Goldman Sachs Bank USA CEO says that Apple Card approval is not and has never been based on factors like gender.
Carey Halio, CEO, Goldman Sachs Bank USA:
We hear you. Your concerns are important to us and we take them seriously.
We have not and never will make decisions based on factors like gender. In fact, we do not know your gender or marital status during the Apple Card application process.
We are committed to ensuring our credit decision process is fair. Together with a third-party we reviewed our credit decisioning process to guard against unintended biases and outcomes.
Some of our customers have told us they received lower credit lines than they expected. In many cases, this is because their existing credit cards are supplemental cards under their spouses primary account – which may result in the applicant having limited personal credit history. Apple Card’s credit decision process is not aware of your marital status at the time of the application.
If you believe that your credit line does not adequately reflect your credit history because you may be in a similar situation, we want to hear from you. Based on additional information that meat we may request we will re-evaluate your credit line.
Thank you for being an Apple Card customer.
MacDailyNews Take: This is a case of Apple Card accounts being individual and independently evaluated. It has nothing whatsoever to do with gender or martial status or whatever nefarious claptrap the Twitterati concoct in order to work themselves up into a spittle-spewing lather, as they are so wont to do while cloistered inside their twisted outrage machine.
Goldman Sachs is working on allowing Apple Card accounts to be shared with family members:
https://twitter.com/gsbanksupport/status/1193703266003177472
Goldman sacks algorithm is whacked. How they calculate interest rates is beyond me. It is not done like any other bank. It is actually pretty insulting for somebody with a credit rating over 800. I won’t be using this card for much at all until they fix it.
If you can’t pay off your balance every month then you probably shouldn’t have a credit card.
Is that an assumption on your part about my credit habits or just a statement about repayment in general?
Don’t lose sight of the bigger picture — this is NOT a good credit card for consumers. The cash-back incentives** are inferior to other card offerings in every case except purchasing Apple products.
Just get a good credit card.
**Already a bizarre concept in general where cc companies incur fees on the vendor, the vendor raises its price to cover that expense, and then the cc company gives some of that to the customer… the equivalent of raising the price on something so you can put it on sale.
Again. First world problems.
Why do people think that making men loan slaves and giving women opportunity to pass a loan, work themselves up or walk away without dept leaving husband to pay the bills is a for of discrimination is beyond me.
Honestly I do not get it because I not used to this type of mindgames and BS. As a kid I grew up in a country occupied by a socialist-communist rule and when it ended, my country entered into an era of extreme capitalism. No Goldman Sucks was there throwing depth bags on us. I had to work my starting my teen years and with out any credit cards. And today I can conclude I have a solid share (by my standards) of AAPL and zero dept. And I am planning to keep it that way. I still believe my country is way more capitalist than any other country in our EU. When 2007 financial crisis happened, many people got hit hard because of business friendly labor laws. But guess what, we were the fastest recovered country of all the EU, because companies were able to recover quickly and started hiring like crazy very soon after. This all debate about equality is laughable to me. I would not be surprised if that was a conspiracy. First the Apple card will appeal to men, and now, the second phase is geared in – women will be given the same opportunity to enter a dept wagon. ALL ABOARD!!! THE TRAIN IS LEAVING; RUUUN!!! 😀
The MDN take needs to be made topic-neutral (I just made that up) and put on a T-shirt. It covers a lot of situations created by “them”.
“This has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever nefarious claptrap the Twitterati concoct in order to work themselves up into a spittle-spewing lather, as they are so wont to do while cloistered inside their twisted outrage machine.”
I know of a situation where a user worth $3 million with multiple Apple devices and ongoing Apple subscription was turned down because failed to provide proof of ID. Nobody from GS called to request it. Never provided a copy of Drivers license for any other card app he had applied for. There is a reason that GS is called Goldman Sucks in the industry.
One thing people seem to forget is that Credit Card companies WANT to give you high lines of credit so that you will will spend more and they make money – if of course they determine you are credit worthy , i.e. low risk from your borrowing history, financials etc
The idea that they would shoot themselves in the foot and have a policy of not approving some who are qualified just because they are women is crazy. Credit card companies don’t want to make money from rich women?
The issue in most gender-bias cases, as with racial discrimination, isn’t that they intentionally set out to punish others out of spite. It is that they make unconscious assumptions, such as that a particular woman or person of color makes less money than white men. While that is certainly true in the statistical aggregate, there are plenty of women billionaires. Women are statistically shorter than men, but some women play center in the WNBA.
The accusation in this case was never that Goldman was shooting itself in the foot by intentionally denying credit to creditworthy women because of their gender. It was that they were trusting their credit decisions to a “black box” algorithm that included assumptions which disfavored women more than men. Even if Goldman technically did not know the applicant’s gender, the algorithm certainly did, because it was drawing on sources (such as credit history and credit ratings from the Big 3 agencies) that were well aware of gender-correlated factors.
The same thing happens when lenders depend indirectly on zip code information that is correlated to living in a minority neighborhood. Even if there is no deliberate “red-lining,” folks who live in the area can be disadvantaged by an assumption that may not apply to them personally.
Ok. Some food for thought