Oh great, now I feel much better.

Goldman is a client of Apple's. It's possible that they do some shady shit, but it's also possible that they don't want to fuck up their relationship with the world's most valuable company or jeopardize their entry into the consumer space.

Their profit motive might save them. Or it could be a disaster, who knows. My guess is that Goldman would trade on the aggregate data

Wasn't there a lawsuit that an investment bank (can't recall if it was Goldman Sachs or not) can deceive its clients and not disclose that it has a competing or directly contrary interest?

And then there's this, and a dozen other stories about Goldman Sachs deceiving its clients in the past.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/goldman-sachss-long-...

FWIW, those rules are relatively nuanced. It's not like someone ruled that Goldman can deceive all clients at all times in all transactions.

Typically it comes up in places where there's a question of whether the bank is responsible getting their client the best possible price in a transaction or whether the bank is acting as an arms-length counterparty who happens to be taking the other side of the transaction. It also depends on the sophistication of the client and whether it's a transaction where the client should expect Goldman to be bullshitting them.

Goldman acting as a bank for the Apple credit card is completely different from Goldman acting as the counterparty in a large FX hedge or bond deal.

Not that I like defending GS

You're probably thinking about financial planners trying to avoid disclosure that they are not fiduciaries.

> Goldman is a client of Apple's. It's possible that they do some shady shit, but it's also possible that they don't want to fuck up their relationship with the world's most valuable company

It's hard to argue that Apple can keeps Goldman Sachs on a leash. GS can't get a worse reputation that it already has, shaming them is worthless.

Nit: world's most valuable publicly traded* company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco

Non–state-owned enterprise, more like.

In particular considering how consumer centric Goldman Sachs operates...

I think they are trying to with the Marcus brand. Once Goldman became a bank holding company, it made it hard for them to operate a large prop trading unit and other more alternative areas. I think Goldman felt that since it had to operate more like a bank with a bank charter, why not become a bank? It would be interesting to see the financials behind the Apple & Goldman deal as Goldman probably needs Apple more than Apple needs Goldman given the CAC on banking is very high.

But will Goldman know who the consumer is? Or is it just an opaque identity that they use to handle the accounts for Apple?