Goldman Sachs denies claims of Apple Card gender bias

Posted:
in General Discussion edited December 2019
Following accusations that married couples are seeing different credit ratings in their Apple Card applications, bank Goldman Sachs has issued a statement saying all scores are individually calculated.




Following accusations of gender bias against married women over Apple Card credit limits, issuing bank Goldman Sachs has issued a statement denying any sexism.

We wanted to address some recent questions regarding the #AppleCard credit decision process. pic.twitter.com/TNZJTUZv36

-- GS Bank Support (@gsbanksupport)


In a statement tweeted by its @gsbanksupport account, Goldman Sachs acknowledged the concerns that it had been sexist, but insisted that credit decisions were completely independent of gender. Instead, it says, they are based on previous debt, current income and similar data.

"Based on these factors," says the tweeted statement, "it is possible for two family members to receive significantly different credit decisions. In all cases, we have not and will not make decisions based on factors like gender".

Previously, David Heinemeier Hansson, creator of Ruby on Rails, alleged that Apple and Goldman Sachs were being gender-biased against women who apply for the Apple Card. He suggested this based on the sizeable disparity between his application and that of his wife.

Later, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak reported having a similar situation with his partner.

The Apple Card launched on August 20 in conjunction with Goldman Sachs. It has been designed primarily to be used with Apple Pay on the iPhone, Apple Watch, and Mac. The card features a cash-back reward system, called Daily Cash, that gives 3% back on all Apple purchases, 2% back on purchases made with Apple Pay, and 1% cash back on everything else.
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 83
    I'm retired -- which means that my savings are high and my income is low.   As a result GS gave me the lowest credit line of all my cards (about half).

    Does that mean that they discriminate against retired people?
    mwhitemuthuk_vanalingamricmaclostkiwirinosaur
  • Reply 2 of 83
    It's literally in the banks favour to offer a customer as much credit as possible. Just because David Heinemeier Hansson doesn't fully know the criteria for how credit is allocated doesn't mean that this should have blown up into a top-news article on news websites worldwide. It just goes to show the media frenzy that occurs with the Apple brand.
    monstrosityGeorgeBMacdee_deeStrangeDaysrazorpitlostkiwi
  • Reply 3 of 83
    Logic will never sway the mindless prattling of ideologically processed individuals. 
    monstrositylkruppAbove_The_Godsdee_deemike1newBelieversmaffeiStrangeDaysrazorpitlostkiwi
  • Reply 4 of 83
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,728member
    Something doesn't have to knowingly target gender to be sexist.  There seems to be something off in the algorithm if it's giving such widely disparate results for individuals who you would otherwise expect to get the same or similar result.  It is very logical to question that.
  • Reply 5 of 83
    crowley said:
    Something doesn't have to knowingly target gender to be sexist.  There seems to be something off in the algorithm if it's giving such widely disparate results for individuals who you would otherwise expect to get the same or similar result.  It is very logical to question that.
    Not necessarily. My wife and I each have our own credit cards (she also has access to mine) and are both listed on our accounts, etc.

    Even though we are both listed there are a couple of accounts that I am still listed as the primary (there was no other way to do it and I had the accounts before we were married). I also used credit cards more often and for longer.

    Despite the fact that our credit scores are going to be nearly the same I am going to qualify for a much higher credit line than she is simply due to my stronger credit history.

    Want an even worse example, my mom owned 50% of my parent’s business and was denied a credit card in the business’ name.

    A lot of banking only lists one primary account holder and who ever has that is going to have more credit history.
    edited November 2019 SoliStrangeDaysviclauyyc
  • Reply 6 of 83
    ThrashmanThrashman Posts: 22unconfirmed, member
    How can this be?  Do you mean to tell me that if I married to a doctor - that doesn’t make me a doctor?
    GeorgeBMacRayz2016dee_deemobirdnewBelieverStrangeDaysrazorpitlostkiwilarz2112entropys
  • Reply 7 of 83
    It's literally in the banks favour to offer a customer as much credit as possible. Just because David Heinemeier Hansson doesn't fully know the criteria for how credit is allocated doesn't mean that this should have blown up into a top-news article on news websites worldwide. It just goes to show the media frenzy that occurs with the Apple brand.
    No the social justice warriors are out for blood. For all we know the guy’s wife had bad credit. He didn’t mention her credit scores or outstanding debt level or income. He did mention that she’s a woman. So you know it’s a conspiracy. Or whatever. 
    newBelieverrazorpitlostkiwirinosaur
  • Reply 8 of 83
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,030member
    I'm retired -- which means that my savings are high and my income is low.   As a result GS gave me the lowest credit line of all my cards (about half).

