> 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

> 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.