Showing posts with label MONEY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MONEY. Show all posts

Monday, October 3, 2011

The 5 Dumbest Things You Can Do if You Have too Much Debt (BLOG)

If you’re struggling with too much debt, you’re not alone. It seems as if the whole nation has a borrowing hangover. For years, credit was easy, and many people became overextended. But, we now live in an era of austerity and it’s time to get our affairs in order.

The five strategies you may want to avoid:

The first piece of advice from experts in the financial field is to be sure you don't make your situation worse by making common mistakes. In particular, try to avoid:

1. Paying only the minimum payment on your debt, as this will result in the amount you owe actually growing, and your problems will only become worse.

2. Relying on friends and family, as this can damage relationships with the most important people in your life.

3. Unscrupulous credit counselors that demand cash upfront or high fees for help they promise, but don't deliver.

4. Using new, high-interest loans to pay off lower interest rate loans. While it may be easier to just have one payment, it will actually increase the amount you have to pay back.

5. Declaring bankruptcy--this can have permanent and severe consequences on your financial future. Avoid it if you can, especially when debt settlement may work for you.

Debt Settlement

For many people, working with a debt settlement company can actually be a great solution. You’ve probably heard a lot of advertising for these services recently, but what exactly do they do?

Debt settlement is the process of negotiating with creditors to get them to forgive a big portion of your debt. Why would a credit card company do this? Well, it’s not out of the generosity of their heart. They have made the financial calculations and determined they are better off knowing for certain that they’ll get paid something, rather than not knowing if they will get paid anything.

Settlement companies work with individual consumers to determine a reasonable, monthly amount that they can afford to pay against their debt load. The individual makes the affordable payment every month into a special-purpose account, and as these funds accumulate, the settlement company reaches out to creditors to negotiate a full and final actual settlement amount that they will take. The debt settlement company only charges a fee after they have achieved a satisfactory settlement for you.

Typically, these companies have excellent relationships with creditors and are negotiating on behalf of thousands of people every day. The amount of savings they can obtain for consumers can be significant.

While each situation is different, it’s not uncommon for debt settlement companies to negotiate reductions of as much as 50 percent of the outstanding amount and help get their customer debt free in just a few years.

There are many debt settlement agencies, so how do you find a legitimate and trustworthy company to work with? One great way to start is by visiting Preferred Financial Services. They offer a free, no-obligation consultation to evaluate your options. Then, if you choose to proceed, they will develop a plan that meets your specific needs and negotiate it on your behalf with your credit card companies. Preferred Financial Services is fully compliant with all FTC rules and they charge no fees until a settlement has been reached.

To learn how much of your debt can be reduced, and how quickly you can be debt free, click here.

Saturday, October 1, 2011

Pastors try to pick a tax fight with IRS (BLOG)

This weekend, hundreds of pastors, including some of the nation’s evangelical leaders, will climb into their pulpits to preach about American politics, flouting a decades-old law that prohibits tax-exempt churches and other charities from campaigning on election issues.

The sermons, on what is called Pulpit Freedom Sunday, essentially represent a form of biblical bait, an effort by some churches to goad the Internal Revenue Service into court battles over the divide between religion and politics.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a nonprofit legal defense group whose founders include James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, sponsors the annual event, which started with 33 pastors in 2008. This year, Glenn Beck has been promoting it, calling for 1,000 religious leaders to sign on and generating additional interest at the beginning of a presidential election cycle.

“There should be no government intrusion in the pulpit,” said the Rev. James Garlow, senior pastor at Skyline Church in La Mesa, Calif., who led preachers in the battle to pass California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage. “The freedom of speech and the freedom of religion promised under the First Amendment means pastors have full authority to say what they want to say.”

Mr. Garlow said he planned to inveigh against same-sex marriage, abortion and other touchstone issues that social conservatives oppose, and some ministers may be ready to encourage parishioners to vote only for those candidates who adhere to the same views or values.

“I tell them that as followers of Christ, you wouldn’t vote for someone who was against what God said in his word,” Mr. Garlow said. “I will, in effect, oppose several candidates and — de facto — endorse others.”

Two Republican candidates in particular, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas and Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, would presumably benefit from some pulpit politics on Sunday, since they have been courting Christian conservatives this year.

Participating ministers plan to send tapes of their sermons to the I.R.S., effectively providing the agency with evidence it could use to take them to court.

But if history is any indication, the I.R.S. may continue to steer clear of the taunts.

“It’s frustrating,” said Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel at Alliance Defense. “The law is on the books but they don’t enforce it, leaving churches in limbo.”

Supporters of the law are equally vexed by the tax agency’s perceived inaction. “We have grave concerns over the current inability of the I.R.S. to enforce the federal tax laws applicable to churches,” a group of 13 ministers in Ohio wrote in a letter to the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, in July.

