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

You know what the markup on this gut bomb is? EIGHT MILLION PERCENT.

 

As any savvy retailer knows, the basic products themselves aren’t the profit centers. The extras are. Otherwise appetizers, alcohol and desserts wouldn’t exist.

When you buy insurance on your personal vehicle, you have all the time you need to shop around and run numbers. When you buy insurance on a rental, you’re subject to a monopoly. Plus a clerk is staring at you, and another customer is waiting in line behind you; those are hardly the optimal conditions for making an informed, rational decision.

(Hey, what do you know? This boldfacing gimmick really works. Lots of eyes making their way down the page as we speak. What a fantastic idea. Should have done this months ago.)

The standard rental insurance policy is in zero-point green font on the back of the pink copy of a triplicate sheet that you’re not reading the back of anyway. You don’t want to spend any more time than you need to at a rental desk, and that goes double if you just got off a plane and have an inviting hotel room waiting for you. You just want to get out of there, especially if the alternative is reading paragraphs of legalese. So it’s tempting to just ask the clerk what every type of additional coverage means, then treat his non-binding oral descriptions as Gospel.

Don’t. Coverage can not only exceed the cost of the rental itself, it’s almost always redundant.

There are 17,756 possible 3-letter acronyms in the Roman alphabet. The car rental industry has a corresponding type of coverage for every one of them. Here’s what they are, and why they’re mostly useless. We’ll start with a couple of easy ones. Then on Friday we’ll show you where the car rental agencies do the most efficient job of separating you from your money:

LDW – Loss Damage Waiver (similar to its less encompassing cousin, Collision Damage Waiver, which is offered by some rental companies.) If you rent a car and someone steals it, or vandalizes it, or it gets in an accident, or hailstones fall on it, or it hits a pedestrian who survives and feels litigious, someone has to make good.

LDW is insurance, but the rental companies don’t call it that because they’re not licensed to sell insurance. They use the term “waiver” because when you agree to pay the extra $20 a day, the agency itself is waiving its right to charge you for damages.

We can sympathize with people who argue that LDW gives you peace of mind, which it does. But even peace of mind should submit to cost/benefit analysis. If someone offered you an all-inclusive lifetime medical policy, one that covered everything from standard office visits to trauma care, to all the Purinethol pills you could swallow, would you take the policy – if it cost $5 million?

If you drive, as you probably know if you drive, you have to have insurance. If you’re one of the few people who has a valid license with no existing insurance (certainly possible, if you live in downtown New York or Toronto or somewhere and gave up possessing a car), the rental agency can, and should, require you to buy LDW.

That leaves the 99+% of us who actually use our licenses, and whose primary insurance will cover us first. READ YOUR (primary insurance) AGREEMENT. People don’t like reading agreements. That’s why we have a subprime mortgage crisis in this country, a crisis created by homeowners.

If you temporarily transfer your State Farm or AAA or whomever coverage to your rental car, your deductible will still apply. Which is only fair, isn’t it? Causing damage, in CYC’s carefully ratiocinated opinion, is bad.

Of course, you need to think a little harder if the car you’re renting is vastly more expensive than the car you drive primarily. Say you rejected comprehensive coverage when you bought the policy to cover your 1986 Yugo. (Which makes sense. If a $1200 car incurs $1000 in damage, you should sell it to a junkyard.) But that leaves you exposed if you rent a Jaguar. Also, why the hell are you renting a Jaguar?

Yes, the LDW will cover you for such unremarkable mishaps as flat tires. But your rental vehicle comes with a spare, and most tire places will repair a flat for next to nothing.

SLI – Supplemental Liability Insurance

For $9 a day, give or take, this gives you up to $1 million in excess liability coverage. Above we listed scenarios, however unlikely, in which LDW might make sense. There’s no scenario in which SLI makes sense. If you’re not carrying enough liability insurance on your primary policy to begin with, the Enterprise counter isn’t the place to make a necessary lifestyle change. Instead of marking an X in the Hertz box, call your insurer and add the coverage on your main policy.

Presumably, you can live with a minor dent in a panel on your own Toyota Camry. But when you get a similar dent while driving a car from Alamo, they’re going to be less forgiving about it. Hence the deductible, previously alluded to. The likelihood of you incurring damage greater than your deductible during the brief period that you’re renting the car is small enough that you should play the odds and forgo the supplemental insurance. If it isn’t, then you’re a crappy driver and shouldn’t be renting a car (or getting insured) anyway.

If you think that’s bad, wait 48 hours. More financial skulduggery, and how you can combat it, Friday.

This article is featured in the following carnivals:

**Carnival of Financial Planning: Thanksgiving Edition**

**The Carnival of Financial Camaraderie #9**

**Top Personal Finance Posts of the Week-I Ate Way Too Much 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)**

The Poor Aren’t Getting Poorer. They’re Getting Stupider.

The daughter was a pool hustler. The three boys on our left formed 75% of a barbershop quartet.

 

Every week we host the Carnival of Wealth which, although it features content written by other people, requires us to work harder than we do to write one of our own posts.

