Have you ever received a call from someone that sounds roughly like this: “Hello, is this Mr. Farfegnoogle? Hi, my name is Nigel and I’m calling on behalf of the Firefighters Benevolent Association of Aardvark County. Each year we donate to (Toys for Tots, the Widows and Orphans Fund, a local hospital burn unit, you name it), and we are hoping we can count on your support for this very worthwhile cause.”

You may wonder, “How much should I donate?” Well, here is a handy donation calculator: Figure out how much money you have in your bank account and multiply it by 0. In other words, donate nothing, zip, nada, naught, bubkes. The odds are overwhelming that the “charitable” campaign is a scam; that the organization that endorses it—while likely a legitimate association—is in cahoots with the fundraising outfit that just called you; and that most of the money goes to the fundraiser.

“What,” you say, “Are you telling me that the Firefighters Association isn’t on the up and up?” To which I say, no, it’s the fundraising company that isn’t on the up and up, and the legit organization is willing to go along for the ride in order to get a small cut of the take.

In my days as a TV consumer reporter, I conducted several investigations into these operations, and here’s what I found. There are two basic types of schemes. In each case there is a legitimate organization—I’ll refer to it as the Association—and a fund-raising company, which I will call the Fund-raiser. In the first type of scheme, the Fund-raiser offers the Association a fixed fee, say $5,000. The Fund-raiser then uses the Association’s name to raise all the money it can in the Association’s name, but the Fund-raiser keeps all the proceeds.

With the second type of scheme, the Fund-raiser offers the Association a cut of the gross take, say 15 or 20 percent. In either case, a very small percentage of the proceeds goes to a good cause. Why do the Associations do it? They get a chunk of cash to donate to a worthy cause without having to do any work. Is it ethical? Not in my book.

The Better Business Bureau has developed a set of standards for charities. Included in these standards are three benchmarks that relate to the issues I am discussing. The charities must:

• Have a board of directors that provides adequate oversight of the charity’s operations and its staff.
• Spend no more than 35% of related contributions on fund raising. Related contributions include donations, legacies, and other gifts received as a result of fund-raising efforts.
• Spend at least 65% of its total expenses on program activities.

These are minimum standards. Most legit charities should, and do, spend a much higher proportion of their expenses on legitimate program activities. No responsible organization should allow big-profit fund-raising companies to represent it.

If you are determined to donate to the nonprofit organization, try this: Ask the Fund-raiser how much of the proceeds go to the nonprofit. Let’s say the amount is 25 percent. Instead of giving the Fund-raiser a $20 payment, send the nonprofit five bucks directly. Your total contribution will equal the amount it would have collected from the Fund-raiser and you will save yourself three-fourths of what you would have “donated.”

But never contribute to an organization that gets a flat fee up front. In that situation the nonprofit has already received its payoff from the Fund-raiser. So whatever you contribute goes into the fund-raiser’s pocket.

Here’s one more twist on the Fund-raiser appeal. Sometimes the caller will tell you about a special event the Association is putting on for disadvantaged kids. It might be a circus or a rodeo (there’s nothing quite as entertaining as animal abuse to amuse children) or a holiday party. Don’t be fooled. The Fund-raiser still gets most of the money and the one such rodeo I witnessed was pitiful.

On May 5, 2011 and June 20 of this year, I wrote about the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The anti-big-government contingent in Congress hated the idea of a big bully regulatory agency picking on poor, put-upon, and pitiable financial institutions. Never mind that the new bureau was designed to protect consumers from the types of abuses that contributed to the Great Recession.

Congressional Republicans let it be known that the driving force behind the formation of the CFPB, Elizabeth Warren, would never be approved as bureau director. So Warren decided to turn the tables. While President Obama nominated Richard Cordray to be the CFPB’s director, Warren threw in her hat to run against Republican Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts.

According to Edward Wyatt in The New York Times, the U.S. Department of Education holds more than $850 billion in outstanding student loan debt. “Millions of consumers are affected by debt collection, and we want to make sure they are treated fairly,” said Cordray. “We want all companies to realize that the better business choice is to follow the law — not break it.”

