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

161–170 of 198 posts

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

#161

Post by refurb »

dartos wrote: post #151
refurb wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah that works fine if the company in question is $1B. $10M is 1% of that company. That’s a deterrent. But if that company was $1T then that fine is effectively the cost of legal research. It won’t deter that company from trying to weasel their way around regulations in the future as the cost of trying justifies the potential upside.

I disagree. It doesn’t matter if it’s a $1T company, the fine effectively turned their profitable decision into a loss.

That seems like a reasonable approach.

By your logic, if a company is running at a loss should the fine be negative?

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

#162

Post by uvas_pasas_per »

I cancelled my Apple/Goldman card after they were totally useless on a transaction dispute. Frontier Airlines gave me a "refund", and printed me a "receipt" for it, and then later refused to give me the refund. When I showed the "receipt" to Goldman/Apple support they would chew on it for 4 weeks and then come back with. "Judgement for merchant. Reason: no evidence." I'd say: what was that "receipt" they printed, just a lie? And they would say "sorry" and reopen the investigation, repeat the same result. Lame. And I will try to avoid Frontier for the rest of my life.

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

#163

Post by aembleton »

justinclift wrote: post #107
xyst wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably payment on GS backend was processed late even if customer initiated payment on the due date. So customer was charged interest. I was an early adopter of the AC during my Apple glazing days. Everybody has the same due date (end of month) and GS systems just could not handle the volume. I remember an auto payment taking a week to withdraw from my bank account and applied to account. I wasn’t charged interest a…

> Apple glazing What is "Apple glazing"?

No idea, and there's nothing on Urban Dictionary https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=apple%20glaz...

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

#164

Post by astura »

wkat4242 wrote: post #130
rootusrootus wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an auto payment taking a week to withdraw from my bank account As an aside, for anyone using an Apple Card today, a handy way around this is to not make payments via ACH. Use your debit card with Apple Pay to pull money instantly into Apple Cash, then use that to instantly pay your credit card bill. An extra step, sure, but it's instant .

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.

>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.

This is not, generally, a correct statement. Having a history of 1) paying off debt or 2) not using a credit line available to you actually makes it MUCH easier to get a mortgage.

Might be different in other countries but in the US the only way credit lines harm your chances of getting a mortgage is if you don't pay the bill in full every month or take out new lines of credit within a few months of taking out the mortgage.

I, personally, had more than 20 lines of credit open when I was approved for my mortgage at their lowest interest rate. My mortgage was/is actually lower than my available credit on my all my revolving accounts, combined.

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

#165

Post by jazir »

aembleton wrote: post #163
justinclift wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple glazing What is "Apple glazing"?

No idea, and there's nothing on Urban Dictionary https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=apple%20glaz...

http://glazing.urbanup.com/17626225

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

#166

Post by Salgat »

wkat4242 wrote: post #144
spacemanspiff01 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 af…

Credit cards have strict laws regarding handling of fraudulent transactions. As long as you report it in a timely manner, your liability is limited to $50. The burden of proof is on the bank.

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

#167

Post by tmpz22 »

uvas_pasas_per wrote: post #162

I cancelled my Apple/Goldman card after they were totally useless on a transaction dispute. Frontier Airlines gave me a "refund", and printed me a "receipt" for it, and then later refused to give me the refund. When I showed the "receipt" to Goldman/Apple support they would chew on it for 4 weeks and then come back with. "Judgement for merchant. Reason: no evidence." I'd say: what was that "receipt" they printed, jus…

Isn’t that what Goldman wants? IIRC they’re losing money on the card so they’d prefer to bleed off customers - just like the forced attrition so many tech companies are currently doing.

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

#168

Post by dartos »

refurb wrote: post #161
dartos wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that works fine if the company in question is $1B. $10M is 1% of that company. That’s a deterrent. But if that company was $1T then that fine is effectively the cost of legal research. It won’t deter that company from trying to weasel their way around regulations in the future as the cost of trying justifies the potential upside.

I disagree. It doesn’t matter if it’s a $1T company, the fine effectively turned their profitable decision into a loss. That seems like a reasonable approach. By your logic, if a company is running at a loss should the fine be negative?

> It doesn’t matter if it’s a $1T company, the fine effectively turned their profitable decision into a loss.

Sure, but I don’t think just causing any amount of loss acts as a deterrent. Especially if the company is large enough to absorb the loss with no real consequences.

> By your logic, if a company is running at a loss should the fine be negative?

No, that’s a dumb question. A negative fine isn’t a fine and isn’t a deterrent…

I don’t know what metric one should use to determine how to make a fine a deterrent. Maybe market cap?

But the point of a fine is to be a deterrent.

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

#170

Post by dartos »

gruez wrote: post #159
dartos wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Apple wants to operate in Liechtenstein. Under your proposed regime of a "deterrent", that would put them at risk of fines worth 5% (or whatever) of their global revenue. Of course, they're not going to intentionally break laws, but shit happens and despite their best efforts they might still get fined. Faced with that prospect, they go "nah" and stay out of the market entirely, because the extra 0.1% profit is massi…

> Of course, they're not going to intentionally break laws

I wish I lived in your world.

> but shit happens and despite their best efforts they might still get fined.

You’re telling me that it’s okay that laws are sometimes broken with no real consequence because the company in question may mistakenly break laws?

Yikes…

> Under your proposed regime of a "deterrent", that would put them at risk of fines worth 5% (or whatever) of their global revenue

I don’t know if revenue is the exact metric to use to making a deterring fine. It very well may not be.

But the fine should act as some real deterrent

> All 40k Liechtensteiners are worse off as a result. This isn't a hypothetical. It's happening in EU right now, as Apple doesn't want to deal with the legal headaches associated with Apple Intelligence and therefore opts out of the EU market entirely.

This is a very complex topic and I don’t feel well equipped to discuss it with any real nuance.

But here I go anyway…

I’m not convinced that not having access to Apple intelligence makes a country worse off.

Not all countries need to be supported by a large corporation. That’s not strictly a good thing.

If they (the EU) wanted that, they’d lax their regulations…

Post reply on HN