Rate on 30-year mortgage ticks up to 4 percent

WASHINGTON (AP) — The average rate on the 30-year mortgage stayed hovered above the record low for a third straight week. But cheap mortgage rates have done little to boost home sales or refinancing.

Freddie Mac said Thursday that the rate on the 30-year loan ticked up to 4 percent from 3.99 percent. Six weeks ago, it dropped to a record low of 3.94 percent, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.

The average rate on the 15-year fixed mortgage rose to 3.31 percent from 3.30 percent. Six weeks ago, it hit a record low of 3.26 percent.

Rates have been below 5 percent for all but two weeks this year. Yet this year could be the worst for home sales in 14 years.

Mortgage applications fell 10 percent this week from the previous week, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.

High unemployment and scant wage gains have made it harder for many people to qualify for loans. Many Americans don't want to sink money into a home that could lose value over the next three to four years. And most homeowners who can afford to refinance already have.

The low rates have caused a modest boom in refinancing, but that benefit might be wearing off. Most people who can afford to refinance have already locked in rates below 5 percent. Refinancing fell 12.2 percent last week, according to the mortgage bankers group.

The average rates don't include extra fees, known as points, which most borrowers must pay to get the lowest rates. One point equals 1 percent of the loan amount.

The average fees for the 30-year and 15-year fixed mortgages were unchanged at 0.7.

The average rate on the five-year adjustable loan fell to 2.97 percent from 2.98 percent. The average rate on the one-year adjustable loan increased to 2.98 percent from 2.95 percent.

The average fees on the five-year and one-year adjustable loans were both unchanged at 0.6.

To calculate average mortgage rates, Freddie Mac surveys lenders across the country Monday through Wednesday of each week.

Read More..

Rate on 30-year mortgage ticks up to 4 pct.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The average rate on the 30-year mortgage stayed hovered above the record low for a third straight week. But cheap mortgage rates have done little to boost home sales or refinancing.

Freddie Mac said Thursday that the rate on the 30-year loan ticked up to 4 percent from 3.99 percent. Six weeks ago, it dropped to a record low of 3.94 percent, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.

The average rate on the 15-year fixed mortgage rose to 3.31 percent from 3.30 percent. Six weeks ago, it hit a record low of 3.26 percent.

Rates have been below 5 percent for all but two weeks this year. Yet this year could be the worst for home sales in 14 years.

Mortgage applications fell 10 percent this week from the previous week, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.

High unemployment and scant wage gains have made it harder for many people to qualify for loans. Many Americans don't want to sink money into a home that could lose value over the next three to four years. And most homeowners who can afford to refinance already have.

The low rates have caused a modest boom in refinancing, but that benefit might be wearing off. Most people who can afford to refinance have already locked in rates below 5 percent. Refinancing fell 12.2 percent last week, according to the mortgage bankers group.

The average rates don't include extra fees, known as points, which most borrowers must pay to get the lowest rates. One point equals 1 percent of the loan amount.

The average fees for the 30-year and 15-year fixed mortgages were unchanged at 0.7.

The average rate on the five-year adjustable loan fell to 2.97 percent from 2.98 percent. The average rate on the one-year adjustable loan increased to 2.98 percent from 2.95 percent.

The average fees on the five-year and one-year adjustable loans were both unchanged at 0.6.

To calculate average mortgage rates, Freddie Mac surveys lenders across the country Monday through Wednesday of each week.

Read More..

Celebrity, Inc.

What can four drunk airplane passengers, first time parents, and a delightful new book called Celebrity, Inc. do for your wallet?

Plenty.

Let me start with the drunks and new parents. Monday night I boarded a very delayed flight from Houston to Los Angeles. Behind me were four 20/30-somethings boisterously swigging from "coffee" cups. (Our gate was across from a Cantina and you could practically smell the tequila in their paper cups.)

As the boarding continued they grew increasingly animated. Their frenetic energy seemed to wind up not just each other but everyone around them. Fellow passengers were visibly agitated.

Just before the plane doors closed, a young couple came on with a sleeping baby. The last two open seats were amongst this motley crew.

Suddenly, everything changed.

The presence of the earnest and exhausted parents had an immediate calming effect on both the inebriated passengers and those around them. It was as if a mirror had been placed in the center of the plane to remind us all of our humanity.