You may be familiar with the Dodd-Frank Act (actually, very few folks are all that familiar with it) that attempts to restrain the excesses of the finance industry. Under that legislation, the federal government has the authority to oversee nonbank financial companies.

The CFPB will scrutinize the debt collectors to ensure that they properly identify themselves and accurately disclose the amount of debt owed. The companies must provide a process to resolve any disputes—as well as communicate with consumers–“civilly   and honestly.”

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) received more than 180,000 complaints against debt collection companies in 2011. The CFPB’s new rules cover approximately 175 companies that each have annual receipts of at least $10 million.  These companies account for almost two-thirds of the $12-billion-plus in annual debt collections of all types.

According to the Times story, a spokesperson for Consumers Union said, “There has been an explosion of shady debt collection tactics in recent years.” She went on to say “Businesses have a right to collect what they are owed but not to harass consumers for debt that has been already paid off or doesn’t belong to them.”

For years, state and local government consumer protection agencies have targeted debt collection agencies. They have accused collectors of abusive practices like harassing them with repeated telephone calls or misleading them by threatening to have them imprisoned for failure to pay debts, which is a nonexistent penalty.

What troubles me is that the while the big boys will come under scrutiny and face penalties, what about those companies that fall under the purview of the law but are too small to rattle the CFPB’s cage? I fear this policy will unintentionally give small offenders the impression that they are getting a free pass.

In any case, if you are in debt and feel you are being harassed or threatened by a collection agency, contact your state attorney general’s office. If the debt is about a student loan, contact the FTC or CFPB (Web site is your best bet). But don’t assume that lets you off the hook if you are in arrears. If you fail to deal with your predicament, you could end up in civil court as the defendant in a lawsuit.

In addition, the CFPB is now accepting complaints about credit reporting agencies, including :

• Incorrect information on a credit report
• A consumer reporting agency’s investigation techniques
• Improper use of a credit report
• Being unable to get a copy of a credit score or file,      and
• Problems with credit monitoring or identify      protection services.

 ——————-

Here is a roster of categories that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is now covering. If you have a complaint concerning any of these financial areas, go to the CFPB Web site and click the appropriate icon:

• Mortgages
• Credit Cards
• Banking
• Consumer loans (including vehicles)
• Student loans
• Credit reporting

In this post I’m kicking back (what the hell, it’s August and the livin’ is easy). Here are a few tips to make life a little simpler for you.

Cramming

No, this isn’t about what you do the night before an exam. It occurs when your phone bill, either home or mobile, lists charges for features you never requested; for instance call waiting or ringtones, respectively. On a landline bill the extra charges might even be itemized as “miscellaneous” or “enhanced” services.

If you don’t examine your bill you might end up paying for charges that an outside provider added to your bill.

Check your bill each month and challenge charges itemized as “service charge,” “other fees,” “membership,” or the like.

According to the National Consumer League you should also avoid all 900 numbers they typically hit your bill by way of anonymous collect calls or signing up for online contests via your cell phone.

Free phone calls without a phone

I must confess I have not used this service myself because I hate electronics in general (look up the word “Luddite”). But here’s the lowdown. www.bobsled.com offers free calls from most web browsers, the iPad, iTouch, iPhone (ay, ay, ay!) and Android phones. Bobsled lets you call any landline or mobile phone in the United States (including Puerto Rico) and Canada. The receiving device does not need to have the Bobsled program.

Changing doctors and health insurance

According to Money magazine, you need to be extra cautious when changing physicians in order to be sure that your health insurance coverage stays in effect. It seems that insurers’ directories are often out of date. So if you switch from an in-network doc to one who is no longer part of the network, it could make you sick in the head.

This is especially true when it comes to emergency physicians and anesthesiologists, who rarely accept insurance.

If possible, find out in advance what your insurer will pay. Some insurers will only pay the current Medicare rates for out-of-network care. Some have reduced their coverage from 80 percent to 70 percent.

If you are checking into a hospital and you still have your wits about you, request in writing to be seen only by in-network providers. If you go out of network, call the hospital’s billing office and request a lower fee (unless taking the time means you will die or lose a leg, for example). Money advises that you try to negotiate a one-third deduction.

