DHH needs to state explicitly that his wife’s credit rating is similar to his own. Otherwise he’s wasting everyone’s time.
You aren't the first person to imply that his wife's credit rating is the potential issue and I'll give you credit for doing so politely rather than some of the other folks on here that disparaged DHH and his wife in the process of suggesting this. The funny thing is, he did. It isn't mentioned in the Apple Insider article but in his twitter thread where he lays out his complaints he explicitly states that her score his higher than his. Further he calls out that they checked via Transunion which is who GS uses for Apple Card.
It's really entertaining how many people in these comments are calling him an idiot and or saying he doesn't know what he is talking about but haven't bothered to go look at what he has actually said. Most of the types of comments made here he has actually addressed.
The irony of people talking smack about the guy for not knowing something while at the same time proving they really haven't bothered to educate themselves on situation is pretty rich.
The crux of the issue is that nobody knows how GS makes a decision on card approval, credit limit and interest rate. If you contact GS Apple Card support and ask what factors they consider they don't know and just tell you the decision is made on the persons "credit worthiness". Anyone that thinks it is simply income + credit score is incorrect. My spouse and I both applied. We both used our combined income as our income (per the directions when applying) with both have credit scores in the 800s with mine being a few points higher. They got double the credit limit I did and their interest rate is lowest possible while mine is in the middle. So, trying to simplify it to income and credit score is misguided at best.
I am not saying DHH's claim that the algorithm is sexist is correct, I do agree with him that GS should be open about what factors are being considered for issue a card. There are clearly a series of inputs they are using and once your interest rate and credit limit are set they won't entertain changing them (I have tried) and they won't tell you why they made the decision. There is no harm in being transparent so people can ensure their "inputs" are in order prior to applying for a card and it would live up to the pro-consumer brand Apple and GS are trying to get.
So, despite your qualifier, it appears that you take his word for everything? The fact remains: What would GS have to gain by discriminating against somebody with top flight credit? GS is after money and profit. They have zero incentive to not only discriminate but (likely) break the law.
I'll go with GS on this one. And, no, they do not have ANY obligation to expose their algorithms for determining credit worthiness. That would simply invite cheating.
EDIT: My initial post was about how many people being critical of DHH haven't bother to read what he actually said and I offered that fact that he has actually covered many of the criticisms that they are bring up as evidence. What is particularly funny is he is also discouraging people from drawing conclusions based on his anecdote and encouraging them to look at people that are experts in finical lending are saying. He is literally saying he may be entirely wrong and shouldn't be seen as knowing what he is talking about and people want to argue it anyway. It's f-ing ridiculous and shame on Apple Insider for going for a clickbait headline and not covering the actual story.
...then he claims not to be an expert and not to weight his anecdotal and possibly/likely ignorant opinion, which he published it on his massive public platform, despite now saying he may be entirely wrong. Can you say, “backpedaling”?
And you say he’s the reasonable one? Riiiight...
So, I responded to this before you edited it to make it more antagonistic and to mischaracterized what I said. It’s clear you just want a fight and have zero interest in discourse. I’m not going to oblige you but it’s Apple Insider and I’m sure someone will. Cheers.
Incorrect. I edited to clarify my thoughts and position, as is normal. That you interpreted it that way is on you.
I didn’t mischaracterize anything you said; I added a direct quote from him, and questioned your position that DHH is being reasonable. See your bolded comments where you said he’s discouraging people from drawing conclusions on his anecdote — despite that being exactly what he did by drawing his own conclusion. Thus the addition of his direct quote. Drawing conclusions is exactly what he’s advocating.
As an enterprise software dev who’s spent years working at Cap One and personally developed applications to process credit applications, I find the conclusions made by people with complete ignorance of how our code and software actually works to be odd. So I’ve contributed my experience and thoughts...if that’s not relevant discourse I don’t know what is.
Spot on. I think his tweets just exhibit his ignorance of how financial products work. My wife wouldn’t expect to be approved for the same credit amount as me, despite a similar situation—joint tax filing, married for 10+ years, owned several houses together, etc.
Conversely, if our roles were reversed and my wife made the vast majority of income, I wouldn’t expect to receive the same amount of credit as her. And we wouldn’t file separate applications anyway. One of us would create the account and add the other as a joint account owner.
Let’s see what the investigations reveal but my suspicion is he is just waisting everyone’s time and increasing the cost of similar products in the future.
DHH needs to state explicitly that his wife’s credit rating is similar to his own. Otherwise he’s wasting everyone’s time.
You aren't the first person to imply that his wife's credit rating is the potential issue and I'll give you credit for doing so politely rather than some of the other folks on here that disparaged DHH and his wife in the process of suggesting this. The funny thing is, he did. It isn't mentioned in the Apple Insider article but in his twitter thread where he lays out his complaints he explicitly states that her score his higher than his. Further he calls out that they checked via Transunion which is who GS uses for Apple Card.
It's really entertaining how many people in these comments are calling him an idiot and or saying he doesn't know what he is talking about but haven't bothered to go look at what he has actually said. Most of the types of comments made here he has actually addressed.
The irony of people talking smack about the guy for not knowing something while at the same time proving they really haven't bothered to educate themselves on situation is pretty rich.
The crux of the issue is that nobody knows how GS makes a decision on card approval, credit limit and interest rate. If you contact GS Apple Card support and ask what factors they consider they don't know and just tell you the decision is made on the persons "credit worthiness". Anyone that thinks it is simply income + credit score is incorrect. My spouse and I both applied. We both used our combined income as our income (per the directions when applying) with both have credit scores in the 800s with mine being a few points higher. They got double the credit limit I did and their interest rate is lowest possible while mine is in the middle. So, trying to simplify it to income and credit score is misguided at best.