Enter, Jo Piazza's delicious new book, Celebrity, Inc: how famous people make money.

To me, this book is the figurative version of the newborn's parents getting on the plane. It serves as a mirror reflecting back the reality what's in the "coffee" cups of the celebrity scene.

That got me wondering what other financial lessons the author of Celebrity, Inc. might have stumbled across while writing this fascinating book. Thankfully, Jo Piazza was willing to share with us...

Q: Of the celebrities you profile in Celebrity, Inc. whose money attitude were you most impressed with and why?

Jo: Despite current controversy I was completely impressed with the Kardashian's money attitude and their work ethic. I have never met a celebrity crew who works so hard to maintain their brand. I don't necessarily agree with the massive amounts they are paid to do what they do, but unlike a lot of celebs they truly do work for it. And beyond that they manage their money well. They budget, they funnel funds back into new projects, they try not to spend excessively and they do donate a portion of their income to charity each year.

(2) What surprised you the most about the money habits you observed during your Celebrity, Inc. research?

Jo:  So many of the people I talked to over-spent their budgets on a consistent basis even though they were making crazy amounts of money. Spencer Pratt told me he and Heidi Montag pulled in about $10 million in 4 years but because they thought it would keep coming at the same rate they blew through it all. That's a common thread I found with a lot of celebs. They're making so much but they're spending just as quickly. They buy $5 million houses and spend half a million on a security detail and they rarely save a dime. I just don't think they realize the shelf life of fame is shorter than ever and they may not be famous tomorrow.

(3) What personal finance lessons do you think the rest of us can take away from the way famous people live their lives?

Jo: Budgeting for a rainy day is the best thing we can learn from celebrities in terms of personal finance. I saw so many cases of celebs who thought it would last forever and then forever came up really... quick.

I was inspired by the extent to which celebs expand their personal brands. Tim McGraw went from country singer to fragrance king. When Valerie Bertinelli's career as an actress seemed like it was over she reinvented herself through a weight loss campaign. I don't think we see these instances of celeb entrepreneurship as inspiring enough and I truly think they should be a lesson in taking chances, building a new business and making lemonade out of lemons.

In many ways our celebrity culture is like a group of chaotic drunk people. It lurches rapidly from one topic and fad to the next. In the heat of the excitement money can feel like no object. But the financial hangover of being, or trying to emulate, that lifestyle can result in a serious financial crash.
Read More..

The Benefits Of Buying A Home With Cash

When a 62-year-old financial advisor bought a two-bedroom Manhattan  co-op recently, he showed up at the closing with a check for the full $970,000 purchase price. No mortgage? “The money I had in cash was sitting getting 0% interest,’’ explains the man, who asked not to be named. “It made absolutely no sense to borrow.”

There were other benefits as well to buying for cash, he says. He figures he got a “liquidity discount” for being able to close quickly—the asking price had been $1.05 million. And he avoided the hassles and paperwork that come with getting a mortgage these days. At the closing, he gloats, “they spent more time making photocopies than anything, so we sat discussing Broadway plays.”

Similar closing scenes are playing out across the country these days—minus the theater chitchat. Rates for 30-year fixed mortgages are hovering at 4%, and 15-year fixed loans can be had for 3.5% or less, the lowest in more than 50 years. Yet the National Association of Realtors ­estimates that roughly 30% of U.S. home buyers are now making their purchases 100% in cash, compared with 15% in 2008.

Some cash buyers are foreigners, who have never easily qualified for U.S. mortgages. Some are very-high-net-worth folks who have long favored cash for their multimillion-dollar trophy mansion purchases. The increase in cash buying comes mainly from two other groups: real estate investors, who nowadays rarely qualify for mortgages at all, and older buyers (like the New York financial advisor) who could qualify for mortgages but don’t want to.

In foreclosure-plagued Florida, where prices in some areas are down 55% from the peak, investors and ­snowbirds bearing cash dominate the market. Charlie Brasington is chief executive of Hoffman Development Group, which since 2008 has been using cash from private investors to buy distressed Tampa- and Palm Beach-area condo buildings from banks. Hoffman fixes the properties up and then sells the units to end users. Brasington reports two-thirds of the roughly 300 units Hoffman has sold so far have gone for cash, as have all eight of the $1 million-plus penthouses it has moved.

