It's a shopaholic's dream and a privacy advocate's nightmare -- a credit card that knows what you've been buying and can make recommendations on what to splurge on next.

Through a new partnership with an Internet company that specializes in personalized shopping, MasterCard (MA) just rolled out a Web shopping mall call MasterCard Marketplace on Monday. The gimmick is that it can predict what MA cardholders are likely to purchase and make suggestions. Now that consumer spending is actually above it's 2008 peak (really!), it is the perfect time for such a program.

Investors are calling for an inquiry into mutual fund fees, but the Supreme Court is reminding them that it isn't beholden to public opinion. The mutual fund industry is being accused of charging "excessive" fees, which could be particularly harsh on individual investors who use these tools as their primary way to access the market. Currently, the mutual fund industry has more than $10 trillion in assets under management, some of it through retirement and 529 college savings plans.

The Court doesn't seem inclined to step into the fray, saying that regulatory agencies are better equipped to address the situation. Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, said during arguments that "It makes a lot more sense to have the SEC regulate rates than to have courts do it, doesn't it?"

The color for this age is definitely green as eco-consciousness is sweeping the country. For those of you who are worried about the environment and doing your share to save this planet in the future, how about letting the green movement make you earn more green.

Making the right choices for the environment seems to finally have taken hold and with the new Obama administration it should only pick up speed. If you see the value in investing in environmental services you can divest your funds by selecting an exchange traded fund (ETF). Exchange traded funds let you purchase stocks in a particular field but within that stock you own several different companies.

One environmental services ETF that may be worth researching is Market Vectors Environmental Services ETF (NYSE: EVX). EVX uses its investments to replicate the price and yield performance of the AMEX Environmental Service index. Some of their holdings include Waste Management, Inc. (NYSE: WMI) who provides integrated waste serviced in the U.S. and internationally, American Ecology Corporation (Nasdaq: ECOL) who uses subsidiaries to provide hazardous waste collection and management, and Calgon Carbon Corporation (NYSE: CCC) who works to purify water and air in the United States and internationally.

In a move that the company wisely decided not to announce via a press release to investors, eBay (NASDAQ: EBAY) has lowered the listing fee for fixed-price items on its site to 35 cents, down from as high as $4, depending on the price. The listing duration will also jump from 7 days to 30; those changes will be at least partially offset by an increase in the commission on sold items but eBay did not break down any details on that.

According (subscription required) to The Wall Street Journal, "The company is playing catch-up to other Web sites that have focused on fixed-price sales."

That may be true for now but the fact that eBay feels a need to court that market with aggressive price cuts indicates that the company recognizes the many sellers are opting for that over its own flagship auction business. Almost since inception, eBay has miraculously managed to avoid a price battle with competitors, and has been able to steadily increase its fees while much-hyped and well-funded imitators like Auction Universe fell by the wayside. It may be that sites like Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) are finally posing a serious threat.

It also may be that eBay is just messing with people's minds. Back in February when eBay announced its last "fee cut", sellers protested, alleging that the increase in the commission more than offset the decrease and accused eBay of fuzzy math.

Details of the new fee structure will tell us whether eBay is desperate of just manipulative.

The U.S. housing slump is creating another negative ripple effect, this one by extension, or by association, if you will, as in condo/co-op association.

Owners in condo associations are having to chip-in to pay for unexpected association maintenance, tax, and related fees when other residents enter foreclosure or are substantially behind in payments, The New York Times reported Thursday.

The Times cited the case of condo owners in a 43-story Miami, Florida condo having to ante up more money after 1 in 6 residents battled foreclosure. The additional charge: an additional $1,000 assessment and $50 more a month for cable and internet fees, on top of the regular $450 monthly maintenance.

Connecticut-based appraiser Lawrence Schmidt, not a realtor but a former 15-year condominium owner with extensive knowledge of the sector, told BloggingStocks Thursday prospective buyers need to fully-research a condo association's membership status, including record of tax payments of individual members, in addition to the standard evaluation of the condo association's maintenance fees, contractor services, and quality-of-life issues, etc. Co-op buyers must do even more research on the co-op's balance sheet, monthly budget, cash flow, outstanding mortgage, and other related financials, he said.

Financial eras, like social periods, are often defined by moments or epiphanies when decision makers and/or citizens realized that a serious flaw/mistake/problem was occurring through time, and across space, and needed to be corrected.

The ever-incisive FT columnist and economist Martin Wolf describes one contemporary concern that's likely to be addressed: the failure to align the interests of managers with those of investors.

My BloggingStocks colleagues Peter Cohan and Zac Bissonnette have also written on the subject on several occasions in this space, and now the FT's Wolf has assembled additional data that may very well lead to public policy changes, both in Wolf's United Kingdom and in the United States.

I'm actually finding the cries of anguish coming from eBay sellers a bit amusing these days. Yes, in my opinion they're getting what they deserve over on eBay (NASDAQ: EBAY).

Why do I say that with a cold-hearted grin you may ask? It's because I did my part so long ago. Yes, we had a seller's strike once before, and it was a pretty damn good one. It didn't work then either, or at least it didn't change any eBay corporate minds in reference to anything that matters.

So now eBay has raised fees again. I don't need to say I told you so, but I did. This time though there's a significant additional angle to the rift. Due to pending changes to eBay's feedback system, sellers could be left defenseless in the face of potential deadbeat buyers, four of which have struck my wife's eBay selling account in the last week. It's great service to eBay's vision and it's easy logic to grasp and accept if you have insight into eBay's plans.