Marcus Owens, the lawyer representing the Ohio ministers, warned that the I.R.S.’s failure to pursue churches for politicking violations would encourage more donations to support their efforts, taking further advantage of the new leeway given to advocacy groups under the Supreme Court’s decision last year in the Citizens United case.

Lois G. Lerner, director of the agency’s Exempt Organizations Division, said in an e-mail that “education has been and remains the first goal of the I.R.S.’s program on political activity by tax-exempt organizations.” The agency has posted “guidance” on what churches can and cannot do on its Web site.

The agency says it has continued to do audits of some churches, but those are not disclosed. Mr. Stanley, Mr. Owens and other lawyers say they are virtually certain it has no continuing audits of church political activity, an issue that has been a source of contention in recent elections.

The alliance and many other advocates regard a 1954 law prohibiting churches and their leaders from engaging in political campaigning as a violation of the First Amendment and wish to see the issue played out in court. The organization points to the rich tradition of political activism by churches in some of the nation’s most controversial battles, including the pre-Revolutionary war opposition to taxation by the British, slavery and child labor.

The legislation, sponsored by Lyndon Baines Johnson, then a senator, muzzled all charities in regards to partisan politics, and its impact on churches may have been an unintended consequence. At the time, he was locked in a battle with two nonprofit groups that were loudly calling him a closet communist.

Thirty years later, a group of senators led by Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, passed legislation to try to rein in the agency a bit in doing some audits. While audits of churches continued over the years, they appeared to have slowed down considerably after a judge rebuffed the agency’s actions in a case involving the Living Word Christian Center and a supposed endorsement of Ms. Bachmann in 2007. The I.R.S. had eliminated positions through a reorganization, and therefore, according to the judge, had not followed the law when determining who could authorize such audits.

Sarah Hall Ingram, the I.R.S. commissioner responsible for the division that oversees nonprofit groups, said the agency was still investigating such cases. “We have churches under audit,” Ms. Hall Ingram said. “Maybe they just aren’t the clients of the people you’re talking to.”

None of the churches involved in previous pulpit Sunday events have received anything beyond a form letter from the I.R.S. thanking them for the tapes, Mr. Stanley said. “They haven’t done anything to clarify what the law is and what pastors can and can’t say,“ he said.

Mr. Owens, the lawyer representing the Ohio churches, said that Ms. Lerner had told a meeting of state charity regulators in late 2009 that the agency was no longer doing such audits. “I have not heard of a single church audit since then,” Mr. Owens said.

He said the agency could have churches under audit for civil fraud or criminal investigation. “I know of at least one of those,” he said.

Ms. Lerner said she could not recall what she had said at the meeting. Grant Williams, an I.R.S. spokesman, declined to describe the type of church audits the agency was doing or their number.

Last year, the I.R.S. also quietly ceased its Political Activities Compliance Initiative, under which it issued reports in 2004 and 2006 detailing its findings of illegal political campaigning by charities, including churches.

Paul Streckfus, a former I.R.S. official who publishes a newsletter about legal and tax developments in the tax-exempt world, said the reports had served as an alert. “They also gave us some idea of how big the problem of noncompliance actually was, and that the I.R.S. was actually doing something about it,” Mr. Streckfus said.

Mr. Garlow said he planned to outline where the candidates stood on various issues and then discuss what the Bible said about those issues, calling on church members to stand by their religious principles.

“The Bible says render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s,” he said. “But Caesar is demanding more and more of what was once considered God’s matter, and pastors have been bullied and intimidated enough.”

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Learning From Jay-Z's Successes -- And Failures (BLOG)

Six years ago, Shawn “Jay-Z” Carter found himself on the verge of finalizing one of the biggest deals of his life. The prize: A Jay-Z branded Jeep Commander that would roll off the lot boasting an audio system preloaded with all of Jay-Z’s songs, an interior swathed in butter-cream leather and an exterior slathered in a coat of patented Jay-Z Blue paint. For his efforts, the rapper would receive a 5-10% royalty on each $50,000 vehicle sold.

The Jay-Z Jeep would have been a multimillion-dollar bonanza had it ever hit the streets, but it fell through at the last minute. Through no fault of Jay-Z’s, a change of management at Jeep parent Chrysler iced the plans (the episode wasn’t reported until I stumbled upon it while reporting my new Jay-Z biography, Empire State of Mind). Those close to the negotiations say that the situation turned into a fiasco of epic proportions.