“These people probably have $5 million or more, so to take 10% of it out and buy a quality home in Florida and know that you’ve got your stake in the sand, that may be a good investment,” Brasington says. “Your cash is not ­making money in a CD, that’s for sure, and in the stock market there’s volatility. In real estate, sure, you may have some downward trend still, but there’s not that volatility anymore.”

A sales pitch? Sure. But recent cash buyers make similar points, and signs abound that Florida prices may have bottomed. If you’re considering a cash purchase, here are some pointers.

Cash buyers often get a discount

“Until recently I’d say sellers didn’t care that the buyer was coming in all cash or financed, they just wanted the highest number. Now the game has changed,’’ says Tracie Hamersley, a senior vice president at Citi Habitats, a New York City-based realty firm. “While banks are lending again, it is much more onerous, and there are many hoops to jump through. So someone who can close in cash can in most cases qualify for somewhat of a price discount based on that sureness of a sale.”

That cash-is-king phenomenon is being reported by Realtors across the country. “It’s like all of a sudden ­having this four-star gold status,” says Karen Bergin of Coldwell Banker Advantage in Overland Park, Kans., who has represented three baby boomer cash buyers so far this year. One of her clients, a couple selling their western Kansas farm to relocate to the Kansas City area, even managed to secure an extended closing period while they awaited a buyer for their farm.

Closing costs are lower with cash

Cash buyers can also save on closing costs. You don’t have to fork over money to pay a bank attorney for the mortgage. This is an expense that can run $750 and up (although it can be wise to retain your own lawyer). You don’t have to put real estate taxes in escrow up front nor pay the estimated $300 to $600 for a mortgage application plus additional thousands in loan origination fees and assorted junk charges. And you aren’t required to cough up $400 to $600 for an appraisal, which mortgage lenders insist upon, or, in a growing number of cases, multiple appraisals. (The ­multiple appraisal requirement is popping up in foreclosure-riddled areas where nondistressed homes have few sales to be compared against.)

Should you get an appraisal anyway? Most Realtors still strongly recommend one, in addition to a home ­inspection, to ensure you aren’t overpaying or buying hidden structural problems. But if it’s clear you’ve negotiated a good price, an appraisal may not be an imperative.

Another expense that will drop: title insurance, which offers protection against problems with the chain of ownership and preexisting claims like unpaid property taxes or liens placed by stiffed contractors. On a $600,000 house with a 20% down payment, title charges, which include researching local land records, can easily top $2,000. But roughly one-third of that is for coverage that protects only lenders (which, of course, they mandate you get and pay for). Cash-only buyers don’t have lenders, so there’s an immediate savings right there. Indeed, as a cash buyer, it’s up to you whether you want title insurance at all. Realtors say it’s a prudent add-on.

Getting a mortgage is not guaranteed

No matter how good your credit, if you haven’t gotten a mortgage in a while, you could be in for a shock. Even if your finances pass muster, the lender will likely pull the funding if the required home appraisal doesn’t reach the price you’ve agreed to pay. That’s the biggest issue hampering home sales this year, says Jed Smith, a managing director at the National Association of Realtors, which tracks sales data. (Some Realtors gripe that gun-shy ­appraisers are low-balling property values.)

The mortgage approval process also takes longer these days—an average of 45 days, up from 30 in 2008, according to online mortgage supermarket LendingTree.

Here’s another factor to be aware of. The maximum size for “conforming” government-backed loans—those carrying the lowest rates with a traditional 20% down payment—was reduced in October. In highest-cost jurisdictions, such as New York City, Bergen County, N.J. and Los Angeles, the maximum is now $625,500, down from $729,750. Most everywhere else the maximum is now $417,000, down from $443,750. Those taking larger nonconforming loans generally must pay a 0.5% higher rate, put 30% down and meet even tougher credit standards.

On the other hand, if you are a cash buyer, all these mortgage difficulties are to your benefit, since they could wipe out other potential bidders who do need a loan. (If you’re paying cash, make a bid that doesn’t have a mortgage contingency—and stress that point to the seller.)

You’re giving up a tax break—now

Interest on up to $1.1 million in mortgage principal originally used to buy, build or improve a first (and second) home is currently tax-deductible.  But if you later borrow against your equity for anything other than home improvements (say, for college tuition) your deduction is far more limited. In that case, interest on only the first $100,000 of home-equity borrowing is deductible, and even that isn’t allowed when you’re calculating whether you owe more under the dreaded alternative minimum tax. (You might be stuck in the AMT if you pay high state and local taxes and earn between $200,000 and $500,000.)

