I have previously blogged about them.
An anonymous reader has commented and raised concerns about these added layer of security for online credit and debit card transactions (collectively known as 3-D secure protocol ).
As you can read on its Wikipedia page, 3-D secure has a long list of criticisms most of them related to its ability to secure online transactions.
I will try to address all of the reader's concern below:
- RBI never sponsored or stated specific systems such as Verified by Visa or Mastercard UCAF/SPA in its directive.
In my article also I did not say that RBI has specified VbyV or Secure Code must be used. RBI article only says that additional info ( apart from what is already present on the card ) is required for online transaction. Since most ( say 95 % ) of the card holders in India have either Visa or Master Card they will have to use either of these two services hence I explained their features from an end-user perspective. For American Express cards they ask for the billing address for verification.
- The anonymous reader has pointed out some security vulnerabilities in 3-D Secure giving some examples like inline frame and activation during shopping.
Although I can't vouch for all banks in India, but I deal with HDFC Bank which does not use inline frame during 3-D secure authorization and it also has PAM ( Personal Assurance Message ).
It does have Activation during shopping but that too:
- is on hdfcbank.com domain with a proper SSL certificate ( no inline frame )
- requires your ATM password for authentication ( I don't know if the number of attempts is unlimited ). This I feel is secure enough.
But, I also know of cases where card issuing companies don't use their own domain during 3-D secure authorization like:
- SBI Card ( uses arcot.com )
- ICICI Bank ( uses payseal.com )
So our anon reader does have a valid point here. These systems are not 100% safe because of some inherent weakness in the Internet protocols.
- Then he raises a concern that the password can be easily phished and used by fraudsters. The transactions can never be disputed by the cardholder.
On this I don't agree with him. If there was no 3-D secure anyone who had physical access to the card even for a minute ( think of the last time you gave it for payment in the restaurant ) could have misused it ( by noting down the card details ). But introduction of 3-D secure had made life more difficult for fraudsters.
If transactions could be disputed without 3-D secure, they can still be disputed with 3-D secure activated as well. 3-D secure is not going to change that.
- A concern about fraudsters misusing this feature to cheat banks
This is a matter between the fraudsters between the banks and the fraudsters and I'm really not too much concerned about it. One thing I would like to point out here is that the act of issuing a card is not a completely online thing ( atleast in India ). There are id and address checks. Credit report is also verified. So if the bank has a diligent process in place before it issues a card, the chances of such cheating are lessened. However if the bank has lax procedures it obviously has to suffer ( that's in its Karma! )
- Be wary of mandated systems. A good security system never needs to be mandated.
If it is not mandated, the banks won't implement any safety feature. Only very few who actually care about customer concerns would be willing to do it on their own, since setting up an IT infrastructure for such a feature costs money and the management of banks is busy improving their profit margins cutting costs wherever they can.
Monday, July 27, 2009
IRDA circular on ULIPs - good enough?
IRDA has issued circular number 20/IRDA/Actl/ULIP/09-10 placing a cap on ULIP charges.
In brief, the circular specifies the following:
- For policies with tenor less than or equal to 10 years the difference between gross and net yield cannot exceed 3 %
- For policies with tenor greater than 10 years the difference between gross and net yield cannot exceed 2.25 %
- At the time of maturity, the insurer must issue a certificate showing charges deducted, fund value and final payment made to the policyholder. The certificate must also contain the gross and net yield.
This does look like a good thing for the investor. But this does leave some unanswered questions :
1. Can this circular mean the death knell for the ignominious Fund Allocation charges, which could go as high as 80% in the first year?
2. Does this circular apply to ULIP retirement plans also?
3. As stated by Dhirendra Kumar in this article:
"It is strange that the most significant improvement in the disclosure has only been done to the statement that the policyholder will receive at maturity. So if your fifteen-year policy starts now, you have to wait only till 2024 to know the full details of what the insurer did with your money in 2009."
4. In the recently introduced "ICICI Prudential LifeStage Assure Pension" the first year premium is not invested in funds (i.e. fund allocation charge of 100% in the first year ). As per the IRDA circular existing schemes have to be modified to comply to these rules by December 31st, 2009. How can this scheme be modified to comply with IRDA regulations? Does that mean it will be wound up? ( I'm have not invested in LifeStage Assure Pension, I'm just curious to know its fate )
We have to wait for ULIPs which comply with these regulations in order to understand the extent to which it would benefit the investors.
