9 ms·

Wells Fargo Bet on a Flashy Rent Credit Card. It Is Costing the Bank Dearly

38 points by hampelm 2y ago

hampelm 2y ago
https://archive.is/jsLi5 https://archive.is/jsLi5
WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
Wells Fargo color scheme works for me. Red = danger, yellow = warning - the signal colors for Stay Away. ref:https://duckduckgo.com/?q=wells+fargo+"fined" https://duckduckgo.com/?q=wells+fargo+"fined"
- 0xcafefood 2y ago
  After using them recently for financing a house purchase, I recommend everyone take heed of this warning. I went in with low expectations for a mortgage broker and was still extremely disappointed.
nemomarx 2y ago
Something I never entirely get about the credit card business is how they can offer deals without it being obvious they only make money if you make mistakes? If it was a good deal for me, surely the bank loses some money on that?
- floatrock 2y ago
  The pejorative term that credit card companies use for people who pay off the entire balance every month is "deadbeats". https://www.cnbc.com/select/credit-card-deadbeat/ https://www.cnbc.com/select/credit-card-deadbeat/
  - sleepybrett 2y ago
    I mean, deadbeats are probably still worth it in the long run. Over a long enough horizon eventually a person who pays off their cards every month runs into an emergency that will put them in a situation where they get stuck in a debit trap, them the banks eat for free.
  - denimnerd42 2y ago
    I guess. Revolving credit is expensive for the bank to hold. They have to allocate a lot of capital to back the revolving unsecured debt compared to other secured loans. I think they'd rather just make money on the regular fees and not have to worry about people holding balances. By providing credit they can charge a higher transaction fee than a debit card so that's their value add. Retailers are willing to pay for that access to consumer credit. That's why credit cards are so popular in America vs other countries. They can charge a transaction fee that actually makes a profit. If they are regulated to a low fee then they can't give cards to anyone but the highest of FICO scores because the debt itself is so risky.
    - Finnucane 2y ago
      The interest and fees on accounts that carry a balance are enormously lucrative for the banks.
      - denimnerd42 2y ago
        I don't know.. Maybe in the good times. They are highly risky though and require a lot of capital backing that may not show up directly on the P&L. https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/bank-america-profit-falls-lower-customer-interest-payments-2024-04-16/ https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/bank-america-profit... I guess I could look more into the 10-K and see if that information is transparent to the public.
  - darth_avocado 2y ago
    Meanwhile, if I don't pay off my balance, they ding my credit scores. Seems like they want to have their cake and eat it too.
  - huntedsnark 2y ago
    This anecdote and using the word "deadbeat" is oft repeated but doesn't really have much basis in reality (even the article you linked doesn't cite any sources for the term). Credit card transaction fees generate revenue regardless of when you pay.
- denimnerd42 2y ago
  I always assumed banks made money on credit cards from the transaction fees. I think the interest rates are mostly there to scare you into paying your bill. It seems like once a CC balance gets out of control the bank's ability to recapture that money is limited since the card is unsecured. I guess they make more money off the people that use a CC as as a temporary loan and always repay but customers with that risk profile are generally one step away from never paying it off.
  - perks_12 2y ago
    FYI, latest Q-10 of American Express has Merchant Fees at approximately double the revenue from interest payments. At least there it is true. [0]: https://s26.q4cdn.com/747928648/files/doc_financials/2024/q1/Q1-2024-Earnings-Tables.pdf https://s26.q4cdn.com/747928648/files/doc_financials/2024/q1...
    - denimnerd42 2y ago
      And the fees are basically pure profit while the interest payments have a huge cost and risk.
- zaik 2y ago
  https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/anatomy-of-credit-card-rewards-programs/ https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/anatomy-of-credit-car...
- myfavoritetings 2y ago
  It is simple really, there are more suckers paying high credit card interest than there are people collecting credit card rewards. As someone who always pays your bill off every month any rewards you collect are essentially paid for by people with interest payments
- tiffanyh 2y ago
  There's multiple revenue stream for banks as it relates to credit card. There's interchange, interest, annual fees and more.
- bgirard 2y ago
  Easy. There's a few customer profile: 1) People who will always pay it in full 2) People who incorrectly think they're 1) but wont pay in full for some reason 3) People that don't understand the cost of 20% APR 4) People that need the money and don't have a choice Plus CC make money on transaction fees and sometimes annual fees.
