Our Appearance On The Suze Orman Show!

Suze Orman

(Note: We deliberately waited a couple of weeks for this, hoping the hullabaloo would have subsided. It hasn’t. Also, even though we still have a few more posts scheduled for January, you can consider this our Financial Retard of the Month. No one else is going to top it.)

Here’s the transcript of our recent television appearance on The Suze Orman Show, hosted by America’s favorite financial professional. It has yet to air.

 

It’s The Suze Orman Show! Today, Suze’s guest is Greg McFarlane of Control Your Cash!

SUZE: I understand you and Betty Kincaid have written a book, and a series of e-books, and you say your website is different than other personal finance websites. How is it different?

GREG: It’s different because we call other people out on their horseshit. Can I say “horseshit” on TV?

SUZE: No, this is basic cable.

GREG: Well, it’s your guys’ FCC license. Not my problem.

Look, you created this ridiculous prepaid card a couple of weeks ago which would have been a horrible idea if Russell Brand was behind it. Instead, it’s you – the woman whom Oprah’s minions trust to teach them about personal finance because watching daytime TV is easier than thinking.

I have nothing against separating suckers from their money – if they’re willing to part with it, why should that be anyone else’s problem – but you do realize you’re destroying your credibility with this card, right?

SUZE: Hold. It. Right. There. Mister. The Approved Card is a revolution in personal finance. People can use it to improve—

GREG: No, I’m going to cut you off. It’s someone else’s turn to be the angry lesbian. You were going to say “…their credit scores”, which is laughable. How can a debit card improve, or worsen, someone’s credit score?

Just because this card gives people a free look at one of their three credit scores – a perk with a retail value of 0 – doesn’t mean it can improve anybody’s score.

SUZE: Nuh-uh –

GREG: Still talking. I give you credit for telling your audience that this card is going to cost them $3 a month. $36 a year for using their own money. But then you follow that up with the list of tremendous benefits they get for that $36. They’re the first things listed on your website.

One, free use of certain ATMs. You call that a cardholder benefit? That’s like telling people the card comes with its very own shiny magnetic stripe. And they don’t even get the free ATM use until they sign up for direct deposit. Not that they shouldn’t anyway, but again, how is this a benefit?

SUZE: It’s –

GREG: Rhetorical question. Sucks when a person just keeps on talking while you’re trying to interrupt, doesn’t it?

SUZE: Ye–

GREG: I’m not close to done. You list 5 more benefits, one of which is that “your deposits are individually insured up to $250,000.”

Of course they are! It’s a freaking bank! Anyone who keeps his money in a federally regulated institution, as opposed to a pickle jar in the back yard, gets this “perk”. My God, how do you live with yourself? Another rhetorical question, by the way. Free online bill pay, which almost every payee offers anyway. A free “emergency fund account”, whatever that is. How much money does your partner, Bancorp Bank, put in the account? I’ll let you answer.

SUZE: Zero, but –

GREG: And how much interest do these accounts earn?

SUZE: That’d be zero, too.

GREG: Thank you. And, cardholders get “free activity alerts and balance updates.” Again, that’s like telling them that if they walk into a branch, they’ll get free deposit slips. And the ink to fill them out with is on the house. I know Bancorp Bank doesn’t have branches, but hopefully you see the point I’m making.

SUZE: Now, you don’t have any credentials, so who are you to discuss personal finance with people?

GREG: No credentials? (chortle) You should see where we live. (snicker) And live. (guffaw) And live. Besides, aren’t you the one with the degree in social work?

You even charge people for replacement cards. I’ve been with multiple banks in my life, and no one’s ever done that. Nor do they charge me for the original card. You guys do. How is that better?

SUZE: It’s better because The Approved Card is better than cash. If your cash gets stolen –

GREG: You mean if someone tries to steal cash out of my wallet, on my person?

SUZE: Maybe.

GREG: Then I’ll shoot them. But I never carry more than a few bucks anyway, because I already have a debit card. From my bank. Not Bancorp Bank. And it’s free. There’s no monthly fee, there’s no fee for using in-network ATMs, my money’s guaranteed up to $250,000 – basically all the benefits your card promises, and none of the costs. Would you be interested in this Bank of Nevada VISA card that’s in my hand? You can apply right online. You’re rich, I can’t imagine that they’d turn you down.

