Regulators Looking Into Claims of Gender Discrimination in Apple Card Credit Decisions, Goldman Sachs Responds

[newyorksole]

The power of Twitter. This whole story doesn’t trigger me. I do see where he’s coming from. Like, no one can explain the algorithm, but blames the algorithm Lol.

That’s also a word that is being used soooo much. It’s kind of annoying haha.

 

[blacktape242]

sooo much woke...

 

[GeekyGrannie]

Sounds like the problem is rooted in married couples being used to having joint accounts on credit cards. The wife (or husband in other cases) wants to be able to access the 10x credit limit that the spouse has, but this is just not how the Apple Card works. Each person has to stand on their own credit score, credit history, DTI ratio, etc. Some couples just don’t understand that and assume that what one gets, the other should get as well because most other credit cards work that way - add authorized user, done. Some couples are getting a lesson in how credit qualification works (scary it wasn’t known before), but the cry becomes discrimination.

Once GS/Apple figures out how to allow spouses to become authorized users, this will settle down into a non-issue.

I agree that the GS policy of not allowing joint cards (authorized users) is probably what brought this to light. But I think it is possible that the underlying problem (feature?) has always been there. Do other credit card companies offer individual cards to married customers as GS does? What would if look like if both types of cards were offered? It seems in the case of joint cards, there is one debt limit that is shared by all card holders, like shared minutes on a cell phone account. With individual card accounts, different debt limits can be assigned. When GS begins offering joint accounts will the individual account option go away? That may be the solution to their potential legal problem.

 

[dmdev]

I remember during the sign-up process that I was asked to type in my annual income (I could type whatever I want actually). Being that this number was included in the algorithm along with the credit history maintained by the credit bureaus, it would beg the question: what numbers did this guy and his wife input?

 

[AdonisSMU]

There are too many factors to consider as to why this happened, so it’s too soon to pull the gender card, unless of course GS is guilty of it.

Are they both working? How much income and debt do they both have? Both been paying bills on time, and how high are the balances?

Often times the wife opts to have the husband open the accounts because he has a deeper credit history and a better chance of getting the credit due to some of the factors above.

If she typically doesn’t have her name on most of the finances then it would make sense that she gets a lower limit. And this can go both ways for the couple as well.

Group credit doesn’t exist yet. That’s the bottom line. What does this have todo with gender? The person with the lower score happens to be a woman. Im black and didn’t get as high a credit limit as my white bf I think I may have a case...

 

[jonnyb098]

How cute, a bunch of rich guys complaining over their wives credit limit..... Doesn't get more first world problems than this folks!

 

[norbinhouston]

Of course since its Apple people will find any excuse to hate on, but in reality, the process for credit limit belongs to Goldman-Sachs and is the same as any other credit card companies policies.

 

[Undecided]

Why is it ok men pay more for insurance.

Because discrimination against men is just fine, discrimination against women is not fine.

• No one cares that women get more social security benefits (due to getting the same monthly amount but living longer)
• No one cares that those benefits are subsidized by men (because men pay more *into* social security, and it's regressive so the more you pay into it the more you subsidize others).
• No one cared about student loan debt until women held 2/3 of it.
• No one cared about unfair alimony ("allthemoney") until women started having to pay it.
• No one cares about homelessness because it's mostly men.
• No one cares about suicides because it's mostly men.
• No one cares about workplace deaths because it's mostly men.
• No one cares about battered and abused men (there are no shelters).
• Funding of prostate cancer research is a small fraction of breast cancer research even the though the cancer rates are almost the same, because men get prostate cancer while women get breast cancer.
• Women don't have to register for selective service (the "draft") but still get access to all the same government benefits.
• Women have the same promotion opportunities in the military even though they do not serve in combat.
• And on and on

 

[jonnyb098]

Because discrimination against men is just fine, discrimination against women is not fine.