One thing I can predict for sure, after this circular comes into effect after after October 1st, 2009, there will be more ULIPs launched with tenor less than 10 years since the insurance companies can charge you 0.75% more than for policies greater than 10 years policy. Also riders to the insurance policy will be pushed aggressively by the Insurance companies since the cost for riders benefits is not included in the calculation of net yield. Something similar was observed in Mutual Funds when SEBI banned NFO expenses for open-ended mutual funds. Large number of closed-ended mutual funds were launched since NFO expenses upto 6% could be recovered from the investor. SEBI ultimately plugged this loophole by banning NFO expenses for closed-ended funds as well.
In brief, the circular specifies the following:
- For policies with tenor less than or equal to 10 years the difference between gross and net yield cannot exceed 3 %
- For policies with tenor greater than 10 years the difference between gross and net yield cannot exceed 2.25 %
- At the time of maturity, the insurer must issue a certificate showing charges deducted, fund value and final payment made to the policyholder. The certificate must also contain the gross and net yield.
This does look like a good thing for the investor. But this does leave some unanswered questions :
1. Can this circular mean the death knell for the ignominious Fund Allocation charges, which could go as high as 80% in the first year?
2. Does this circular apply to ULIP retirement plans also?
3. As stated by Dhirendra Kumar in this article:
"It is strange that the most significant improvement in the disclosure has only been done to the statement that the policyholder will receive at maturity. So if your fifteen-year policy starts now, you have to wait only till 2024 to know the full details of what the insurer did with your money in 2009."
4. In the recently introduced "ICICI Prudential LifeStage Assure Pension" the first year premium is not invested in funds (i.e. fund allocation charge of 100% in the first year ). As per the IRDA circular existing schemes have to be modified to comply to these rules by December 31st, 2009. How can this scheme be modified to comply with IRDA regulations? Does that mean it will be wound up? ( I'm have not invested in LifeStage Assure Pension, I'm just curious to know its fate )
We have to wait for ULIPs which comply with these regulations in order to understand the extent to which it would benefit the investors.
One thing I can predict for sure, after this circular comes into effect after after October 1st, 2009, there will be more ULIPs launched with tenor less than 10 years since the insurance companies can charge you 0.75% more than for policies greater than 10 years policy. Also riders to the insurance policy will be pushed aggressively by the Insurance companies since the cost for riders benefits is not included in the calculation of net yield. Something similar was observed in Mutual Funds when SEBI banned NFO expenses for open-ended mutual funds. Large number of closed-ended mutual funds were launched since NFO expenses upto 6% could be recovered from the investor. SEBI ultimately plugged this loophole by banning NFO expenses for closed-ended funds as well.
ICICI can deduct money from your salary - WITHOUT your consent
ICICI Bank has modified the credit card agreement wherein they can deduct credit card dues from your salary directly ( by asking your employer to do so ). Any sort of agreement between your employer and you cannot prevent this deduction from your salary.
Although I don't hold any ICICI credit card, this may start a dangerous trend in the Indian credit card industry which will soon be followed by others also.
Just imagine the following scenario:
- You notice a fraudulent transaction on your card. You dispute it with the Credit card company.
- The Credit card company ( i.e. ICICI Bank ) does not agree with you and decides to charge you.
- They instruct your employer to deduct the money from your salary. You CAN'T stop it.
Or a second scenario:
- Usually private credit card companies delay cheque payments by 4-5 days so that they can charge you for late payments.
- Nowadays you can get these charges reversed after some negotiation with the customer care.
- But after this rule is implemented, the bank can directly deduct such fees ( like late fees ) from your salary. The Bank does not have to negotiate with you.
Remember this clause in the card member agreement has been inserted by a Bank which had introduced a rule in the year 2003 stating that more than 3 cash transactions at the home-branch will be charged. They of course had to take back such restrictions on RBI directions.
If I held an ICICI card, I would have immediately cancelled it citing this change in agreement as the reason. If ICICI card holders cancel their cards in sufficient numbers, other credit card companies won't dare to make such changes to the card agreement. Also, if money is deducted from your salary for wrong reasons by the credit card company, I will suggest you first approach the RBI Ombudsman and then Consumer Courts. Lets see if this rule can stand in a court of law.