SUZE: Exactly. My card is for people who aren’t rich yet.

GREG: Sister, your card is for people who will never be rich, largely because they’re swallowing advice undigested from an imbecile. Your card is only for people whose credit is already so horrible, no bank or credit union will let them open an account.

Again, I respect that you’re trying to get rich off people dumber than you. And if it were Carlos Mencia or Blake Griffin putting his name on this card, that’d be one thing.

SUZE: I didn’t just put my name on this card. I created it.

GREG: Yeah, you keep saying that, as if proud of this. But you telling people to spend money to spend their own money would be like Jillian Michaels telling people they can carve chessboard abs for themselves by eating Jillian Michaels®-brand strawberry cheesecake.

You’re a crock, a charlatan, a mountebank, a fraud, and those epithets are far more complimentary than what you had to say to anyone who disagreed with you during your recent Twitter meltdown. So I’m going to end this interview prematurely, with a ruffle and a flourish, and leave you to filibuster for the rest of the segment. I’m sure you’ve got plenty to tell your viewers about. Goodbye.

SUZE: Look, before you leave…where do you get your pantsuits?

GREG: This isn’t a pantsuit. These are just pants.

This article is featured in:

**The Carnival of Personal Finance #346-Editor’s Pick!**

**Top Personal Finance Posts of the Week-Super Bowl XLVI Edition**

What coverage should you get when renting a car? (II of II)

You missed Wednesday’s Part I on car rental coverage? Go back and read it again, it’s really good. And you won’t understand today’s post if you don’t.

The irony? She was using Allstate's iPhone app at the time.

 

Fine, we can’t force you to read it. It’s about the different kinds of insurance add-ons car rental companies charge, and why they’re largely a waste of money. We saved the best one for the end, one that can end up costing you more than the rental itself.

PPP – Personal Protection Plan

Again, here “plan” is a euphemism for the taboo word “insurance”, a service only licensed insurers can sell. Oh Christ, what a rip this one is. This is for any medical expenses, up to and including death benefits, that you or your passengers might incur while renting the car.

Your existing health insurance doesn’t have a subsection that reads “this policy null and void if insured rents a car.” Thus, you’re covered. If you don’t have health insurance, you might indeed have good reasons for forgoing it. But then why would you buy only a few days’ worth of coverage, only to resume your uncovered status when you drop the keys in the overnight box?

In addition, your own auto policy gives you the option of including medical payments coverage. Lots of people don’t bother paying for it, but you should. Not for yourself, but it’ll cover your passengers and anyone you might hit. Which is getting us off the topic of rental insurance…

PEC – Personal Effects Coverage

This is a bigger rip than PPP. For $5 or thereabouts, PEC covers anything that might get stolen in the car. Again, you probably have this in your existing policy (it’ll be part of a subset called “property damage coverage” or something similar.) If you don’t have it, get it on your main policy, not your rental policy. Even if you do buy PEC, it covers only you and family members you live with. Go on a business trip with a partner, and the partner’s personal effects wouldn’t be covered anyway.

ESP – Emergency Sickness Protection

This is PPP, but for cholera rather than for greenstick fractures. And again (we’re starting to wish English had a synonym for “again”), you should already be covered with your existing health insurance policy if you have one.

If you want an extra layer of protection on top of that offered by Progressive and Blue Cross, any respectable credit card issuer will have you covered. Even the zealots who hate credit cards on principle will acknowledge that you have to have one if you plan on renting a vehicle: so shouldn’t you use a card that protects you?

American Express includes free Car Rental Loss & Damage Insurance with every card it issues. It includes most of the subsets of insurance listed above. When you add it to your main policy, it’ll cover most every possibility you could encounter. For instance, however much your main policy covers for damage, theft, or loss, American Express will cover an additional $50,000 just for the asking. In fact, you don’t even have to ask. Even Discover, the poor man’s American Express, supplements your coverage to the tune of $25,000.

(NOTE: This is not an endorsement of American Express’s Premium Car Rental Protection, a joke of a service that costs you money. It’s $25 per rental, and it acts as your primary coverage for the length of the rental. You already have primary coverage from your insurer.)

Finally, fill the freaking tank before you drop it off. You can’t not know this, can you?

