |
| Error, set to bank error | 1 | 0.8% |
| Churned | 1 | 0.8% |
| Ready for installation | 1 | 0.8% |
| Total attempts in scope | 122 | 100.0% |
Base counts differ slightly from the merchant counts above because a few merchants have more than one row on their source tab: Sendback 65 rows / 64 merchants, Bank Feedback 32 rows / 31 merchants, Failed Apps 55 rows / 54 merchants, PBI 123 attempts / 114 merchants.
Key findings
- The 114 "PBI-owned" merchants have no matching row on any KYC tracker, yet three-quarters of them (75.4%) are sitting at "Cancelled by onboarder" — they'd be more accurately counted as cancellations than as untracked "not onboarded" cases, pointing to a logging gap rather than a distinct failure mode.
- Documentation issues (contract, ID, proof of address, bank statement) dominate sendback-driven failures, while bank-side failures are almost entirely information requests (prepayments, business model, ownership) rather than missing paperwork.
- On the failed-app side, risk-appetite calls and fraud-list blocks together explain ~62% of outright rejections — largely policy-driven decisions rather than documentation gaps.
1.1
The onboarding funnel
All 1,998 unique onboarding attempts, by the stage each one reached.
1,998
Total attempts
81.8%
Ultimately onboarded
32.3%
Had 1+ sendback
7.1%
Cancelled by onboarder
Share of all 1,998 attempts
Rows are separate cuts of the same 1,998 attempts and don't sum to 100%. "With 1+ sendback" reflects a live Sendback flag (498), not the previously hardcoded figure of 654.
Key findings
- 92% of attempts reach the bank, but only 82% onboard — the gap, plus the 7.1% formally cancelled, accounts for the shortfall between submission and completion.
- Sendbacks are the single biggest friction point: nearly a third of all attempts (32.3%) pick up at least one, far more than bank feedback (7.5%) or failed app comms (2.4%).
- Even though sendbacks touch the most attempts, later tabs show bank feedback and failed-app paths convert to onboarding far less reliably per case that enters them.
1.2
Top 5 current statuses — all onboarding attempts
All-time vs. excluding attempts opened from 17 August 2026 onwards (i.e. stripping out the least mature, most recent cohort).
All time
Excluding attempts from 17/08 onwards
| Status | n (all time) | % (all time) | n (excl. 17/08+) | % (excl. 17/08+) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active | 853 | 42.7% | 791 | 50.7% |
| Delivered | 433 | 21.7% | 371 | 23.8% |
| Cancelled by onboarder | 142 | 7.1% | 112 | 7.2% |
| Sending images to Finaro | 135 | 6.8% | 20 | 1.3% |
| Missing meeting | 112 | 5.6% | 37 | 2.4% |
| Apps have been installed | 57 | 2.9% | 23 | 1.5% |
| Ready for installation | 49 | 2.5% | 28 | 1.8% |
| Telesale - Missing or bad information | 39 | 2.0% | 36 | 2.3% |
| Cancelled | 37 | 1.9% | 36 | 2.3% |
| Churned | 31 | 1.6% | 31 | 2.0% |
| Delivery Sent | 21 | 1.1% | 8 | 0.5% |
| Missing or bad information | 12 | 0.6% | 6 | 0.4% |
| Installation sent to retention | 11 | 0.6% | 11 | 0.7% |
| Installation contact attempted | 8 | 0.4% | 7 | 0.4% |
| Ready for confirmation | 8 | 0.4% | 8 | 0.5% |
| Transferred to Teleclose | 6 | 0.3% | 5 | 0.3% |
| Installation awaiting customer | 6 | 0.3% | 3 | 0.2% |
| Said no | 6 | 0.3% | 6 | 0.4% |
| Installing apps | 5 | 0.3% | 2 | 0.1% |
| Installation paused | 4 | 0.2% | 2 | 0.1% |
| Installation sent back to seller | 4 | 0.2% | 3 | 0.2% |
| Awaiting documents | 3 | 0.2% | 1 | 0.1% |
| Wants Card we dont offer | 2 | 0.1% | 1 | 0.1% |
| AI validation failed | 2 | 0.1% | 2 | 0.1% |
| Rescheduled | 2 | 0.1% | 2 | 0.1% |
| Missing Features | 2 | 0.1% | 2 | 0.1% |
| Error, set to bank error | 2 | 0.1% | 2 | 0.1% |
| Stalled while installing Normal apps | 1 | 0.1% | – | 0.0% |
| Sent to Camunda | 1 | 0.1% | – | 0.0% |
| Sending to create request to Finaro | 1 | 0.1% | 1 | 0.1% |
| Merchant not connected to terminal | 1 | 0.1% | 1 | 0.1% |
| Too Expensive | 1 | 0.1% | 1 | 0.1% |
| Lack of trust | 1 | 0.1% | 1 | 0.1% |
| Total | 1,998 | 100.0% | 1,560 | 100.0% |
Key findings
- Excluding recent attempts pushes Active up (42.7% → 50.7%) and Delivered up (21.7% → 23.8%) — expected, since these are later-stage, more "settled" statuses.