Although I don't hold any ICICI credit card, this may start a dangerous trend in the Indian credit card industry which will soon be followed by others also.
Just imagine the following scenario:
- You notice a fraudulent transaction on your card. You dispute it with the Credit card company.
- The Credit card company ( i.e. ICICI Bank ) does not agree with you and decides to charge you.
- They instruct your employer to deduct the money from your salary. You CAN'T stop it.
Or a second scenario:
- Usually private credit card companies delay cheque payments by 4-5 days so that they can charge you for late payments.
- Nowadays you can get these charges reversed after some negotiation with the customer care.
- But after this rule is implemented, the bank can directly deduct such fees ( like late fees ) from your salary. The Bank does not have to negotiate with you.
Remember this clause in the card member agreement has been inserted by a Bank which had introduced a rule in the year 2003 stating that more than 3 cash transactions at the home-branch will be charged. They of course had to take back such restrictions on RBI directions.
If I held an ICICI card, I would have immediately cancelled it citing this change in agreement as the reason. If ICICI card holders cancel their cards in sufficient numbers, other credit card companies won't dare to make such changes to the card agreement. Also, if money is deducted from your salary for wrong reasons by the credit card company, I will suggest you first approach the RBI Ombudsman and then Consumer Courts. Lets see if this rule can stand in a court of law.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
New Pension Scheme ( NPS ) - will I invest?
This post is only applicable to private-sector employees since all govt. employees ( who joined in or after 2004 ) are compulsorily part of the NPS.
Although this is old news, NPS is now open for all to invest in it. Being a private sector employee, I have done an analysis whether I will invest in it or not. Hopefully it would be useful to all the readers of my blog as well.
My verdict is I will not invest in it right now. The reasons are explained below:
1. Charges are high: As explained in this livemint article although the fund management charges are very low, the other charges are very high atleast for the initial years. As the number of subscribers grow these fixed charges will also come down and then it will a right opportunity to enter. It is better to invest your retirement money in other avenues until you decide to open a NPS account and later on you can deposit this accumulated sum into your NPS account if you wish. You can check out the NPS welcome kit found here to see the fixed and other charges.
2. No clarity on tax benefits: An explained in this Value Research article, there are no tax-benefits of investing in the NPS. Let the govt come up with proposals on what tax-breaks it is ready to offer to NPS investors. Hopefully they would do it in the budget being presented in July, 2009.
3. The equity part stands limited to Nifty: They should have either allowed the fund manager's discretion in choosing the stocks for equity investments or chosen a broader index like S&P CNX 500. This I suggest for the following 3 reasons:
a) I'm afraid large amounts of NPS money flowing into just 50 stocks would surely create a bubble of sorts for the Nifty stocks ( which will burst one day!).
b) Secondly, the broader indices like S&P CNX 500 although being more volatile over shorter terms have always beaten the Nifty/Nifty junior when compared over a time-period of 10 years or more. Retirement money being (very-)long term money should surely benefit from it.
c) Thirdly, they have appointed several different fund management companies but if all have to invest in the same Nifty-50 stocks in the same proportion ( i.e. follow the index ) then what is the point of having several different fund management companies.
4. Relying on the rating agencies: Remember the rating agencies who had rated the sub-prime CDOs as AAA? As explained by Deepak in this article, the original proposal drafted by committee headed by Deepak Parekh had sought to make the rating agencies irrelevant by putting the onus on the fund manager. But PFRDA decided to reverse it and now atleast 75% of the investments done in corporate bonds must be rated by one of the rating agencies. Is it a wise move considering the present economic crisis, the world is going through, is partly caused by trusting these ratings? Also the rated company pays the rating agency, so if one rating agency refuses to give them a good rating, the company takes their business to another rating agency whoever offers them a better rating for their bonds. This is a conflict which must be resolved before relying on ratings for making investment decisions.
5. EPS 1995: And lastly the most important reason why I will not contribute to NPS is because I ( being a private-sector employee ) am already contributing to this scam known as EPS 1995 ( full details in this article ). The government must scrap the EPS 1995 scheme and all of employee's ( and employer's contribution also ) retirement money ( irrespective of govt. or private-sector ) must go into NPS. All the existing money being held by EPS 1995 scheme should also be transferred to the respective employee's NPS account.
I have adopted a wait-and-watch policy. What about you?