“That deal was the most [screwed]-up deal that I’ve ever seen or heard of,” says Michael “Serch” Berrin, the rapper-turned businessman who helped put together the Jay-Z Jeep proposal. “I came to Jay with the automobile industry in my back pocket to do a Shawn Carter edition vehicle that he approved, only to have the automobile industry basically shoot it down for fear that he was a bigger star than the car.”

Though Jay-Z is a perennial hip-hop Cash King, the eponymous Jeep is one of many deals crowding his entrepreneurial wastepaper basket. But listen to some of his work and you might get the impression that he’s never made a misstep in his life. He utters the phrase “I will not lose” in at least three different songs and constantly peppers himself with godlike monikers “Jay-Hova,” “Hova,” and “God MC” throughout his oeuvre.

In many ways, though, Jay-Z’s failures are more instructive than his successes, especially for people who aren’t lucky enough to be famous rappers. Take the Jeep deal. Two years after talks with Chrysler fell apart, rival General Motors hosted a gaudy gala in a gigantic tent on the shores of the Detroit River. A procession of celebrities, including Carmen Electra and Christian Slater, escorted new vehicles down a brightly lit runway. But the star of the show was the man who emerged from a blue GMC Yukon—none other than Jay-Z. For his efforts, sources told me, Jay-Z received a seven-figure sum.

Though the evening’s events suggested a Jay-Z Yukon might have been in the works, that vehicle never emerged, either. It seems Jay-Z was mostly interested in promoting the truck’s Jay-Z Blue paint and receiving a hefty payout. To be sure, that sum was a lot less than what he could have gotten had the Jay-Z Jeep ever come to fruition. But as Warren Buffett says, “Should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks.”

Jay-Z took that advice, which resonates for many people across a spectrum of situations, from workplace drama to relationship problems to actual vehicle trouble. Like many successful people, his time is simply too valuable to waste on a troubled situation, even if the payoff could be huge.

Another lesson from the Jeep episode: Don’t publicize your failures. By all means, tell your significant other, tell your best friend, tell your shrink. But don’t make a scene every time something goes wrong, or people may start to judge you as harshly as you judge yourself. Jay-Z’s invincible aura, both as a musician and a businessman, has been cultivated through constant emphasis on victory—and by sweeping under the rug anything with an unsavory result.

To the aspiring entrepreneur, there’s something heartening in knowing that even Jay-Z doesn’t get it right every time. Sure, he’s got the fame, the money and the girl (and soon, the baby), but he’s taken his lumps like everybody else. That might be even more inspirational than his success—and Jay-Z probably knows it. But publicizing his defeats just doesn’t work for his image.

Besides, “I will not lose” just has a better ring to it than “I might lose sometimes, and though it’s not necessarily my fault, it’s a lot more instructive than when I win, which is what usually happens these days.”

Microsoft Is Said to Add Comcast, Verizon Pay TV to Xbox Live (BLOG)

Microsoft Corp. plans to offer online pay television service fromComcast Corp. (CMCSA) and Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)through Xbox Live, in an bid to channel more entertainment to its video-game console, people with knowledge of the situation said.

Microsoft, based in Redmond, Washington, is in talks with almost two dozen providers of music, sports, movies and TV shows in the U.S. and Europe, and may announce an expanded Xbox Live streaming service as soon as next week, said one of the people, who weren’t authorized to speak publicly.

Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer is promoting the Xbox 360 console as a way to switch easily between games, DVDs and pay TV. He said on Sept. 14 that by Christmas, Microsoft will add the Bing search engine to the Xbox and use its Kinect controller’s voice recognition to sift through shows on the Web.

“We all know the frustrations of using guides and menus and controllers, and we think a better way to do all of this is simply to bring Bing and voice to Xbox,” Ballmer said at a developers conference. “You say it, Xbox finds it.”

Microsoft also expects to sign deals with Time Warner Inc. (TWX)’s HBO cable channel, Sony Pictures Entertainment’s Crackle streaming service, NBC Universal’s Bravo and Syfy channels and Lovefilm UK, a subsidiary of Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN), the person said.

Wayne Hickey, a spokesman for Microsoft, declined to comment, as did Bobbi Henson, a spokeswoman for Verizon, and Jennifer Khoury of Comcast, which controls NBC. Greg Belloni, a Sony spokesman, had no immediate comment. Dorothy Jean, a spokeswoman for Lovefilm, declined to comment. An HBO spokesperson declined to comment.
Pay-TV Tether

The new applications from Philadelphia-based Comcast’s Xfinity TV service and New York-based Verizon’s FiOs would require users to prove they already are pay-TV customers in regions where the services operate, two of the people said.

The Xbox 360 plays DVDs and video games, and owners can pay $60 a year for the Xbox Live premium service, which allows for multi-user play over Web. Console owners can also add subscriptions to Netflix Inc. (NFLX)’s and Hulu LLC’s online film and television services, and pay-TV through AT&T Inc. (T)’s U-verse in its markets.

