Two interest methods
Simple-interest, calculated on days between the last payment and the processing date; and fixed-interest, calculated on days between instalment due dates. Both are first-class, not one emulated with the other.
Simple- and fixed-interest accrual, fee schedules, statements, partial payments with rebate and pro-rate maths, refinances, early payoff, modifications and automated accounting entries — for every loan type on one ledger.
Short-term lending is not amortisation-table lending. The maths has to handle irregular payments, mid-term refinances and fee structures that differ by state.
Simple-interest, calculated on days between the last payment and the processing date; and fixed-interest, calculated on days between instalment due dates. Both are first-class, not one emulated with the other.
Partial payments carry rebate and pro-rate calculation rather than being posted as a lump against principal — so the balance and the payoff quote stay defensible.
Refinance capability with the old loan closed and reconciled, and early payoff with rebate computed to the day.
Auto-computed instalments, alternate first-payment dates, end-of-month handling and configurable payment frequency.
Return-cheque and NSF handling, redeposit, bank deposit for garnishment, refunds, and time-bound rollback and void of posted transactions.
Payments →Accounting entries generated from the same events the agent posts, so the general ledger and the loan ledger cannot drift apart.
Every one of them is worked from the same screen layout, so a CSR trained on nothing in particular can service a payday loan, an installment loan or a line of credit without learning a different application (one interface, every module).
The six entries above are loan types, not loan products. A lender typically services several loan products inside one of them at the same time — different terms, different fee configurations, different document sets — with each loan product enabled per brand, channel, state and store. The servicing maths, the ledger and the GL treatment are identical whichever one the borrower took. How the loan-product engine works →
Self-service that writes to the same ledger is a cost reduction. Self-service that writes to a separate online system is a reconciliation problem.
QFund Online is the borrower-facing face of the same core, so a payment made on the website at 11pm is on the branch screen — and in the GL — without a batch in between.
If you would rather build the borrower experience yourself, the same operations are available as RESTful JSON APIs — balance, schedule, payoff quote, payment posting, statement and document retrieval, follow-on loan application — so your own portal writes to this ledger too. API layer →
Yes — that is the normal migration case. Existing loans, balances, schedules, payment history and documents are brought across during migration, then serviced natively. Balancing the migrated book against your current system is an explicit phase, not an assumption.
As first-class servicing transactions with their own audit trail: re-scheduled payments, adjusted fees, deferrals and payment plans. They post to the ledger and the GL like any other event, so a hardship programme does not become a spreadsheet kept next to the system.
Yes. Accounting entries are generated automatically from servicing transactions rather than assembled from an export. That is what removes most of the month-end reconciliation work lenders do between an origination system and a servicing system.
A mid-term refinance with a partial payment, a rebate and an NSF in the same cycle. We will post it live and show you the ledger and the GL entries.