Although this is old news, NPS is now open for all to invest in it. Being a private sector employee, I have done an analysis whether I will invest in it or not. Hopefully it would be useful to all the readers of my blog as well.
My verdict is I will not invest in it right now. The reasons are explained below:
1. Charges are high: As explained in this livemint article although the fund management charges are very low, the other charges are very high atleast for the initial years. As the number of subscribers grow these fixed charges will also come down and then it will a right opportunity to enter. It is better to invest your retirement money in other avenues until you decide to open a NPS account and later on you can deposit this accumulated sum into your NPS account if you wish. You can check out the NPS welcome kit found here to see the fixed and other charges.
2. No clarity on tax benefits: An explained in this Value Research article, there are no tax-benefits of investing in the NPS. Let the govt come up with proposals on what tax-breaks it is ready to offer to NPS investors. Hopefully they would do it in the budget being presented in July, 2009.
3. The equity part stands limited to Nifty: They should have either allowed the fund manager's discretion in choosing the stocks for equity investments or chosen a broader index like S&P CNX 500. This I suggest for the following 3 reasons:
a) I'm afraid large amounts of NPS money flowing into just 50 stocks would surely create a bubble of sorts for the Nifty stocks ( which will burst one day!).
b) Secondly, the broader indices like S&P CNX 500 although being more volatile over shorter terms have always beaten the Nifty/Nifty junior when compared over a time-period of 10 years or more. Retirement money being (very-)long term money should surely benefit from it.
c) Thirdly, they have appointed several different fund management companies but if all have to invest in the same Nifty-50 stocks in the same proportion ( i.e. follow the index ) then what is the point of having several different fund management companies.
4. Relying on the rating agencies: Remember the rating agencies who had rated the sub-prime CDOs as AAA? As explained by Deepak in this article, the original proposal drafted by committee headed by Deepak Parekh had sought to make the rating agencies irrelevant by putting the onus on the fund manager. But PFRDA decided to reverse it and now atleast 75% of the investments done in corporate bonds must be rated by one of the rating agencies. Is it a wise move considering the present economic crisis, the world is going through, is partly caused by trusting these ratings? Also the rated company pays the rating agency, so if one rating agency refuses to give them a good rating, the company takes their business to another rating agency whoever offers them a better rating for their bonds. This is a conflict which must be resolved before relying on ratings for making investment decisions.
5. EPS 1995: And lastly the most important reason why I will not contribute to NPS is because I ( being a private-sector employee ) am already contributing to this scam known as EPS 1995 ( full details in this article ). The government must scrap the EPS 1995 scheme and all of employee's ( and employer's contribution also ) retirement money ( irrespective of govt. or private-sector ) must go into NPS. All the existing money being held by EPS 1995 scheme should also be transferred to the respective employee's NPS account.
I have adopted a wait-and-watch policy. What about you?
Customer (dis-)service?
Here I list down the kind of customer experience that me and my friends had with different organisations. This list is not comprehensive, do comment about your own experience with different banks/insurance companies and other organisations.
Computer/network is down: The most common excuse in public-sector banks. Many times when you are in a hurry, this excuse pops-up. I'm not saying that the bank personnel are lying or are being lazy. My point is what's the point of computerisation, if they can't get it working? This is a recurring problem. They should better get back to hand-written ledgers if their computers/networks don't work when needed.
You will receive it within stipulated time: This mostly comes from private banks. Say you had requested a cheque book or DD to be delivered to your home address. Usually it arrives in your home with 4 days of submitting the request, but this time has not arrived even after 7 days. If you try to complain to the bank personnel/phone banking, they will give you a blunt reply that you should wait for 15 working days. They won't bother to check with their central processing centre if your request has been processed and the item despatched by courier/post.
Something similar has been my experience with one of the movie rental service. Their customer service desk works from 10 AM to 7 PM. And their official movie delivery timings are from 10 AM to 10 PM, but the delivery boy usually comes to my apartment around 12 PM. Some day when the delivery boy hasn't come even by 2 PM and you try to enquire with the customer care they will give you a blunt reply that the delivery timings are from 10 AM to 10 PM. If you try to complain around 6:30 PM, they give the same 10 AM to 10 PM excuse. But their customer care closes at 7 PM and if you try to complain about the non-delivery of movie the next day they would reply that the door was locked when the delivery boy arrived. Given the fact that movie rental's customer care closes at 7 PM, then how is the customer supposed to prove that the delivery boy infact did not come.
