Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple pulls plug on Goldman credit-card partnership

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–287 of 287 posts

Re: Apple pulls plug on Goldman credit-card partnership

#281

Post by [deleted] »

seeknotfind wrote: post #242
georgespencer wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple wants to save face because "the leads we brought GS have double the default rate of other cards" is a bad look for future partners. Pretty sure I must be misunderstanding you. Do you really mean to suggest that Apple's reaction to Goldman breaking up with them was to start briefing the press that they dumped Goldman first with the intention of somehow hiding or diluting the poor default performance of the car…

Do you declare any interest in the situation or potential conflict of concerns?

[deleted]

Re: Apple pulls plug on Goldman credit-card partnership

#282

Post by georgespencer »

seeknotfind wrote: post #242
georgespencer wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple wants to save face because "the leads we brought GS have double the default rate of other cards" is a bad look for future partners. Pretty sure I must be misunderstanding you. Do you really mean to suggest that Apple's reaction to Goldman breaking up with them was to start briefing the press that they dumped Goldman first with the intention of somehow hiding or diluting the poor default performance of the car…

Do you declare any interest in the situation or potential conflict of concerns?

I’m all about equality when it comes to specious conspiracy theories.

Re: Apple pulls plug on Goldman credit-card partnership

#283

Post by georgespencer »

rtpg wrote: post #263
georgespencer wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple wants to save face because "the leads we brought GS have double the default rate of other cards" is a bad look for future partners. Pretty sure I must be misunderstanding you. Do you really mean to suggest that Apple's reaction to Goldman breaking up with them was to start briefing the press that they dumped Goldman first with the intention of somehow hiding or diluting the poor default performance of the car…

I mean you listed plenty of reasons the relationship is bad. But those are all pretty good reasons for GS to want to bail! Like "Apple is a PITA demanding all bills come due on a specific day for everyone" does not lead to "Apple wants to terminate the relationship". As anyone who has dealt with vendor integrations would tell you, when one side has a list of demands about how something should work, you know it's goin…

> I mean you listed plenty of reasons the relationship is bad.

Perhaps we misunderstand each other. This is what you said:

> Apple wants to save face because "the leads we brought GS have double the default rate of other cards" is a bad look for future partners.

I believe that I demonstrated that this conspiracy theory – which is entirely unsubstantiated, and which seems to have been largely refuted given that the charge off data is public – cannot possibly be the reason.

Do you still believe that Apple is somehow trying to conceal charge off rates, having read my post?

> it's not a huge logical jump to think that GS would want to end such a relationship.

This is a very reasonable point, but it is not the one you made. It's totally fine to not be au fait with the minutiae of consumer credit reporting at Goldman Sachs, but it would help me to calibrate what your contention is if you could address specific points instead of abstracting to generalisations when it appears to me that you are entirely misinformed.

Re: Apple pulls plug on Goldman credit-card partnership

#284

Post by georgespencer »

anuraaga wrote: post #249
Angostura wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you ask?

Since the post was way too long to be without motives, presumably.

I suspect you're right, and I find it to be so sad that anyone could read a fairly well-structured rebuttal to a throwaway conspiracy theory to be evidence of someone having a vested interest.

Re: Apple pulls plug on Goldman credit-card partnership

#285

Post by seeknotfind »

georgespencer wrote: post #284
anuraaga wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the post was way too long to be without motives, presumably.

I suspect you're right, and I find it to be so sad that anyone could read a fairly well-structured rebuttal to a throwaway conspiracy theory to be evidence of someone having a vested interest.

You're making a value statement about two different positions. Without having adopted such a value statement, I poked at an outsized response. You would need to say why it's a conspiracy theory, any why it's well-structured.

Re: Apple pulls plug on Goldman credit-card partnership

#286

Post by shiroiuma »

rob74 wrote: post #191
mkii wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are worried over AGI, but I claim it's already here depending on which human population you compare against.

If you compare artificial intelligence with natural stupidity (or rather natural I-don't-give-a-shit), this is bound to happen. Both give wrong answers, but the answers made up by LLMs at least sound more convincing...

The LLMs are also much more polite and well-spoken.

Re: Apple pulls plug on Goldman credit-card partnership

#287

Post by therealrootuser »

adastra22 wrote: post #214
hagy wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The default settlement account, Vanguard Federal Money Market Fund, has incredibly low credit risk because its assets are short-term US Federal gov debt and Federal Reserve repurchase agreements. [1] Neither of those entities have substantial default risk. Further, the global financial chaos of significant defaults from either of those entities would likely render FDIC insurance ineffective because too many banks wou…

Or Vanguard could collapse from the inside because some C-level officer was dipping into customer funds to cover some bad investment, and everyone takes a haircut on the holdings. On top of the drop in market value because most vanguard customers invest in vanguard funds, which suddenly become a toxic asset. Your "safe" money market asset is considered equal and paid out pro-rata, sharing the loss of those mutual fun…

Your example is a poor one, and does not represent the actual risk of money market funds.

Customer assets at brokerage are required to be held by a 3rd party custodian. Customer assets are not held at the brokerage itself and cannot be touched. An executive cannot merely "dip into customer funds" to cover a bad investment. Brokerage firms are regularly audited for this exact scenario. If your assets were to go missing, the SIPC would liquidate assets of the firm itself as necessary and cover the rest up to $500,000.

The actual risk is of a MMF "breaking the buck" and being unable to return your money. In 1994, a fund went under and was only able to return 94 cents on $1. In 2008 a fund went under because of its toxic Lehman Brothers holdings. This is why you should understand what is inside of that fund before investing in it.

For example, VUSXX is "is required to invest at least 99.5% of its total assets in cash, U.S. government securities, and/or repurchase agreements that are collateralized solely by U.S. government securities or cash." These are not unregulated funds either; the SEC has been significantly increasing the scrutiny and regulation of MMFs both recently and historically.

The question you really should be asking is whether you think US treasury bills are sufficiently safe, not whether Vanguard is doing something both obvious and illegal.

Post reply on HN