• No one cares that women get more social security benefits (due to getting the same monthly amount but living longer)
• No one cares that those benefits are subsidized by men (because men pay more *into* social security, and it's regressive so the more you pay into it the more you subsidize others).
• No one cared about student loan debt until women held 2/3 of it.
• No one cared about unfair alimony ("allthemoney") until women started having to pay it.
• No one cares about homelessness because it's mostly men.
• No one cares about suicides because it's mostly men.
• No one cares about workplace deaths because it's mostly men.
• No one cares about battered and abused men (there are no shelters).
• Funding of prostrate cancer research is a small fraction of breast cancer research even the though the cancer rates are almost the same, because men get prostrate cancer while women get breast cancer.
• Women don't have to register for selective service (the "draft") but still get access to all the same government benefits.
• Women have the same promotion opportunities in the military even though they do not serve in combat.
• And on and on

Now this is some "WOKE" stuff right here. Sadly you will probably get tons of hate for simply spelling out simple facts no one else thinks about.

 

[mmomega]

yeah i don't know about this. My wife's limit is double mine.

 

[ajfahey]

They should take into account whatever metrics help them control costs. No one is entitled to an Apple Credit Card. The free market should control how credit issuers determine credit worthiness, not politics.

My expectation is that using gender to determine credit worthiness may help women more than men.

 

[barkomatic]

Are there instances where the female partner received a higher limit and the male partner a lower one in similar scenarios? We'd really need to look at the overall distribution of credit decisions in order to see if there is something wrong with the algorithm.

 

[thirteen1031]

I always knew Apple was the company that would be on the wrong side of history regarding the cis-heteropatriarchy.

I get the joke, but speaking thoughtfully about it, I do think Apple has, over the last 10-20 years been trying to mindfully rectify any gender bias and put itself on the "right side" of history. Whether it has or will succeed in that remains to be seen. A child of any gender can now learn to code and be part of the computer industry. Apple has worked to make that possible. I see few other tech companies actively doing that...so...compared to other older computer companies...more rightfully on that wrong side of cis-heteropatriarchy?

 

[rpmurray]

How many genders are affected? One, five, or thirty-four?

Gender is a "spectrum" so there are an infinite number. Or so I hear from people who are confused about theirs.

 

[victorm1]

Virtue signalling of the highest degree. Laughable.
[automerge]1573495812[/automerge]

I don't think Apple has been any more on the wrong side of history as, well, almost all tech companies created in the 20th century when the heteropatriarchy brutally dominated computer sciences and engineering (and still mostly does) unquestioned.

That said, I do think Apple has, over the last 10-20 years been trying to mindfully rectify any gender bias and put itself on the "right side" of history. Whether it has or will succeed in that remains to be seen, BUT the fact that it has worked to teach coding to anyone anywhere—thus by-passing computer science and engineering schools where the heteropatrarchy may still rule uncontested--is a huge step in its favor. A child of any gender can now learn to code and be part of the computer industry. Apple has worked to make that possible. I see few other tech companies actively doing that...so...compared to other older computer companies, is it really on the wrong side?

You’re being satirical, right?

 

[TopherMan12]

A child of any gender can now learn to code and be part of the computer industry. Apple has worked to make that possible.

People of both genders have been able to learn to code and be part of the computer industry for quite some time. No idea what this has to do with credit worthiness algorithms.

 

[thirteen1031]

Awww. Are you upset the majority of people with a brain aren’t buying into this bs?

The majority of people, with and without brains, WILL buy into this, and HAVE bought into this, in case you haven't noticed...and if you have a brain, you should be worried about that. Perception always gets more attention than facts or reality.

Which makes this a very big problem for Apple and Goldman-Sachs. And before you go back to insulting someone's intelligence, what facts have lenders given people to alter this perception? I completely understand why computers have to make these decisions—including to keep it all unbiased. But there is still a failure by the lenders to explain why/how the computer made these decisions. Until now, people have accepted this lack of communication. Credit cards are interchangeable and if you're rejected or get a low credit on one, you can just apply for another. Why wonder or complain about how these things are decided?