This week we received a submission from Flexo, the guy who runs Consumerism Commentary. When we started CYC, Flexo was one of the first established personal finance bloggers to accept a guest post from us. He later made the unfortunate choice to let us guest host his own carnival. We gave it the CYC treatment, thus ruining our chances of him ever letting us host it again.

We didn’t run his Carnival of Wealth submission this week, but it did provoke enough thought that we’re devoting a blog post to it. His post, like several others we received, summarized a recent Pew Research Center study that made a shocking claim (all numbers quoted in 2010 dollars):

In 1984, the median net worth of households with someone under 36 in charge was $11,521.
In 2009, the comparable figure was $3,662.

Let’s temporarily leave aside the question of whether this superlative means what it says. The Pew Research Center adds irrelevant data to the study, so it can showcase its findings with respect to an agenda. Read the headline and subhead:

The Rising Age Gap in Economic Well-Being: The Old Prosper Relative to the Young

The median net worth of households with someone over 64 in charge rose from $120,457 to $170,494 during that same span, which is hardly remarkable. If you could travel back to 1984 and tell people about the $170,494 figure, it wouldn’t raise an eyebrow. The $3,662 one would raise plenty.

What old people have spent their lives socking away (and confiscating from younger people via the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security) isn’t germane. The median net worth of the young isn’t decreasing because of the old, and even Pew Research doesn’t dare make such a claim.

Still, a 68% reduction in median net worth is horrifying. Or is it?

  1. A lot of people currently under 36 are upside-down on their residences, a circumstance of the temporary phenomenon that is the depressed housing market. Those people’s 1984 counterparts had either bought houses and watched them amass value, or rented and lost nothing beyond what they were paying in rent.

2. In Pew Research’s own words,

…these long-term changes include delayed entry into the labor market and delays in marriage—two markers of adulthood traditionally linked to income growth and wealth accumulation

In other words, people under 35 are poorer than their Reagan-era counterparts because so many of the former are in suspended adolescence. They live at home longer, they play more enjoyable video games, they start college later and then they stay there longer.

The very next sentence, in which Pew reinforces its (and our) point:

Today’s young adults also start out in life more burdened by college loans than their same-aged peers were in past decades.

Well, yeah. Colleges discovered a while ago that they could almost name their own prices. It’s become received wisdom that you need a degree to flourish. (You don’t.) With a government bent on “making college affordable for all Americans”, a liberal student loan policy means that people without collateral can borrow amounts they can barely conceive of, let alone conceive of paying back. And why should they? It’s not their money, and it’s not their problem. It’s ours.

It gets better, and by better we mean worse. The data the Pew Group delivers antiseptically and devoid of judgment are the very reasons people are losing net worth. Here’s one reason Pew gives for the $3,662 figure:

…today’s young adults are more likely to be…single parents.

How about this: if you’re 25 and you want to raise a kid by yourself, or put yourself in a position where you might end up raising a kid by yourself, it’s going to hurt your financial situation.  Your writer has a college degree and would be far too dumb to figure that out had he only graduated high school.

We don’t expect you to read the entire Pew article: frankly, we’re impressed you’ve stuck with this article as long as you have. But later in the narrative, Pew offers the following chart:

 

The same people whose net worths are decreasing are watching their incomes rise. How is that possible?

For one thing, Pew moved the start of the measurements back 17 years. Second, as we’ve expressed time and again,

Net worth is not income. Especially when Pew Research conveniently leaves this at the bottom of the page:

Following convention, this report’s wealth figures are measured at the household level and do not reflect any adjustments for the size of the household.

Hey now! 25 years ago, a household headed by an under-36-year-old likely meant one that included a married couple. Today, that “household” is more likely to mean one person. Hell, Pew said as much earlier in this jeremiad posing as a report.

More relevant details:

1984 was a recovery year following the 1981-82 recession, while 2009 could be construed as a recession year.

“Could be”? 1943 could be construed as a war year, too. Pew acknowledges that 1984 was in the middle of a boom, 2009 in a bust. Whether the economic cycle ought to have peaks as high and valleys as low as it does, the fact remains that it does and that Pew cherry-picked a bountiful year in the past and contrasted it with the worst recent year they could find.

Pew makes no mention of modern day young people’s materialism, which isn’t wrong in itself but is when it’s out of proportion to earning power. In other words, there were no iPads to finance with credit cards 25 years ago.

In summary:

How well old people live is not young people’s problem, nor vice versa.
Your house might not make you poor, but don’t count on it to make you rich, either.
Deferring adulthood, and productivity, will make you poor.
Spreading your legs/jettisoning your sperm costs money.
All things being equal, a household with x people is going to have a greater net worth than one with x-y people.
Everyone
has an agenda.

This article is featured in the following carnivals:

**Top Personal Finance Posts of the Week – November 18, 2011**

**The Baby Boomers Blog Carnival One Hundred-nineteenth Edition**

**Yakezie Carnival-San Diego Edition**