EVEN THE EMPLOYEES know this is a rip

 

Okay, we’ll walk you through it. The rental agency typically gives you three choices for bringing the car back with a full (or however full you found it) tank:

  1. Fill it yourself.
  2. Let them fill it for you, at some ridiculously exorbitant price.
  3. Buy a full tank now, at the agency’s own ***DISCOUNTED!!!*** price. That way you won’t have to look at the gauge and can return it with as little gas as you like.

Obviously, the agency makes option b) so unpalatable that you won’t consider it. However, the agency understands that the same part of your brain that rejects the idea of paying $5.40 for a gallon of gas will gladly pay National’s $3.50 instead of the $3.63 at the pump down the street. If you fall for this, we’ve got a word for you: Catostomidae.

You’ve got to be all shades of dumb to believe that a car rental agency pays less than retail for gas and then gladly passes the savings on to you. The agency knows that if you buy their $3.50 gas, they’re profiting off you if you bring their car back with anything beyond fumes in the fuel tank.

If you’re certain that you’ll return the car with no gas in the tank, let Avis fill it for you when you return. To do that you’re going to have to know how many miles your rental gets per tank, then fill it when you know you’re that many miles away from returning it. Sure, that sounds easy to do. Just fill the freaking tank yourself.

This article is featured in:

**Yakezie Carnival Mighty Ducks Edition**

**Baby Boomers Blog Carnival One Hundred Twenty-first Edition**

Peeling Back The Onion Of The Durbin Amendment

This is a guest post from Bill Hazelton, CEO of Credit Card Assist, where he gives tips, news, commentary and advice on credit- and debit cards.

The man to make all our dreams come true. (This is Durbin, not Bill.)

 

Last summer Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  At the last minute, Senator Dick Durbin introduced the “Durbin Amendment,” aimed at reforming debit card payment processing and fees.

The senior Senator from Illinois, Durbin has served in Congress since 1982, and since 1996 in the Senate.  He’s been Senate Majority Whip since 2007.

He introduced the amendment to protect retailers whom he believed were losing money to debit card-processing fees.  Some of his supporters claimed banks were colluding with credit card companies to extort exorbitant fees from merchants. Visa and MasterCard had had a stranglehold on payment processing and fee setting.

Senator Durbin anticipated merchants would pass savings along to consumers, especially in competitive markets.

The Federal Reserve estimated that capping processing fees at a reasonable level wouldn’t hurt banks unduly.  Chairman Ben Bernanke agreed that retailers would probably pass along savings to consumers. The Fed also wanted to increase competition in the payment processing system, and give merchants freedom of choice.

The amendment went into effect October 1, 2011.

What the amendment changed

The process hasn’t changed: retailers pay a swipe fee (also known as an interchange or exchange fee) for each transaction. The fee is shared by the card’s issuing financial institution and the payment processing network (usually Visa or MasterCard). Financial institutions get a much larger share.

The amendment’s key provisions:

  • The Fed sets a maximum transaction fee, of 21¢ + .05% .  Card issuers that offer fraud protection can receive an additional 1%.  This amount is roughly half of pre-amendment fees.
  • Card payment networks must allow processing on at least two independent networks, effective immediately. Card issuers must do so by this coming April 1 (except for issuers of certain health-related cards, benefit cards and general-use prepaid cards, who can wait a year beyond that.)
  • Merchants can institute a card-purchase minimum and/or offer discounts to cash or debit card purchasers, both of which were previously banned.

The way things were

Debit cards were generating more money and more transactions than credit cards. Debit cards’ use was also growing compared to checks and cash.

Card issuers typically received about 1.3% from each transaction. Swipe fees have increased, and now total about $48 billion annually.  Debit card fees represent about $17 billion of that.

Visa and MasterCard have long held a duopoly, letting them force smaller retailers to pay high fees while offering better deals to large clients.  A merchant’s only recourse was to refuse cards as a method of payment.

Financial institutions are unhappy

Even before the amendment went into effect, banks warned they’d have to tighten credit, and raise fees and interest rates, to make up for projected lost revenue.  Bank of America and Chase threatened to cap debit card charges at $50 to $100, which would have rendered the cards basically worthless for everyday use, possibly pushing customers to use credit cards instead.

Already, some banks have rescinded free or rewards checking programs.  And we’re all familiar with Bank of America’s ill-fated $5 per month debit card fee, now also rescinded after massive customer backlash.

