How To Stay Poor In However Many Easy Steps

My mom's doing tequila shots at Coyote Ugly right now. Thank God I can spell.

Take a vacation. You earned it!

You need to get away. You also need to spend less than you earn and invest the difference, but Carnival Cruise Lines doesn’t stop at the Port of Personal Responsibility. Nor are there daiquiris.

Yes, everyone needs to get away once in a while. Or spend on something beyond the basics. Money is meant to be enjoyed, at least some of it. But what a lot of people forget is that there’s still a window you have to operate in, contingent on your net worth and cash flow. This is not opinion. Concentrating on the result (your senses experiencing something pleasant) without paying attention to the effort rendered to achieve it (a commitment of your money) is insane. Rich people pay attention. It’s not why they’re rich, but it’s a leading indicator.

Rich people don’t want to commit a lot of their money, either – relative to what they have. No one in the top quintile of net worth is going to spend 3% of that net worth on an extravagance. People in the lower quintiles do it all the freaking time. That’s why they’re there, and the rich are where they are.

Here’s another way to cloud reality: justify an indefensible expense as being “for your kids”. For instance, “We’re taking our kids to Disneyland.” Congratulations, you painted yourself into a virtuous corner. Now, if you don’t take your kids to The Happiest Place On Earth, failing to do so would make you a parent who doesn’t love her (you’re probably a woman) child enough. Other people do it, why not you?

Number 1, screw other people. Number 2, what are you working for? If you have to choose between a smile on Junior’s face today and not having to move in with him 45 years from now, what are you going to pick? If you refuse to answer that question, or say “the smile”, you should find a less demanding blog. Here are four of them.

Here’s another handy phrase you can use to explain away your inability (REFUSAL) to build wealth:

“(Name of your indulgence) (present tense of positive verb) me.”

For instance, “My BMW 7-Series excites me. It makes me feel good.” The rest of my life sucks, my job is torture, but these 544 horses know how to snap me out of my funk.

Good for you. They’re probably also impoverishing you, if that’s the kind of thing that concerns you. Maybe it doesn’t, and if so then why are you reading this site?

Every time we say something heretical like that we have to spend undue time explaining it, because some readers aren’t that bright. Maybe reading the explanation will make them smarter. Here goes:

We’re not saying you shouldn’t buy a luxury car. Or a trip to Disneyland. Or whatever it is you want to buy. The only thing you should do is know your place. Michael Jordan gets to squander $300,000 in one night in the high-roller salon at Caesars Palace. You don’t. Why? Because he’s Michael freaking Jordan, that’s why. Alright, maybe that’s still not clear. Because he has a net worth somewhere in the 9-digit range. There, is that better? Gambling is still stupid, and indeed Jordan was dumb enough to lose half his fortune in what was simultaneously one of the most sadistic and masochistic divorce settlements in human history, but he can still withstand the losses. You can’t.

Your neighbor bought a boat, you say? Good for him! Did you see the bill of sale? How about the financing agreement?

Doesn’t matter. I want a boat I want a boat I want a boat.

Well, you’re also getting knowledge, whether you want it or not. You can pay $30,000 for a standard deck boat. Most people don’t have that kind of cash lying around. But if they do, and are also the kind of people who fancy themselves mariners, they’re probably not going to buy a $30,000 Tahoe. They’re going to buy a $140,000 boat and spend the next however many years paying interest on it.

“However many” doesn’t mean 3 or 4, either. It means 5, 8, 10, “or even 12 is not unusual.”

Not to focus on boats, that’s just one example. Swimming pools, jewelry, even (relatively inexpensive) expensive clothes. If you can find a merchant who’ll sell it to you on credit, and it’s not a necessity (and thus, by definition, a luxury), it’s not that you can’t afford it. You can’t, that’s not the point. The point is that you’re committing tens, hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of future dollars to whatever item it is you just can’t say no to, beyond its listed price. This is so simple that observing it hardly counts as conscious thought, but you know that credit card bill that you pay the minimum balance on every month? The one that’s going to take you 17 years to pay off at your current pace? It’s not just a uniform morass of cash. It’s that 99¢ iTunes download, now $1.78 with interest. It’s that $5 Quizno’s sub you didn’t think anything of at the time because, you know, $5. Even though it’s ultimately costing you $8.69. Some people justify the big purchases (see above), but no one even bothers to justify the everyday ones that make up the bulk of your total spending.

We’re not going to say that building wealth is the easiest thing in the world, but it’s far less complicated than many people make it out to be. If you can’t get ahead, look within first. Not to quote ourselves, but are you buying liabilities? Selling assets? Assuming that your opposite number in any transaction has your best interests at heart? Not putting the math you learned in the 4th grade to use?

