April 25, 2024

Your Money: Suze Orman to Offer Her Own Prepaid Debit Card

Never before, however, has she built a financial product from scratch and urged her considerable number of fans to use it frequently. That changes with the introduction on Monday of her Approved card, which works a lot like a bank debit card but does not come with a checking account. It is a prepaid debit card, and companies that offer similar cards have drawn criticism for sky-high fees and poor disclosure.

The hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons, American Express and the Kardashian sisters are among those who have piled in with their own cards, and they are nearly ubiquitous at drugstores and other retailers. The target customers are most often people who have little credit history — or credit so bad that banks will not come near them.

Ms. Orman seeks to broaden the debit card market by charging low fees and offering new services, including unlimited access to credit reports. She has put more than $1 million of her own money into the venture and is prepared to add more, since the product may not break even right away. But her move also raises so many questions that it is hard to even know where to start.

How can the Approved card make money charging fees on par with those on Walmart’s cut-rate MoneyCard, while also paying a credit bureau for access to its services? Also, can it really be just fine with CNBC, where Ms. Orman has a weekly show, that her card will compete with products from companies she discusses frequently with viewers? And will her followers care that she is pushing purple pieces of plastic that will help her make money from their everyday spending?

“I couldn’t be more proud of this card if I tried,” she said. “And it doesn’t really matter what I say. It matters what happens when somebody uses this baby.”

Their choice to use it may be colored by the opportune moment in which Ms. Orman finds herself. Big banks have offended scores of consumers with new fees and account balance minimums. People seeking alternatives may well find what they are looking for in prepaid cards.

That might not have been the case several years ago, when most prepaid card issuers marketed them to teenagers, or as gifts, or to people with poor credit who needed a way to make online purchases or visit a merchant without wads of cash.

More recently, companies like Green Dot (a partner with Walmart) and NetSpend have emerged. They persuade consumers to buy the cards first, in part through their availability in 300,000 locations, including grocery and convenience stores, according to the Mercator Advisory Group. Then, they try to persuade people to reuse them. Services like direct deposit and online bill payment have helped some. Still, 43 percent of the cards are never reloaded or are reloaded only once, according to Mercator.

These cards differ from checking accounts in other ways. There is no checkbook, nor do they have their own network of A.T.M.’s, though some prepaid card issuers have agreements with networks to offer free withdrawals. And different regulators govern them, which can mean fewer consumer protections under certain circumstances. (It could also mean that the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will swoop in and make tougher rules.)

The biggest difference from a regular bank account, however, is the fee structure on the debit cards. Prepaid-card holders must often pay to buy the card and put money on it. There is often a monthly fee. Bill paying, phone help — even making a purchase can cost a dollar or two.

Ms. Orman watched this unfold and vowed to build something better. Her fees for the Approved card for things like A.T.M. withdrawals are about as low as they come, though she was not able to fulfill her goal of avoiding a $3 monthly fee, which is deducted from the remaining balance.

Whether consumers could do better with a free checking account (and yes, plenty still exist) would depend on whether they value paper checks and in-person service. Financially, they would most likely do worse if they bounced those checks or used overdraft services and paid $20 or $30 for each transaction.

The Approved card, like most leading prepaid cards, generally does not let people spend more than they have.

But the most noteworthy part of the Approved card is Ms. Orman’s efforts to make her customers more aware of their credit histories. All users get unlimited access to their credit reports and credit scores from TransUnion, though not the more widely used FICO scores. They will also get free credit monitoring and identity theft protection. (Ms. Orman is quick to point out how much these services would cost if her customers bought them separately. But most wouldn’t do that, and you shouldn’t either, since they are generally overpriced and often unnecessary.)

The real question is whether any debit card can help a cardholder become more creditworthy. The three major credit bureaus — TransUnion, Equifax and Experian — generally do not use debit card spending data to determine whether someone is qualified for loans.

“There is something radically wrong here,” Ms. Orman said. “We are rewarding people for having credit and punishing people who pay in cash. I want to change that paradigm.”

So she has persuaded TransUnion to collect spending data from Approved card customers. Perhaps it will look at other companies’ data too. And in a few years, it will see whether there is any proof that prepaid debit users deserve recognition for good behavior.