- throwaway22032 2y ago
  It's a good deal for you and I. But half of the population are of below average intelligence.
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  Credit is basically mandatory to survive in the US today. Most live paycheck-to-paycheck, wages have been stagnant for decades, and prices have been increasing. Add in the fact that people are both exhausted from work and that there's fewer domestic "partnerships" that allow division of labor (however that might occur), you have more opportunities for slick marketing and financial jargon to make unappealing terms slide past people.
  - mc32 2y ago
    Even worse, in my opinion, is the proliferation of the buy now pay later schemes even apple are embracing At least with layaway plans, you had delayed gratification.
  - mgraczyk 2y ago
    Most of your specific points are false. In fact, the majority of Americans self-report that they have at least 3 months of emergency savings, and this is backed by savings account data. Credit is necessary for some people, but the actual number is closer to 20% than 50%.
    - lenerdenator 2y ago
      Got a source? This article says 58% of Americans say they live paycheck-to-paycheck: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/09/most-of-americans-are-living-paycheck-to-paycheck-heres-why.html https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/09/most-of-americans-are-living... This article mentions 78%: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/living-paycheck-to-paycheck-statistics-2024/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/living-paycheck-to-pa...
      - mgraczyk 2y ago
        The definitions of "paycheck-to-paycheck" are different in different surveys. For example, in the second one you linked the question asked was something like "How difficult would it be for you if your paycheck was delayed by one week?" and they took anybody who said more than "not difficult" as "living paycheck to paycheck". My definition is more strict.
- gojomo 2y ago
  For those people who don't "make mistakes", the card issuers are still earning: • part of the 2-3% added to every charge • fees from promotional marketing, guided by the info in your purchase history, to those customers • fees from related services the same customers may purchase from the same bank Even when the high rewards cards marketed to conscientious low-credit-risk customers send back some of that 1-3% as "miles" or "points" or "cash back", the other information/marketing values about high-spending, reliable-paying customers remain interesting.
- kemiller2002 2y ago
  I worked in CC loan and processing for a period of time. Issuing cards is really a form of hedging. They make money on some and lose on others. The point is to win more than you lose. That's all. There are secondary and tertiary ways of making money off of the cards too. They can sell the pool of underperforming cards for a smaller sum of money, and they can write off losses to help with other ventures. Just a couple of examples.
  - graemep 2y ago
    nitpick: its not hedging, its risk diversification.
OfCounsel 2y ago
"Costing the bank dearly" = losing $10 million a month, which is trifling for Wells Fargo. The Bilt card is a no brainer for any renter who qualifies. There is zero opportunity cost to the points earned on rent.
- aagha 2y ago
  Exactly. Pay your rent on your card, get points.
nytesky 2y ago
This whole deal is very confusing. What exactly was Bilt Technologies providing? My expectation is they would used AI/BigData/TheForce to identity which renters are likely to be balance carriers. How did they not hold any risk for the leads/users they generated? So Wells eats the HUGE interchange fee from the rent, and then divides the piddling remaining fees with BILT and pays them $200 for each customers? The use case, is give landlord this card alone, set for auto pay, and earn “points” but then do all other spending on a higher reward card it seems like? What were the points? Cards are routinely paying 2% cash back…
- hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
  Bilt "Rewards" is a way for shady Wells Fargo to advertise to, extort fees from, and monetize a captive market of apartment leasees. It's a bunch of annoying, gotcha capitalism bullshit soon-to-be-former leasees like me don't give two shits about.
  - happyopossum 2y ago
    > way for shady Wells Fargo to advertise to, extort fees from, and monetize a captive market So standard fare for a rewards program? Not sure how this is any different than what chase, amex, or anyone else does to their rewards members - all of them use (and sell) your purchase and balance history for that stuff.
    - hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
      Except, this is a not optional rewards program. It's a rent bill paying service masquerading as one through captive exploitation.
    - borski 2y ago
