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..

Report: Calif. stem cell agency needs overhaul

LOS ANGELES (AP) — California has transformed into a major player in stem cell research, but the taxpayer-funded institute responsible has "significant deficiencies" in how research dollars are distributed, experts said Thursday.

A report by the Institute of Medicine found too many members on the board of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine represented schools that won funding and recommended a restructuring to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest.

California voters in 2004 approved Proposition 71, a state ballot initiative that created CIRM, at a time when there were federal restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research and such work was opposed by some on religious and moral grounds because embryos have to be destroyed to harvest the cells.

The agency was given broad power to distribute $3 billion in bond proceeds to promising research. So far, it has distributed more than $1 billion to some five dozen universities that went mostly toward investments in new buildings and basic research.

The team of 13 experts that reviewed the stem-cell agency's operations did not judge the merits of individual studies because that was outside the scope of the report and it would have been too time-consuming and costly. But they raised serious questions about how grants were allotted.

The approval process "has some significant deficiencies which need to be improved upon in order to improve CIRM's credibility and transparency," said Harold Shapiro, an emeritus professor at Princeton University who chaired the report.

In a few short years, CIRM got off the ground and funneled research money with an eye toward stem cell therapies, turning the state into "an international hub of research and development in stem cell biology," the report said.

While the panel did not find any specific cases of conflict, it noted that the potential exists because of how the board is made up.

CIRM is composed of 29 members, mostly from academia. They have the dual role of providing oversight and day-to-day management. While the structure may have worked when CIRM was first launched and shielded it from political meddling, change is needed going forward, experts said.

"They're not broken but they're bent," said Sharon Terry, president of the nonprofit Genetic Alliance who was part of the panel. "They need some correction."

Among the recommendations: The board should remain at arm's length from the management team, focus on providing better oversight and should not decide what projects to fund. It also needs to be more diverse and include more representatives from industry and members with no stake in the grant-awarding process. Experts also favored the creation of an outside scientific group to give advice and expertise.

Some of the suggested changes would require legislative approval, but the panel felt they were needed to erase concerns about possible conflicts of interest.

In a statement, CIRM board chairman Jonathan Thomas said the agency has not had a chance to digest the report. Once board members talk it over with the panel next week, they will decide "on how best to proceed so that we can respond in as thoughtful a manner to the recommendations" as the panel did, Thomas said.

The latest report echoed several others in the past by other groups, which also called for a new governance structure.

"CIRM has not responded in a meaningful way to many previous public interest suggestions or to independent reviews," Marcy Darnovsky of the Center for Genetics and Society said in a statement. "We hope the agency will not continue that pattern."

Since cutting the first check in 2006, CIRM now finds itself at a crossroads. The federal research limits that existed when it was created have been relaxed and it recently shifted focus from basic research to funding projects that can swiftly begin human trials. Experts felt this goal was unrealistic and urged the agency to have a more balanced approach.

At its current funding pace, CIRM is expected to earmark the last grants around 2017, but since most are multi-year awards, it will stay in business until around 2021. It's currently deciding its future for when the money runs out.

The $700,000 report was sponsored by CIRM — a customary practice for organizations seeking a review. The Institute of Medicine said sponsors have no influence on the fact-gathering process and are barred from reviewing drafts or weighing in on the report before publication.
Read More..

Middle East beginning to embrace solar energy

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Covering nearly 300 football fields in a remote patch of desert, the Shams 1 solar project carries off plenty of symbolic significance for the United Arab Emirates.

It will be the first, large-scale solar project in the oil-rich country when it is completed at the end of the year, and the largest of its kind in the Middle East. At full capacity, the 100-megawatt, concentrated solar project will be able to power 20,000 homes. For those behind the project, it's the surest sign yet that solar is coming to the region in a big way.

"We truly believe solar will be a major contributor to meeting our own requirements," said Sultan Ahmed al-Jaber, the UAE's Special Envoy for Energy and Climate Change and the chief executive officer of government-funded Masdar, which is the majority investor in the project.