Keep in mind that this is all under current law. There’s been lots of talk in Washington about a tax reform that might lower tax rates while curbing tax breaks, including the mortgage interest deduction.

Even without a mortgage you get two other tax breaks from owning a primary residence. First, when you sell, the initial $500,000 in capital gains profit per couple ($250,000 for a single) isn’t taxed. Second, you’re getting a tax-free economic return on your investment in the form of free rent for all your years of residency.

Cheap money is relative

With rates so low, why not take out a mortgage and use your spare cash to invest? That’s an attractive option, but only if you believe your aftertax return on that investment will be greater than your aftertax cost for the mortgage, says James Maule, a Villanova Law School professor who specializes in taxes. He explains, “It depends on where you think your cash will make the most money or be the safest investment.”

Finally, don’t let the mortgage question obscure the bigger issue. Since you can always rent, is buying a house in the market you’re looking at a good investment? That depends on whether prices have bottomed (or are close to bottom) and how high local rents are.

Remember that New York financial advisor who paid cash for his ­co-op? Here’s a little insight into how this longtime renter decided the time was finally right to buy.

He figures the apartment he bought would rent for $5,000 a month or $60,000 a year, a 6% yield on his $970,000 investment. But he pays the co-op corporation $2,540 a month, or $30,480 a year, in maintenance charges to cover things like building operating expenses, property taxes and debt service on the building’s own borrowings. If he itemizes he gets to deduct his share of those tax and interest bills. So he reckons he’s still getting a 3% yield on his $970,000 investment, compared with the 2% that U.S. Trea­sury bonds are paying.

That assumes no appreciation of the apartment—and he does expect some. After falling roughly 23% from their 2008 peak, Manhattan co-op prices have been showing signs of a revival. Moreover, rents there are rising fast, up 7% in the year through October, according to Citi Habitats.

All in all, a sound use of money he’d otherwise have sitting in cash. Not that he intends to rent out the apartment, mind you. He and his wife plan to enjoy their new home, particularly the five walk-in closets, a coveted amenity in the cramped quarters of Manhattan.
Read More..

How to Buy a Home Without 20% Down

With housing prices and mortgage rates still near historic lows, now could be a great time to become a homeowner. I recently talked to a caller on our Financial Helpline who had a great credit score and could afford the mortgage payment for the home value she wanted since it would be about the same as her current rent. (In many parts of the country, it's actually cheaper to buy than to rent right now.)

There was one problem though. The traditional down payment is 20% of the home value but she only had enough to put down about 10% and was worried about missing years of building equity if she tried to save up the rest over time. If you're in a similar situation, here are some thing to consider:

You Need More Than the Down Payment

Keep in mind that you'll also probably have to pay at least some closing costs, which are generally about 2% of the price of the home. You'll also want to have an emergency fund with at least 3-6 months and ideally 6-12 months of necessary expenses. That's because the last thing you want is to lose your home to a foreclosure if an unexpected emergency makes it difficult to pay the mortgage.

An Insured Mortgage

You might be able to put down less than 20% by having your mortgage insured against default. One way to do that is with a government guaranteed mortgage. For example, the FHA loan program uses more lenient credit criteria than traditional mortgages, requires only a 3.5% down payment, and has the seller pay most of the closing costs.

Sounds pretty good, huh? Of course, there are costs to this. First, to qualify you typically need 2 years of steady employment with a stable or increasing income, a minimum credit score of 620 with no more than 2 30-day late payments over the last 2 years, no bankruptcies in the last 2 years, no foreclosures in the last 3 years, and a mortgage payment no more than about 30% of your gross pre-tax income. Second, there are limits on how much you can borrow based on where you live. Finally, you have to pay a premium of up to 1% of the loan amount at closing (it can be rolled into your mortgage but that would increase your monthly payments) and a monthly premium of up to .9% of the loan amount each year.

VA loans are another type of government guaranteed mortgage but only veterans on active duty in World War II and later periods are eligible. The loan limits are determined by the lender but generally max out at $417k except in certain high-cost counties. No down payment is usually required at all and there are no monthly premiums. However, there is a one-time funding fee of up to 2.4% that is reduced based on the size of your down payment.

