Let’s say Bank A has the requirement that Action X must be supported by two years of business tax returns.

Let’s say that Bank B offers to see if Action X can be done without two years of business tax returns.

Bank B asks for an application and the last two years’ business tax returns. Customer has one year of returns, and submits that one year.

Later, Bank B asks for certain schedules that go along with that tax return.

Still later asks for W2s as supporting documentation.

Then W2s for the prior year.

Then, after a long wait, Bank B says sorry, Action X can only be done with two years of business tax returns.

Did they know that at the beginning of the process? Would not the second question be hello do you have a second year of business tax returns, because if not, we’ll have to put this off for a year? Is there any reason why the process should have proceeded beyond the first step if there were not two years of returns to study?

Looking at this example, perhaps the underwriters want to gather all the information together before making a decision, but if they need two years of business returns, all the information can be gathered together before the beginning even begins, and the refusal can be expressed without the customer having to make multiple trips to the bank, scan and copy additional documents, respond to emails, respond to snail mail, and make and receive telephone calls.

Any banky types out there? Why didn’t Bank B say no from the get-go if they needed two years of returns and the customer only had one year?

In the meantime, Perfect, what’s next?