I am not saying DHH's claim that the algorithm is sexist is correct, I do agree with him that GS should be open about what factors are being considered for issue a card. There are clearly a series of inputs they are using and once your interest rate and credit limit are set they won't entertain changing them (I have tried) and they won't tell you why they made the decision. There is no harm in being transparent so people can ensure their "inputs" are in order prior to applying for a card and it would live up to the pro-consumer brand Apple and GS are trying to get.
So, despite your qualifier, it appears that you take his word for everything? The fact remains: What would GS have to gain by discriminating against somebody with top flight credit? GS is after money and profit. They have zero incentive to not only discriminate but (likely) break the law.
I'll go with GS on this one. And, no, they do not have ANY obligation to expose their algorithms for determining credit worthiness. That would simply invite cheating.
It looks like you are kind of touching on three things here so I'm going to parse the subjects the best I can:
1. I have no reason to think that DHH is lying about his or his wife's credit score or other financial information he has shared. If you have a non-speculative reason to think he is lying I am open to changing my mind on the subject. I don't agree with all the conclusions he drawn from the situation but I do agree with some of his criticisms of the lending industry. I can in fact disagree with someone on somethings and agree with them on others. His argument covers a lot and there is plenty of room in it for agreement and disagreement it doesn't have to be 100% one way or the other.
2. GS + Discrimination: If you read what DHH is saying, then you will see that he isn't arguing that GS discrimination is they byproduct of implicit bias vs. implicit bias. Which is to say that it GS didn't intentionally set out to discriminate against women. Further, he is leveling the criticism against the credit industry as whole and simply using GS as the example. Again, I don't feel like he has satisfied burden of proof on this one so please don't ask me to defend the stance. I am simply answering your question of how a person or organization could end up discriminating even if it wasn't in their best interest.
3. GS + Algorithms. We are in agreement here. GS + other lenders are not obligated to provide their algorithms to the public nor I did I claim the were or that doing so would be a good idea. An algorithm takes inputs, process them and produces outputs. The challenge is we only see the outputs. We know what two of the inputs are (credit score and income) but nothing past that and GS + other lenders are not transparent about that. I have an Apple Card and I have asked GS directly and they say they used credit score, income and other factors. What I am saying is GS and other lenders should be transparent about what inputs they use. How the process it to determine credit worthiness and prevent fraud is their business. We may disagree on this as well but I think it a far more consumer friendly approach when you are open about what information you are collecting about someone.
EDIT: My initial post was about how many people being critical of DHH haven't bother to read what he actually said and I offered that fact that he has actually covered many of the criticisms that they are bring up as evidence. What is particularly funny is he is also discouraging people from drawing conclusions based on his anecdote and encouraging them to look at people that are experts in finical lending are saying. He is literally saying he may be entirely wrong and shouldn't be seen as knowing what he is talking about and people want to argue it anyway. It's f-ing ridiculous and shame on Apple Insider for going for a clickbait headline and not covering the actual story.
So your argument is that GS (and all lenders) should lend to those who are a poor credit risk to be sure that they do not "discriminate" against women. Got it. ... So how did that strategy ("Everybody a home owner!") work out for them in 2008?
The issue I raised to myself as I was requesting the Apple Card:
First, don't know the information credit agencies get. I'm pretty sure they don't get any tax information, or have any idea of our net worth. I'm not sure they have access to investment accounts.
In any case, except for a few special accounts, my wife and I have joint accounts.
So, when credit worthiness is determined, they are determining that decision based on our joint financial interests. I got the Apple Card.
Now, if my wife requests the Apple Card, they cannot determine her credit worthiness independent from the determination of our credit worthiness when I signed up, otherwise they would be, in some sense, doubling the estimate of our credit worthiness.
Because the Apple Card account is not issued to spouses jointly, it makes sense that the first to get the Apple Card, gets the max, while the second spouse might get denied or a minimal limit.
The solution for Apple-GS is to tie both cards together into one account by default.
If you would look at your credit reports what you'll see is that it's mostly based on loans, debt and payment history, not on income or assets. If the female spouse has credit cards in her own name, she's going to be judged on that. If she has more credit cards than he does, that can negatively impact her score. If she has a lesser credit history, that can negatively impact your score. If she didn't pay the minimum payment on time each month, that affects your score. Total balances affect your score. The fact that they have joint bank accounts is not relevant. What is relevant is whose names the credit cards and loans are in.
The first thing this guy should have done was to check the credit score of himself and his wife. If they're radically different, even for not good reasons and even for discriminatory reasons, that's the reason she got a lower credit card line on the Apple Card. Also, there's frequently wrong information on credit reports. I saw lots of bad info on mine - addresses I had never lived or decades old former addresses indicated as current, credit cards I never had, etc.
And GS did check my credit report. Whenever someone checks your credit report, it's reported in the credit report.
That's true -- credit reports and credit scores are NOT based on income. But, granting credit very much is. responsible lending means insuring the borrower has the means of repaying the loan. A person can have a credit score of over 800 and impeccable credit history but not have enough income to service a loan. That's what happened in 2008 - lenders ignored income (or enabled borrowers to lie about it) -- which resulted in massive defaults.
The goal of any lender is mostly to minimize defaults -- and income plays a very big part in that. Not the only part, but a big part.
DHH needs to state explicitly that his wife’s credit rating is similar to his own. Otherwise he’s wasting everyone’s time.
You aren't the first person to imply that his wife's credit rating is the potential issue and I'll give you credit for doing so politely rather than some of the other folks on here that disparaged DHH and his wife in the process of suggesting this. The funny thing is, he did. It isn't mentioned in the Apple Insider article but in his twitter thread where he lays out his complaints he explicitly states that her score his higher than his. Further he calls out that they checked via Transunion which is who GS uses for Apple Card.
