Goldman Sachs Has Ripped Off Its Customers for a Century – a Puny $64.8 Million Fine for Abusing Thousands of Apple Credit Card Customers Fails the Smell Test


by Pam Martens and Russ Martens, Wall St On Parade:

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) typically receives high praise from Wall Street On Parade for leveling the playing field between the pillagers on Wall Street and the hardworking poor and middle class of America. But yesterday’s announcement of the CFPB’s settlement with Goldman Sachs and Apple over some of the most abusive conduct we have observed against consumers in decades left us with the impression that Goldman Sachs’ lawyers had browbeat the CFPB into a watered-down deal.

TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

The enforcement action by the CFPB pertained to years of abuses by both Apple and Goldman Sachs involving the Apple Credit Card. Under the CFPB’s settlement, Goldman Sachs will pay $19.8 million in redress to victims and a $45 million civil money penalty, bringing Goldman’s total settlement to $64.8 million. Apple will pay a $25 million civil money penalty for a combined $89.8 million by both parties.

Let’s pause right here for a moment. Goldman Sachs had profits of $8.52 billion in 2023. The settlement amount of $64.8 million is less than 1 percent of its profits last year. That makes a mockery of holding a serial miscreant like Goldman Sachs accountable for putting Apple Credit Card customers through a living hell and destroying people’s credit rating in the process.

Credit on the Apple Credit Card was provided by the taxpayer-backstopped, federally-insured commercial bank that Goldman Sachs is allowed to own – despite its checkered past. That commercial bank is known as Goldman Sachs Bank USA. For a snapshot look at how prudently it is managed, consider this: as of June 30 it held $544 billion in assets and $55 trillion in derivatives. (See Table 15 at this link. The derivatives report is provided by a federal banking regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.)

The CFPB announced yesterday that Goldman Sachs had engaged in the following abuses in connection with the Apple Credit Card:

[When customers complained about erroneous charges,] “the bank failed to consistently send acknowledgment notices within 30 days, conduct reasonable investigations, or send resolution letters explaining the determinations of its investigations within 90 days. These failures led to Goldman Sachs illegally placing damaging information on consumers’ credit reports and holding cardholders responsible for potentially fraudulent or unauthorized purchases.”

The CFPB also wrote this:

“The marketing of the Apple Card Monthly Installments plan led consumers to believe they would automatically receive interest-free financing when purchasing iPhones and other Apple devices with their Apple Card. The plan allowed cardholders to purchase Apple devices through a series of interest-free payments over a period of six months to two years. However, many cardholders were unknowingly charged interest because they were not automatically enrolled as expected. They also faced confusing checkout options about enrolling in the plan. For online purchases, Apple only presented the payment plan as an option to consumers using Apple’s own Safari browser. Due to Apple and Goldman’s actions, instead of making interest-free payments, thousands of cardholders purchased Apple devices on interest-bearing revolving balances and incurred interest charges.”

Wall Street On Parade began reporting on the grotesque manner in which the Apple Credit Card was being handled as early as August 10, 2022. Our first report came one year after J.D. Power had lavished a customer satisfaction award on the Apple Credit Card provided through Goldman Sachs.

The J.D. Power Award came in August 2021. We dug through customer complaints in the CFPB’s database for the same month, August 2021, and found the following telltale signs of big problems: (The redacted information has been redacted by the CFPB; typos are in the original.)

A customer in California wrote this:

“This problem has been ongoing since XXXX, I have had to open multiple disputes through Apple credit card (goldman Sachs) and every time I open disputes, they ALWAYS favor the merchant ( XXXX ) There were multiple unauthorized purchases on my card through XXXX, XXXX helped with most of them besides one order that was {$1400.00}. My credit card issuer Goldman Sachs is saying that the dispute keeps favoring them no matter what evidence I give them. I really want to sue or something, I have no idea what to do now…” (Read the full complaint here.)

A customer in Massachusetts told the CFPB this:

“My 11 year old computer died and I went online to apple.com to buy a replacement one. Their site advertises that you can get an Apple credit card with 0 % APR for the first 12 months and pay off the computer. When I tried to redeem that offer, their Goldman Sachs website came back and extended a {$2500.00} credit limit, which does not cover the cost of a computer on their site. I called in to get the limit increased to {$3200.00} because I make {$320000.00} a year and have a XXXX credit rating. When I called in, their representative told me the only way to request a credit limit increase to cover the cost of the computer was to accept the credit card offer and open an account. So I did. He told me the next day I had to call back to request a credit increase. There was no other way to get an increase on the application. I have just done that, and despite making a high salary, having zero credit debt and having an excellent credit score, Goldman Sachs / Apple has denied the application and not giving me a reason…” (Read the full complaint here.)

