For years, US financial institutions have poured resources into accelerating workflows, trimming underwriting cycles and pushing for ever-faster loan decisions. Industry events often spotlight case studies promoting 48-hour commercial loan processing as proof of competitive strength. The working assumption has long been clear: increase speed, attract more customers and outpace rivals.
Yet fresh analysis of 490 US institutions indicates the opposite may be true. New findings suggest that prioritising pure speed without a strong operational foundation is not only ineffective, but financially damaging—leaving significant value unrealised.
Consistency delivers a three-to-one performance advantage
Research from the nCino Research Institute compared operational behaviours with financial performance, drawing a striking conclusion. Institutions characterised by disciplined, standardised processes—labelled “Consistent Performers”—recorded 77% stronger Return on Average Assets (ROAA) compared with peers. This was despite having slower processing timelines on paper.
In contrast, “Speed Chasers”, which prioritised rapid throughput at the expense of consistency, achieved just a 26% improvement in ROAA. In ROAE terms, Consistent Performers posted 95% higher returns, versus 53% among Speed Chasers.
The data also showed that process standardisation, tracked via the Most Common Path Score, had a 25.7% correlation with ROAE—nearly double the impact of end-to-end processing times.
The implications for banking executives are clear. Metrics often overlooked in leadership meetings may be far more influential for shareholder returns than the speed indicators institutions frequently optimise for.
How institutions fall into the speed trap
The research outlines a predictable pattern of decline when banks chase faster cycle times without establishing uniform processes.
The first stage typically begins with a directive from leadership to slash funding timelines. This pressure quickly triggers “workaround culture”, where employees create personal shortcuts—spreadsheets, email templates, or informal fast-track methods—that initially appear to boost efficiency.
Within months, however, these localised shortcuts multiply into numerous process variations. A single loan type might follow a dozen different routes depending on which employee handles it.
Data degradation, inconsistent risk oversight, uneven customer experience and stalled productivity soon follow. Although dashboards may still show faster processing speeds, profitability and employee output fail to improve, resulting in a widening performance gap.
What market leaders do differently
The top-performing institutions identified in the study—the “Market Leaders”—show that sustainable speed stems from consistency, not shortcuts. These banks, located in the top-right quadrant of the performance matrix, delivered 127% higher ROAA and 120% better ROAE than their peer benchmarks.
Their success stems from three principles. First, they build standardised workflows upfront and only then enhance speed within those structures. One nCino client cut underwriting times from 23 days to just 2 days through process standardisation and automation rather than bypassing controls.
Second, they emphasise measurement that matters. Instead of focusing solely on average cycle times, Market Leaders track adherence to intended processes and variation across teams. Tools such as the Most Common Path Score ensure operational policies are followed uniformly.
Finally, they apply operational intelligence—contextualising performance metrics against industry benchmarks to understand what is possible, not merely what is occurring internally. This enables more precise identification of where consistency contributes to stronger risk-adjusted returns.
Read the full blog from nCino here.
Copyright © 2025 FinTech Global