      It isn’t. It’s exactly the same. The only difference is that Bilt provides an ACH account number / routing number for one payment per month: rent. And if you can’t ACH, they’ll mail a check for you. That’s it. That’s the only difference.
  - 2y ago
gorkish 2y ago
Color me shocked that customers who float their monthly rent on a credit card are not the solid foundation that one can build a banking business on top of. "We will make up for it in volume!"
- jonfw 2y ago
  One of the primary issues noted in the article is that not enough cardholders were floating their monthly rent, and instead they were immediately paying it off just to collect rewards.
- borski 2y ago
  That’s not how it works; you back the rent payment by a bank account. You technically could float it, but the Bilt app tries really really really hard to make sure you don’t.
hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
Bilt is shit. My apartment complex megacorp changed to them about 2 months ago. On signup, the have an opt-out credit card application where they try to force a credit card on you, they failed to disclose they charged a 3% fee for paying with a credit card until after signup is completed. They send unsolicited ads for random products and services as push notifications with no opt-out. I'm also not renewing my lease, and this is one of my reasons.
- rajup 2y ago
  Most apartment complexes charge a fee for paying by credit card no? That's always been my experience before Bilt. If you apply and pay with the Bilt card you shouldn't be paying any fee.
  - hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
    If it's not disclosed, it's a surprise charge. End of discussion.
    - rajup 2y ago
      Failed to disclose what? I get that you're annoyed but I'm struggling to see what you're annoyed about. Re the push notifications is it from the Bilt mobile app? Both Android and iPhone allow you to disable all notifications from an app.
gojomo 2y ago
As one of the "systemically important" (too-big-to-fail) banks, Wells-Fargo can make many bets that, when they lose, will ultimately be covered by taxpayers in the next round of bailouts, but if they win, will reward insiders & shareholders in the periods between bailouts.
- lagniappe 2y ago
  As they say, socialize the losses and privatize the profits.
- petesergeant 2y ago
  > in the next round of bailouts Haven't they only had one so far, that they repaid with interest?
- Arrath 2y ago
  I'm as pessimistic as anyone else about the Great Recession and our government's response to it, the lack of bankers ending up in jail, no big bank break ups and all that. However, were WF to make a series of bad business decisions and end up in dire straights, can we really confidently say they'll get bailed out yet again? I want to think that a single bank screwing themselves up would face a markedly different response than the global economy melting down.
  - borski 2y ago
    Sure, but we did bail out SVB
    - bloppe 2y ago
      Actually, we didn't. It failed and collapsed. What makes you think it was bailed out? To add detail: SVB was a subsidiary of SVB Financial Group, a holding company that owned the bank as well as some other things. SVB still exists, but is no longer a subsidiary of that holding company. It was completely taken over by the FDIC so they could make depositors whole. The former owners lost their biggest business, had to liquidate the rest of their businesses, and filed for bankruptcy a week later. They did not get bailed out. The thing is, they were not exactly behaving badly. Their big mistake was over-investing in "safe" long-term government bonds. These assets are traditionally considered very low-risk, but rapidly rising interest rates made them lose book value, and some stakeholders got a bit jittery. Then SVB's leadership held a disastrous conference call where they basically said "everything will be fine, as long as there is no bank run", which pretty much instantly kicked off a bank run on ~80% of all their deposits. Even the best-managed banks could not withstand that kind of bank run. SVB basically got unlucky. They were not horribly mismanaged like everybody seems to assume.
CSMastermind 2y ago
https://x.com/pitdesi/status/1802337976623755701 https://x.com/pitdesi/status/1802337976623755701 There was a good thread about this on Twitter which the CEO of Bilt responded to. Summarizing the WSJ article it sounds like Wells Fargo made some bad assumptions when underwriting the card, specifically: - 65% of the spend on the card would be non-rent (in reality less than 30%) - 50-75% of the balances would be revolving (in reality 15-25%) Here's a direct link to the CEO's response: https://x.com/ankurjain_2/status/1802370451714281930 https://x.com/ankurjain_2/status/1802370451714281930 The main points seem to be: - Bilt is helping Well Fargo acquire high value customers. - It's still early on in their partnership and the numbers can change.
el_benhameen 2y ago
It’s not really the main point of the article so it gets glossed over, but it sounds like Bilt was deterministically generating card numbers and expiry dates? That’s wild.

