Originally Posted by
patrick.barnes
Those people are quoting clueless front line CSR and are not actually basing their posts on actual transaction data.
No one can get a 100% accurate FX spot rate since that rate changes every microsecond. I'm just saying that over thousands of transactions, the MC FX rate is as close to interbank rates as possible, and that neither the A+ or Citi MC cards marketed as 0% FTF include any additional mark up over the advertised MC rates.
Meanwhile, rates on Visa cards claiming 0% FTF *do* include a hidden markup of up to 1%. I've run the same transactions in the same currencies on 4 different cards at exactly the same time to confirm all of the above. My A+ and Citi Prestige gave me identical rates, and my Chase CSP and CU issued Visa gave identical (craptacular) rates.
Amex just gives you a rate they determine which has no basis in reality apart from being "close enough". It tends to be on par with the Visa rate or slightly better.
I doubt any of this stuff matters to most people, but for those that spend a lot of money internationally... Seems worth it to save ~1% on each transaction by using a MC.
No they're not. At least one person is reporting first hand experience.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/25046389-post7.html Albeit yes, that's hearsay, but there are other examples through the thread.
This person,
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/25055865-post31.html, reports that the Barclay Arrival+ consistently was higher than a Capital One Visa card.
Just because your experience says one thing doesn't mean that it can be generalized to everyone else. It's possible other people experienced differences with the same card, and the reports are that this has happened.