It's really entertaining how many people in these comments are calling him an idiot and or saying he doesn't know what he is talking about but haven't bothered to go look at what he has actually said. Most of the types of comments made here he has actually addressed.
The irony of people talking smack about the guy for not knowing something while at the same time proving they really haven't bothered to educate themselves on situation is pretty rich.
The crux of the issue is that nobody knows how GS makes a decision on card approval, credit limit and interest rate. If you contact GS Apple Card support and ask what factors they consider they don't know and just tell you the decision is made on the persons "credit worthiness". Anyone that thinks it is simply income + credit score is incorrect. My spouse and I both applied. We both used our combined income as our income (per the directions when applying) with both have credit scores in the 800s with mine being a few points higher. They got double the credit limit I did and their interest rate is lowest possible while mine is in the middle. So, trying to simplify it to income and credit score is misguided at best.
I am not saying DHH's claim that the algorithm is sexist is correct, I do agree with him that GS should be open about what factors are being considered for issue a card. There are clearly a series of inputs they are using and once your interest rate and credit limit are set they won't entertain changing them (I have tried) and they won't tell you why they made the decision. There is no harm in being transparent so people can ensure their "inputs" are in order prior to applying for a card and it would live up to the pro-consumer brand Apple and GS are trying to get.
So, despite your qualifier, it appears that you take his word for everything? The fact remains: What would GS have to gain by discriminating against somebody with top flight credit? GS is after money and profit. They have zero incentive to not only discriminate but (likely) break the law.
I'll go with GS on this one. And, no, they do not have ANY obligation to expose their algorithms for determining credit worthiness. That would simply invite cheating.
It looks like you are kind of touching on three things here so I'm going to parse the subjects the best I can:
1. I have no reason to think that DHH is lying about his or his wife's credit score or other financial information he has shared. If you have a non-speculative reason to think he is lying I am open to changing my mind on the subject. I don't agree with all the conclusions he drawn from the situation but I do agree with some of his criticisms of the lending industry. I can in fact disagree with someone on somethings and agree with them on others. His argument covers a lot and there is plenty of room in it for agreement and disagreement it doesn't have to be 100% one way or the other.
2. GS + Discrimination: If you read what DHH is saying, then you will see that he isn't arguing that GS discrimination is they byproduct of implicit bias vs. implicit bias. Which is to say that it GS didn't intentionally set out to discriminate against women. Further, he is leveling the criticism against the credit industry as whole and simply using GS as the example. Again, I don't feel like he has satisfied burden of proof on this one so please don't ask me to defend the stance. I am simply answering your question of how a person or organization could end up discriminating even if it wasn't in their best interest.
3. GS + Algorithms. We are in agreement here. GS + other lenders are not obligated to provide their algorithms to the public nor I did I claim the were or that doing so would be a good idea. An algorithm takes inputs, process them and produces outputs. The challenge is we only see the outputs. We know what two of the inputs are (credit score and income) but nothing past that and GS + other lenders are not transparent about that. I have an Apple Card and I have asked GS directly and they say they used credit score, income and other factors. What I am saying is GS and other lenders should be transparent about what inputs they use. How the process it to determine credit worthiness and prevent fraud is their business. We may disagree on this as well but I think it a far more consumer friendly approach when you are open about what information you are collecting about someone.
EDIT: My initial post was about how many people being critical of DHH haven't bother to read what he actually said and I offered that fact that he has actually covered many of the criticisms that they are bring up as evidence. What is particularly funny is he is also discouraging people from drawing conclusions based on his anecdote and encouraging them to look at people that are experts in finical lending are saying. He is literally saying he may be entirely wrong and shouldn't be seen as knowing what he is talking about and people want to argue it anyway. It's f-ing ridiculous and shame on Apple Insider for going for a clickbait headline and not covering the actual story.
So your argument is that GS (and all lenders) should lend to those who are a poor credit risk to be sure that they do not "discriminate" against women. Got it. ... So how did that strategy ("Everybody a home owner!") work out for them in 2008?
No, I didn't say that nor can you point to anything I said that implies that.
The real takeaways here are that the credit system is voodoo, and there will never be any real accountability (nor any way for consumers to deal with the implications of unexpected scores) until the actual judgment processes/algorithms are regulated into being open and consistent. Maybe this supposition of sexism will help that... but probably not; we are ruled by corporations.
And yes, your credit score may go down as a result of paying off a debt.
Huh? In this case, while it is far from certain, I would say the most likely cause was that she had no income to report. That's not discrimination.
I as a male faced he same discrimination: As a retired person, while I have savings, I do not have a large income. As a result the credit allowance on my Apple Card is very low -- the lowest of all my cards. But, I never called it "Discrimination against retirees" or demanded the industry should be regulated.
However, it may mean that GS may need better, more expansive, algorithms.
DHH needs to state explicitly that his wife’s credit rating is similar to his own. Otherwise he’s wasting everyone’s time.
You aren't the first person to imply that his wife's credit rating is the potential issue and I'll give you credit for doing so politely rather than some of the other folks on here that disparaged DHH and his wife in the process of suggesting this. The funny thing is, he did. It isn't mentioned in the Apple Insider article but in his twitter thread where he lays out his complaints he explicitly states that her score his higher than his. Further he calls out that they checked via Transunion which is who GS uses for Apple Card.
It's really entertaining how many people in these comments are calling him an idiot and or saying he doesn't know what he is talking about but haven't bothered to go look at what he has actually said. Most of the types of comments made here he has actually addressed.
The irony of people talking smack about the guy for not knowing something while at the same time proving they really haven't bothered to educate themselves on situation is pretty rich.