38 points by hampelm 2y ago

https://archive.is/jsLi5 https://archive.is/jsLi5

Wells Fargo color scheme works for me. Red = danger, yellow = warning - the signal colors for Stay Away. ref:https://duckduckgo.com/?q=wells+fargo+"fined" https://duckduckgo.com/?q=wells+fargo+"fined"

0xcafefood 2y ago
After using them recently for financing a house purchase, I recommend everyone take heed of this warning. I went in with low expectations for a mortgage broker and was still extremely disappointed.

nemomarx 2y ago

Something I never entirely get about the credit card business is how they can offer deals without it being obvious they only make money if you make mistakes? If it was a good deal for me, surely the bank loses some money on that?

floatrock 2y ago
The pejorative term that credit card companies use for people who pay off the entire balance every month is "deadbeats". https://www.cnbc.com/select/credit-card-deadbeat/ https://www.cnbc.com/select/credit-card-deadbeat/
- sleepybrett 2y ago
  I mean, deadbeats are probably still worth it in the long run. Over a long enough horizon eventually a person who pays off their cards every month runs into an emergency that will put them in a situation where they get stuck in a debit trap, them the banks eat for free.
- denimnerd42 2y ago
  I guess. Revolving credit is expensive for the bank to hold. They have to allocate a lot of capital to back the revolving unsecured debt compared to other secured loans. I think they'd rather just make money on the regular fees and not have to worry about people holding balances. By providing credit they can charge a higher transaction fee than a debit card so that's their value add. Retailers are willing to pay for that access to consumer credit. That's why credit cards are so popular in America vs other countries. They can charge a transaction fee that actually makes a profit. If they are regulated to a low fee then they can't give cards to anyone but the highest of FICO scores because the debt itself is so risky.
  - Finnucane 2y ago
    The interest and fees on accounts that carry a balance are enormously lucrative for the banks.
    - denimnerd42 2y ago
      I don't know.. Maybe in the good times. They are highly risky though and require a lot of capital backing that may not show up directly on the P&L. https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/bank-america-profit-falls-lower-customer-interest-payments-2024-04-16/ https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/bank-america-profit... I guess I could look more into the 10-K and see if that information is transparent to the public.
- darth_avocado 2y ago
  Meanwhile, if I don't pay off my balance, they ding my credit scores. Seems like they want to have their cake and eat it too.
- huntedsnark 2y ago
  This anecdote and using the word "deadbeat" is oft repeated but doesn't really have much basis in reality (even the article you linked doesn't cite any sources for the term). Credit card transaction fees generate revenue regardless of when you pay.
denimnerd42 2y ago
I always assumed banks made money on credit cards from the transaction fees. I think the interest rates are mostly there to scare you into paying your bill. It seems like once a CC balance gets out of control the bank's ability to recapture that money is limited since the card is unsecured. I guess they make more money off the people that use a CC as as a temporary loan and always repay but customers with that risk profile are generally one step away from never paying it off.
- perks_12 2y ago
  FYI, latest Q-10 of American Express has Merchant Fees at approximately double the revenue from interest payments. At least there it is true. [0]: https://s26.q4cdn.com/747928648/files/doc_financials/2024/q1/Q1-2024-Earnings-Tables.pdf https://s26.q4cdn.com/747928648/files/doc_financials/2024/q1...
  - denimnerd42 2y ago
    And the fees are basically pure profit while the interest payments have a huge cost and risk.
zaik 2y ago
https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/anatomy-of-credit-card-rewards-programs/ https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/anatomy-of-credit-car...
myfavoritetings 2y ago
It is simple really, there are more suckers paying high credit card interest than there are people collecting credit card rewards. As someone who always pays your bill off every month any rewards you collect are essentially paid for by people with interest payments
tiffanyh 2y ago
There's multiple revenue stream for banks as it relates to credit card. There's interchange, interest, annual fees and more.
bgirard 2y ago
Easy. There's a few customer profile: 1) People who will always pay it in full 2) People who incorrectly think they're 1) but wont pay in full for some reason 3) People that don't understand the cost of 20% APR 4) People that need the money and don't have a choice Plus CC make money on transaction fees and sometimes annual fees.
throwaway22032 2y ago
It's a good deal for you and I. But half of the population are of below average intelligence.
lenerdenator 2y ago
Credit is basically mandatory to survive in the US today. Most live paycheck-to-paycheck, wages have been stagnant for decades, and prices have been increasing. Add in the fact that people are both exhausted from work and that there's fewer domestic "partnerships" that allow division of labor (however that might occur), you have more opportunities for slick marketing and financial jargon to make unappealing terms slide past people.
- mc32 2y ago
  Even worse, in my opinion, is the proliferation of the buy now pay later schemes even apple are embracing At least with layaway plans, you had delayed gratification.
- mgraczyk 2y ago
  Most of your specific points are false. In fact, the majority of Americans self-report that they have at least 3 months of emergency savings, and this is backed by savings account data. Credit is necessary for some people, but the actual number is closer to 20% than 50%.
  - lenerdenator 2y ago
    Got a source? This article says 58% of Americans say they live paycheck-to-paycheck: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/09/most-of-americans-are-living-paycheck-to-paycheck-heres-why.html https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/09/most-of-americans-are-living... This article mentions 78%: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/living-paycheck-to-paycheck-statistics-2024/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/living-paycheck-to-pa...
    - mgraczyk 2y ago
      The definitions of "paycheck-to-paycheck" are different in different surveys. For example, in the second one you linked the question asked was something like "How difficult would it be for you if your paycheck was delayed by one week?" and they took anybody who said more than "not difficult" as "living paycheck to paycheck". My definition is more strict.
gojomo 2y ago
For those people who don't "make mistakes", the card issuers are still earning: • part of the 2-3% added to every charge • fees from promotional marketing, guided by the info in your purchase history, to those customers • fees from related services the same customers may purchase from the same bank Even when the high rewards cards marketed to conscientious low-credit-risk customers send back some of that 1-3% as "miles" or "points" or "cash back", the other information/marketing values about high-spending, reliable-paying customers remain interesting.
kemiller2002 2y ago
I worked in CC loan and processing for a period of time. Issuing cards is really a form of hedging. They make money on some and lose on others. The point is to win more than you lose. That's all. There are secondary and tertiary ways of making money off of the cards too. They can sell the pool of underperforming cards for a smaller sum of money, and they can write off losses to help with other ventures. Just a couple of examples.
- graemep 2y ago
  nitpick: its not hedging, its risk diversification.

