Credit Bureau Reporting:
Preventing Customer Harm
Through Full Population Testing
Full-population testing is responsible.
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.
How big of an issue is this? More than one-third of Americans have at least one error in their credit report, according to Consumer Reports.
What if you could prevent inaccurate reporting?
By replacing sample-based manual testing with full-population automated compliance testing, financial institutions can test entire portfolios in minutes to determine if it is compliant with all laws and regulations, plus, prevent both regulatory and customer issues through early detection and remediation, providing a fair and equitable experience for all customers.
Otherwise, you may be at risk of severely hurting customers.
Imagine a single parent not being able to rent an apartment simply because the entire population wasn’t tested. What if you damaged an individual’s credit, forcing them into a higher interest rate or disqualifying them from a loan.
VALIDATOR tests over 99% more loans in less than 1% of the time.
Do in 20 minutes what it would take one year and 500 people to complete.
CASE STUDY
Scenario
- Client wanted to retrospectively determine compliance to Section 4021 of the CARES Act.
- Regulation requires furnishers to report current or better if current at time of forbearance based on meeting conditions of accommodation. Enacted to protect consumer during COVID 19.
Outcome
- Full population testing identified a 5% observation rate that could have negatively impacted credit bureau reporting for approximately 25,000 customers.
- Sample based testing approach would not have identified the complete population of impacted customers.