    Does that mean that they discriminate against retired people?
    They probably just read your forum posts here.
    larryjwmobirdMplsPStrangeDaysrazorpitbigtds
  • Reply 9 of 83
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,030member
    crowley said:
    Something doesn't have to knowingly target gender to be sexist.  There seems to be something off in the algorithm if it's giving such widely disparate results for individuals who you would otherwise expect to get the same or similar result.  It is very logical to question that.
    Your first sentence I agree with, and I have no problem with holding a company's feet to the fire, especially when things are done in secret, but I've 1) seen no pattern with women being given a smaller credit line (have seen a lot more stories about women getting a higher credit limit than their mate), and 2) you can't possibly assume that there is a similar result simply because they share some accounts, make a similar wage, and/or have the same credit score.
    StrangeDaysrazorpitlostkiwi
  • Reply 10 of 83
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,728member
    tomahawk said:
    crowley said:
    Something doesn't have to knowingly target gender to be sexist.  There seems to be something off in the algorithm if it's giving such widely disparate results for individuals who you would otherwise expect to get the same or similar result.  It is very logical to question that.
    Not necessarily. My wife and I each have our own credit cards (she also has access to mine) and are both listed on our accounts, etc.

    Even though we are both listed there are a couple of accounts that I am still listed as the primary (there was no other way to do it and I had the accounts before we were married). I also used credit cards more often and for longer.

    Despite the fact that our credit scores are going to be nearly the same I am going to qualify for a much higher credit line than she is simply due to my stronger credit history.

    Want an even worse example, my mom owned 50% of my parent’s business and was denied a credit card in the business’ name.

    A lot of banking only lists one primary account holder and who ever has that is going to have more credit history.
    You've given a reason why you and your wife are individuals for whom you would not expect to get the same or similar result, and also a reason to question the algorithm in that it is not taking into account joint account owners (which due to various social and cultural reasons may tilt towards the male in a relationship).  I refer back to my previous post.
  • Reply 11 of 83
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,030member
    It's literally in the banks favour to offer a customer as much credit as possible. Just because David Heinemeier Hansson doesn't fully know the criteria for how credit is allocated doesn't mean that this should have blown up into a top-news article on news websites worldwide. It just goes to show the media frenzy that occurs with the Apple brand.
    No the social justice warriors are out for blood. For all we know the guy’s wife had bad credit. He didn’t mention her credit scores or outstanding debt level or income. He did mention that she’s a woman. So you know it’s a conspiracy. Or whatever. 
    Ah yes, all those women and their conspiracies against men like you. Shouldn't you get back to writing your manifesto?
    edited November 2019
  • Reply 12 of 83
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,030member
    crowley said:
    tomahawk said:
    crowley said:
    Something doesn't have to knowingly target gender to be sexist.  There seems to be something off in the algorithm if it's giving such widely disparate results for individuals who you would otherwise expect to get the same or similar result.  It is very logical to question that.
    Not necessarily. My wife and I each have our own credit cards (she also has access to mine) and are both listed on our accounts, etc.

    Even though we are both listed there are a couple of accounts that I am still listed as the primary (there was no other way to do it and I had the accounts before we were married). I also used credit cards more often and for longer.

    Despite the fact that our credit scores are going to be nearly the same I am going to qualify for a much higher credit line than she is simply due to my stronger credit history.

    Want an even worse example, my mom owned 50% of my parent’s business and was denied a credit card in the business’ name.

    A lot of banking only lists one primary account holder and who ever has that is going to have more credit history.
    You've given a reason why you and your wife are individuals for whom you would not expect to get the same or similar result, and also a reason to question the algorithm in that it is not taking into account joint account owners (which due to various social and cultural reasons may tilt towards the male in a relationship).  I refer back to my previous post.
    Your previous post makes the erroneous conclusion that "something [is] off in the algorithm" because you've assumed that should have "same or similar result" despite zero evidence to show that anything about their credit worthiness is the congruent. Even the exact same credit score does not a parallel make.
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 13 of 83
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,264member
    crowley said:
    Something doesn't have to knowingly target gender to be sexist.  There seems to be something off in the algorithm if it's giving such widely disparate results for individuals who you would otherwise expect to get the same or similar result.  It is very logical to question that.
    Because YOU would expect the results to be the same does not mean that a professional loan officer or an algorithm would.
    That's the trouble:  amateurs are second the professionals.