OfCounsel 2y ago

"Costing the bank dearly" = losing $10 million a month, which is trifling for Wells Fargo. The Bilt card is a no brainer for any renter who qualifies. There is zero opportunity cost to the points earned on rent.

aagha 2y ago
Exactly. Pay your rent on your card, get points.

nytesky 2y ago

This whole deal is very confusing. What exactly was Bilt Technologies providing? My expectation is they would used AI/BigData/TheForce to identity which renters are likely to be balance carriers. How did they not hold any risk for the leads/users they generated? So Wells eats the HUGE interchange fee from the rent, and then divides the piddling remaining fees with BILT and pays them $200 for each customers? The use case, is give landlord this card alone, set for auto pay, and earn “points” but then do all other spending on a higher reward card it seems like? What were the points? Cards are routinely paying 2% cash back…

hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
Bilt "Rewards" is a way for shady Wells Fargo to advertise to, extort fees from, and monetize a captive market of apartment leasees. It's a bunch of annoying, gotcha capitalism bullshit soon-to-be-former leasees like me don't give two shits about.
- happyopossum 2y ago
  > way for shady Wells Fargo to advertise to, extort fees from, and monetize a captive market So standard fare for a rewards program? Not sure how this is any different than what chase, amex, or anyone else does to their rewards members - all of them use (and sell) your purchase and balance history for that stuff.
  - hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
    Except, this is a not optional rewards program. It's a rent bill paying service masquerading as one through captive exploitation.
  - borski 2y ago
    It isn’t. It’s exactly the same. The only difference is that Bilt provides an ACH account number / routing number for one payment per month: rent. And if you can’t ACH, they’ll mail a check for you. That’s it. That’s the only difference.
- 2y ago

gorkish 2y ago

Color me shocked that customers who float their monthly rent on a credit card are not the solid foundation that one can build a banking business on top of. "We will make up for it in volume!"

