Women and money

Suze Orman

Suze Orman is the diva of Saturday night television, preaching about money management as an essential life skill for mid-life women drowning in debt. She can be annoying: That helmet of frosted platinum hair, the whiter-than-white teeth, the habit of calling people “girlfriend” (and “boyfriend” for the occasional man who calls in) and her love of referring to herself in the third person. I also marvel at the way she can psychoanalyze women a minute after they start their stories. “You don’t really love him, do you?” she’ll tell a caller who’s only just mentioned a male partner. (She recently came out as a lesbian in a New York Times magazine article, a brave move for someone in the public eye.)

But I do like some of her psychological insights in her latest book, Women and Money. Recounting some of her own misadventures with money, she talks about how woman often devalue themselves and treat themselves as a commodity to be priced by others. On her show, she constantly tells women they’re putting themselves “on sale,” meaning discounting their true talents and worth. She’s getting at an important truth when it comes to money management: You can’t save it if you don’t earn it. You have to believe in yourself and boost your value in the marketplace, be it the labour market or the marriage market. It’s no coincidence that women who don’t value themselves end up with men who don’t value them either.

Suze pushes women into taking care of their finances following a five-month plan she lays out. Unfortunately, much of her information is relevant only to US readers. And she keeps sending readers to her website, where information is for sale and not freely offered. Even the book’s back cover is controversial, since she’s made a deal with a stockbroker for readers who open accounts. She sells more books by offering this $100 discount coupon with TD Ameritrade, which makes some people suspicious.

Her advice is basic, almost too simple, in some readers’ opinion, but it’s meant for absolute beginners. And most people seem to like it, judging the comments at Amazon.com.

“I’ve already made a few day-to-day decisions in order to re-direct a much larger part of my monthly income to retirement planning. I took Suze’s advice and added extra $$ to my mortgage payment this month and opened up a savings account with TD AMERITRADE with automatic withdrawals. It meant that I didn’t buy my teenage son the $130 shoes he asked for last week, like I’ve done many times before. It also meant that I didn’t lend my good friend the $250 she asked for “again” last Friday, even though she eventually pays it back..but with zero interest, of course. Finally it also meant that my husband I didn’t agree to go to Vegas with some friends in a few months. Vegas will now be an ANNUAL trip, allowing me to put an extra $2000 per year into savings. I imagine there will be plenty of time to go to Vegas when I am retired. Okay, so I’m taking Suze’s advice and taking care of ME now so that later on…it won’t be ME living in poverty. Thanks Suze for writing this book and making me keenly aware of the fact that I needed to wake up and get with the program in terms of retirement planning.”

Mail-in rebates have got to go

You’re choosing between two products at a consumer electronics store. One has a mail-in rebate that reduces the price by $50. The other has no mail-in rebate. What do you buy?

Most shoppers pick the lower-priced product. In fact, stores like to advertise the price after deducting the $50 discount. But there’s a problem with mail-in rebates: They often go astray.

That’s why Canada’s largest electronics retailer says it’s eliminating mail-in rebates. Instead, consumers will get rebates instantly at the cash register at the time of sale, much like any other price discount.

The move is to be announced next week by Best Buy Canada Inc., which operates the Best Buy chain as well as Future Shop stores. Two years ago, Best Buy promised to work with suppliers to phase out mail-in rebates because of consumer complaints.

Here’s why mail-in rebates can be frustrating. You spend time gathering the paperwork and sending in your application, only to find the cheque is not in the mail. You spend more time tracking down the rebate, only to find you forgot to include something or the deadline for redemption has passed.

Many customers don’t even bother to send in their rebate applications. Half of all rebates are never claimed, retailers say. The higher the discount relative to the product price, the more likely you are to spend time trying to get it.

What if other stores follow Best Buy and adopt instant cash rebates? Manufacturers say there will be more people getting the discounts. This means the discounts will go down. Instead of a $50 mail-in rebate, they will offer a $25 instant cash rebate.

However, Best Buy says consumers can expect to see prices remain low because the electronics industry is so competitive. It’s more likely that retailers and manufacturers will take a hit on their bottom line to get rid of this promotional tactic.