Alternatively, you can get private mortgage insurance. The premiums can vary but are reduced the more you put down. The best part is that unlike with the government programs, the premiums can disappear altogether once you have 20% equity in your home, whether by you paying down the loan, the property rising in value, or (hopefully) both.

Confused? Don't worry about it. Your mortgage lender can help you decide which programs you qualify for and which one might be most beneficial for your situation.

Piggyback Loans

In this scenario, you would get 2 loans. One would cover 80% of the home value and the other "piggyback loan" would cover the rest minus your down payment. The advantage is that you can avoid paying for mortgage insurance with less than 20% down. The disadvantage is that the piggyback loan has a higher interest rate and often has a "balloon payment" at the end. This is a final payment that's considerably larger than your normal payments so be sure to save up for it if you're going to keep the loan that long.

Using Your Retirement Accounts

Finally, there are several ways you can use retirement funds for a down payment. If you have an IRA, you can withdraw up to $10k penalty-free to purchase a home if you haven't owned one in the last 2 years. This is a lifetime limit for the total of all your IRAs so only use it if you must. If it's a Roth IRA, the earnings can also be withdrawn tax-free if the account has been open for at least 5 years (the contributions can always be withdrawn tax and penalty free). Otherwise, the withdrawals could be taxable.

If you have a retirement plan at work, you may be able to take a hardship withdrawal or a loan. A hardship withdrawal doesn't have to be paid back but it's taxable and subject to a 10% penalty if you're under age 59 1/2. A loan isn't taxable but must be paid back with interest. The good news is that the interest goes back into your account and the payments for a loan used to buy a home can often be spread over a longer time period than a regular loan.

The real cost of using your retirement accounts isn't the taxes or interest you pay but that those funds aren't growing for your retirement. The more aggressively you're invested, the greater that opportunity cost is likely to be. On the other hand, you have to weigh that against the value that owning a home can add as an asset that you can later sell or borrow against to help provide for your retirement.
Read More..

Pension Red Alert: 70% Of Pensions Are Never Audited

Chances are that your pension or 401k plan has never been audited. No one's checking annually to see if the money's really there. Worried yet? It should freak you out, in my opinion. According to regulators, seventy percent of the nation's pensions have never been audited.

Lest you think I'm an alarmist, the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Labor earlier this year in his Semiannual Report to Congress wrote that plans lacking full audits "provide no substantive assurance of asset integrity to plan participants." That's a pretty dire assessment. In layman's terms it means that if your money is invested in a pension that has never been audited, no one knows for certain the money is actually there. That, I would submit, should be of concern to every investor in an unaudited retirement plan. You need to find out if your pension is unaudited and, if so, demand a true audit before it's too late.

Is this the familiar tale of an agency of the federal government being asleep at the wheel while an outrageous compromise to the integrity of the nation's pensions came to pass? A regulator who woke up far too late to abuses?

Not exactly. In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth.

Would you believe that every year since 1989, the Inspector General of the DOL has sounded the alarm about the risks to pension participants related to failures to audit? For over twenty years, the Inspector General has recommended that Congress close the loop-hole in the federal law applicable to pensions, ERISA, that allows this state of affairs to persist.

Counsel to the Inspector General recently stated to me “we have long believed that this is an important issue. A lot of pension dollars have not been properly audited.”

I am told that this year, for the first time in over two decades, the Inspector General is considering dropping the recommendation to Congress to address this issue of critical importance to retirement savers. Why? Because the recommendation has been rejected so many times. I can't blame the Inspector General's office from being discouraged but, in my opinion, it would be a collosal mistake to give up at this point in time because we are only now on the cusp of determining the harm related to unaudited plans.

What's going on here? Under ERISA,  a pension sponsor may instruct the auditor to a pension not to perform any auditing procedures with respect to investment information prepared and certified by a bank or similar institution. That's right-- no auditing procedures. The bank simply certifies the accuracy and the completeness of the information submitted to the auditor and the auditor includes it in his financial report with the following gargantuan caveat: Because of the significance of the information that we did not audit, we are unable to, and do not, express an opinion on the accompanying financial statements and schedule taken as a whole (emphasis added). In the words of the Inspector General, these so-called "limited scope audits" are "no opinion audits." They're worthless. The auditor is saying to you, "because I have been instructed not to look at certain pieces, I cannot tell you what the whole is worth."