The crux of the issue is that nobody knows how GS makes a decision on card approval, credit limit and interest rate. If you contact GS Apple Card support and ask what factors they consider they don't know and just tell you the decision is made on the persons "credit worthiness". Anyone that thinks it is simply income + credit score is incorrect. My spouse and I both applied. We both used our combined income as our income (per the directions when applying) with both have credit scores in the 800s with mine being a few points higher. They got double the credit limit I did and their interest rate is lowest possible while mine is in the middle. So, trying to simplify it to income and credit score is misguided at best.
I am not saying DHH's claim that the algorithm is sexist is correct, I do agree with him that GS should be open about what factors are being considered for issue a card. There are clearly a series of inputs they are using and once your interest rate and credit limit are set they won't entertain changing them (I have tried) and they won't tell you why they made the decision. There is no harm in being transparent so people can ensure their "inputs" are in order prior to applying for a card and it would live up to the pro-consumer brand Apple and GS are trying to get.
So, despite your qualifier, it appears that you take his word for everything? The fact remains: What would GS have to gain by discriminating against somebody with top flight credit? GS is after money and profit. They have zero incentive to not only discriminate but (likely) break the law.
I'll go with GS on this one. And, no, they do not have ANY obligation to expose their algorithms for determining credit worthiness. That would simply invite cheating.
It looks like you are kind of touching on three things here so I'm going to parse the subjects the best I can:
1. I have no reason to think that DHH is lying about his or his wife's credit score or other financial information he has shared. If you have a non-speculative reason to think he is lying I am open to changing my mind on the subject. I don't agree with all the conclusions he drawn from the situation but I do agree with some of his criticisms of the lending industry. I can in fact disagree with someone on somethings and agree with them on others. His argument covers a lot and there is plenty of room in it for agreement and disagreement it doesn't have to be 100% one way or the other.
2. GS + Discrimination: If you read what DHH is saying, then you will see that he isn't arguing that GS discrimination is they byproduct of implicit bias vs. implicit bias. Which is to say that it GS didn't intentionally set out to discriminate against women. Further, he is leveling the criticism against the credit industry as whole and simply using GS as the example. Again, I don't feel like he has satisfied burden of proof on this one so please don't ask me to defend the stance. I am simply answering your question of how a person or organization could end up discriminating even if it wasn't in their best interest.
3. GS + Algorithms. We are in agreement here. GS + other lenders are not obligated to provide their algorithms to the public nor I did I claim the were or that doing so would be a good idea. An algorithm takes inputs, process them and produces outputs. The challenge is we only see the outputs. We know what two of the inputs are (credit score and income) but nothing past that and GS + other lenders are not transparent about that. I have an Apple Card and I have asked GS directly and they say they used credit score, income and other factors. What I am saying is GS and other lenders should be transparent about what inputs they use. How the process it to determine credit worthiness and prevent fraud is their business. We may disagree on this as well but I think it a far more consumer friendly approach when you are open about what information you are collecting about someone.
EDIT: My initial post was about how many people being critical of DHH haven't bother to read what he actually said and I offered that fact that he has actually covered many of the criticisms that they are bring up as evidence. What is particularly funny is he is also discouraging people from drawing conclusions based on his anecdote and encouraging them to look at people that are experts in finical lending are saying. He is literally saying he may be entirely wrong and shouldn't be seen as knowing what he is talking about and people want to argue it anyway. It's f-ing ridiculous and shame on Apple Insider for going for a clickbait headline and not covering the actual story.
So your argument is that GS (and all lenders) should lend to those who are a poor credit risk to be sure that they do not "discriminate" against women. Got it. ... So how did that strategy ("Everybody a home owner!") work out for them in 2008?
No, I didn't say that nor can you point to anything I said that implies that.
DHH needs to state explicitly that his wife’s credit rating is similar to his own. Otherwise he’s wasting everyone’s time.
You aren't the first person to imply that his wife's credit rating is the potential issue and I'll give you credit for doing so politely rather than some of the other folks on here that disparaged DHH and his wife in the process of suggesting this. The funny thing is, he did. It isn't mentioned in the Apple Insider article but in his twitter thread where he lays out his complaints he explicitly states that her score his higher than his. Further he calls out that they checked via Transunion which is who GS uses for Apple Card.
It's really entertaining how many people in these comments are calling him an idiot and or saying he doesn't know what he is talking about but haven't bothered to go look at what he has actually said. Most of the types of comments made here he has actually addressed.
The irony of people talking smack about the guy for not knowing something while at the same time proving they really haven't bothered to educate themselves on situation is pretty rich.
The crux of the issue is that nobody knows how GS makes a decision on card approval, credit limit and interest rate. If you contact GS Apple Card support and ask what factors they consider they don't know and just tell you the decision is made on the persons "credit worthiness". Anyone that thinks it is simply income + credit score is incorrect. My spouse and I both applied. We both used our combined income as our income (per the directions when applying) with both have credit scores in the 800s with mine being a few points higher. They got double the credit limit I did and their interest rate is lowest possible while mine is in the middle. So, trying to simplify it to income and credit score is misguided at best.
I am not saying DHH's claim that the algorithm is sexist is correct, I do agree with him that GS should be open about what factors are being considered for issue a card. There are clearly a series of inputs they are using and once your interest rate and credit limit are set they won't entertain changing them (I have tried) and they won't tell you why they made the decision. There is no harm in being transparent so people can ensure their "inputs" are in order prior to applying for a card and it would live up to the pro-consumer brand Apple and GS are trying to get.
So, despite your qualifier, it appears that you take his word for everything? The fact remains: What would GS have to gain by discriminating against somebody with top flight credit? GS is after money and profit. They have zero incentive to not only discriminate but (likely) break the law.
I'll go with GS on this one. And, no, they do not have ANY obligation to expose their algorithms for determining credit worthiness. That would simply invite cheating.
