Guess what Cmd/Ctrl-F doesn't find in this article? "Apple". WTF is up with the editorialized title? I mean, Apple just announced their bank thingy, and somehow that effects last quarter's numbers for these banks?
It makes sense in that Apple has created a greater incentive to move capital to Goldman Sachs via their new Apple Cash savings acct (which is also far easier to apply for), however it's a bit sensationalized since Wealthfront has offered 4% APR incentives on their savings acct for over a month.
Although the feature was released today, the option to actually opt in still isn't available in my apple wallet.
Also:
> assets under management in its investment arm dropped 10 per cent to $3.6tn
that would be 4t minus 400b (10%) == 3.6t where did the 60b number in the headline come from? And that is just one of the 2 banks mentioned in the article (not 3 as the headline mentions).
Was this submission an attempt to see exactly how many things can be wrong in a single headline?
