One problem so for is that G-S doesn't seem to be able to articulate why the wife got a lower limit, or has chosen not to. It's also curious as to why they suddenly matched the credit limit without explanation.
G-S should have been able to say 'we know exactly why a lower credit limit was assigned and would be happy to post the explanation in your tweet'. Not that they should necessarily do so, but given the nature of the allegation with no actual evidence supporting same, it would have been nice to see G-S step up to respond similarly with the offer.
Instead, raise the credit limit and hope case closed? That invites more questions and provides no answers and engenders the 'guilty until proven innocent' stance in conspiracy oriented individuals' teeny tiny minds.
Maybe G-S is trying to live down its past rep and rebuild a new one. While most corporations don't want to look like the Big Bully, were I the CEO and my company innocent of the accusation, I'd respond as publicly as possible. 'If you want to know why, say the word and we'll publicly answer your very public charge. We're just itching to push SEND'.
Ok maybe the last sentence was a bit over the top. But just meekly Doing the Right Thing isn't going to sooth critics. There is no appeasing the 'Apple should have known better' idiots. Justified or not, they will always be haters. DHH took a cheap shot. G-S should, if able, address that. Just saying 'We have never... We wouldn't ever... We couldn't...' isn't enough.
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.
What facts lead you to believe both this guy and his wife deserve the exact same credit. Other than they occupy the same living space, are married, he files their taxes jointly and they live in a community property state. what other information leads you to believe they both deserve the same credit limits.
Hint: When you last filled out application for a credit card, did it ask you joint income you put on your tax return or provide a copy. Did they ask if you were married, or if you lived in a community property state? BTW not all states have community property laws.
Lesson here. Register everything under your wife’s name. Problem solved
Until divorce.
Actually, my father did exactly that. No problem. Since he owned a business and she was a stay at home mom, they reasoned it was far more likely that he would be sued than her. Neither ever got sued, but it was a good plan and, when he suddenly passed away at a young age, it simplified settling the estate.
But, in this case, even if they did the same, she still would have ended up with lower credit simply because the bank doesn't look at assets, but it would see that she has no income.
1) How can you not know that cash is an asset?
2) Financial institutions can and will look at assets (and liabilities), besides current ones (which includes cash) when determining your credit worthiness.
3) Placing assets in a spouse's name is not very good asset protection. Do you even know what a community property state is?
LOL.. Did anybody even mention cash? As for the rest -- it's out in left field just as you seem to be.
1) As always… you did. You claimed the banks don’t look at assets, which includes cash.
2) It’s your fault for still choosing to remain this ignorance about the world, but much of your foolish ideas and lack of reasoning skills makes considerably more sense now that you’ve told us about the dumb things your father did. Frankly, I feel sorry for you and I now understand that you probably aren’t capable of being communicated with like someone with at least a 3 digit IQ, so I’ll kindly stop expecting you to write like an “average” adult.
ROFL... So you misquote me -- yet again. And then defend it by saying something incredibly stupid and then follow up with a bunch of personal insults. That's a great argument! It really defends your point well -- or it would if you actually had one to make.
One problem so for is that G-S doesn't seem to be able to articulate why the wife got a lower limit, or has chosen not to. It's also curious as to why they suddenly matched the credit limit without explanation.
G-S should have been able to say 'we know exactly why a lower credit limit was assigned and would be happy to post the explanation in your tweet'. Not that they should necessarily do so, but given the nature of the allegation with no actual evidence supporting same, it would have been nice to see G-S step up to respond similarly with the offer.
Instead, raise the credit limit and hope case closed? That invites more questions and provides no answers and engenders the 'guilty until proven innocent' stance in conspiracy oriented individuals' teeny tiny minds.
Maybe G-S is trying to live down its past rep and rebuild a new one. While most corporations don't want to look like the Big Bully, were I the CEO and my company innocent of the accusation, I'd respond as publicly as possible. 'If you want to know why, say the word and we'll publicly answer your very public charge. We're just itching to push SEND'.
Ok maybe the last sentence was a bit over the top. But just meekly Doing the Right Thing isn't going to sooth critics. There is no appeasing the 'Apple should have known better' idiots. Justified or not, they will always be haters. DHH took a cheap shot. G-S should, if able, address that. Just saying 'We have never... We wouldn't ever... We couldn't...' isn't enough.
Definitely -- at least in part. GS has always been an investment house and this is their foray into commercial, public banking. Even without having to overcome their bad reputation, they would want to build good reputation here.
The problem for them is: They got singled out and now they have to either start providing increased credit where they do not think it is warranted or apply personal one-on-one underwriting instead of using an automated algorithm to each application -- while other modern fintechs will be able to continue issuing low credit limits and using cheap, automated algorithms -- and both will cost them money and put them at a competitive disadvantage.
Comments
G-S should have been able to say 'we know exactly why a lower credit limit was assigned and would be happy to post the explanation in your tweet'. Not that they should necessarily do so, but given the nature of the allegation with no actual evidence supporting same, it would have been nice to see G-S step up to respond similarly with the offer.
Instead, raise the credit limit and hope case closed? That invites more questions and provides no answers and engenders the 'guilty until proven innocent' stance in conspiracy oriented individuals' teeny tiny minds.
Maybe G-S is trying to live down its past rep and rebuild a new one. While most corporations don't want to look like the Big Bully, were I the CEO and my company innocent of the accusation, I'd respond as publicly as possible. 'If you want to know why, say the word and we'll publicly answer your very public charge. We're just itching to push SEND'.
Ok maybe the last sentence was a bit over the top. But just meekly Doing the Right Thing isn't going to sooth critics. There is no appeasing the 'Apple should have known better' idiots. Justified or not, they will always be haters. DHH took a cheap shot. G-S should, if able, address that. Just saying 'We have never... We wouldn't ever... We couldn't...' isn't enough.
That's a great argument! It really defends your point well -- or it would if you actually had one to make.
The problem for them is: They got singled out and now they have to either start providing increased credit where they do not think it is warranted or apply personal one-on-one underwriting instead of using an automated algorithm to each application -- while other modern fintechs will be able to continue issuing low credit limits and using cheap, automated algorithms -- and both will cost them money and put them at a competitive disadvantage.