It looks like you are kind of touching on three things here so I'm going to parse the subjects the best I can:
1. I have no reason to think that DHH is lying about his or his wife's credit score or other financial information he has shared. If you have a non-speculative reason to think he is lying I am open to changing my mind on the subject. I don't agree with all the conclusions he drawn from the situation but I do agree with some of his criticisms of the lending industry. I can in fact disagree with someone on somethings and agree with them on others. His argument covers a lot and there is plenty of room in it for agreement and disagreement it doesn't have to be 100% one way or the other.
2. GS + Discrimination: If you read what DHH is saying, then you will see that he isn't arguing that GS discrimination is they byproduct of implicit bias vs. implicit bias. Which is to say that it GS didn't intentionally set out to discriminate against women. Further, he is leveling the criticism against the credit industry as whole and simply using GS as the example. Again, I don't feel like he has satisfied burden of proof on this one so please don't ask me to defend the stance. I am simply answering your question of how a person or organization could end up discriminating even if it wasn't in their best interest.
3. GS + Algorithms. We are in agreement here. GS + other lenders are not obligated to provide their algorithms to the public nor I did I claim the were or that doing so would be a good idea. An algorithm takes inputs, process them and produces outputs. The challenge is we only see the outputs. We know what two of the inputs are (credit score and income) but nothing past that and GS + other lenders are not transparent about that. I have an Apple Card and I have asked GS directly and they say they used credit score, income and other factors. What I am saying is GS and other lenders should be transparent about what inputs they use. How the process it to determine credit worthiness and prevent fraud is their business. We may disagree on this as well but I think it a far more consumer friendly approach when you are open about what information you are collecting about someone.
EDIT: My initial post was about how many people being critical of DHH haven't bother to read what he actually said and I offered that fact that he has actually covered many of the criticisms that they are bring up as evidence. What is particularly funny is he is also discouraging people from drawing conclusions based on his anecdote and encouraging them to look at people that are experts in finical lending are saying. He is literally saying he may be entirely wrong and shouldn't be seen as knowing what he is talking about and people want to argue it anyway. It's f-ing ridiculous and shame on Apple Insider for going for a clickbait headline and not covering the actual story.
So your argument is that GS (and all lenders) should lend to those who are a poor credit risk to be sure that they do not "discriminate" against women. Got it. ... So how did that strategy ("Everybody a home owner!") work out for them in 2008?
No, I didn't say that nor can you point to anything I said that implies that.
You said:
"If you read what DHH is saying, then you will see that he isn't arguing
that GS discrimination is they byproduct of implicit bias vs. implicit
bias. Which is to say that it GS didn't intentionally set out to
discriminate against women. Further, he is leveling the criticism
against the credit industry as whole and simply using GS as the example.
Again, I don't feel like he has satisfied burden of proof on this one
so please don't ask me to defend the stance. I am simply answering your
question of how a person or organization could end up discriminating
even if it wasn't in their best interest. "
So, despite your walkback/disclaimer I took that as a strong implication.
I don’t — and I don’t care to — know who DHH is and whether he has a “trophy wife” who is, according to you, a “nothing (typical)” etc., but that has nothing to do with the point of the article. It is an Apple-branded card, and Apple can’t simply ignore the fallout that will result from this. It is already hitting the mainstream media in a big way, and I am guessing the publicity will grow.
It has *everything* to do with the article. It seems you are a bit slow to catch on so I'll explain it again for you again. DHH is a millionaire, he has a wife, who makes nothing (typical). If she wants to spend money (DHH's money) then she should ask him for an allowance of some sort, then everyone would be happy.
I wish I could help you with basic comprehension, but life beckons...
I don’t — and I don’t care to — know who DHH is and whether he has a “trophy wife” who is, according to you, a “nothing (typical)” etc., but that has nothing to do with the point of the article. It is an Apple-branded card, and Apple can’t simply ignore the fallout that will result from this. It is already hitting the mainstream media in a big way, and I am guessing the publicity will grow.
It has *everything* to do with the article. It seems you are a bit slow to catch on so I'll explain it again for you again. DHH is a millionaire, he has a wife, who makes nothing (typical). If she wants to spend money (DHH's money) then she should ask him for an allowance of some sort, then everyone would be happy.
Why does this site draw in so many misogynists?
Oh look, another SJW playing the misogynist card again. The problem for you is, I stand by my argument even if the roles were reversed. If his wife was the millionaire, and he was the non-contributing gold digger, then she should have the higher credit score.
1) It's interesting how bigots, especially of the incel variety, see a desire for ethical equality of all people as a pejorative.
2) No, you don't feel that way as you made it very clear that it's typical for a woman to contribute nothing.
I don’t — and I don’t care to — know who DHH is and whether he has a “trophy wife” who is, according to you, a “nothing (typical)” etc., but that has nothing to do with the point of the article. It is an Apple-branded card, and Apple can’t simply ignore the fallout that will result from this. It is already hitting the mainstream media in a big way, and I am guessing the publicity will grow.
It has *everything* to do with the article. It seems you are a bit slow to catch on so I'll explain it again for you again. DHH is a millionaire, he has a wife, who makes nothing (typical). If she wants to spend money (DHH's money) then she should ask him for an allowance of some sort, then everyone would be happy.
Why does this site draw in so many misogynists?
Oh look, another SJW playing the misogynist card again. The problem for you is, I stand by my argument even if the roles were reversed. If his wife was the millionaire, and he was the non-contributing gold digger, then she should have the higher credit score.
1) It's interesting how bigots, especially of the incel variety, see a desire for ethical equality of all people as a pejorative.
2) No, you don't feel that way as you made it very clear that it's typical for a woman to contribute nothing.
Uh Oh! Things are getting pretty desperate when you need to play the incel card! You are the one with nearly 10K comments on AppleInsider, and you think I'm and incle!? 😂
Reading comprehension is not your strong suite, is it? It's typical for a millionaires to attract people who don't have incomes. You just think I was exclusively talking about men because there are a higher ratio of men millionaires.