- Sending images to Finaro drops sharply (6.8% → 1.3%) and Missing meeting drops (5.6% → 2.4%) — both are early, transient queue statuses that clear quickly, so they're over-represented in the raw all-time count simply because recent attempts haven't had time to move past them.
- Cancelled by onboarder stays essentially flat (7.1% → 7.2%), suggesting cancellation is a durable, time-independent outcome rather than a maturity artefact.
1.3
Top 5 statuses — Not onboarded attempts only
364 attempts (18.2% of all 1,998) currently sit in a "Not onboarded" status bucket; 205 remain once the most recent cohort is excluded.
All time (n=364)
Excluding attempts from 17/08 (n=205)
| Status | n (all time) | % (all time) | n (excl. 17/08+) | % (excl. 17/08+) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cancelled by onboarder | 142 | 39.0% | 112 | 54.6% |
| Sending images to Finaro | 135 | 37.1% | 20 | 9.8% |
| Telesale - Missing or bad information | 39 | 10.7% | 36 | 17.6% |
| Missing or bad information | 12 | 3.3% | 6 | 2.9% |
| Ready for confirmation | 8 | 2.2% | 8 | 3.9% |
| Transferred to Teleclose | 6 | 1.6% | 5 | 2.4% |
| Said no | 6 | 1.6% | 6 | 2.9% |
| Installation sent back to seller | 4 | 1.1% | 3 | 1.5% |
| Awaiting documents | 3 | 0.8% | 1 | 0.5% |
| Wants Card we dont offer | 2 | 0.5% | 1 | 0.5% |
| AI validation failed | 2 | 0.5% | 2 | 1.0% |
| Error, set to bank error | 2 | 0.5% | 2 | 1.0% |
| Sending to create request to Finaro | 1 | 0.3% | 1 | 0.5% |
| Merchant not connected to terminal | 1 | 0.3% | 1 | 0.5% |
| Too Expensive | 1 | 0.3% | 1 | 0.5% |
| Total | 364 | 100.0% | 205 | 100.0% |
Key findings
- Excluding the most recent (least mature) attempts, "Sending images to Finaro" becomes far less significant (37.1% → 9.8%) — it's a queue status that clears with time.
- In the same comparison, Cancelled by onboarder (39.0% → 54.6%) and Telesale - missing or bad information (10.7% → 17.6%) both increase in significance — these look like the more durable, "final" failure statuses rather than transient ones.
- Read together with the mature-cases figures in the next tab: once you strip out cases that just haven't had time to progress, cancellation is consistently the largest single driver of non-onboarding.
3.1
Case volume and outcomes
498 sendback records, all-time; 393 once the most recent week is excluded.
498
Total sendback cases
86.3%
Sent to the bank
76.5%
Onboarded
20.1%
Not onboarded
3.4%
Cancelled by onboarder
Rows are separate pipeline stages over the same 498 cases — they overlap, not sum. Excluding the most recent sendbacks, onboarding rate rises to 80.2% (not onboarded 15.5%, cancelled 4.3%) as more cases have had time to resolve.
3.2
Not-onboarded CRM status mix (n=100)
Key findings
- 28% of not-onboarded sendbacks have no CRM status logged at all — a data-quality gap worth closing before drawing firm conclusions from this table.
- Excluding recent cases, "Sending images to Finaro" collapses to 8.2% while "Telesale - missing/bad info" rises to 32.8%, the same maturity pattern seen in the Onboarding tab.
3.3
Why sendbacks don't onboard — reason mix
Not onboarded (143 reason mentions, 100 cases)
Cancelled by onboarder (25 reason mentions, 17 cases)
Key findings
- Contract issues dominate both failure paths — Contract - Other tops the "not onboarded" list, and a missing signature alone accounts for nearly a quarter of "cancelled by onboarder" reasons.