But this credit card has a spotlight on it. This credit card has everyone wanting it and looking at it. And there's twitter where people from around the world can say "What the heck? Why...?" and create a perception about this one credit card that has more power than the facts...if such facts were widely known, which they're not.

So now Goldman-Sachs, at least, is learning that it can't just let its computers do their thing and ignore how people might feel about the results. Maybe they actually have to, well, explain why someone was rejected, or why one spouse got a larger credit limit then the other. Otherwise, right or wrong, people are going to fall back on their perceptions. And if the lenders let people do that...then they're the ones who haven't got a brain.

 

[Googlyhead]

Are there instances where the female partner received a higher limit and the male partner a lower one in similar scenarios? We'd really need to look at the overall distribution of credit decisions in order to see if there is something wrong with the algorithm.

All that would show is if the collective group of women are considered higher risk than men (as a collective).
Unless you include (all) the actual factors; it's not going to tell you WHY the group is less desirable, let alone if the calculation uses gender (as opposed to only relevant factors).

 

[victorm1]

All that would show is if the collective group of women are considered higher risk than men (as a collective).
Unless you include (all) the actual factors; it's not going to tell you WHY the group is less desirable, let alone if the calculation uses gender (as opposed to only relevant factors).

Exactly, I don’t hear people screaming discrimination at the fact that men pay higher auto insurance premiums.

 

[macfacts]

So where's the proof that it's because of gender?

That's what the investigation is for.

 

[thirteen1031]

People of both genders have been able to learn to code and be part of the computer industry for quite some time. No idea what this has to do with credit worthiness algorithms.

Perception of bias is a huge part of this topic—it's not just about algorithms. And that's what I was discussing. Perception of gender bias—and in particular perception of Apple having a gender bias as its name is on that credit card.

 

[gaximus]

Your setup will not work. Were something to happen to you, all of your assets and debts go into your estate. So your share of the jointly owned assets would have to stand against your debt.

In other words, 50% of everything you jointly own would have to cover your debt. Your wife inherits what's left over.

A better option would be to get a good term life insurance policy to ensure your wife (and kids, if you have them) are taken care of. And even better -- stay out of debt. #LiveLikeNoOneElse

Sorry to take the thread off on a tangent, but this is too important not to get right.

Of course I have a good life insurance policy, but the house and everything that is paid off is in her name, not jointly owned. So all things debt, minus house, go in my name. And debt free is the goal, and we are getting close.

 

[ryanwarsaw]

I get the joke, but speaking thoughtfully about it, I don't think Apple has been any more on the wrong side of history as, well, almost all tech companies created in the 20th century when the heteropatriarchy brutally dominated computer sciences and engineering (and still mostly does) unquestioned.

That said, I do think Apple has, over the last 10-20 years been trying to mindfully rectify any gender bias and put itself on the "right side" of history. Whether it has or will succeed in that remains to be seen, BUT the fact that it has worked to teach coding to anyone anywhere—thus by-passing computer science and engineering schools where the heteropatrarchy may still rule uncontested--is a huge step in its favor. A child of any gender can now learn to code and be part of the computer industry. Apple has worked to make that possible. I see few other tech companies actively doing that...so...compared to other older computer companies, is it really on the wrong side?

Holy cow it was just a joke. Apple is the SJW company of this century, they are gayer than gay, they swirl rainbows. You would be hard pressed to find a straight white guy in any of their ads, at least not being outnumbered 10:1 by others. I wish I wasn't so offing funny because it has it's drawbacks at times.

 

[thirteen1031]

Virtue signalling of the highest degree. Laughable.
[automerge]1573495812[/automerge]

You’re being satirical, right?

Yes and no. Apple is teaching coding for mercenary reasons, I get that, but, if the fringe benefits of that greed is more gender equality...who am I to quibble? I'll happily praise Apple for being high-minded and ignore the impure motives if it makes them do more such with more fringe benefits.

 

[cardfan]

Of course I have a good life insurance policy, but the house and everything that is paid off is in her name, not jointly owned. So all things debt, minus house, go in my name. And debt free is the goal, and we are getting close.

That and don’t live in a community property state