We changed one thing: when supplier bills left the account
The study starts with 15 months of bank activity from a seven-figure product brand. To protect the customer, we shifted amounts, dates, and identifying details. The published series preserves the payment cadence, seasonality, and relationship between the two scenarios. The anonymized replay contains:
In the observed account, supplier bills left in large transfers. That year looked like this:
In the modeled scenario, Olina paid eligible suppliers directly. Each bill on the drip, including its fee, was divided into 45 equal daily payments. The model used:
Large withdrawals became smaller, predictable payments
One seasonal build month had four supplier bills totaling $60,100. Paid in lump sums, those bills hit the account four times. Spread over 45 days, their daily-payment equivalent was about $1,360 per day, including modeled fees.
That timing — not new revenue — created the difference. Sales deposits, payroll, rent, and ad spend stayed exactly the same in both scenarios.
During the seasonal build, the modeled balance never fell below $10,000
The modeled monthly low was higher in all 15 months.
See the lowest balance in all 15 months
| Month | Original payment timing (observed) | Olina Drip (modeled) |
|---|---|---|
| MO 1 | $46,253 | $54,964 |
| MO 2 | $54,727 | $70,833 |
| MO 3 | $43,338 | $85,762 |
| MO 4 | $41,116 | $83,476 |
| MO 5 | $28,331 | $81,245 |
| MO 6 | $2,707 | $72,279 |
| MO 7 | $1,605 | $16,788 |
| MO 8 | $4,970 | $25,164 |
| MO 9 | $79,757 | $92,762 |
| MO 10 | $182,928 | $199,264 |
| MO 11 | $222,433 | $233,298 |
| MO 12 | $192,969 | $206,595 |
| MO 13 | $184,904 | $195,553 |
| MO 14 | $130,131 | $189,886 |
| MO 15 | $106,795 | $158,020 |
The smoother cash flow cost $14,379
The model put $718,973 of supplier bills on the drip. At the illustrative 2% fee, that cost $14,379. Modeled fees are already included in every balance above — embedded at a slightly higher rate than 2%, so the modeled floors are conservative. The trade is simple: pay a known fee to keep more cash available day to day.
The drip can make sense when the additional profit after variable costs — or the disruption costs avoided — exceeds the total fee. If the cash would sit unused, skip it.
An MCA provides unrestricted cash. The Olina Drip pays suppliers.
These products solve different needs. An MCA can fund almost any business expense. The Olina Drip is tied to supplier bills. For a $70,000 inventory need, here is an illustration using one assumed MCA structure: a 1.38 factor rate, daily debits, and a repayment period of about 26 weeks.
Method
This study is based on 15 months of daily bank activity and supplier payments from one Olina customer. The observed baseline reflects the customer's payment behavior, including delayed and retried payments when cash ran low.
The modeled scenario keeps sales deposits, payroll, rent, ad spend, and other operating cash flows unchanged. It replaces lump-sum supplier payments with 45-day daily payment schedules, adds an illustrative 2% flat fee, and enforces a $70,000 capacity limit. All modeled fees are included; balance figures embed fees at a slightly higher rate than 2%, which makes the modeled floors conservative.
Amounts, dates, and identifying details were shifted to protect the customer. The published series preserves the payment cadence, seasonality, and relationship between the two scenarios. Results from one replay should not be treated as a forecast or guarantee.