3.4
Sendback reason ranking — volume, speed & not-reached-bank rate
Same ranking as before, but flipped to show "not reached bank" — the share of sendbacks that never made it to the bank at all — since that's the more direct read on how "dangerous" a reason is. Higher is worse.
Low risk (<10%)
Moderate (10–19.9%)
High risk (20%+)
| Reason | n | Avg days to bank | Not reached bank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contract - Other | 114 | 1.5 | 13.2% |
| Rule - Pricing Link Missing (Field Sales) | 56 | 1.3 | 3.6% |
| Bank Statement - Other | 41 | 3.3 | 24.4% |
| Contract - Missing Signature | 39 | 4.5 | 10.3% |
| Proof of Address - Missing | 38 | 5.5 | 10.5% |
| ID - Missing from 2nd Owner | 36 | 4.1 | 11.1% |
| Rule - TPV Statement Missing | 33 | 2.0 | 15.2% |
| ID - Missing | 32 | 4.4 | 15.6% |
| Contract - Missing | 30 | 1.4 | 20.0% |
| Bank Statement - Missing | 27 | 3.8 | 11.1% |
| Info Request - Proof of Existence | 26 | 4.1 | 30.8% |
| Bank Statement - Missing IBAN | 24 | 4.8 | 12.5% |
| ID - Expired | 23 | 3.5 | 17.4% |
| Sole Trader - LTD Co Exists | 22 | 1.9 | 36.4% |
| Contract - BACS Incorrect | 22 | 2.5 | 4.5% |
| Process - TPV Statement Missing | 20 | 2.6 | 5.0% |
| Proof of Address - Too Old | 11 | 3.4 | 0.0% |
| Contract - Rate Error | 9 | 3.9 | 0.0% |
| Proof of Address - Other | 8 | 0.5 | 12.5% |
| Bank Statement - Too Blurry | 8 | 10.0 | 0.0% |
| Info Request - Business Type | 7 | 4.0 | 14.3% |
| Company Number - Missing | 6 | 0.3 | 16.7% |
| Company Number - Incorrect | 6 | 1.6 | 16.7% |
| Total / weighted avg | 638 | 3.0 | 13.6% |
Verifying the highest-risk reasons against a more mature sample
The four reasons with the highest "not reached bank" rates, re-checked by excluding sendbacks from 17/08/2026 onwards (a more mature, less recency-biased cut).
| Reason | n (all time) | Not reached bank (all time) | n (excl. 17/08+) | Not reached bank (excl. 17/08+) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sole Trader - LTD Co Exists | 22 | 36.4% | 15 | 33.3% |
| Info Request - Proof of Existence | 26 | 30.8% | 14 | 28.6% |
| Bank Statement - Other | 41 | 24.4% | 34 | 26.5% |
| Contract - Missing | 30 | 20.0% | 27 | 22.2% |
Key findings
- Sole Trader - LTD Co Exists (36.4%), Info Request - Proof of Existence (30.8%), Bank Statement - Other (24.4%) and Contract - Missing (20.0%) have the highest not-reached-bank rates — well above the 13.6% overall average. These look like harder structural blockers (entity mismatches, unclear business existence) rather than simple paperwork fixes.
- Checked against a more mature sample (excluding sendbacks from 17/08 onwards), all four stay elevated — Sole Trader - LTD Co Exists actually barely moves (36.4% → 33.3%), and Bank Statement - Other and Contract - Missing tick up slightly (24.4% → 26.5% and 20.0% → 22.2%). This isn't a maturity artefact; these reasons are genuinely harder to resolve.
- Rule-based sendbacks are the safest — Pricing Link Missing (3.6%) and Contract - BACS Incorrect (4.5%) rarely fail to reach the bank at all.
3.5
Reason pairings — most common co-occurring reasons
| Reason A | Reason B | Merchants with both |
|---|---|---|
| ID - Missing | Proof of Address - Missing | 15 |
| Bank Statement - Other | Contract - Other | 9 |
| Contract - Missing Signature | ID - Missing from 2nd Owner | 8 |
| Bank Statement - Missing | ID - Missing | 8 |
| Info Request - Proof of Existence | Rule - TPV Statement Missing | 7 |
Key findings
- ID - Missing and Proof of Address - Missing are the most common pair, appearing together on 15 merchants — identity and address documentation issues tend to travel together.