jonfw 2y ago
One of the primary issues noted in the article is that not enough cardholders were floating their monthly rent, and instead they were immediately paying it off just to collect rewards.
borski 2y ago
That’s not how it works; you back the rent payment by a bank account. You technically could float it, but the Bilt app tries really really really hard to make sure you don’t.

hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago

Bilt is shit. My apartment complex megacorp changed to them about 2 months ago. On signup, the have an opt-out credit card application where they try to force a credit card on you, they failed to disclose they charged a 3% fee for paying with a credit card until after signup is completed. They send unsolicited ads for random products and services as push notifications with no opt-out. I'm also not renewing my lease, and this is one of my reasons.

rajup 2y ago
Most apartment complexes charge a fee for paying by credit card no? That's always been my experience before Bilt. If you apply and pay with the Bilt card you shouldn't be paying any fee.
- hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
  If it's not disclosed, it's a surprise charge. End of discussion.
  - rajup 2y ago
    Failed to disclose what? I get that you're annoyed but I'm struggling to see what you're annoyed about. Re the push notifications is it from the Bilt mobile app? Both Android and iPhone allow you to disable all notifications from an app.

gojomo 2y ago

As one of the "systemically important" (too-big-to-fail) banks, Wells-Fargo can make many bets that, when they lose, will ultimately be covered by taxpayers in the next round of bailouts, but if they win, will reward insiders & shareholders in the periods between bailouts.

lagniappe 2y ago
As they say, socialize the losses and privatize the profits.
petesergeant 2y ago
> in the next round of bailouts Haven't they only had one so far, that they repaid with interest?
Arrath 2y ago
I'm as pessimistic as anyone else about the Great Recession and our government's response to it, the lack of bankers ending up in jail, no big bank break ups and all that. However, were WF to make a series of bad business decisions and end up in dire straights, can we really confidently say they'll get bailed out yet again? I want to think that a single bank screwing themselves up would face a markedly different response than the global economy melting down.
- borski 2y ago
  Sure, but we did bail out SVB
  - bloppe 2y ago
    Actually, we didn't. It failed and collapsed. What makes you think it was bailed out? To add detail: SVB was a subsidiary of SVB Financial Group, a holding company that owned the bank as well as some other things. SVB still exists, but is no longer a subsidiary of that holding company. It was completely taken over by the FDIC so they could make depositors whole. The former owners lost their biggest business, had to liquidate the rest of their businesses, and filed for bankruptcy a week later. They did not get bailed out. The thing is, they were not exactly behaving badly. Their big mistake was over-investing in "safe" long-term government bonds. These assets are traditionally considered very low-risk, but rapidly rising interest rates made them lose book value, and some stakeholders got a bit jittery. Then SVB's leadership held a disastrous conference call where they basically said "everything will be fine, as long as there is no bank run", which pretty much instantly kicked off a bank run on ~80% of all their deposits. Even the best-managed banks could not withstand that kind of bank run. SVB basically got unlucky. They were not horribly mismanaged like everybody seems to assume.

CSMastermind 2y ago

https://x.com/pitdesi/status/1802337976623755701 https://x.com/pitdesi/status/1802337976623755701 There was a good thread about this on Twitter which the CEO of Bilt responded to. Summarizing the WSJ article it sounds like Wells Fargo made some bad assumptions when underwriting the card, specifically: - 65% of the spend on the card would be non-rent (in reality less than 30%) - 50-75% of the balances would be revolving (in reality 15-25%) Here's a direct link to the CEO's response: https://x.com/ankurjain_2/status/1802370451714281930 https://x.com/ankurjain_2/status/1802370451714281930 The main points seem to be: - Bilt is helping Well Fargo acquire high value customers. - It's still early on in their partnership and the numbers can change.

el_benhameen 2y ago

It’s not really the main point of the article so it gets glossed over, but it sounds like Bilt was deterministically generating card numbers and expiry dates? That’s wild.