I think mail-in rebates have got to go. I prefer price discounts that everyone can get at the time of sale. So does Wal-Mart, which is becoming a big force in consumer electronics and uses an everyday low prices approach.

Say good-bye to pie in the sky and say hello to cash in the hand right away.

Bell Blues

Since I get many complaints about Bell Canada’s ineptness in dealing with customers, I did a recent column (March 24) asking readers whether Bell’s service was improving. The floodgates opened with complaints. I also heard from long-time employees who don’t like how Bell is evolving and who learned this week their retirement benefits were to be cut back. A demoralized work force can’t deliver great results.

Some common themes emerged:

* Bell needs an ombudsman or a central point of contact for complaints.

* It’s very hard to speak to a supervisor or get the names of anyone in authority. When Bell gives out phone numbers and email addresses for complaints, these often don’t work.

* Many customers can’t communicate well with outsourced Indian call centres. The people at the other end of the line have strong accents and don’t understand Canadian conditions or climate (often telling customers to go out on the roof in winter to check a satellite dish connection). Their technical knowledge is shallow, so they keep you waiting on the line while seeking answers to questions.

* Some call centre staff staff are courteous and patient, while others have an attitude of arrogance, insensitivity to customers’ time constraints and often just plain rudeness. Bell trains employees to talk about how much they care for customers, but the caring often falls apart in the face of strict rules that can’t be broken and an inability to resolve longstanding problems.

Bell vs Rogers

Bell logo
Is Bell’s service worse than Rogers? Some readers think they’re the same: bureaucratic, prone to mistakes, inconsistent and quick to send accounts for collection. Both use voice recognition systems that people dislike.

But there are a few differences. Bell outsources many calls to India, while Rogers uses Canadian call centres.

Bell’s home phone business is regulated by the CRTC, while Rogers’ home phone business is not. So, there’s a mandatory $55 installation charges for Bell clients when they move, but not for Rogers clients.

Rogers is distrusted because of the negative option plan for cable TV channels it tried to impose back in the mid-1990s. But Rogers learned from that experience and tried harder.

Bell earned customers’ trust when it was a monopoly, but in the face of competition it’s aggressively cutting costs and lowering the quality of service. So people who still admire the company are shocked when they run into mediocre and insensitive treatment from employees.

Banks hitting you with more fees

The Canadian Bankers Association defends high service charges. But many readers don’t. They loved my columns about bank fees and credit card fees, but some had strong feelings about customers who don’t pay attention to fees or don’t do their best to minimize them. What do you think? Are banks taking advantage of us? Or are we being complacent?

Wills for poor people

After a Sunday series that focused on family fights about money, I got many comments and questions about writing a will. Here’s a letter from a reader about his dad’s will:

I have enjoyed reading your columns in the Star for years. As an accountant I think of myself as fairly financially savvy but I often learn new things through it.

In reading the Jan. 28 column, it strikes me that one situation that I have seen very little written about or discussed is the death of poor people. I guess this is particularly true because of my own involvement in such a situation.

My father passed away in September of 2003. He was 78 and lived alone on CPP, OAS and GIS. When he died, he lived in a cramped one-room apartment with less than $1,000 in his bank account and no other assets and just a small amount of credit card debt. I am one of seven surviving sons or daughters (two from a previous marriage that I have never met), and my mother predeceased him, so that made the seven of us his “next of kin”. He died with no will.

I found dealing with all the complications frustrating and complex. With no will, there is no executor, so it was hard to cancel things (phone, cable, credit cards, etc.). I did look into the Ontario Public Guardian’s office, but the paperwork and cost (more than his estate!) were simply way too involved to contemplate. And the thought of the complications I would have to go through in terms of searching for survivors also put me off.

In terms of his income taxes and estate return — again, legally, one must be the executor to complete — so in the end none of these forms were completed. (I have no idea what I will say to CRA if they ever come knocking about this.)

Luckily, my brother knew the bank manager at our Dad’s bank so we were able to close the account. Up to a year later I was still getting mail from places like Rogers about his account. I got tired of telling them he was dead, so I simply threw away the mail.