3.6
Time to resolution
| Onboarded | Not onboarded | |
|---|---|---|
| To bank submission — median | 0 days | 1 day |
| To bank submission — average | 2.0 days | 2.6 days |
| To final outcome — median | 14 days | 1 day |
| To final outcome — average | 15.8 days | 6.0 days |
Caveat: "Time to final outcome" is measured against each merchant's current status as of the data pull, which is subject to change. Onboarded merchants have, by definition, been revisited and updated more times than merchants still sitting in an unresolved status — so onboarded cases will naturally show longer "time to final outcome" simply because their status has had more chances to move. This isn't necessarily a sign that onboarding itself takes longer to decide.
Key findings
- Cases that don't onboard resolve much faster (median 1 day to final outcome) than ones that do (median 14 days) — rejections and cancellations tend to be quick decisions, while successful resubmissions take real, sustained follow-up.
- This means "not onboarded" isn't the same as "stuck" — many of these cases are decisively closed early rather than lingering.
3.7
Repeat sendbacks & KYC agent performance
474 unique merchants sit behind the 498 sendback rows; 450 (94.9%) had exactly one sendback and 24 (5.1%) had two.
| Sendback rows | Merchants | % of merchants | Onboarding rate | Avg days to onboard |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 450 | 94.9% | 76.2% | 15.5 |
| 2 | 24 | 5.1% | 79.2% | 19.1 |
| Total | 474 | 100% | 76.4% | 15.7 |
By KYC agent — August only (268 sendback rows)
Restricted to August to make the agent comparison fair — all-time volumes mix agents with very different tenure and assignment windows.
| KYC agent | Sendback rows | Merchants | Onboarded (n) | Onboarding rate | Avg resolution days | Reason lines | Avg days to bank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aphinya Sahawat | 1 | 1 | 1 | 100.0% | – | 1 | – |
| Aphinya_Sahawat | 94 | 91 | 66 | 70.2% | 8.4 | 94 | 1.6 |
| Charli Oppong | 12 | 12 | 10 | 83.3% | 10.3 | 12 | 1.1 |
| Chin_Foong | 44 | 42 | 32 | 72.7% | 10.0 | 44 | 1.9 |
| Klodian Visha | 66 | 64 | 54 | 81.8% | 10.2 | 66 | 1.2 |
| Nicholas Michael1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0.0% | 1.0 | 2 | – |
| Rash Rahman | 49 | 48 | 31 | 63.3% | 9.9 | 49 | 1.7 |
| Total | 268 | 260 | 194 | 72.4% | 9.4 | 268 | 1.5 |
"Aphinya Sahawat" (space) and "Aphinya_Sahawat" (underscore) appear as separate agents in the source data and aren't merged here.
Key findings
- A second sendback doesn't hurt outcomes — 2-time merchants onboard at a slightly higher rate (79.2% vs 76.2%), they just take about 3.5 more days on average.
- Rash Rahman stands out with the lowest onboarding rate among agents with meaningful volume — 63.3%, versus 83.3% for Charli Oppong, 81.8% for Klodian Visha, 72.7% for Chin_Foong and 70.2% for Aphinya_Sahawat, on a comparable 49-row sample.
- This isn't explained away by "he just got the worse Sales Managers" — KYC agents are assigned to merchants at random with respect to which SM originated them, so a consistent gap in onboarding rate points to something happening at the KYC handling stage itself, not the merchant mix.
- Nicholas Michael1's 0% is on only 2 cases in August — too small a sample to read into on its own.
4.1
Overall outcomes (197 cases)
197
Total cases
57.4%
Onboarded (113)
41.6%
Not onboarded (82)
Low risk (<20% not onboarded)
Moderate (20–59.9%)
High risk (60%+)
| Overall outcome | Total | % onboarded | % not onboarded |
|---|---|---|---|
| Success - info obtained | 123 | 74.0% | 24.4% |
| Success - no merchant comms needed | 4 | 100% | 0% |
| Handed back to SM | 15 | 13.3% | 86.7% |
| Failure - SM took over | 10 | 30.0% | 70.0% |
| Failure - merchant cancellation | 6 | 0% | 100% |
| Failure - merchant refused | 4 | 0% | 100% |
| Failure - no response | 2 | 0% | 100% |
| (blank) | 33 | 39.4% | 60.6% |
| Total | 197 | 57.4% | 41.6% |
Key findings
- "Success - info obtained" drives most of the volume and most of the wins — 91 of the total 113 onboarded merchants came through this single path.