SBI-specific complaints: I believe if we do a survey SBI( plus its associates ) may top the list of number of customer complaints. This may also be due to the fact that it is the largest bank in the country.
State Bank complaint no. 1: If you ever try to open an account in SBI or its associate banks, they would compulsorily give you a Debit card whether you apply for it in the account opening form or not. I mean if somebody has specifically marked in the account opening form that he/she does not need an ATM/Debit card then why is a card issued at all? Does the branch has some targets to achieve regarding the number of debit cards issued? Anyway SBI debit card is not a free service then why is it forced on everyone even though they may not need it.
State Bank complaint no. 2: Fine, you will say it does not matter if you got the card, you can always get it cancelled. Thats what the second complaint is about. You get the SBI debit card cancelled but the charges for the card will continue to be deducted from your account every year. You have to request the branch every year to reverse the debit card charges. If you ask the manager why are the charges being levied inspite of cancellation of card, he would blame it on the software. Being a software engineer myself, I am ashamed of such computer/software engineer who can't configure the system to stop deducting charges for cancelled debit cards. Or is it a ploy by the SBI ( & associates ) management to increase their fee income while taking shelter in the excuse of software limitation.
IOB-specific complaint: Indian Overseas Bank have a partnership with Oriental Insurance for offering personal accident insurance to their customers for which they deduct premium from the customer's account. By default they have made all their customers part of the scheme without the customer's consent. They don't care if the customer already has a personal accident insurance policy and does not need any additional insurance cover. And if you ask the branch personnel to stop this insurance facility and reverse the charges, they would smilingly reply "Its just Rs. 10/-". Rs. 10/- or Rs. 10 Lac whatever it is, it my hard-earned money and if I don't need the facility I don't pay for it. This is another trick by the bank's management to increase their fee income.
Computer/network is down: The most common excuse in public-sector banks. Many times when you are in a hurry, this excuse pops-up. I'm not saying that the bank personnel are lying or are being lazy. My point is what's the point of computerisation, if they can't get it working? This is a recurring problem. They should better get back to hand-written ledgers if their computers/networks don't work when needed.
You will receive it within stipulated time: This mostly comes from private banks. Say you had requested a cheque book or DD to be delivered to your home address. Usually it arrives in your home with 4 days of submitting the request, but this time has not arrived even after 7 days. If you try to complain to the bank personnel/phone banking, they will give you a blunt reply that you should wait for 15 working days. They won't bother to check with their central processing centre if your request has been processed and the item despatched by courier/post.
Something similar has been my experience with one of the movie rental service. Their customer service desk works from 10 AM to 7 PM. And their official movie delivery timings are from 10 AM to 10 PM, but the delivery boy usually comes to my apartment around 12 PM. Some day when the delivery boy hasn't come even by 2 PM and you try to enquire with the customer care they will give you a blunt reply that the delivery timings are from 10 AM to 10 PM. If you try to complain around 6:30 PM, they give the same 10 AM to 10 PM excuse. But their customer care closes at 7 PM and if you try to complain about the non-delivery of movie the next day they would reply that the door was locked when the delivery boy arrived. Given the fact that movie rental's customer care closes at 7 PM, then how is the customer supposed to prove that the delivery boy infact did not come.
SBI-specific complaints: I believe if we do a survey SBI( plus its associates ) may top the list of number of customer complaints. This may also be due to the fact that it is the largest bank in the country.
State Bank complaint no. 1: If you ever try to open an account in SBI or its associate banks, they would compulsorily give you a Debit card whether you apply for it in the account opening form or not. I mean if somebody has specifically marked in the account opening form that he/she does not need an ATM/Debit card then why is a card issued at all? Does the branch has some targets to achieve regarding the number of debit cards issued? Anyway SBI debit card is not a free service then why is it forced on everyone even though they may not need it.
State Bank complaint no. 2: Fine, you will say it does not matter if you got the card, you can always get it cancelled. Thats what the second complaint is about. You get the SBI debit card cancelled but the charges for the card will continue to be deducted from your account every year. You have to request the branch every year to reverse the debit card charges. If you ask the manager why are the charges being levied inspite of cancellation of card, he would blame it on the software. Being a software engineer myself, I am ashamed of such computer/software engineer who can't configure the system to stop deducting charges for cancelled debit cards. Or is it a ploy by the SBI ( & associates ) management to increase their fee income while taking shelter in the excuse of software limitation.