"We are not like many other countries today that are in desperate need for complimentary sources of power," Jaber said, adding Abu Dhabi plans to generate 7 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2020. "We are looking at it from strategic point of view ... we want to become a technology player, rather than an energy player."

With its vast deserts and long stretches of sunny days, the Middle East would seem to be an ideal place to harness solar energy. But until now, the region has largely shunned solar because it has cost about three times more than heavily-subsidized fossil fuels. There are also few laws in place to regulate solar power and it faces some unique technological hurdles, given the Middle East's harsh climate, which is much hotter and dustier than say Europe, where solar thrives.

But technological advances have pushed costs down dramatically, and many oil-gas rich countries are reconsidering renewables amid growing demands for power to fuel their booming economies and rapidly increasing populations. There are also fears, especially in Saudi Arabia, that their once seemingly limitless oil resources may have peaked and they could one day become net oil importers. Countries also understand they can get much more revenue for their oil — as much as $90 a barrel at current prices — if they export it rather than use it domestically.

"We are in the middle of a radical rethinking of the energy future of the region," Adnan Z. Amin, director general of the Abu Dhabi-based International Renewable Energy Agency, told The Associated Press.

"One of the real wake up calls for Saudi Arabia, which is a heavily hydrocarbon country, is that they are seeing their current energy demand growing at such a high rate that they risk becoming a net energy importer in 20 years. That would be a major economic issue to deal with."

Amid the buzz over solar, countries have begun rolling out ambitious renewable targets.

Egypt and Qatar which say they will produce 20 percent of their energy from renewables by 2020 and 2024 respectively. Algeria has plans to produce 22,000 megawatts of power from renewables between now and 2030. Saudi Arabia announced targets of 10 percent by 2020 and Kuwait 15 percent by 2030.

Tarek El Sayed, a principal with the consulting firm Booz & Company, projected that countries in the Middle East and North African could become significant renewable energy players in the coming decades.

Although he said in a report that the sector is currently "underfunded or not funded at all," several projects across the region are on the drawing board and El Sayed expects Egypt, Libya and Saudi Arabia to be big players along with the smaller Gulf countries like the UAE that are investing heavily in the sector.

"If you had talked renewable energy five or six years ago to anyone in the region, they would have said, 'come on we can't do that. It's like shooting ourselves in the foot. We are our oil producers.' Today, nobody would tell you that," El Sayed said.

Vahid Fotuhi couldn't agree more. A longtime proponent of solar in the region, he first worked for an oil giant struggling to sell solar in the region before it gave up on the project a few years back. He has since joined an American solar systems provider, Alion, which set up shop the region six months ago. Fotuhi, who also heads the Emirates Solar Industry Association, admits he is desperate to get a "piece of the pie."

"The real prize is Saudi Arabia," Fotuhi said, noting that it has promised to build 41,000 megawatts of capacity by 2032. "Anyone who is looking at the Middle East will have their eyes sharply focused on the Saudi market. It's the 800-pound gorilla of the Middle East solar market."

But not everyone is so bullish.

Imen Jeridi Bachellerie, a researcher associated with the Gulf Research Center in Geneva, questioned some of the renewable targets as overly ambitious adding that countries would be better off focusing improving energy efficiency of buildings and upgrading existing infrastructure before investing heavily in renewables. She said they will need years to change attitudes about energy, offer significant subsidies that would make solar competitive with fossil fuels and develop the regulatory framework required to help the industry thrive.

"I don't think there should be a rush to renewables," said Bachellerie, warning that a hasty push into the field without first sorting out technological glitches could pose problems.

To some degree, governments in the region understand this.

On the sidelines of U.N. climate talks, Qatar Science & Technology Park, GreenGulf Inc. and Chevron Qatar inaugurated a solar testing facility. The 35,000-square-meter facility will be used to determine what types of solar are best for the region, looking at how dust, heat and humidity impacts various technologies. Qatar, a tiny desert nation which has promised to host a carbon neutral 2022 World Cup, also is looking at ways to make solar more efficient.