The new interchange fee cap is much friendlier for banks than the originally proposed 12¢ cap.  Nonetheless, bank revenue is estimated to drop around 40-50%, costing banks around $6.6 billion.

Financial institutions with under $10 billion in assets — community banks and all but three credit unions — are exempt from the new fee limit.  Debit card transaction fees enable them to fund big-bank services.  But many fear the new two-tier pricing structure won’t work, and they’ll have to accept lower exchange fees despite their exemption.  Combined with the multiple processing network requirements, that could decrease revenue and force small banks to reduce services or increase fees.  This leads to calls to protect specific advantages offered by credit unions.

Merchants may even refuse to accept small-issuer cards that have a higher swipe fee.  This isn’t allowed, but it’s been hard to enforce and no one really expects that to change.

Small card issuers fear they’ll lose customers to big banks that can still offer broader services.  Big banks also say they’re being forced to either increase service fees and risk losing customers, or simply accept lower revenue.

When Congress established the new fee limits, they didn’t consider fraud and other costs related to debit card transactions. Banks say greatly reduced future revenue won’t cover expenses.  Critics argue that debit card fraud is much smaller than its credit card counterpart, so the lower risk supports lower fees.

Some large retailers claim “fraud risk coverage” is a smokescreen anyway, and that the credit card industry just doesn’t want to bother producing more secure cards, even though the technology exists.

The bottom line: income from debit card transactions will drop for all financial institutions. That’s about all we know.

Consumers may not benefit

Big institutions have or probably will:

  • Add or raise checking fees
  • Increase checking balance minima
  • Lower or eliminate debit card rewards
  • Raise out-of-network ATM fees
  • Even sell customer information to retailers

Smaller banks have capitalized on this, promoting that they’re keeping free checking and not making debit cards onerous to use.

Card issuers are likely to promote credit-based services and prepaid debit cards, neither of which are subject to the new lower swipe fee.  Some issuers are already offering low-interest credit cards and increased reward programs.  Some people argue that increased credit card use will increase consumer debt, and that low and moderate-income consumers may be hit hardest, as banks institute higher fees for necessary services.

In the past, merchants either absorbed swipe fees or raised prices to offset them.  Now, they can charge customers directly, adding a fee on top of the merchandise price.

Merchants may not benefit, either

Consumers have typically paid the same price regardless of payment method, but merchant rates vary considerably for debit, credit and premium cards such as reward credit cards.  Merchants may not gain much if consumers simply switch to credit cards or checks, because swipe fees are higher for credit cards and checks are slower and riskier.

Visa and MasterCard are predicted to increase credit card fees for “small ticket purchases,” so merchants may retaliate by refusing Visa debit cards.  Merchants can now set minimum or maximum transaction amounts, which could result in more use of cash or checks, or customers could take their business elsewhere.

Many financial industry thought leaders believe it’s unlikely retail prices will drop.  Others say merchants could actually increase sales by subsidizing debit-card holders, and they note that merchants benefit indirectly from bank advertising that encourages shopping.

Unintended consequences

In 2010 the Mercator Advisory Group published a report entitled “The Durbin Amendment: Impact Analysis”, before the amendment passed.

In addition to the issues noted above, the report identified unintended consequences that critics have disparaged:

  • Prepaid debit cards are now commonly used for payroll and government benefits.  If state and federal agency revenue drops, card recipients could be at risk for up-front fees.  If card programs are eliminated and agencies revert to using checks, recipients could pay check-cashing and bill-paying fees.
  • Profits from debit card transactions have funded development of new financial services products – like mobile payment, and next generation smart cards. This could diminish, jeopardizing America’s position as global market leader.
  • Processing networks may institute non-transaction-based fees to recoup lost revenue, or be slower to offer merchants new ways to receive payments electronically.
  • Diverting resources to implement the changes mandated by the amendment may hamper financial institutions’ participation in economic recovery efforts.
  • Regulating just one portion of the financial services industry could spawn entities that offer non-regulated services.

Debit card revenue has been a powerful profit center for financial institutions.  The electronic payment processing system is tremendously complex. Whether the provisions of the Durbin Amendment will benefit consumers and merchants, we still don’t know.

**This article is featured in the Carnival of Personal Finance (336th Edition)**