Here is an idea? How about you get a job and start making some real money?
DHH needs to state explicitly that his wife’s credit rating is similar to his own. Otherwise he’s wasting everyone’s time.
You aren't the first person to imply that his wife's credit rating is the potential issue and I'll give you credit for doing so politely rather than some of the other folks on here that disparaged DHH and his wife in the process of suggesting this. The funny thing is, he did. It isn't mentioned in the Apple Insider article but in his twitter thread where he lays out his complaints he explicitly states that her score his higher than his. Further he calls out that they checked via Transunion which is who GS uses for Apple Card.
It's really entertaining how many people in these comments are calling him an idiot and or saying he doesn't know what he is talking about but haven't bothered to go look at what he has actually said. Most of the types of comments made here he has actually addressed.
The irony of people talking smack about the guy for not knowing something while at the same time proving they really haven't bothered to educate themselves on situation is pretty rich.
The crux of the issue is that nobody knows how GS makes a decision on card approval, credit limit and interest rate. If you contact GS Apple Card support and ask what factors they consider they don't know and just tell you the decision is made on the persons "credit worthiness". Anyone that thinks it is simply income + credit score is incorrect. My spouse and I both applied. We both used our combined income as our income (per the directions when applying) with both have credit scores in the 800s with mine being a few points higher. They got double the credit limit I did and their interest rate is lowest possible while mine is in the middle. So, trying to simplify it to income and credit score is misguided at best.
I am not saying DHH's claim that the algorithm is sexist is correct, I do agree with him that GS should be open about what factors are being considered for issue a card. There are clearly a series of inputs they are using and once your interest rate and credit limit are set they won't entertain changing them (I have tried) and they won't tell you why they made the decision. There is no harm in being transparent so people can ensure their "inputs" are in order prior to applying for a card and it would live up to the pro-consumer brand Apple and GS are trying to get.
So did DHH also address the income question? Did they both answer that question the same way? In our case, we did what you did re: income, but we got the expected result — exactly the same interest rate and credit lines.
Another question for him: Did they apply for their mortgage(s) jointly? That’s likely a factor.
I get that algorithms like this are complex and proprietary, but a general description of the factors involved would be helpful. ... I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Why are you asking me? My entire point was about people commenting what he is saying without bothering to read what he was saying. People that do that aren't interested in discourse they are simply interested in promoting their preconceived notions.
If you what to know what he has said or ask him a question click on the link in the article and read what he said and ask him a question. He has been answering questions and clarifying.
Yeah, I'm not holding my breath on the lending industry becoming consumer friendly but I boy can dream.
I asked you because I thought you might know the answer to the question, having already read his responses? Instead of me spending time poring over his Twitter feed trying to find it. Not everyone has Twitter accounts. A simple “I don’t know” would have been sufficient.
DHH needs to state explicitly that his wife’s credit rating is similar to his own. Otherwise he’s wasting everyone’s time.
You aren't the first person to imply that his wife's credit rating is the potential issue and I'll give you credit for doing so politely rather than some of the other folks on here that disparaged DHH and his wife in the process of suggesting this. The funny thing is, he did. It isn't mentioned in the Apple Insider article but in his twitter thread where he lays out his complaints he explicitly states that her score his higher than his. Further he calls out that they checked via Transunion which is who GS uses for Apple Card.
It's really entertaining how many people in these comments are calling him an idiot and or saying he doesn't know what he is talking about but haven't bothered to go look at what he has actually said. Most of the types of comments made here he has actually addressed.
The irony of people talking smack about the guy for not knowing something while at the same time proving they really haven't bothered to educate themselves on situation is pretty rich.
The crux of the issue is that nobody knows how GS makes a decision on card approval, credit limit and interest rate. If you contact GS Apple Card support and ask what factors they consider they don't know and just tell you the decision is made on the persons "credit worthiness". Anyone that thinks it is simply income + credit score is incorrect. My spouse and I both applied. We both used our combined income as our income (per the directions when applying) with both have credit scores in the 800s with mine being a few points higher. They got double the credit limit I did and their interest rate is lowest possible while mine is in the middle. So, trying to simplify it to income and credit score is misguided at best.
I am not saying DHH's claim that the algorithm is sexist is correct, I do agree with him that GS should be open about what factors are being considered for issue a card. There are clearly a series of inputs they are using and once your interest rate and credit limit are set they won't entertain changing them (I have tried) and they won't tell you why they made the decision. There is no harm in being transparent so people can ensure their "inputs" are in order prior to applying for a card and it would live up to the pro-consumer brand Apple and GS are trying to get.
So, despite your qualifier, it appears that you take his word for everything? The fact remains: What would GS have to gain by discriminating against somebody with top flight credit? GS is after money and profit. They have zero incentive to not only discriminate but (likely) break the law.
I'll go with GS on this one. And, no, they do not have ANY obligation to expose their algorithms for determining credit worthiness. That would simply invite cheating.
It looks like you are kind of touching on three things here so I'm going to parse the subjects the best I can:
1. I have no reason to think that DHH is lying about his or his wife's credit score or other financial information he has shared. If you have a non-speculative reason to think he is lying I am open to changing my mind on the subject. I don't agree with all the conclusions he drawn from the situation but I do agree with some of his criticisms of the lending industry. I can in fact disagree with someone on somethings and agree with them on others. His argument covers a lot and there is plenty of room in it for agreement and disagreement it doesn't have to be 100% one way or the other.