Here's a novel idea: Pay someone only if they are providing better performance than no one -- not anyone, no one -- could provide.

Well according (subscription required) to The Wall Street Journal, the California Public Employees Retirement System (Calpers) is contemplating doing just that with the money managers it hires: "Calpers' investment staff plans to present to the board a system in which the pension fund's global stock managers would receive a fee only if they outperformed certain benchmark indexes. Managers whose returns failed to beat the index would be paid nothing for that period."

This makes perfect logical sense. Why pay a management fee to someone who's doing worse than an index fund? But the possible risk is that paying strictly for performance would induce managers to take bigger risks -- possibly increasing the incidence of blow-ups and rogue traders.

But these kinks could probably be worked out with careful monitoring of risk, and tailoring the bonuses to the level of risk a manager assumed. But it's time for money managers to be paid for performance. Too often, it seems they are paid just for having a pulse.

Peter Gossels, a 77-year old retired lawyer was furious over a 4% fee charged to him on the deposit of a large check drawn on A German bank. Fleet Bank didn't bother posting its exchange rates and then charged Gossels the difference between the retail exchange rate and the interbank "spot rate" for foreign currency -- 4%.

The fee came out to $10,000, and Gossels believed it should have been about $30. After failing to get anywhere with complaints and pleas to consumer reporters, he sued the bank.

According to The Boston Globe, "Last month, eight years after he went to the bank, a three-judge panel on the Massachusetts Appeals Court agreed, saying Fleet (now owned by Bank of America Corp.) had failed to properly disclose the differential in the rates."

Good for Mr. Gossels! Bank fees have gotten completely out of hand. While there's nothing wrong with banks charging outrageous fees, consumers have a right to be informed of them so they can make a decision:

As Gossels said, "This is the only way banks will learn not to cheat its customers."

I hope I have the courage and vivacity to take on a major corporation when I'm his age.

Salon's Andrew Leonard takes a look at Bank of America's (NYSE: BAC) recent decision to boost the surcharge non BofA customers will need to pay to use the bank's ATM machines: Instead of paying $2, we -- non BofA customers -- will now have to pay $3 if we choose to use them.

Mr. Leonard makes it clear that he isn't a big fan of these charges: "Let's hear it for Iowa, Connecticut, San Francisco and Santa Monica, Calif. Earlier this century, these four states and municipalities attempted to ban ATM surcharges. Sure, you can call that unwarranted interference into the workings of the free market, if you like."

Yeah. That's exactly what I would call it. Why should states interfere with people who want to, out of sheer stupidity, pay $3 to use an ATM machine, when they can get cash back by paying for a 25 cent pack of gum with a debit card at the grocery store?

Of course BofA is greedy. I wrote about its deceptive "Keep The Change" program and, all things considered, I would rather eat glass than bank with them. I think the ATM fees are ridiculous, so I'll tell you what I'm going to do: I'm not going to use Bank of America's ATMs. Simple!

And if enough people do that, maybe the bank will reconsider the fees. Or not. But since $3 is a complete rip-off, I'm well-served by avoiding BofA's ATMs either way. But if people are dumb enough to pay $3-4, why should we stop them?

I must admit that I was truly shocked when I read last fall about Securities and Exchange Commission probes into mutual fund firms for accepting kickbacks from the companies hired to provide services to them. The individual shareholder is the one who pays these fees to the service companies and should be receiving all of the benefits, not the mutual fund managers!

It reminded me of when I first started on Wall Street. I worked at an investment banking firm that was considered to be in the "Bulge Bracket" category, reserved for only an elite few and not known for discounting its fees. A mentor of mine let me know that the firm's policy on fees and expenses was simply, "First class business done in a first class manner for a first class price."

However, this gentleman also taught me to remember that we were working for the client, not the other way around. He said that in fee negotiations, "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours." It is not "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is half mine with the other half up for negotiation."

An article in Sunday's London Times reveals first hand how some unscrupulous sellers on eBay (NASDAQ:EBAY) are defrauding honest customers out of their hard-earned cash. A reporter, posing as a well-to-do individual looking to sell high value antiquities, easily talked one of eBay UK's largest sellers into admitting that, oftentimes, the practice of shill bidding was used to assure adequate value for items sold on eBay.

In explaining how the process of shill bidding to inflate prices is accomplished, the subject of the interview stated:

"I've got some of my big clients who buy big items off me, I look after them. So I can get on the phone to America and say: Mr XXXX . . . you're a multi-millionaire. You buy a hundred grand's worth off me a year. Do me a favour would you. Just put - yeah. Exactly."

In response to the investigation, eBay claims that its new practice of hiding user ID's from view during the course of bidding has helped to address the shill bidding problem. I and many of my fellow sellers fail to see the connection. In times past it was fairly simple to formulate and chart patterns regarding systematic bid manipulation by specific seller groups, and we had success in shutting some of them down. Now however, there has been a iron wall placed between the identities of bidders and the balance of the eBay populace. This means that eBay itself is solely responsible for scouting its site for bidding violations, and I feel eBay's actions have made it abundantly clear that while the company will try to help, it's really not eBay's responsibility to protect you or your money.

I want to know: how does reducing transparency within the eBay auction venue result in greater safety for eBay buyers? It's problematic that eBay is only set to gain from high prices; if fraudulent sales practices do drive up final value fees, eBay's bottom line is given a boost. Obviously shill bidding is not an accepted practice; but why would eBay create the appearance of trying to hide it?