"We are one of the biggest believers in solar," Abdullah Bin Hamad al-Attiyah, a former Qatari oil minister who is the president of the climate conference, told reporters. "We have technical problems with solar but I'm a big believer that technology will solve it."
Read More..

To the moon? Firm hopes to sell $1.5 billion trips

WASHINGTON (AP) — Attention wealthy nations and billionaires: A team of former NASA  executives will fly you to the moon in an out-of-this-world commercial venture combining the wizardry of Apollo and the marketing of Apple.

For a mere $1.5 billion, the business is offering countries the chance to send two people to the moon and back, either for research or national prestige. And if you are an individual with that kind of money to spare, you too can go the moon for a couple days.

Some space experts, though, are skeptical of the firm's financial ability to get to the moon. The venture called Golden Spike Co. was announced Thursday.

Dozens of private space companies have started up recently, but few if any will make it — just like in other fields — said Harvard astronomer Jonathan McDowell, who tracks launches worldwide.

"This is unlikely to be the one that will pan out," McDowell said.

NASA's last trip to the moon launched 40 years ago Friday. The United States is the only country that has landed people there, beating the Soviet Union in a space race to the moon that transfixed the world. But once the race ended, there has been only sporadic interest in the moon.

President Barack Obama cancelled NASA's planned return to the moon, saying America had already been there. On Wednesday, a National Academy of Sciences said the nation's space agency has no clear goal or direction for future human exploration.

But the ex-NASA officials behind Golden Spike do. It's that old moon again.

The firm has talked to other countries, which are showing interest, said former NASA associate administrator Alan Stern, Golden Spike's president. Stern said he's looking at countries like South Africa, South Korea, and Japan. One very rich individual — he won't give a name — has also been talking with them, but the company's main market is foreign nations, he said.

"It's not about being first. It's about joining the club," Stern said. "We're kind of cleaning up what NASA did in the 1960s. We're going to make a commodity of it in the 2020s."

The selling point: "the sex appeal of flying your own astronauts," Stern said.

Many countries did pony up millions of dollars to fly their astronauts on the Russian space station Mir and American space shuttles in the 1990s, but a billion dollar price tag seems a bit steep, Harvard's McDowell said.

NASA chief spokesman David Weaver said the new company "is further evidence of the timeliness and wisdom of the Obama administration's overall space policy" which tries to foster commercial space companies.

Getting to the moon would involve several steps: Two astronauts would launch to Earth orbit, connect with another engine that would send them to lunar orbit. Around the moon, the crew would link up with a lunar orbiter and take a moon landing ship down to the surface.

The company will buy existing rockets and capsules for the launches, Stern said, only needing to develop new spacesuits and a lunar lander.

Stern said he's aiming for a first launch before the end of the decade and then up 15 or 20 launches total. Just getting to the first launch will cost the company between $7 billion and $8 billion, he said.

Besides the ticket price, Stern said there are other revenue sources, such as NASCAR-like advertising, football stadium-like naming rights, and Olympic style video rights.

It may be technically feasible, but it's harder to see how it is financially doable, said former NASA associate administrator Scott Pace, space policy director at George Washington University. Just dealing with the issue of risk and the required test launches is inordinately expensive, he said.

Company board chairman Gerry Griffin, an Apollo flight director who once headed the Johnson Space Center, said that's a correct assessment: "I don't think there's any technological stumble here. It's going to be financial."

The company is full of space veterans; American University space policy professor Howard McCurdy called them "heavy hitters" in the field. Advisers include space shuttle veterans, Hollywood directors, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson and engineer-author Homer Hickam.

Read More..

UN conference adopts extension of Kyoto accord

DOHA, Qatar (AP) — Seeking to control global warming, nearly 200 countries agreed Saturday to extend the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that limits the greenhouse gas output of some rich countries, but will only cover about 15 percent of global emissions.