When you check product or service reviews online, whether at retailer sites or through rating services like Yelp!, how can you tell if they are honest or just a lot of hype? You can’t for sure. But there are ways to parse what’s being said and maybe get a better view of the purchase you’re considering.

If you are the proprietor of, say, a restaurant, how likely are you to ask friends and relatives to post glittering reviews of your establishment? Plenty. How can any normal person resist the temptation to juice the results unless their ethical standards are so high as to make Nelson Mandela jealous.

Ah, you say, at least I can trust the negative reviews. Not so fast. How do you know the competition isn’t writing bad reviews?

According to an article in the Bottom Line Personal, February 15, 2012 edition, 80 percent of Internet shoppers change their minds about what they’re spending their money on after reading online reviews.

In the article, Jeffrey Hancock, a professor at Cornell University’s communications department, recommends that readers look for certain indicators that are most likely to indicate a legitimate review. His tips are the result of a recent study.

• The review makes reference to space, size or distance. For example, the distance a hotel or restaurant is from another site. That a product was large or small. That a hotel room is tiny. Lacking distance or dimension references is common among fabricated reviews.
• When you see a reference on a site that indicates how many shoppers found a particular review helpful, look for ones with high percentages..
• Go to other sites and see if their reviews are fairly consistent. If they are incompatible, be suspicious.
• “Beware of reviews offering strong opinions but few specifics,” says Hancock. And without specifics, you cannot tell if what bothered a particular reviewer is something that would be important to you.
• Be most willing to trust reviews from folks whom the site confirms as verified customer. For example, Amazon (a company of which I am not fond for a series of unrelated ethical reasons) labels a review “Amazon Verified Purchaser,” at least you know that the reviewer actually bought the product. Some travel web sites that book hotel reservations allow only purchasers to review hotels. Trip Advisor, on the other hand, has no such requirement.
• I always read the negative reviews looking for specifics, even if there are mostly good ones. It could be that what displeased just a few people just might be the flaw that you are trying to avoid.
• According to Jeffrey Hancock, you can pretty much trust the overall score if at least 50 people reviewed the product or service.
• Balanced reviews are not always honest. Savvy fakers will sometimes give four out of five stars and mention a minor flaw just to look legit.
• Hancock warns that rating sites for doctors are not yet up to snuff. So don’t trust them. I prefer to use healthcare providers or trustworthy friends for referrals. If you live in a city that is serviced by the Checkbook nonprofit, as I do, that’s a good place to start as well.
• Don’t trust reviews from folks who are labeled as among the site’s “Top Reviewers.” According to Hancock, marketers target these reviewers with freebies. If the marketers’ products don’t get good reviews, the handouts halt. So how do you know?  Look at other reviews by these reviewers. They should be balanced fairly well between positive, middling and negative reviews. On Amazon, click on “See all my reviews.” If the review is labeled “Amazon Vine” it means the product just sprouted up in the reviewer’s backyard; that is, the reviewers got the item free.

There are no guarantees that what you read is what you get. So caveat emptor for products, services, and reviews is a good idea.

For more stuff on this topic, visit www.ReviewSkeptic.com. You can perform an automatic evaluation of  Trip Advisor reviews there. The site intends to expand this service soon.

I am not a fan of the term “green vehicle” unless we’re talking about an electric bus or train. They all use fuel and contribute to a variety of pollution in some way. But the nonprofit American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) has nevertheless put out its latest report on those passenger vehicles that do the least harm to the environment overall.

It is important to remember that it’s not just about the amount of energy the car sucks up that counts toward a green rating. It’s also about the amount of pollution that comes out, not only when you’re driving it, but while it is being manufactured and deconstructed when your jalopy meets its heavenly (or maybe Detroit, Japan or Bavaria) maker at life’s end.

Not every model, by far, in ACEEE’s top ten list of greenest cars is a hybrid or an all-electric. Have you heard of the i-MiEV? I don’t even know how to pronounce it. It’s from Mitsubishi. And it’s the highest rated set of wheels, with an ACEEE Green Score of 58. I find this ironic because

The Mitsubishi i-MiEV has an estimated driving range of 62 miles.

Mitsubishi is a mega-conglomerate that has had its share of controversy for not being a very green company.