If you’re struggling, you can get out. Easier and with less pain than you think. But you’ve got to want it. If you don’t, that’s fine, but you’re probably going to hate it here. In the meantime, buy our book and get started. Don’t say we never do anything for you.

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)**

Free money. No strings attached.

These scammers operate in 190 countries.

There’s this amazing scam going on in our society, perpetrated by private industry, no less. And get this – it’s backfiring. The people behind the scam are the ones getting taken advantage of.  If you’ve ever cheered for an underdog against a Goliath, this is the ultimate comeuppance story. You’re not going to believe how this works:

The scammers act as an intermediary between you as a consumer, and whichever merchant you’re buying from. They take your money – well, even that’s not accurate. It’s not like they put it in an escrow account or anything. They actually front you the money to buy whatever it is you want, and then you pay them anytime you want in the next month. Given the time value of money, that means the scammers are losing on the deal. As for the merchants, they love this arrangement because as part of the front, the scammers pay out of their own pockets immediately. You could skip the country, die, or ring up debts all around town and the merchants wouldn’t care. They still get paid. And you can do this over and over again. As fast as you can shop, the scammers will be there, ready to front you whatever you want. Some of them will front you $6,000 out of the gate, others $15,000 or so, and still others don’t even set a maximum.

Okay, that technically isn’t a scam yet, just an indirect way of conducting business involving a willing and masochistic patsy. At this point, the scammers are merely Good Samaritans. You’d figure they’d have to have some sort of hidden agenda, but they don’t have any that we could find.

Here’s where it gets weird: not content with facilitating your transactions for no charge, the scammers will give you stuff, over and above fronting you the money. Stuff including, but not limited to:

  • flights, including first-class
  • priority seating for concerts and other events
  • roadside assistance, assuming you don’t have AAA and never learned how to change a tire
  • discounts.

When all that fails, they’ll tempt you with straight-up cash instead. Literal money for nothing. They’re like a neighborhood child molester who couldn’t decide between Skittles and Twix bars for bait and decided to just give away dollar bills instead. Except there’s no pederasty involved. They don’t lure you anywhere. Pay them the money they front you, and then next month they’ll let you do it again.

They don’t typically give away the flights and priority tickets all at once. The scammers aren’t that generous. An airline seat still costs a few hundred bucks, so the scammers are going to make you wait maybe 3 months, maybe longer, before giving it to you. It depends on how much they front you. But give it to you they will. By the way, you decide how much they front you. It’s not as if they give you a suitcase full of unmarked bills and order you not to lose it under punishment of death or dismemberment.

The cash, on the other hand, they’ll give to you almost immediately. Again, you don’t have to do anything to earn this cash. They just give it to you. The amount they give you is a fraction of how much they front you, but once more, you’re the one who decides how much they front you. To the penny. You don’t even have to keep records of how much they owe you. The scammers do the bookkeeping, too.

It doesn’t even seem fair to call them scammers. “Facilitators” is more accurate and less insulting. They don’t insist on anything in return for this extreme generosity. You can keep on taking advantage of them for your entire life, exploiting their naïvete until you get bored. But unlike a puppy who falls victim to the hidden-ball trick over and over again, the facilitators of this odd enterprise love to give away money and prizes. If you do decide to work towards earning one of their big-ticket rewards, like a cruise, there’s usually no set period in which you have to act. You can take years to earn whatever reward they’re offering: it’s not like you start again at zero if you don’t earn it quickly enough.

It gets better. (Better for you, worse for them.) Because there’s a competitive market for these scammers, the major ones and even the minor ones have to undercut each other to get your attention. If you buy a defective product, or need a big refund on something a crooked merchant sold to you (it happens), the scammers will take the hit. We’re not kidding. They will give you your money back and chase down the dishonest merchants themselves. And if some criminal gets between you and the scammers, buying stuff in your name, the scammers will take the hit for that, too. You don’t even have to call the police and get them involved. There’s no downside for you whatsoever. Free money, free stuff, and protection. It’s the most amazing deal of all time, and it’s available to just about anyone with an address and a full-time job.

The big players in this bizarre industry are hiding in plain sight. You won’t find them in obscured storefront windows in bad parts of town. They operate out of gigantic shiny office buildings in New York City, San Francisco, suburban New York and suburban Chicago. They’ve even incorporated, and all trade on the New York Stock Exchange. What’s really strange is that they have a purported combined market value of $176 billion. Which must be a mistake, because we’ve been taking advantage of these companies for years and can’t imagine why anyone would ever give them a nickel.

 **This article is featured in the Baby Boomers Blog Carnival One Hundred-sixteenth Edition**

**This article is featured in the Carnival of Financial Camaraderie #6**

**This article is featured as one of the Top Personal Finance Posts for the Week of November 11, 2011**