Until then, this is mere vaporware. The data may prove meaningless, and even if there are patterns, TransUnion probably would not give people more than a handful of points’ worth of credit on their scores.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=87c65820d0f19c3cc4efd4b3e4b678b6

Nuclear Plant, Left for Dead, Shows a Pulse

This does not seem like a particularly opportune moment to breathe life back into a reactor that was designed before the computer age. But its owner, the quasi-governmental Tennessee Valley Authority, says the plant may be its best bet for generating cleaner and more economical new electricity.

Since an earthquake and tsunami unleashed a nuclear disaster at Japan’s Fukushima reactors in March, several countries have distanced themselves from nuclear energy. The German chancellor announced her intention to shutter all of the country’s nuclear facilities by 2022, and the Swiss Parliament is heading in the same direction.

A modern reactor project in Texas was canceled after Fukushima, and one in Maryland fell apart last year. And even before the catastrophe in Japan, the nuclear industry as a whole had been suffering from a surfeit of generating capacity, the cheap price of natural gas and the high price of construction.

So why is the Tennessee Valley Authority — which recently announced it would close 18 antiquated and dirty coal-fired plants — trying to revive a reactor that for years has served only as a salvage heap?

Right now, said Eric T. Beaumont, a nuclear expert and partner in Copia Capital, a private investment firm in Chicago, “it doesn’t seem like the most prudent use of money.”

“They should definitely be doing something different,” said Louis A. Zeller, science director for the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, a regional advocacy group. He likes to call Bellefonte “the zombie reactor” because it is neither dead nor alive.

Mr. Zeller and other skeptics say that beyond the obvious challenges the nuclear industry faces, the Bellefonte 1 project has inescapable flaws. The reactor is too expensive and too antiquated, they contend, and it lies in an earthquake zone.

But the authority is moving forward, estimating that Bellefonte 1 could be up and running as early as 2020, half a century after it was conceived. Cost estimates for completing the reactor run $4 billion to $5 billion on top of the $4 billion that has already been invested.

Thomas Kilgore, the authority’s president and chief executive, said finishing it now would make more sense later. “Why nuclear?” he said. “Once you get the unit built, you’ve got inflation locked out.”

Mr. Beaumont, the industry analyst, said that “based on cost, I absolutely think you can say it’s crazy.” But that assessment might change over time, he allowed.

The Environmental Protection Agency could force additional coal-generated power plants to close as it polices greenhouse gas emissions, increasing the demand for cleaner sources of energy, he said. The price of natural gas will eventually rise, making nuclear energy more competitive, he added, and at some point, existing nuclear plants will wear out.

T.V.A. executives have another troublesome variable to deal with, unpredictable changes in demand, which is what they say caused them to shut down construction in 1988.

“I can’t forecast out 8 or 10 years,” Mr. Kilgore said, but “we just know when we get there, Bellefonte 1 is a good economic proposition.”

Because the plant already has a precious construction license, albeit from 1974, and because of the authority’s independent status, it faces far fewer obstacles than most other reactor builders.

The T.V.A. does not answer to state regulators. It has no shareholders to worry. As a federally chartered corporation established in 1933 as part of the New Deal, it is overseen by nine directors who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Today it supplies electricity across parts of seven states, serving roughly nine million people.

It also enjoys financial advantages that most public utilities lack, borrowing money at rates similar to those paid by the United States Treasury, which is critical for building hugely expensive reactors.

That makes it one of the very few American builders that could pull off a nuclear power comeback in this climate. With the exception of Watts Bar 1, another T.V.A. plant that was mothballed for a time but was finished in 1996, no new reactor construction has been started since the early 1990s. Two new plants in Georgia and South Carolina are awaiting construction permits, and the authority is working on finishing a second Watts Bar reactor similar in vintage to Bellefonte 1 that is expected to be completed next year.

Authority managers have said they would ask their board this summer for money to complete Bellefonte 1; last year the board voted to allocate $248 million just to explore that possibility.

Currently, the T.V.A. gets 60 percent of its energy from fossil fuels, mostly coal, and in addition to the 18 generators it recently agreed to shut at the urging of the E.P.A., it must decide whether to scrub or close several more. The authority’s goal is to have 50 percent of its generation come from “low or zero carbon-emitting sources” by 2020, which is why Bellefonte 1 is a dinosaur back in play.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=f612b998d66a5a683360d2e3ce0ca1ad