Canadian Personal Finance Blog

As I mentioned last week we purchased a new camera last week and didn’t get the extended warranty.

This past Friday (6 days after purchasing the camera),  I read the Future Shop flyer and saw that the same camera is now selling for $50.00 less. I tend to read the Future Shop and Best Buy flyers because I am a techno-geek and like to window shop for things I can’t afford (and know I shouldn’t buy), and this time it paid off very nicely.

I went off to Best Buy, and was my normal polite self, I had my bill with me from the previous Saturday and spoke to the young lady at the Customer Service (sic) desk (I also brought a copy of the Future Shop Ad for the camera). The young lady was very polite as well and then checked and Best Buy was in fact carrying my Camera (Canon S5 IS) for $50.00 less also, and because of this my account was credited for $56.50 (after tax rebates and such).

Well worth the trip, even though I most likely spent $4.00 worth of petroleum to get my money, but money well retrieved. Most electronics stores, and I believe most big box stores (aka Wal-Mart) have this kind of purchase protection plan and it is important to make sure you are not being over-charged and you are taking advantage of later sales on products you have purchased.

I am thinking now, I should have raised a mild stink and asked for more than $50.00 back, because the sales person at Best Buy should have known this camera was going to be on sale in the next few days, but I didn’t think of it at the time.

Extended Warranty?!?

As I stood in line I saw another interesting piece of consumer sleuthing that I feel it is important to report on as well.

A young lady was in front of me, and she had her iPOD touch with her, and there was some issue with it not working correctly. The young lady had her original box, and her extended warranty (which we said she paid $70 for (I believe)), and the Customer Service rep was very polite and said she’d have a look at it.

The Customer Service rep then told her something that caused my ear hear to prick up. Evidently if the Best Buy Customer rep couldn’t repair or make the iPOD work successfully, the young lady (customer) would have to send it to Apple, because it is within a year of purchase and Apple does all repairs in the first year.

Let that sink in, the customer has purchased an extended warranty from Best Buy, however, Apple’s warranty covers the exact same repair in the first year (presumably the first year of the extended warranty as well).

Read that previous sentence again, and tell me you didn’t at least have a “WTF” moment.

What is the use of this “Extended Warranty” if Apple repairs this and not Best Buy? The Customer Service rep in fact said, the customer must send the iPOD back to Apple, because Apple will not accept the iPOD if it is sent in by Best Buy. Another “WTF” moment for me.

So the extended warranty you purchase overlaps with Apple’s, and is effectively redundant (i.e. useless).

Yesterday I spoke of the Class Action Suit against my current employer by employees who were part of the Pension Fund that the company discontinued this past year. Needless to say the announcement of this class action suit has caused a great deal of discussion in my company and I find the discussion points fascinating.

As background in the mid-90’s there was a great deal of discussion about how the Defined Benefit pension plan was useless to younger employees because all it did was constrict their ability to put money in their RRSP’s due to a very high Pension Adjustment (I sat on a study committee about this topic), and so there was a push to introduce a new pension plan that was less restricting in terms of Pension Adjustments. A new pension was brought in, which many people adopted, but I just never got around to changing.

Two years later another “investors” pension came in, where you could try this new pension which had an even lower pension adjustment or you could opt out effectively as well. Again, more people moved around, but this time, I wondered, why the company wants me out of the existing Pension? My answer was, it must be good, so I stayed in it.

Last year it was announced that the original pension program was going to be stopped and capped (i.e. the value you have in it now, is not lost, but nothing new can or will be added to it), along with the cancellation of any retirement health insurance and other benefits that were part of this retirement package (many older employees were exempted from this decision, anyone 52 and older at the time is what I remember).

The loss of the pension and the health benefits is a significant kick in my retirement plans, and with this class action suit not including me, as I wrote yesterday, I must rework my retirement plans due to this.

The interesting discussions that have started in the company is, “Why would you trust the company to take care of you when you retire?”.  Many current employees are complaining that they aren’t part of the class action and are thus out in the cold, and their comments are being answered with the, “Why did you expect the company to honour their agreement?”, which seems odd to me.

Do You Trust Your Company Pension

I guess my first reaction to this is, why wouldn’t I? If when I got hired, I was told there was a pension program in place that I would be part of, after 2 years, and that it is part of my benefits package, why would I assume that this was something I couldn’t plan around?

If I didn’t think I was going to be at the company for a long time (which I didn’t at the time) I might make other plans for retirement as well (assuming the pension would be small) but I certainly wouldn’t assume that it would be unavailable or changed in the future.

In Canada (I believe) private pensions are governed under fairly strict rules of conduct and funding, and it is unlikely that a private pension would “collapse” and be unavailable due to mismanagement (I didn’t say impossible, I said unlikely), and they are run as a 3rd party Entity from the company (thus if the company went bankrupt, the pension shouldn’t be an asset that creditors could plunder to get their money back). If I am incorrect in my assumptions, I assume one of my readers will correct me here.

I made the assumption (after being at the company for more than 8 years) that the pension might be a part of my retirement plans, and if I somehow made it to retirement age at the company, it would be very nice, however with this change in the pension, that is no longer the  case (I sill have a great deal of equity, but I have lost benefits and growth of the fund).

I guess my question to my readers is, what do you think of this?

1. Is it fair for a company to change their pension system to help them survive financially? This pension plan was a heavy strain on the company’s capital spending.
2. Is it correct for an employee to assume their pensions are “safe” and will not be changed because of the agreement of employment they signed when they were first employed by the company?

I have my opinions (which I think you can guess by my writing), but I am always interested to hear what my readers think as well.

BCE Decision Today at 4:30 PM

Care to wager a few shillings on the results? I am sure that is what a few traders will be doing, in either direction, with the Supreme Court ready to bring down a decision on an appeal of the Quebec Supreme Court’s ruling stopping the BCE sale. This ruling will either kill the sale or put it back on track for now. As a share holder, I would hope the sale would continue, but who knows what the highest court in the land might decide.

The Nortel Three and their Day in Court

Frank Dunn, Douglas Beatty and Michael Gollogly had their arraignment in court yesterday under Fraud charges brought by the RCMP. This is interesting to me, since I lived through those days, and am curious now to hear about what exactly may have transpired during that time at Nortel.

What happened to cause all employees to get their “Return to profitability” bonus? I will be reading the coverage of this case very closely.

Important to note that Nortel the company is not part of these proceedings as a defendant, and they have stated they are co-operating fully with the RCMP investigation.

The Globe and Mail Report:

The RCMP alleged Mr. Dunn, Mr. Beatty and Mr. Gollogly fraudulently misstated Nortel’s results. Among the accusations are that the three “made false entries and omitted materials particular in the books and documents in regards to the financial results of Nortel.”

It will be very interesting to see how this is proven in court, or refuted, because I suspect this is going to get into some very technical aspects of Corporate Accounting Practices in Canada. I have had some of this explained to me, and I can say as a non-accountant, it is very confusing.

Rates Staying the Same

So what did the new Governor of the Bank of Canada know that we didn’t last week when he refused to lower rates, when the majority of experts were sure the rates were going to drop? Maybe he figured out that Inflation might be coming back, like we found out yesterday?  Does Mark Carney have a good crystal ball, or good information collecting skills? Either way, looks like he hit the nail on the head with that call last week.

Given Scotiabank, TD and BMO are raising their long term Mortgage Rates, makes me wonder what they might know as well?