Earlier quoted context omitted.
The evidence is in the article. It tells of a US company using 10.000 data points in a jurisdiction where this is allowed. The article cites Turner, who a few years back wrote this: > The non-financial data was found predictive in all three outcomes examined when no other ‘traditional’ credit information was used, strongly suggesting that alternative data would be useful to lenders in underwriting the so-called ‘no-f…
The US company doesn't operate in the US, and the quote wasn't taken out of context. The context is that 10,000 was way over the 10 or so maximum number of actually valuable points of data. The whole article is about how utterly useless the vast majority of "data" ends up being, and how they are not used internally to predict if the loan will be paid back. So you are 100% in disagreement with this article, and forgiv…
You drew the wrong conclusion about something you don't know a lot about and doubled down. Good luck with that and I forgive you.