    They should first ask:  Why would bank discriminate against a qualified borrower?  That would be both illogical and illegal.  Banks are in it to make money -- they don't make decisions based on what's between a person's legs.
    gilly33StrangeDayslostkiwi
  • Reply 14 of 83
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,456member
    One guy who apparently has something like 375,000 followers on Twitter (or whatever), described as a “prominent” software developer, makes a profanity laden accusation and the New York Department of Financial Services starts an investigation. And the media response? GUILTY unless proven innocent!
    edited November 2019 dee_deemike1smaffeiStrangeDayssmiffy31razorpitlostkiwientropysviclauyyc
  • Reply 15 of 83
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,264member
    Soli said:
    I'm retired -- which means that my savings are high and my income is low.   As a result GS gave me the lowest credit line of all my cards (about half).

    Does that mean that they discriminate against retired people?
    They probably just read your forum posts here.
    ROFL...  Don't be bitter because I destroyed your rather far fetched ridiculous arguments on 5G.  It makes you look small.
  • Reply 16 of 83
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,264member
    Uh Oh!   Here comes Woz jumping into the fray!

    Apple co-founder says Apple Card algorithm gave wife lower credit limit








    viclauyyc
  • Reply 17 of 83
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,030member
    Soli said:
    I'm retired -- which means that my savings are high and my income is low.   As a result GS gave me the lowest credit line of all my cards (about half).

    Does that mean that they discriminate against retired people?
    They probably just read your forum posts here.
    ROFL...  Don't be bitter because I destroyed your rather far fetched ridiculous arguments on 5G.  It makes you look small.
    You sure got me with your lack of comprehension of a common English words. /s I certainly do wish I could take credit for creating the word obsolete, but it dates back to the 16th century.

     
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 18 of 83
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,005member
    No surprise here, I hope Apple and GS go after this guy for slander on the simple fact he is idiot. 

    The idiot who filed this tirade complaint, will find out the exact reason he is claiming he and his wife should have the same credit limit, (married, joint tax return, and community state) is the exact reason his wife is being treated as an individual. In the past women credit worthiness was based on joint activity and if the husband had bad credit then the would wife have bad credit and could not leave the marriage since she could not get credit. The discrimination he is complaining about is about women having their own credit history separate from his which was cause by men behaving badly in the past. It sounds like this guy want to control his wife.


    StrangeDayslostkiwiCycliste
  • Reply 19 of 83
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,728member
    crowley said:
    Something doesn't have to knowingly target gender to be sexist.  There seems to be something off in the algorithm if it's giving such widely disparate results for individuals who you would otherwise expect to get the same or similar result.  It is very logical to question that.
    Because YOU would expect the results to be the same does not mean that a professional loan officer or an algorithm would.
    That's the trouble:  amateurs are second the professionals.

    They should first ask:  Why would bank discriminate against a qualified borrower?  That would be both illogical and illegal.  Banks are in it to make money -- they don't make decisions based on what's between a person's legs.
    People and businesses do illogical and illegal things all the time, otherwise racism and sexism wouldn't exist.  Sometimes it's consciously, and sometimes subsconsciously.  That's why you question when the results don't make apparent sense, to figure out what the problem is.
    muthuk_vanalingamCycliste
  • Reply 20 of 83
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,005member
    I'm retired -- which means that my savings are high and my income is low.   As a result GS gave me the lowest credit line of all my cards (about half).

    Does that mean that they discriminate against retired people?

    Yes they do, you can thank the last administration for all this heavy handed over regulations. Today banks can not extend credit on your assets, only on your ability pay based on your wages. My in-laws who are retired, sold their house to move into something more manageable and needed a temporary loan during the transition and had lots of saving and equity in the house they were selling but no bank would cut them a loan for the simple fact they have no income other than SS and some IRA income.

    You should be happy your retirement accounts are not being manage by the Labor department today. That was the other regulation which came out of the 2008 crash and was put in place right at the end of the last administration. It did not get implemented by the new administration, it was killed. Otherwise the Labor department would have say so over how your retirement money could be invested. No more Apple stock in your IRA.

    For Reference sake, read one after the other.
    https://www.independentsentinel.com/obama-labor-dept-sets-stage-for-nationalizing-retirement-accounts/
    https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-executive-order-on-fiduciary-rule-main-street-retirement-money-2017-2
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-strengthening-retirement-security-america/

    edited November 2019 razorpit
Sign In or Register to comment.