IOB-specific complaint: Indian Overseas Bank have a partnership with Oriental Insurance for offering personal accident insurance to their customers for which they deduct premium from the customer's account. By default they have made all their customers part of the scheme without the customer's consent. They don't care if the customer already has a personal accident insurance policy and does not need any additional insurance cover. And if you ask the branch personnel to stop this insurance facility and reverse the charges, they would smilingly reply "Its just Rs. 10/-". Rs. 10/- or Rs. 10 Lac whatever it is, it my hard-earned money and if I don't need the facility I don't pay for it. This is another trick by the bank's management to increase their fee income.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
ATM usage is free, so now we charge you for Fund transfer
As I had blogged earlier, thanks to a RBI notification transactions done at all ATMs across India are free of charges ( i.e. no charges for using other bank ATMs within India )
But now HDFC Bank has decided to charge for NEFT ( National Electronic Fund Transfer ) henceforth at the rate of Rs. 5 plus taxes for every transaction. This may have something to do with RBI's decision not to waive off charges after March 31,2009. Also Rs. 5 was the upper limit for charges specified by the RBI for transactions not exceeding Rs. 1 Lakh.
Similarly Axis Bank has introduced some security features to use NEFT facility online for which they will charge an annual fees. But most of these security features like code on SMS are offered free of cost by other banks like ICICI & Citibank. Then why does Axis Bank has to charge for a security feature which is provided free of cost by other private banks which have similar AQB requirements? And you can't use NEFT online with Axis Bank without having these security features so there is no other option to the customer than to pay.
Also HDFC Bank by levying charges for NEFT fails to understand that Indian customers are very price sensitive and even if 25% of the transactions which happen on NEFT presently shift to cheques then their work will increase manifold. Since processing of cheques requires human intervention & lot of paper work but NEFT processing is almost completely done by computers.
I believe HDFC Bank is taking a chance here, they are waiting to see the response of their competitors and customers.If their competitor ( read ICICI Bank ) also decides to levy charges for NEFT then all other banks will also follow suite. ICICI Bank also charges for NEFT now i.e. Rs. 5+ tax for less than Rs. 1 lac and Rs. 25 + tax for more than Rs. 1 Lac.The days of no-charges NEFT for bank customers are over :(
But now HDFC Bank has decided to charge for NEFT ( National Electronic Fund Transfer ) henceforth at the rate of Rs. 5 plus taxes for every transaction. This may have something to do with RBI's decision not to waive off charges after March 31,2009. Also Rs. 5 was the upper limit for charges specified by the RBI for transactions not exceeding Rs. 1 Lakh.
Similarly Axis Bank has introduced some security features to use NEFT facility online for which they will charge an annual fees. But most of these security features like code on SMS are offered free of cost by other banks like ICICI & Citibank. Then why does Axis Bank has to charge for a security feature which is provided free of cost by other private banks which have similar AQB requirements? And you can't use NEFT online with Axis Bank without having these security features so there is no other option to the customer than to pay.
Also HDFC Bank by levying charges for NEFT fails to understand that Indian customers are very price sensitive and even if 25% of the transactions which happen on NEFT presently shift to cheques then their work will increase manifold. Since processing of cheques requires human intervention & lot of paper work but NEFT processing is almost completely done by computers.
I believe HDFC Bank is taking a chance here, they are waiting to see the response of their competitors and customers.
Coincidence...???
Have a look at the following screen-shots taken from official websites of 4 private airlines in India ( Indigo, JetLite, Kingfisher Red & SpiceJet) . Noticed something similar in all of them?
All four private airlines which have a direct flight from Delhi to Guwahati on May 5, 2009 have tickets priced at Rs. 5629/- inclusive of all "taxes". Is it just coincidence or shall we call it price fixing? Is MRTPC ( Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission ) sleeping?
To know why I have written taxes in quotes above, read this economic times article.
Just some more news related to one of the airlines mentioned above here in this article.
All four private airlines which have a direct flight from Delhi to Guwahati on May 5, 2009 have tickets priced at Rs. 5629/- inclusive of all "taxes". Is it just coincidence or shall we call it price fixing? Is MRTPC ( Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission ) sleeping?
To know why I have written taxes in quotes above, read this economic times article.
Just some more news related to one of the airlines mentioned above here in this article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
