Prevent Customer Harm
Credit Bureau Reporting: Preventing Customer Harm Through Full-Population Testing
Does sample-based manual compliance testing ensure a fair and equitable experience for ALL customers?
No. Sample-based testing leaves room for unknowns that can significantly impact customers. It’s also impossible to know how many customers may be impacted with a sample-based approach.
What if you could prevent inaccurate reporting?
To find out download our case study…
Download the Case Study
Prevent Harm
Full-population testing is the responsible thing to do.
Frequently Asked Questions
Have a question? We’re here to help.
Maximize Compliance, Minimize Risk
01
Increased Coverage
100% vs 0.04%
With automated full-population compliance testing, institutions are reducing the cost of maintaining regulatory compliance while also expanding coverage.
Consider a portfolio of one million loans. To get a 95% confidence interval with a 5% error rate, you would only need to test 383 loans. That means you have 999,617 unknowns that could leave you open to risk.
02
More Frequent
Daily vs Yearly
With Validator, automated testing can happen daily where today’s manual process may limit to annual testing. Institutions can prevent both regulatory and customer issues through early detection and remediation, providing a fair and equitable experience for all customers.
03
Increased Efficiency
Fully-Automated vs Manual
Despite advancements in technology, many financial institutions still rely on sample-based compliance testing, primarily because they lack the tools to move away from outdated, manual processes. Validator solves this challenge by increasing the frequency and coverage of testing.