- "Handed back to SM" converts at only 13.3% — the lowest rate of any named outcome bucket except outright failures — worth checking whether merchants are being lost specifically at that handoff step.
- Excluding cases assigned from 17/08/2026 onwards, "Success - info obtained" holds at a similar ~20.7% not onboarded (vs 24.4% all-time) — the pattern isn't just a recency artefact. The other outcome buckets have too few cases once filtered this way to read into reliably, so they're not broken out separately.
4.2
Bank feedback reasons (not onboarded, n=95)
Key findings
- Bank feedback failures are almost entirely information requests rather than document defects — over 75% of reasons are "Info Request - X" categories (business model, prepayments, ownership, existence). This is a different failure profile from sendbacks, which skew toward paperwork.
4.3
Field Sales vs KYC handling
Share of cases that did NOT onboard, split by which team's row colour the case was flagged with.
Key findings
- Cases handled by Field Sales fail dramatically more often than KYC-handled cases (89.2% vs 28.0%) — a 3x+ gap, and one of the starkest patterns in the whole dataset. This is worth investigating directly with Field Sales.
4.4
By onboarding agent
Onboarded vs not, restricted to cases where the overall outcome was "Success - info obtained" — i.e. the agent got what they needed from the merchant.
| Onboarding agent | Onboarded (Y) | Not onboarded (N) | Total | % onboarded |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rash Rahman | 36 | 6 | 44 | 85.7% |
| Charli Oppong | 24 | 8 | 32 | 75.0% |
| Chin_Foong (Gigi) | 17 | 9 | 26 | 65.4% |
| Nicholas Michael1 | 7 | 2 | 9 | 77.8% |
| Aphinya_Sahawat | 4 | 5 | 9 | 44.4% |
| Total | 91 | 30 | 123 | 75.2% |
Nicholas Michael1 and Aphinya_Sahawat both sit on only 9 cases each — too small a sample to draw conclusions about agent performance from, so they're excluded from the comparison below.
Key findings
- Among the three agents with meaningful volume, Rash Rahman converts "info obtained" cases into onboards at the highest rate (85.7%, n=44), ahead of Charli Oppong (75.0%, n=32). Chin_Foong (Gigi) has the lowest onboarding rate of the three (65.4%, n=26) — worth checking in on her cases.
5.1
Rejection reasons & final onboarding outcome (79 failed apps)
79
Total failed apps
31.6%
Reached the bank (25)
48.1%
Are risk-appetite calls
| Rejection reason | n | % of total | Sent to bank (Y) | % sent to bank | % Onboarded | % Not onboarded | % Cancelled |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outside risk appetite - cannot onboard other acquirer | 38 | 48.1% | 19 | 50.0% | 2.6% | 39.5% | 57.9% |
| Blocked - Inside Sales Fraud List | 16 | 20.3% | 0 | 0% | 0% | 75.0% | 25.0% |
| Failed KYC checks (no further info) | 9 | 11.4% | 1 | 11.1% | 0% | 55.6% | 44.4% |
| Rule - Prohibited Merchant Type | 7 | 8.9% | 0 | 0% | 0% | 85.7% | 14.3% |
| Outside risk appetite - other acquirer OK | 5 | 6.3% | 4 | 80.0% | 80.0% | 0% | 20.0% |
| Total | 79 | 100% | 25 | 31.6% | 7.6% | 49.4% | 43.0% |
Key findings
- Nearly half of all rejections (48.1%) are risk-appetite calls, and whether the merchant reached the bank first splits this category cleanly: those who "can be onboarded with another acquirer" mostly reached the bank first (80%), while those who "cannot" only did about half the time — suggesting some of these calls are made pre-emptively, before submission.
- Fraud-list blocks (0% sent to bank) and prohibited-merchant-type rejections (0% sent to bank) are decided entirely before the bank stage.
- A rejection almost never stops onboarding outright by itself: 43% of rejected merchants end up "cancelled by onboarder" and 49% sit as "not onboarded", while a handful — mostly the "can be onboarded elsewhere" group — still go on to onboard.
- The rejection reason strongly predicts the downstream outcome: fraud-list blocks and prohibited-merchant-type rejections almost always end in "not onboarded," while "can be onboarded with another acquirer" is the only category with meaningfully positive outcomes.
