A Stall That Sounds Like Diligence
“Let me run the numbers” sounds responsible, and sometimes it is. A merchant who genuinely wants to check the math against their own margins is doing exactly what they should before signing anything. But the same phrase is also one of the most common ways a merchant delays a decision they are not sure how to make, without having to say that directly.
Telling the two apart matters, because the right response is completely different depending on which one is happening.
What Choice Overload Research Shows
Iyengar and Lepper’s widely cited 2000 supermarket study, described by The Decision Lab as a foundational choice overload experiment, set up a tasting table with twenty four jam varieties and a second table with only six. The larger table drew more browsers and more initial interest, but just 3% of tasters at that table went on to buy, a far smaller share than the six-variety table converted. More options generated more looking, not more buying.
A separate analysis cited by PlannerSearch, drawn from nearly 800,000 employee 401(k) records, found the same pattern in a financial decision specifically, for every ten additional fund options offered, plan participation fell by roughly 2%. More choice measurably reduced the odds someone enrolled at all.
Why a Single Offer Triggers the Same Pattern
A merchant weighing one MCA offer is not choosing between twenty four jams, but the underlying mechanism still applies. Left alone with the number, the term, and the holdback percentage, a merchant without a finance background is being asked to run a calculation they may not know how to structure on their own, and unstructured time to think rarely produces a confident answer to a question someone does not know how to answer in the first place.
That is a distinct problem from being presented several funder offers side by side, which is its own comparison challenge. This is the narrower case, one offer, and a merchant who wants time before saying yes to it.
What “Running the Numbers” Is Usually Standing In For
This is reasoning, not a cited statistic. Underneath the stated request to run the numbers is often a specific, unspoken worry, whether the daily holdback fits actual cash flow, whether a slow week would leave them short, or a simple wish for someone else to confirm the decision is sound before committing. None of those worries goes away by handing a merchant more time alone with a spreadsheet they may not be confident using.
Asking which part they want to check, rather than just agreeing to follow up later, usually surfaces the real concern in seconds.
Walking Through the Math Together
Offering to run the actual numbers on the call, the daily debit against their typical deposits, what a slower week does to that math, what the advance frees up to spend right away, replaces open-ended deliberation with a specific, answerable conversation. That is the direct opposite of what the jam study and the 401(k) data both suggest happens when a decision is left unstructured.
A merchant who leaves the call with the math already worked through has a real answer to give later, instead of a vague promise to think about it that tends to quietly become a no.
When the Delay Is Legitimate
Not every request for time is a stall. A merchant who needs to check with a business partner, a spouse, or a bookkeeper before committing has a real reason to wait, and pushing past that reason costs more trust than it is worth. The distinction is whether the merchant can name a specific person or number they still need, versus a vague sense of wanting to think it over generally.
A specific reason gets a specific follow-up plan. A vague one is usually the moment to offer to walk through the math together instead.
Sources
The external data in this article draws on the sources below. Figures described in the text as estimates or industry triangulations are directional and are not attributed to a single dataset.