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

Goldman and Apple 'illegally sidestepped' obligations to credit-card customers

finance.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 198 posts

Re: Goldman and Apple 'illegally sidestepped' obligations to credit-card customers

#141

Post by wkat4242 »

monetus wrote: post #138
wkat4242 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you even use a credit card if you have the money? You don't have to bother with the loan aspects of the card then (and the paying off). You could just use a debit card. This is what keeps me from even considering an apple card, I don't need any credit and getting credit registered against my name will make it more difficult to get a mortgage.

> Why would you even use a credit card if you have the money? I get ten percent cash back on groceries right now. It is subsidized in a sense, and builds out an advertising portfolio on me - those are questionable - but it is money in my pocket.

Oh really? I never get any on my cards. Definitely not for things like groceries. Once in a blue moon they have some discounts in the credit card app but they are always discounts based on the RRP price which are totally useless because the same article is cheaper on amazon at street price.

I do have a "credit card" because some sites refuse to accept debit ones. But no cashbacks or anything. Maybe it differs by bank (I use caixabank in Spain)

The one thing I do like as a reward is that caixa funds several museums and you can get in for free if you have an account with them. But it doesn't have to be a credit card, a normal account is enough.

Re: Goldman and Apple 'illegally sidestepped' obligations to credit-card customers

#142

Post by wkat4242 »

3836293648 wrote: post #137
wkat4242 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you even use a credit card if you have the money? You don't have to bother with the loan aspects of the card then (and the paying off). You could just use a debit card. This is what keeps me from even considering an apple card, I don't need any credit and getting credit registered against my name will make it more difficult to get a mortgage.

The american credit system favours those who pay by credit card and pay it back on time. Something something credit scores. Seems crazy for end users but I understand it from the banks' perspective

Aha I see, I'm in Spain.

My bank told me they definitely favour those who can live their lives without having to take loans at all. Any loans get subtracted from the maximum possible mortgage, this includes credit cards at their maximum authorised credit level(!). Also, we have to pay 20% of a house in hard cash here so anyone looking to buy one is saving substantial money. So you have a decent buffer. There's no point in taking out credit if you can supply your own.

Re: Goldman and Apple 'illegally sidestepped' obligations to credit-card customers

#143

Post by gruez »

dartos wrote: post #139
gruez wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The fine should be a deterrent. That's a reasonable position to hold, but crappy comparisons like in the OP doesn't contribute little to the discussion. The fine might be tiny part of worldwide revenue, but how much money are they making off apple cards? If that's tiny as well then the argument is moot.

> The fine might be tiny part of worldwide revenue, but how much money are they making off apple cards? If that's tiny as well then the argument is moot. I disagree. I don’t think the fine should be relative to money gained by breaking a rule. Then it’s not a deterrent for large companies. You end up in a situation where very large companies can act in illegal ways and just absorb the fine. A company doing anything w…

So going back to the Liechtenstein example, if Apple did a bad there what would be the appropriate punishment? Based on what you're saying you'd want them to be fined a significant portion of their worldwide revenue, which seems absurd. It would basically deprive people living in small countries access to products from multinational companies, because nobody would want to risk 5% (or whatever) of their worldwide revenue to get 1% more market share.

Re: Goldman and Apple 'illegally sidestepped' obligations to credit-card customers

#144

Post by wkat4242 »

spacemanspiff01 wrote: post #140
wkat4242 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you even use a credit card if you have the money? You don't have to bother with the loan aspects of the card then (and the paying off). You could just use a debit card. This is what keeps me from even considering an apple card, I don't need any credit and getting credit registered against my name will make it more difficult to get a mortgage.

Couple reasons I rarely use debit cards, I use a credit card and pay it off every month: If it gets stolen/someone else uses it, all I need to do is tell my bank, and since I have not paid the debt, I am not out any money. It is on the bank. If I was using a debit card, it may take a month+ to be investigated/money returned. Emergencies/availability having available credit is useful, most of my money is in investment…

> If it gets stolen/someone else uses it, all I need to do is tell my bank, and since I have not paid the debt, I am not out any money. It is on the bank. If I was using a debit card, it may take a month+ to be investigated/money returned.

But if the bank still claims it was you it is still in question and they still want their money back, with interest.

> I do not believe that credit card accounts have a negative affect on mortgages. They are different types, with credit cards being revolving. As long as you are paying it off and not maintaining a valence, then it should only be a net positive (shows credit history of paying debts).

Ah I see, this does definitely not apply here in Europe. The amount you can borrow for a mortgage is reduced by the amount of loans you have, including the maximum spending limit on credit cards (even if you never use said card at all!). This is why I have a card with only 1000 euro spending limit, just for some backwards sites that don't support debit cards (there are still some unfortunately.