The extension was adopted by a U.N. climate conference after hard-fought sessions and despite objections from Russia. The package of decisions also included vague promises of financing to help poor countries cope with climate change, and an affirmation of a previous decision to adopt a new global climate pact by 2015.

Though expectations were low for the two-week conference in Doha, many developing countries rejected the deal as insufficient to put the world on track to fight the rising temperatures that are shifting weather patterns, melting glaciers and raising sea levels. Some Pacific island nations see this as a threat to their existence.

"This is not where we wanted to be at the end of the meeting, I assure you," said Nauru Foreign Minister Kieren Keke, who leads an alliance of small island states. "It certainly isn't where we need to be in order to prevent islands from going under and other unimaginable impacts."

The two-decade-old U.N. climate talks have so-far failed in their goal of reducing the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions that a vast majority of scientists says are warming the planet.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which controls the emissions of rich countries, is considered the main achievement of the negotiations, even though the U.S. rejected it because it didn't impose any binding commitments on China and other emerging economies.

Kyoto was due to expire this year, so failing to agree on an extension would have been a major setback for the talks. Despite objections from Russia, which opposed rules limiting its use of carbon credits, the accord was extended through 2020 to fill the gap until a wider global treaty is expected to take effect.

However, the second phase only covers about 15 percent of global emissions after Canada, Japan, New Zealand and Russia opted out.

The decisions in Doha mean that in future years, the talks can focus on the new treaty, which is supposed to apply to both rich and poor countries. It is expected to be adopted in 2015 and take effect five years later, but the details haven't been worked out yet.

U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern highlighted one of the main challenges going forward when he said the U.S. couldn't accept a provision in the Doha deal that said the talks should be "guided" by principles laid down in the U.N.'s framework convention for climate change.

That could be interpreted as a reference to the firewall between rich and poor countries that has guided the talks so far, but which the U.S. and other developed countries say must be removed going forward.

"We are now on our way to the new regime," European Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said. It definitely wasn't an easy ride, but we managed to cross the bridge."

"Hopefully from here we can increase our speed," she added. "The world needs it more than ever."

The goal of the U.N. talks is to keep temperatures from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 Celsius), compared to preindustrial times. Temperatures have already risen about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 Celsius) above that level, according to the latest report by the U.N.'s top climate body.

A recent projection by the World Bank showed temperatures are on track to rise by up to 7.2 Fahrenheit (4 Celsius) by the year 2100.

"For all of the nations wrestling with the new reality of climate change - which includes the United States - this meeting failed to deliver the goods," said Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

"At the end of the day, ministers were left with two unpalatable choices: accept an abysmally weak deal, or see the talks collapse in acrimony and despair — with no clear path forward," Meyer said.

Poor countries came into the talks in Doha demanding a timetable on how rich countries would scale up climate change aid for them to $100 billion annually by 2020 — a general pledge that was made three years ago.

But rich nations, including the United States, members of the European Union and Japan are still grappling with the effects of a financial crisis and were not interested in detailed talks on aid in Doha.

The agreement on financing made no reference to any mid-term financing targets, just a general pledge to "identify pathways for mobilizing the scaling up of climate finance."

Tim Gore, climate policy adviser at British aid group Oxfam said the Doha deal imperiled the lives and livelihoods of the world's poorest communities, who are the most vulnerable to shifts in climate.

"It's nothing short of betrayal of the responsibilities of developed countries," he said. "We are now in the red zone in fighting climate change."

Small island nations scored a victory by getting the conference to adopt a text on "loss and damage," a relatively new concept which relates to damages from climate-related disasters.

Island nations under threat from rising sea levels have been pushing for some mechanism to help them cope with such natural catastrophes, but the United States has pushed back over concerns it might be held liable for the cleanup bill since it is the world's second-biggest emitter behind China.
Read More..