2. GS + Discrimination: If you read what DHH is saying, then you will see that he isn't arguing that GS discrimination is they byproduct of implicit bias vs. implicit bias. Which is to say that it GS didn't intentionally set out to discriminate against women. Further, he is leveling the criticism against the credit industry as whole and simply using GS as the example. Again, I don't feel like he has satisfied burden of proof on this one so please don't ask me to defend the stance. I am simply answering your question of how a person or organization could end up discriminating even if it wasn't in their best interest.
3. GS + Algorithms. We are in agreement here. GS + other lenders are not obligated to provide their algorithms to the public nor I did I claim the were or that doing so would be a good idea. An algorithm takes inputs, process them and produces outputs. The challenge is we only see the outputs. We know what two of the inputs are (credit score and income) but nothing past that and GS + other lenders are not transparent about that. I have an Apple Card and I have asked GS directly and they say they used credit score, income and other factors. What I am saying is GS and other lenders should be transparent about what inputs they use. How the process it to determine credit worthiness and prevent fraud is their business. We may disagree on this as well but I think it a far more consumer friendly approach when you are open about what information you are collecting about someone.
EDIT: My initial post was about how many people being critical of DHH haven't bother to read what he actually said and I offered that fact that he has actually covered many of the criticisms that they are bring up as evidence. What is particularly funny is he is also discouraging people from drawing conclusions based on his anecdote and encouraging them to look at people that are experts in finical lending are saying. He is literally saying he may be entirely wrong and shouldn't be seen as knowing what he is talking about and people want to argue it anyway. It's f-ing ridiculous and shame on Apple Insider for going for a clickbait headline and not covering the actual story.
So your argument is that GS (and all lenders) should lend to those who are a poor credit risk to be sure that they do not "discriminate" against women. Got it. ... So how did that strategy ("Everybody a home owner!") work out for them in 2008?
No, I didn't say that nor can you point to anything I said that implies that.
DHH needs to state explicitly that his wife’s credit rating is similar to his own. Otherwise he’s wasting everyone’s time.
You aren't the first person to imply that his wife's credit rating is the potential issue and I'll give you credit for doing so politely rather than some of the other folks on here that disparaged DHH and his wife in the process of suggesting this. The funny thing is, he did. It isn't mentioned in the Apple Insider article but in his twitter thread where he lays out his complaints he explicitly states that her score his higher than his. Further he calls out that they checked via Transunion which is who GS uses for Apple Card.
It's really entertaining how many people in these comments are calling him an idiot and or saying he doesn't know what he is talking about but haven't bothered to go look at what he has actually said. Most of the types of comments made here he has actually addressed.
The irony of people talking smack about the guy for not knowing something while at the same time proving they really haven't bothered to educate themselves on situation is pretty rich.
The crux of the issue is that nobody knows how GS makes a decision on card approval, credit limit and interest rate. If you contact GS Apple Card support and ask what factors they consider they don't know and just tell you the decision is made on the persons "credit worthiness". Anyone that thinks it is simply income + credit score is incorrect. My spouse and I both applied. We both used our combined income as our income (per the directions when applying) with both have credit scores in the 800s with mine being a few points higher. They got double the credit limit I did and their interest rate is lowest possible while mine is in the middle. So, trying to simplify it to income and credit score is misguided at best.
I am not saying DHH's claim that the algorithm is sexist is correct, I do agree with him that GS should be open about what factors are being considered for issue a card. There are clearly a series of inputs they are using and once your interest rate and credit limit are set they won't entertain changing them (I have tried) and they won't tell you why they made the decision. There is no harm in being transparent so people can ensure their "inputs" are in order prior to applying for a card and it would live up to the pro-consumer brand Apple and GS are trying to get.
So, despite your qualifier, it appears that you take his word for everything? The fact remains: What would GS have to gain by discriminating against somebody with top flight credit? GS is after money and profit. They have zero incentive to not only discriminate but (likely) break the law.
I'll go with GS on this one. And, no, they do not have ANY obligation to expose their algorithms for determining credit worthiness. That would simply invite cheating.
It looks like you are kind of touching on three things here so I'm going to parse the subjects the best I can:
1. I have no reason to think that DHH is lying about his or his wife's credit score or other financial information he has shared. If you have a non-speculative reason to think he is lying I am open to changing my mind on the subject. I don't agree with all the conclusions he drawn from the situation but I do agree with some of his criticisms of the lending industry. I can in fact disagree with someone on somethings and agree with them on others. His argument covers a lot and there is plenty of room in it for agreement and disagreement it doesn't have to be 100% one way or the other.
2. GS + Discrimination: If you read what DHH is saying, then you will see that he isn't arguing that GS discrimination is they byproduct of implicit bias vs. implicit bias. Which is to say that it GS didn't intentionally set out to discriminate against women. Further, he is leveling the criticism against the credit industry as whole and simply using GS as the example. Again, I don't feel like he has satisfied burden of proof on this one so please don't ask me to defend the stance. I am simply answering your question of how a person or organization could end up discriminating even if it wasn't in their best interest.
3. GS + Algorithms. We are in agreement here. GS + other lenders are not obligated to provide their algorithms to the public nor I did I claim the were or that doing so would be a good idea. An algorithm takes inputs, process them and produces outputs. The challenge is we only see the outputs. We know what two of the inputs are (credit score and income) but nothing past that and GS + other lenders are not transparent about that. I have an Apple Card and I have asked GS directly and they say they used credit score, income and other factors. What I am saying is GS and other lenders should be transparent about what inputs they use. How the process it to determine credit worthiness and prevent fraud is their business. We may disagree on this as well but I think it a far more consumer friendly approach when you are open about what information you are collecting about someone.
EDIT: My initial post was about how many people being critical of DHH haven't bother to read what he actually said and I offered that fact that he has actually covered many of the criticisms that they are bring up as evidence. What is particularly funny is he is also discouraging people from drawing conclusions based on his anecdote and encouraging them to look at people that are experts in finical lending are saying. He is literally saying he may be entirely wrong and shouldn't be seen as knowing what he is talking about and people want to argue it anyway. It's f-ing ridiculous and shame on Apple Insider for going for a clickbait headline and not covering the actual story.