A resident of Virginia wrote this:

“On XX/XX/21, an unknown charge for {$840.00} was Pending on my Apple Card (Goldman Sachs), I submitted a dispute the same day and was told that, because the charge was still ‘pending’, they would monitor the charge and if the charge posted, the dispute process would start with no further action from me. If the charge did not post, it would just drop off of my account. Since then, I have made dozens of calls and chat sessions with Apple Card Support about this charge that posted to my account on XX/XX/21. On this date, I received a ‘provisional credit’ and exactly one minute later, the provisional credit was reversed. After many phone calls, I finally learned that the dispute that I repeatedly called about had been ruled in the merchant ‘s favor because, they stated, I ‘withdrew my dispute’ — this is a complete falsehood…” (Read the full complaint here.)

In 2023, we took another look at the CFPB’s complaint database and found hundreds of cries for help from people being ripped off with the Apple Credit Card, including the following from a resident of Nevada:

“Late last year, Apple credit card pulled a hard inquiry on my credit and issued me an Apple credit card. I did not request this credit card, so I contacted XXXX about this matter. Apple credit card closed my account and stated to me that they noted my account was closed because they could not verify that I requested, authorized, or applied for this credit card. I believe this credit card was requested by an XXXX store agent, without my authorization, when I purchased a new iphone. I believe this because the agent signed me up for several other offers that I did not request. These matters have been resolved with XXXX. Regarding the hard inquiry, the XXXX representative told me to contact each credit reporting agency to request that the hard inquiry be removed from my credit report. XXXX will be reporting this account as closed due to unable to verify that I applied for the credit card. Thank you for assisting in the removal of the hard inquiry with each agency.”

This Nevada report suggests that salespeople in Apple’s retail stores may have been incentivized to open Apple Credit Card accounts without the customer’s approval. And yet, the CFPB settlement is silent on this issue.

None of this egregious behavior by Goldman Sachs and Apple has made its way to the folks at J.D. Power. On August 15 of this year, J.D. Power made the following gasp-worthy announcement:

“Apple Card (Goldman Sachs) ranks highest in customer satisfaction among co-brand credit cards with no annual fee, with a score of 654. This is the fourth consecutive year in which Apple Card and issuer Goldman Sachs have collectively earned a segment award….”

Goldman Sachs’ history of abusing its customers dates back to the roaring 1920s. During the making of the stock market asset bubble of 1928, Goldman ran the Goldman Sachs Trading Company, a closed end fund known as a “trust” in those days. Goldman Sachs spun it off to the public at $104 a share. The trust was filled with dubious investments while paying Goldman a hefty management fee. Just a few years after the crash of 1929, the Goldman Sachs trust was trading at a buck and change. On May 20, 1932, Walter Sachs, President of the Goldman Sachs Trading Company, was interrogated by the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency. The Committee concluded that Goldman Sachs fleeced its customers to line its own pockets.

Read More @ WallStOnParade.com


Originally Posted at https://www.sgtreport.com


  • Related Posts

    RELAX. Jaguar is pranking us.

    #FormerNetworkExec #CallMeChato #jaguar #britian
    Jaguar is surely getting a ton of ink, or pixels, for their latest ad. But is it for real?

    Thanks for watching my channel. Please subscribe, SHARE and touch yourselves.

    Call Me Chato T-shirt
    https://my-store-6121db.creator-spring.com/listing/ppc-cartoon-t-colour

    If you want to contact me:
    http://www.paulchato.com

    Trump Appointments Signal Aim To Boost US Energy Investment And Production

    Trump Appointments Signal Aim To Boost US Energy Investment And Production

    By Ed Crooks of Wood Mackenzie

    “Personnel is policy.” That aphorism about the realities of US presidential government was coined by Scot Faulkner, who was director of personnel for Ronald Reagan’s triumphant election campaign in 1980. What he meant was that, while US presidents can do almost anything, they can’t do everything. The day-to-day business of the administration is carried on by appointed officials. And if presidents want to make real progress towards their policy objectives, they need to make sure that their officials are as committed to those goals as they are.

    That is why President-elect Donald Trump’s first two picks to be his senior energy officials are particularly significant. There is still a great deal of uncertainty around exactly how energy policy will play out in his second administration. But the announcements he has made give a clear sense of the direction he wants to set and the objectives he wants to achieve during his four-year term.