Re: Goldman and Apple 'illegally sidestepped' obligations to credit-card customers

#145

Post by polishdude20 »

CSSer wrote: post #120
CPLX wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s actually some nuance to this. One of Apple’s big requirements was to have quite lax acceptance criteria. They didn’t want lots of their customers being denied for cards and creating a negative brand association. Apparently GS was up for that. Possibly because they didn’t actually know what they are doing. My understanding is the loss rate was way too high for them to be profitable. It was well covered at the…

Without simply citing greed, I find this difficult to justify or explain. Apple is a premium, luxury brand. They make opinionated hardware and software that has offended many. They’ve certainly never given a phone away, but they’re afraid of offending someone by turning them down if they have bad credit? Rubbish. Forgive me, I’m not trying to shoot the messenger. Nuance or not, I think GP is right. It wasn’t very cus…

Is GS though a good luxury "brand"? I don't know much about them but they seem like a Big Name. Maybe that's all they wanted? The prestige of being tied to GS

Re: Goldman and Apple 'illegally sidestepped' obligations to credit-card customers

#146

Post by spacemanspiff01 »

wkat4242 wrote: post #141
monetus wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would you even use a credit card if you have the money? I get ten percent cash back on groceries right now. It is subsidized in a sense, and builds out an advertising portfolio on me - those are questionable - but it is money in my pocket.

Oh really? I never get any on my cards. Definitely not for things like groceries. Once in a blue moon they have some discounts in the credit card app but they are always discounts based on the RRP price which are totally useless because the same article is cheaper on amazon at street price. I do have a "credit card" because some sites refuse to accept debit ones. But no cashbacks or anything. Maybe it differs by bank…

The us is different between the us and Europe, everytime someone uses a credit card there are fees that go to the bank and the credit card processor.

In Europe these are legally capped, in the us they are not. So the 2% cash back on US cards is the cards and banks competing for market share by providing kickbacks from these fees to customers.

https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/how-credit-cards-make...

Re: Goldman and Apple 'illegally sidestepped' obligations to credit-card customers

#147

Post by wkat4242 »

spacemanspiff01 wrote: post #146
wkat4242 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh really? I never get any on my cards. Definitely not for things like groceries. Once in a blue moon they have some discounts in the credit card app but they are always discounts based on the RRP price which are totally useless because the same article is cheaper on amazon at street price. I do have a "credit card" because some sites refuse to accept debit ones. But no cashbacks or anything. Maybe it differs by bank…

The us is different between the us and Europe, everytime someone uses a credit card there are fees that go to the bank and the credit card processor. In Europe these are legally capped, in the us they are not. So the 2% cash back on US cards is the cards and banks competing for market share by providing kickbacks from these fees to customers. https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/how-credit-cards-make...

Ah I see, yes here it only costs money (I think it's 25 euro per year or so). And reduces maximum available mortgage so I try to avoid them.

Re: Goldman and Apple 'illegally sidestepped' obligations to credit-card customers

#148

Post by refurb »

dartos wrote: post #139
gruez wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The fine should be a deterrent. That's a reasonable position to hold, but crappy comparisons like in the OP doesn't contribute little to the discussion. The fine might be tiny part of worldwide revenue, but how much money are they making off apple cards? If that's tiny as well then the argument is moot.

> The fine might be tiny part of worldwide revenue, but how much money are they making off apple cards? If that's tiny as well then the argument is moot. I disagree. I don’t think the fine should be relative to money gained by breaking a rule. Then it’s not a deterrent for large companies. You end up in a situation where very large companies can act in illegal ways and just absorb the fine. A company doing anything w…

This still makes no sense.

If a company with $1B in revenue, rolls something out to make $10M, then anything over $10M is suitable punishment - you turned a profitable venture into a money losing venture.

Re: Goldman and Apple 'illegally sidestepped' obligations to credit-card customers

#149

Post by sss111 »

Checks out. I never carry a balance on my Apple Card and always make sure to pay it off every month. Yet, I’ve noticed discrepancies between the transactions shown in the Apple Wallet UI and my PDF statements. The two times I’ve called customer service, they just put me on hold and say they’ll look into it.

This has never happened with any of my AMEX cards, so I can only conclude that either the whole division is incompetent or there’s something more troubling going on

Re: Goldman and Apple 'illegally sidestepped' obligations to credit-card customers

#150

Post by dartos »

gruez wrote: post #143
dartos wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fine might be tiny part of worldwide revenue, but how much money are they making off apple cards? If that's tiny as well then the argument is moot. I disagree. I don’t think the fine should be relative to money gained by breaking a rule. Then it’s not a deterrent for large companies. You end up in a situation where very large companies can act in illegal ways and just absorb the fine. A company doing anything w…

So going back to the Liechtenstein example, if Apple did a bad there what would be the appropriate punishment? Based on what you're saying you'd want them to be fined a significant portion of their worldwide revenue, which seems absurd. It would basically deprive people living in small countries access to products from multinational companies, because nobody would want to risk 5% (or whatever) of their worldwide reve…

> It would basically deprive people living in small countries access to products from multinational companies, because nobody would want to risk 5% (or whatever) of their worldwide revenue to get 1% more market share.

Sorry, I’m not sure I follow. How would selling products to smaller countries automatically incur fines for illegal activity?

Post reply on HN