You’re probably thinking that Nissan’s all-electric Leaf has to be somewhere near the top of the list. It’s actually tied with – no, not the Prius, the Honda – no, not the Civic Hybrid, but the Civic Natural Gas, with scores of 55.

The Prius trails them by one point (54 – but the new Prius V station wagon gets a 51), followed by the Honda Insight and the Smart FourTwo (53), the Civic Hybrid (52) respectively. Then come a few surprises. The Toyota Camry Hybrid ties the Civic and the Lexus CT 200h trails them by only a point.

Here are some very important variants to consider, however. The Smart ForTwo is the least expensive of the bunch but it’s slightly more roomy than my home recycle bin and Consumer Reports is not fond of its performance. Hybrids sell at a premium and electric cars cost even more – a lot more.

Only three of the 27 hybrids tested have a total cost of ownership over a five-year period that would make them less expensive to own than their all gasoline brethren. For me, that’s not very important because I keep my cars until they plead to be euthanized. The three are the Camry, the Insight and, hold onto your hat, the Lincoln MKZ Hybrid. The latter is so only because it saves on operating costs compared to other luxury vehicles.

This stuff can be more complicated than you might otherwise guess. So allow me to guide you to the Green Cars site, where you can peruse the data in detail: www.greenercars.org.

If you are looking to do the right thing environmentally speaking, that’s the place to go.

Oh yes, the worst offenders? The Chevy and Ford big trucks and the Bugatti Veyron with its 8 liter engine (really?). I guess the Bugatti is vying for a role in the space program.

My advice? Check out a two-year-old Prius or Insight that’s still under warranty. Happy shopping.

I think I just figured out the meaning of Starbucks’s name. Buck$ are its star. Several public interest groups, including Public Citizen, Alliance for Justice, National Association of Consumer Advocates, and National Consumers League, have started a campaign to protect consumers who purchase Starbucks gift cards.

Personally, I think that while they’re at it they should protect consumers from Starbucks’s coffee itself. Have you ever had drip coffee that was left on the warming plate so long it tastes like someone had taken a blowtorch to it? I believe Starbucks has used that method to sell overpriced coffee to America. But I digress. It’s not about my taste.

Starbucks now not only burns its coffee (at least they came up with their “blonde” roast, so you can get not-burned overpriced coffee); it potentially burns its prepaid card customers. When consumers pay for such a card, they are agreeing to settle any disputes concerning the card by arbitration. And if a dispute arises that concerns thousands, or even millions, of its customers, those caffeine junkies are precluded from joining together in a class action lawsuit. You would have to argue your own trivial case before a Starbucks-chosen arbitrator . . . in Seattle! Good luck with that. This constitutes grounds (I couldn’t resist) for outrage!

As you may be aware, more and more contracts contain corporate language that says the customer may not sue and may not join lawsuit classes that pursue unified redress. As Public Citizen News puts it in the January/February issue: “If Starbucks rips off every cardholder by a few dollars, it would mean millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains – with no accountability for Starbucks.”

Public Citizen even circulated an Internet petition for those who were foaming at the mouth about this injustice. Unfortunately, that petition is now closed.

        So what’s the big deal? Forced arbitration clauses mean that the consumer has to rely on a would-be impartial arbiter to make a judgment. The trouble is that these deciders often depend on the businesses that selected them for repeat business. So, let’s say, Starbucks charges a hidden fee on the use of the card. If each customer buys several cards per year and there are millions of such customers, the company reaps the benefits knowing there is virtually no chance that any one customer – no matter how much anger is percolating in his bean – will initiate an action for arbitration.

In case you think that such a contingency is unlikely, you should know that last November Massachusetts fined the caffeine conglomerate for unlawfully charging customers a hidden $1.50 fee on bags of coffee of less than one pound.

So here’s the upshot . . . make that a double shot: If you are about to sign any agreement or contract, read it first, especially if it involves your money. Second, don’t sign it if you are not comfortable with the terms. And (this makes it a triple shot) always check the receipt to be sure you were not overcharged (or undercharged – c’mon, be ethical).

And one more thing for you to get steamed about –skip the venti mocha cappuccino with whipped cream. It’s fattening, sugar-loaded dessert, not a beverage.