So your argument is that GS (and all lenders) should lend to those who are a poor credit risk to be sure that they do not "discriminate" against women. Got it. ... So how did that strategy ("Everybody a home owner!") work out for them in 2008?
No, I didn't say that nor can you point to anything I said that implies that.
You said:
"If you read what DHH is saying, then you will see that he isn't arguing
that GS discrimination is they byproduct of implicit bias vs. implicit
bias. Which is to say that it GS didn't intentionally set out to
discriminate against women. Further, he is leveling the criticism
against the credit industry as whole and simply using GS as the example.
Again, I don't feel like he has satisfied burden of proof on this one
so please don't ask me to defend the stance. I am simply answering your
question of how a person or organization could end up discriminating
even if it wasn't in their best interest. "
So, despite your walkback/disclaimer I took that as a strong implication.
There is nothing in what you are quoting that suggests lenders should lend to those that are a credit risk. The argument is that the implicit or unconscious bias that is built into the algorithm is causing people that are not a credit risk to be flagged as such. This is super easy to resolve. Lenders can be more transparent about what factors they use beyond income and credit score to determine credit worthiness and they can be forthcoming with consumers about what areas were problematic. A more open and transparent process is what is being asked for not lending to people that are high risk.
As it relates to Apple and GS, I find it interesting. The argument against the idea that the process should be more open and transparent is that isn't how other lenders do it. To me that is a completely damning argument as this was supposed to be a different kind of credit card and it really is just the same ol sh*t. I personally expect more from Apple.
I don’t — and I don’t care to — know who DHH is and whether he has a “trophy wife” who is, according to you, a “nothing (typical)” etc., but that has nothing to do with the point of the article. It is an Apple-branded card, and Apple can’t simply ignore the fallout that will result from this. It is already hitting the mainstream media in a big way, and I am guessing the publicity will grow.
It has *everything* to do with the article. It seems you are a bit slow to catch on so I'll explain it again for you again. DHH is a millionaire, he has a wife, who makes nothing (typical). If she wants to spend money (DHH's money) then she should ask him for an allowance of some sort, then everyone would be happy.
Why does this site draw in so many misogynists?
Oh look, another SJW playing the misogynist card again. The problem for you is, I stand by my argument even if the roles were reversed. If his wife was the millionaire, and he was the non-contributing gold digger, then she should have the higher credit score.
Non-contributing gold digger... that’s hilarious. Thanks for the laugh!
This is not an Apple or an Apple Card issue. This may not even be a Goldman Sachs issue. It may suggest an underlying bias in the credit and credit rating system. That is what needs to be examined.
Fix the root cause and you solve problems. Fix symptoms and you make no progress.
But I ask again, if there is a gender bias here (whether with Apple, Goldman or "in the credit and credit rating system") as some seem to think, what is the motive for this bias?
Stop trying to inject logic into the conversation.
Unless they have jointly applied for every loan, credit card, bank account, utility account, etc. since day one, their history will be different.
Unless you're in your 20s 0r 30s, married couples will have identical credit history, and been married for less 10 years, perhaps there is a difference in credit history. They should be identical after this.
Nonsense. Every bill, every loan, and all financial accounts and records have both of you listed as the account holder? I don't think so. Auto loans, for instance, only have one signer unless you need to co-sign, which if you have identical credit scores, as you claim, is impossible and makes no sense.
To answer your question: YES! Every account we have is jointly owned. And, NO, we don't have any loans.
Comments
I didn’t mischaracterize anything you said; I added a direct quote from him, and questioned your position that DHH is being reasonable. See your bolded comments where you said he’s discouraging people from drawing conclusions on his anecdote — despite that being exactly what he did by drawing his own conclusion. Thus the addition of his direct quote. Drawing conclusions is exactly what he’s advocating.
As an enterprise software dev who’s spent years working at Cap One and personally developed applications to process credit applications, I find the conclusions made by people with complete ignorance of how our code and software actually works to be odd. So I’ve contributed my experience and thoughts...if that’s not relevant discourse I don’t know what is.
Cheers.
the account and add the other as a joint account owner.
... So how did that strategy ("Everybody a home owner!") work out for them in 2008?
But, granting credit very much is. responsible lending means insuring the borrower has the means of repaying the loan. A person can have a credit score of over 800 and impeccable credit history but not have enough income to service a loan. That's what happened in 2008 - lenders ignored income (or enabled borrowers to lie about it) -- which resulted in massive defaults.
The goal of any lender is mostly to minimize defaults -- and income plays a very big part in that. Not the only part, but a big part.
In this case, while it is far from certain, I would say the most likely cause was that she had no income to report. That's not discrimination.
I as a male faced he same discrimination: As a retired person, while I have savings, I do not have a large income. As a result the credit allowance on my Apple Card is very low -- the lowest of all my cards. But, I never called it "Discrimination against retirees" or demanded the industry should be regulated.
However, it may mean that GS may need better, more expansive, algorithms.
You said:
2) No, you don't feel that way as you made it very clear that it's typical for a woman to contribute nothing.
Reading comprehension is not your strong suite, is it? It's typical for a millionaires to attract people who don't have incomes. You just think I was exclusively talking about men because there are a higher ratio of men millionaires.
Here is an idea? How about you get a job and start making some real money?
As it relates to Apple and GS, I find it interesting. The argument against the idea that the process should be more open and transparent is that isn't how other lenders do it. To me that is a completely damning argument as this was supposed to be a different kind of credit card and it really is just the same ol sh*t. I personally expect more from Apple.
Fix the root cause and you solve problems. Fix symptoms and you make no progress.