5.2
By Sales Manager
| Sales Manager | n | % of all | Sent to bank (Y) | % Y | Team |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Afeeva | 6 | 7.6% | 1 | 16.7% | Inside Sales |
| Wasim Durrani | 5 | 6.3% | 2 | 40.0% | South East |
| Ahmed Modhafar | 4 | 5.1% | 1 | 25.0% | London |
| Ali Lodhi | 4 | 5.1% | 0 | 0% | Inside Sales |
| Abdul Akbarali2 | 3 | 3.8% | 0 | 0% | Inside Sales |
| Damola Abimbola | 3 | 3.8% | 1 | 33.3% | Inside Sales |
| Hamza Modhafar | 3 | 3.8% | 1 | 33.3% | London |
| Mark_Frangie | 3 | 3.8% | 1 | 33.3% | – |
| Abdul Mohammed | 2 | 2.5% | 1 | 50.0% | London |
| Arig_Gattab | 2 | 2.5% | 0 | 0% | Inside Sales |
| Carlos_Edwards | 2 | 2.5% | 0 | 0% | London |
| Charlie Rutherford | 2 | 2.5% | 0 | 0% | London |
| Gurpreet_Maan | 2 | 2.5% | 2 | 100.0% | North |
| Isaiah Ojo | 2 | 2.5% | 1 | 50.0% | South East |
| Jason Nunn | 2 | 2.5% | 0 | 0% | Inside Sales |
| Jordan Adeniji | 2 | 2.5% | 1 | 50.0% | Inside Sales |
| Kamil Khougani | 2 | 2.5% | 0 | 0% | London |
| Omar_Marwa | 2 | 2.5% | 0 | 0% | Inside Sales |
| Sameer Khan | 2 | 2.5% | 1 | 50.0% | London |
| (blank) | 1 | 1.3% | 0 | 0% | – |
| Abbie_Bell | 1 | 1.3% | 1 | 100.0% | North |
| Abdul_Ansar | 1 | 1.3% | 1 | 100.0% | London |
| Adham Khir2 | 1 | 1.3% | 0 | 0% | London |
| Ali Moshfiq | 1 | 1.3% | 1 | 100.0% | London |
| Craig Mcnicol | 1 | 1.3% | 0 | 0% | North |
| Daniel Stevens | 1 | 1.3% | 1 | 100.0% | South East |
| Easheam Andrews2 | 1 | 1.3% | 0 | 0% | Inside Sales |
| Eric Mandjoba | 1 | 1.3% | 1 | 100.0% | London |
| James Baker2 | 1 | 1.3% | 0 | 0% | North |
| James Lewis | 1 | 1.3% | 0 | 0% | South East |
| Joe_Jones | 1 | 1.3% | 0 | 0% | North |
| John Saunders | 1 | 1.3% | 1 | 100.0% | North |
| Jonathan Cohen | 1 | 1.3% | 1 | 100.0% | North |
| Kasiel Chiodo | 1 | 1.3% | 0 | 0% | Inside Sales |
| Koral Beyaz | 1 | 1.3% | 0 | 0% | London |
| Luke Simpson | 1 | 1.3% | 0 | 0% | South East |
| Masoud Ahmadi | 1 | 1.3% | 1 | 100.0% | London |
| Omar Marwa | 1 | 1.3% | 0 | 0% | North |
| Philip_Cox | 1 | 1.3% | 0 | 0% | North |
| Reece_Thangarajah | 1 | 1.3% | 1 | 100.0% | Inside Sales |
| Sbair_Saber | 1 | 1.3% | 0 | 0% | London |
| Sebastian_Mcdonald | 1 | 1.3% | 1 | 100.0% | North |
| Simon_Mills | 1 | 1.3% | 0 | 0% | North |
| Timothy Fava | 1 | 1.3% | 1 | 100.0% | Inside Sales |
| Zana Moulod | 1 | 1.3% | 1 | 100.0% | London |
| Total | 79 | 100.0% | 25 | 31.6% |
Key findings
- No single sales manager has an outsized share of failed apps — Jonathan Afeeva is the highest at just 7.6% of the total, and most managers appear only once or twice. This looks like a broadly distributed issue rather than one tied to a specific manager's practices.
- Inside Sales accounts for 32 of the 79 failed apps — the largest single team, ahead of London, South East and North. Worth a closer look at whether this reflects Inside Sales' merchant mix or something in how that team qualifies applications before submission.