    Last week, President-elect Trump named Chris Wright, the chief executive of oilfield services company Liberty Energy, to be his energy secretary, and Doug Burgum, governor of North Dakota, to be the interior secretary and head of a new National Energy Council at the White House.

    The common thread in the thinking on energy expressed by both Wright and Burgum is that they want to boost production of all types of energy, including fossil fuels. They do not deny that human-caused climate change is a real threat that needs to be addressed. But they argue that there are other priorities for policy that are more important and more urgent, and that oil and gas can continue to play the central role in the global energy system into the indefinite future.

    If they get to take the reins of energy policy-making under the Trump administration, they will undoubtedly aim to help the oil and gas industry in every way possible. But several low-carbon sectors could also benefit, or at least not be hit as hard as they might have feared.

    Meet Chris Wright and Governor Doug Burgum

    Announcing their nominations, President-elect Trump said that Wright and Burgum would be working on cutting red tape, enhancing private sector investment and focusing on innovation, with the aim of boosting energy production to cut prices and “win the AI arms race with China (and others)”.

    Chris Wright has become one of the highest-profile CEOs in the industry thanks to his tireless advocacy for American energy in general, and oil and gas in particular. He has made his case in a variety of public forums, including YouTube videos and in a 180-page report titled ‘Bettering human lives’.

    That report makes its argument in 10 key points, which include: “Global demand for oil, natural gas, and coal are all at record levels and rising — no energy transition has begun” and “Zero Energy Poverty by 2050 is a superior goal compared to Net Zero [emissions] 2050.”

    Wright summarises his position on climate change like this:

    “Climate change is a real and global challenge that we should and can address. However, representing it as the most urgent threat to humanity today displaces concerns about more pressing threats of malnutrition, access to clean water, air pollution, endemic diseases, and human rights, among others.”

    Tackling those other more pressing problems, he argues, would be helped by the strongest possible growth in US oil and gas production. This would displace supplies from authoritarian regimes and geopolitical rivals of the US and substitute for dirtier fuels, including coal and traditional biomass.

    On policy, Wright warns that the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which extended and expanded tax credits for a range of low-carbon energy technologies, “appears poised to drive the U.S. electricity grid along the European path [to] higher prices and more grid stability problems”.

    He is not opposed to all forms of low-carbon energy, but says the world needs a massive increase in research and innovation, as opposed to subsidies for existing technologies. His company has worked on low-carbon energy sources, including advanced geothermal, small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) and sodium-ion batteries. The world needs more and better energy, which means contributions from “all viable energy technologies,” Wright says.

    One of the peculiarities of the US system of government is that the energy secretary – the job that Chris Wright is being proposed for – does not have primary responsibility for many of the decisions most relevant to the energy industry. A US energy secretary does have responsibility for overseeing energy policy, but the most vital part of the job relates to nuclear weapons. The secretary is tasked with “maintaining a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent” for the US, and reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation.

    Many of the key decisions related to energy, such as oil and gas leasing programmes, lie with the Department of the Interior. So the proposal that Governor Burgum of North Dakota should head that department, as well as the new White House energy council, is also highly significant for the industry.

    Governor Burgum, like Wright, has a record of recognising the need to act on climate change while also aiming to boost oil and gas production. In 2021, he set a goal of reaching net zero emissions for North Dakota – described as “carbon neutral status” – by 2030. That is a much more ambitious schedule than California’s – the Golden State is aiming for net zero by 2045.

    Another crucial difference is that Governor Burgum has envisaged his state reaching net zero largely through carbon capture and storage (CCS). As he has pointed out, North Dakota hit the “geologic jackpot” in its potential for sub-surface storage of carbon dioxide. Its estimated capacity of 250 billion tons could take all of the US’s carbon dioxide emissions from energy for almost 50 years.

    In a sign of North Dakota’s enthusiasm for CCS, the state’s Public Service Commission last week voted unanimously to approve the route permit for Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposed US$8 billion carbon dioxide pipeline system, which would take captured emissions from ethanol plants for storage.

    But despite his support for decarbonisation, Governor Burgum has also been a strong critic of the Biden administration’s energy policies. He signed up to a joint statement with other Republican governors in June, arguing that the president’s “rhetorical and regulatory hostility towards traditional energy” was holding back US oil and gas production.

    One sector that could be particularly favoured under the new administration is gas-fired power generation. President-elect Trump said in the statement announcing Governor Burgum’s nomination that he wanted to “undo the damage done by the Democrats to our Nation’s Electrical Grid, by dramatically increasing baseload power”. That will certainly mean acting on his pledge to scrap President Biden’s emissions rules for power plants, which could potentially have ended up forcing gas-fired generation to shut down. But he could go further. A national version of the Texas system that subsidises gas-fired power plants is possible.

