No heuristic is perfect, but the question is whether this situation is common enough to swamp the general informational effects. So, three possibilities:
1. Adam Sandler will pay a fractionally higher interest rate.
2. The heuristic will route around this situation.
3. Banks that blindly apply this heuristic will lose money on Sandler because they make a comparatively unattractive offer; the bank that lends to him will get higher market share by being less cautious or more careful in this instance.
Keep in mind that we're talking about an edge case among edge cases. Authors are a tiny minority of social networking users. And authors whose fandom is a contrarian indicator of their creditworthiness are even rarer. Actually, it would more likely work in the other direction: I bet poets published in the New Yorker have very creditworthy friends and still have trouble paying the rent.
1. Adam Sandler will pay a fractionally higher interest rate. 2. The heuristic will route around this situation. 3. Banks that blindly apply this heuristic will lose money on Sandler because they make a comparatively unattractive offer; the bank that lends to him will get higher market share by being less cautious or more careful in this instance.
Keep in mind that we're talking about an edge case among edge cases. Authors are a tiny minority of social networking users. And authors whose fandom is a contrarian indicator of their creditworthiness are even rarer. Actually, it would more likely work in the other direction: I bet poets published in the New Yorker have very creditworthy friends and still have trouble paying the rent.