But it's not just a sliver of plan assets that the auditors are not examining  -- it's often all or virtually all of the assets in plans. To make matters worse, plans are increasing their high risk bets by loading up on hard-to-value assets, such as private equity and hedge funds, in a desperate attempt to close their funding gaps. What are these hard-to-value assets worth? Who knows? Nobody's checking, or even concerned. The custodian banks have provisions in their contracts which specify that they may conclusively rely upon values that these lightly-regulated managers provide to them. Of course, since these managers are paid a fee based upon the value of the assets they manage, they have every incentive to inflate valuations. Let's hope they're committed to telling the truth-- even if it means their rich fees dwindle. The net result is that the auditors rely upon unverified statements provided by custodian banks and the banks, in turn, rely upon unverified valuations provided by hedge fund managers handling plan assets. Nobody is required under the law to check that the money is there. Sounds Madoff-ish to me.

Here's some background on this impending train wreck. In November 1989, the Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Labor issued a report titled “Changes Are Needed in the ERISA Audit Process to Increase Protections for Employee Benefit Plan Participants.” According to the Inspector General, the most critical recommendation made in that report was to amend ERISA to require full scope audits-- real audits, not bogus no opinion audits.  In September 1996, the Inspector General issued a report entitled “Full Scope Audits of Employee Benefit Plans Still Needed” which stated that “the need for full scope audits of employee benefit plans is as important today as it was 7 years ago.” This review confirmed that, at that time, almost half of the plans reviewed received limited scope audits and disclaimers of opinions. The Office of the Chief Auditor “concluded that this is a disservice to plan participants in terms of protection and in terms of useful information the participants need to monitor their plans’ ability to pay benefits.”

In 1990, 1992 and 1998, the GAO recommended that the limited scope audit exemption should be repealed. According to the GAO:

“Under this limited scope audit, the auditor is required to obtain financial statements from the company holding the investments and a certification from that company that the statements are accurate and are a part of the company’s annual report. However, the auditor would not perform the normal procedures designed to provide certain basic assurances about the existence, ownership, and value of a plan’s assets held in trust. The resulting lack of audit work can result in an auditor disclaiming an opinion on the financial statements."

No normal procedures performed to establish basic facts like the assets ...  exist? That's a pretty basic fact that, in my book, somebody ought to know -- with absolute certainty.

But the GAO had more to say:

"The disclaimer can cause two problems. First, it can diminish the value of an audit by leaving a significant gap in the information intended to help participants evaluate their plan. For example, plan participants would have no basis for judging whether excluded investments are vulnerable to mismanagement, fraud, or abuse. Second, the disclaimer language could confuse the participant. It says that the auditor does not express an opinion on the financial statements and supplemental schedules, but that the auditor does provide some assurance that the form and content of information included in statements and schedules comply with the Department of Labor rules and regulations. As a result of this potentially confusing wording, users of limited scope audit reports could be uncertain about what, if any, assurance these reports provide.”

For those of you participating in an unaudited plan where signifcant assets are invested in hedge funds and other hard-to-value investments, I can assure such investments, if excluded, are "vulnerable to mismanagement, fraud, or abuse,"  and you should be very concerned.

The GAO is right that users of limited scope audit reports should be uncertain about what, if any, assurances these reports provide. I can assure you that, when and if sued, auditors who issue such opinions will claim that the opinions plainly warned that no assurances were provided.

As mentioned earlier, this year the Inspector General in his Semiannual Report to Congress recommended repeal of ERISA’s limited-scope audit exemption. According to the Inspector General, “This provision excludes pension plan assets invested in financial institutions such as banks and savings and loans from audits of employee benefit plans. The limited audit scope prevents independent public accountants who are auditing pension plans from rendering an opinion on the plans’ financial statements in accordance with professional auditing standards. These “no opinion” audits provide no substantive assurance of asset integrity to plan participants or the Department (emphasis added).”

You should be concerned if your retirement savings are held in a retirement plan that has never been audited. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Call me crazy, but it does matter whether procedures designed to verify the existence, ownership, and value of a plan’s assets have been performed. I predict that we are on the verge of learning just how worthless no opinion audits of pensions really are.  I am confident that in the future it  will become apparent that lack of scrutiny has resulted in widespread misrepresentation of pension asset values. Take action now to protect your retirement security.
Read More..