Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

PickUrPoison

macrumors G3
Sep 12, 2017
8,131
10,720
Sunnyvale, CA
You don’t get it. Fico score is not the only thing that influences what credit limit and APR you'll get. There are way more advanced models for that. while you know what goes into Fico score you don't know what goes into Goldman's credit models.
Oh I get it :) But you replied to a post about what doesn’t affect FICO scores, not what affects credit limits or account interest rates.

If you want to discuss underwriting criteria, debt capacity, credit limits or rate setting, it would probably be better to reply instead to my post #5 above.
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
51,390
19,458
Factors that don’t affect your FICO credit score:
  • Being married for many years
  • Gender
  • Filing joint taxes
  • Living in a community property state
  • Assets, no matter their value—$1,000 or $100 million—regardless of whether they are individually or jointly owned
  • Income, be it individual, joint, from social security, a trust fund, or even if it is non-existent. You can be a CEO of a Fortune 10 company or collect cans and bottles for recycling, whether you make $100/year or $100 million/year. Doesn’t matter.
  • Whether you rent a run down shack on the wrong side of the tracks or live in a gated community in a $50 million mansion.
But some of those in one way or another get factored into various aspects of lending decisions (credit cards falling under that category) as those involve more than just simply FICO.
 

Neepman

macrumors 6502a
Jul 31, 2008
834
1,204
There are a jillion ways to tank your credit score. Change mobile providers? a 3 point "hard" hit that stays on your credit for 3 years. Take advantage of one of those "Open a credit card with us and get 15 percent off this purchase" deals another 3 points. People can rack 4 of those up in one xmas season without realizing it And if Have too many of those 3 pointers on your FICO that deducts another 15 points for having too many of those 3 pointers. My FICO is 835 and maintaining it is not easy. Because even if you have a 835 that be checked with a points free "soft" hit, that is not enough for most places not to do pull "hard" hit on your credit .
 

ChromeAce

macrumors 6502a
Jun 11, 2009
580
885
Insurance companies calculate risk based on all kinds of data points, including gender (whether they admit it or not). It’s not discrimination if the datasets show performance variations and statistical trends reflect pricing and credit limit adjustments. Smokers who drive red cars should pay more if they tend to crash more. Fair on a personal level? No. But no one said it should be. If gays have a statistical propensity to earn more than others, that demographic can be uprated. It’s not discrimination on a personal level, it’s a systemic component of capitalism based on risk data sets. If more women default on debt, build it into the dataset. It’s a numbers gamble and the casinos are fully entitled to set the odds as they see fit. If you don’t like it, shop elsewhere.
 

Xenden

macrumors 6502
Jun 14, 2013
262
383
Rio Rancho, NM
Here is what I don’t get, why is it okay to raise car insurance premiums for males, but not okay to consider women more of a credit liability.

Not saying it is true, but financial risk is shielded by limiting exposure to financial ruin.

If it turns out that it can be proven that females are more of a credit risk than males, why not offer lower credit limits.
Insurance is allowed to used gender as a consideration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wanted797

Wanted797

macrumors 68000
Oct 28, 2011
1,697
3,561
Australia
Here is what I don’t get, why is it okay to raise car insurance premiums for males, but not okay to consider women more of a credit liability.

Not saying it is true, but financial risk is shielded by limiting exposure to financial ruin.

If it turns out that it can be proven that females are more of a credit risk than males, why not offer lower credit limits.
Insurance is allowed to used gender as a consideration.

BeCaUsE yOu CaNt Be SeXiSt To MeN...
 

unplugme71

macrumors 68030
May 20, 2011
2,827
754
Earth
My mother has a higher combined credit limit than my father - 60% more. My father also earns 3x more income. Go figure.
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
51,390
19,458

And before you sneakily remove this totally relevant video again, please tell me how it breaks forum rules?
Curious, what’s the particular commentary in relation to the article?
 

Tech198

Cancelled
Mar 21, 2011
15,915
2,151
I don’t trust banks at all, but this seems like the only smart move from a PR perspective. It’s giving people the option to be re-checked so they can really see if it’s the company’s supposed bias or just them.

if there was an option to get paid in cash and anyone pays you in cash 'legal' then i would have done it..

Problem is, i don't think the tax office would like that. My parents were trying find ways to do it, but there is no option..

Mortgage on house ? you can't pay that without an account.
 

omihek

macrumors 6502a
May 3, 2014
632
2,001
Salt Lake City, UT
Curious, what’s the particular commentary in relation to the article?
First, that this whole gender bias thing is a big non-story. As many more educated people than me have already said, there are many factors that go into determining credit limits, and just because 2 people share assets and bank accounts doesn't mean their credit history is at all the same. Also, there have been reports of women getting a higher credit limit than their male partners, so again this big story about gender bias with Apple Card is just a big pile of nothing.

With all that said, the video shows that you can't change the outcomes of an algorithm simply by pressing "Run" again. Goldman Sachs offering to "reevaluate" Apple Card credit limits instantly reminded me of this scene from The Office where Michael asks the guy to "crunch those numbers again" to see if that will get his company out of financial trouble. Predictably, it doesn't. And just as predictably, the algorithm to determine credit limits won't give out different results just by "crunching the numbers" again. In fact, because of this whole outburst, Goldman Sachs may now change the algorithm to include some gender bias so that the females in question will get higher credit limits and the media will be calmed down for a time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4sallypat

VulchR

macrumors 68040
Jun 8, 2009
3,358
14,217
Scotland
I am not certain, but my guess is the bank was using a neural net to predict creditworthiness and got caught up with one of the problems of using them - the hidden units can create hidden, implicit representations of characteristics, like sex, without it being obvious. This is going to happen more and more until we figure out how to understand what the damn things are doing.
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
51,390
19,458
First, that this whole gender bias thing is a big non-story. As many more educated people than me have already said, there are many factors that go into determining credit limits, and just because 2 people share assets and bank accounts doesn't mean their credit history is at all the same. Also, there have been reports of women getting a higher credit limit than their male partners, so again this big story about gender bias with Apple Card is just a big pile of nothing.