    Wood Mackenzie view

    Some of the critical issues for energy policy under the second Trump administration remain highly uncertain. The future of the IRA tax credits for low-carbon energy is likely to be decided by a tight vote in the House of Representatives, given the Republicans’ slender majority there. Energy industry leaders – including Darren Woods, chief executive of ExxonMobil, who last week attended the COP29 climate talks in Azerbaijan – have urged President-elect Trump not to sweep away all of President Biden’s energy policies.

    “I don’t think the stops and starts are the right thing for businesses,” Woods told the Wall Street Journal. “It is extremely inefficient.”

    But while the prospect of a sharp reversal in policy is a concern, the appointment of two senior officials who have been champions for investment in energy, with a brief to continue that work in the federal government, will be welcomed by many in the industry.

    The power and renewables sector is threatened by the potential curtailment or elimination of the production and investment tax credits (PTC and ITC) for wind, solar and storage. But it could benefit from other changes under a Trump administration, including permitting reform and regulatory changes that could make it easier to add new transmission capacity.

    Wood Mackenzie’s “severe downside scenario” represents a worst-case outlook, with total installations of wind, solar and storage over the next decade about 30% lower than in our previous base case forecast. But for that to play out, several factors have to turn against the industry, including not only a phase-out of the PTC and ITC, but also increased permitting challenges. If the new administration lives up to its rhetoric about supporting investment in all kinds of energy, permitting and regulation could become easier, not harder.

    However, the new administration’s plans raise important questions about the balance of supply and demand for energy, and especially for natural gas. President-elect Trump has promised to end immediately the “pause” on approvals for new LNG export projects, which will add to demand for US gas over time. A surge in gas-fired power generation, which the new administration sees as important for supplying new data centres for AI, would add additional demand pressure.

    On the supply side, Wood Mackenzie analysts think government regulations and access to acreage are not the most important issues. US oil and gas production is determined principally by commodity prices, cash flows and corporate capital allocation strategies. The federal government can take actions that will help, including expediting investment in new pipeline infrastructure. But it cannot guarantee that additional production will flow.

    Those conditions, with stronger demand but a limited supply response, would be bullish for energy prices. Although President-elect Trump’s stated goal is to drive down energy costs for American consumers, it is possible that his policies could have the opposite effect.

    COP29 makes little progress in its first week

    The election victory for President-elect Trump, who plans to take the US out of the Paris climate agreement for a second time, cast a shadow over the first week of the COP29 climate talks in Baku, Azerbaijan. There were more signs of disharmony among the assembled nations, with Argentina withdrawing its official delegation, and France’s environment minister choosing not to attend after a diplomatic spat with the hosts Azerbaijan.

    Meanwhile, behind the scenes, negotiators are attempting to secure a global agreement on climate finance, which could pledge more than US$1 trillion a year in investment, loans and grants to low- and middle-income countries to support emissions reductions and adaptation to the impacts of climate change. So far, there appears to have been little movement on agreeing a deal.

    The conference began with an announcement of significant progress towards finalising the rules for international carbon markets under Article 6 of the Paris agreement. But on that issue, too, much work remains before the market can start working as intended.

    One group of leading figures in international climate policy has argued that the entire process of COP negotiations is “no longer fit for purpose”.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 11/21/2024 – 06:30

    You Missed

    RELAX. Jaguar is pranking us.

    RELAX. Jaguar is pranking us.

    Trump Appointments Signal Aim To Boost US Energy Investment And Production

    Trump Appointments Signal Aim To Boost US Energy Investment And Production

    Russia Initiates Mass Production of Mobile Nuclear Shelters Amid Revised Nuclear Doctrine

    Russia Initiates Mass Production of Mobile Nuclear Shelters Amid Revised Nuclear Doctrine

    Do Men Misunderstand The “Women In Men’s Fields” Trend?

    Do Men Misunderstand The “Women In Men’s Fields” Trend?

    Texas agency offers Trump land for ‘deportation facilities’

    Texas agency offers Trump land for ‘deportation facilities’

    The Holiday Movie Season ARRIVES: Will Disney Stockings Be Filled with Coal? The Pro Show LIVE

    • By WDWPro
    • November 21, 2024
    • 2 views
    The Holiday Movie Season ARRIVES: Will Disney Stockings Be Filled with Coal? The Pro Show LIVE