I appreciate there are products out there but Loqbox has a more established revenue stream and possibly a greater user base to achieve good pricing.
A lender who does not see data on an applicant applying in future (known as thin file) will / should utilise a second lender or other methods to validate your credit worthiness. You will then most likely appear on this search output anyway.
The fact Loqbox can make it viable to report to all three is great, but every company has different people to please or approve, such as investors or CFOs worth their weight in gold.
The soft credit check is used to check eligibility. Applications for credit will need to have a hard footprint by the lenders requirements. Not all lenders will do this and some will not actually use this to determine the outcome of your application for a secured product. It depends on the CRA agreement with the lender.
Smart lenders will try to match account data with footprint data. So for example if we see a footprint for an account application and then an account being reported from a date close to that with the same limit (with variance) then you can be confident a lender was confident to provide credit after application.
In this method, a hard search is a good thing in my opinion.
Being a product person, I agree reporting to as many as possible is good, but it doesn’t make business sense in most cases.