With all that said, the video shows that you can't change the outcomes of an algorithm simply by pressing "Run" again. Goldman Sachs offering to "reevaluate" Apple Card credit limits instantly reminded me of this scene from The Office where Michael asks the guy to "crunch those numbers again" to see if that will get his company out of financial trouble. Predictably, it doesn't. And just as predictably, the algorithm to determine credit limits won't give out different results just by "crunching the numbers" again. In fact, because of this whole outburst, Goldman Sachs may now change the algorithm to include some gender bias so that the females in question will get higher credit limits and the media will be calmed down for a time.
Well, with the additional details the video now has context. As far as what was actually said, it seems that it's not really down to simply rerunning the same things and that's it, given that the statement mentioned "Based on additional information that we may request, we will re-evaluate your credit line."
[automerge]1573766964[/automerge]
I am not certain, but my guess is the bank was using a neural net to predict creditworthiness and got caught up with one of the problems of using them - the hidden units can create hidden, implicit representations of characteristics, like sex, without it being obvious. This is going to happen more and more until we figure out how to understand what the damn things are doing.
Or that simply different people in fact had different financial aspects to them (despite being married and all that) and it's those differences, unrelated to gender or anything like that, that ultimately played a role.
 

VulchR

macrumors 68040
Jun 8, 2009
3,358
14,217
Scotland
...
Or that simply different people in fact had different financial aspects to them (despite being married and all that) and it's those differences, unrelated to gender or anything like that, that ultimately played a role.

Until the bank can confirm why these outcomes happens, implicit sexism is as just a good of explanation as any. People who are married tend to come form the same socio-economic background and education, so I think there is very good reason to be suspicious. The fact that the bank could not explain immediately what happened suggests to me that it is not simple as different backgrounds resulting in different credit scores. And, if neural nets were indeed used, they have a history of representing characteristics that are protected against discrimination (e.g., race) implicitly in hidden layers that feed inputs to decision units.
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
51,390
19,458
The fact that the bank could not explain immediately what happened suggests to me that it is not simple as different backgrounds resulting in different credit scores.
Except that they basically did.
 

VulchR

macrumors 68040
Jun 8, 2009
3,358
14,217
Scotland
Except that they basically did.

So you blindly trust corporate denials? I understand they do not inteintionally use gender, but that have no tproven that their AI does not represent it explicitly. Let them show the statistics for their credit limits for men and women.
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
51,390
19,458
So you blindly trust corporate denials? I understand they do not inteintionally use gender, but that have no tproven that their AI does not represent it explicitly. Let them show the statistics for their credit limits for men and women.
Initially it was that they didn’t explain it, then when that didn’t hold up, it became that the explanation can’t be trusted. Moving the goal posts and deflecting to something else only ends up undermining any actual points that might be there.
 
Last edited:

4sallypat

macrumors 68040
Sep 16, 2016
3,474
3,277
So Calif
Apple Card does not offer the traditional joint application or authorized user (AU) which is why this is being brought up.

GS and Apple designed the card to be an individual line of credit issued for only that one person.

Because of this new novel digital wallet card that offers a credit line and APR before you apply formally, they do a soft pull on your credit. The soft pull only takes into consideration: address, income, and overall credit profile.

Think about why these people are complaining - they are used to joint or AU card accounts that share on line of credit.

If they don't like it, don't do business with this style of credit lending - go shop elsewhere...

My spouse has a different line of Apple card credit even though she has had joint accounts and AU cards with the exact same joint limit...
 

VulchR

macrumors 68040
Jun 8, 2009
3,358
14,217
Scotland
So first it was that they didn’t explain it, then when that didn’t hold up it was that the explanation can’t be trusted. Moving the goal posts and deflecting to something else only ends up undermining any pints that might actually be there.

They merely claimed they do not explicitly use gender in assigning a credit limit. That is not the same thing as confirming that any AI they use does not implicitly represent gender, nor is it the same thing releasing statistics about the credit limits they've given to men versus women. The question of trust is about how thoroughly they looked, if at all, for implicit bias about gender in their software.
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
51,390
19,458
They merely claimed they do not explicitly use gender in assigning a credit limit. That is not the same thing as confirming that any AI they use does not implicitly represent gender, nor is it the same thing releasing statistics about the credit limits they've given to men versus women. The question of trust is about how thoroughly they looked, if at all, for implicit bias about gender in their software.
There was more to the original explanation, as mentioned in the original article about this which is linked in the follow up article that is associated with this discussion. (Pretty much all of this has also been fairly extensively covered in the discussion associated with the initial article.)
 

VulchR

macrumors 68040
Jun 8, 2009
3,358
14,217
Scotland
There was more to the original explanation, as mentioned in the original article about this which is linked in the follow up article that is associated with this discussion. All of this has also been fairly extensively covered in the discussion associated with the initial article about it.

I read it and saw no evidence - just a claim. If that satisfies you, then fine. Banks have gotten into trouble before with AI systems implicitly discriminating, so I think they should provide technical documentation proving they don't discriminate. You should read the short article at this link if you do not think this is a problem.
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
51,390
19,458
I read it and saw no evidence - just a claim. If that satisfies you, then fine. Banks have gotten into trouble before with AI systems implicitly discriminating, so I think they should provide technical documentation proving they don't discriminate. You should read the short article at this link if you do not think this is a problem.
What I originally pointed out in my initial reply to one potential take on it is that there's also a fairly logical and plausible existing explanation for it all.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.