The surge in online entertainment has thrust the Xbox 360 and its console rival, Sony Corp. (SNE)’s PlayStation 3, into competition with other Web-connected devices in the home, from DVRs to television sets.
Microsoft’s Moves

Since last year, Microsoft has integrated social networking features into Xbox Live, letting viewers chat with each other while watching movies and shows. The company announced in June that 35 million people used its paid Xbox Live service around the world, spending an average of 60 hours a month playing games and watching entertainment.

Comcast had 22.5 million pay-TV customers as of June 30. Verizon Fios had 3.8 million.

Cable and satellite TV providers such as Comcast are looking to stem defections by putting their services on more devices and making it easier for them watch.

In June, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts demonstrated a TV interface called Xcalibur that uses Web-connected servers to forgo the need for a set-top box at all.

Microsoft fell 9 cents to $25.58 yesterday in Nasdaq Stock Market trading. Comcast lost 33 cents to $22. Verizon slid 5 cents to $36.84 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

How to Eat for $7 or Less a Day (BLOG)

Is it possible to eat for $7 or less a day? At least one New Yorker, Zack, an aspiring comedian, says he does it. Here's how, along with more strategies anyone can use:

[In Pictures: 10 Kitchen Tools That Will Save You Money]

Buy in bulk. Zack drives to the suburbs in New Jersey to shop at bulk retailers, such as Sam's Club. He fills large duffel bags of food to bring back to the city and estimates it saves a significant chunk of change each month.

Stockpile supplies. Cans of beans and tomatoes are cheap, store easily, and make quick, filling meals.

Compare prices. For some items, such as fruit, buying from street vendors turns out to be cheaper than shopping at Manhattan grocery stores.

Cook big. Zack makes lots of soup, chili, and other big dishes that can turn into leftovers or even go into the freezer for a future meal. To spruce up the dishes and make them even bigger, he often adds pasta or rice.

Plan ahead. By loosely deciding in advance which meals to cook on which nights, Zack avoids getting home from work--starving--and eating out just because it seems easier.

Shop discount. A survey from Washington Consumers' Checkbook shows that families that would spend $150 a week if they shopped at average-priced chains, such as Safeway, could save $1,326 by shopping at the discount store Bottom Dollar Food--or spend $3,510 more by shopping at Whole Foods. While the survey focused on Washington, D.C.-area stores, the same principle applies across the country: Shops sell food, and often the exact same name brands, for very different prices. By switching from Whole Foods to Bottom Dollar Food, customers could save almost $5,000 a year. That figure might be enough to scare you off those pricey organic brands for awhile.

Build your meals around rice, noodles, or other grains, advises the Agriculture Department's recipe book. A casserole, for example, should be heavy on rice and vegetables. The feds offer a beef-noodle casserole along with stir-fried pork and vegetables with rice that demonstrate this technique. The University of Wyoming's cookbook suggests heavy use of oatmeal, and includes an oatmeal cookie recipe that incorporates applesauce. Kansas State University describes "mom's breaded tomatoes," which mixes bread and flour into cooked tomatoes to make the vegetable dish more filling.

[In Pictures: 10 Ways to Earn More Money Now]

Make use of leftovers, and your freezer. The Agriculture Department's recipe book urges users to make a beef pot roast according to its relatively simple recipe, then freeze half of it. It recommends the same technique with baked meatballs and turkey chili. The University of Wyoming suggests using canned peaches for pancakes, then freezing the unused juice in ice cube trays for future ice teas.

Bake "fried" chicken. A variation of "baked" fried chicken occurred over and over again in university cookbooks. The basic recipe: Coat chicken pieces in breading and Parmesan cheese along with spices, then bake in the oven. That way, you avoid the grease of fried chicken takeout.

Avoid prepackaged items. Instead of buying hummus, grated cheese packages, or frozen meals, make these items yourself to save money as well as cut down on sodium.

Go meatless. The university recipe books don't say this explicitly--probably because they want to avoid alienating farmers--but avoiding meat, or even just cutting back on it, saves a lot of money. Instead of beef or chicken, substitute beans and eggs.

[The Secret to Living Well on $40,000 a Year]

Stop wasting. The Agriculture Department recommends stocking up on food that keeps well, such as canned orange juice or dry goods. But be careful with fruits and vegetables, even if they're on sale, to prevent waste. Home cooks stuck with extra eggplant or flounder can avoid wasting food by using websites such as Allrecipes.com and the FoodNetwork.com to search for dishes based on the ingredients they have at home.

Get inspired. Food blogs such as Smitten Kitchen and Cooking with Amy offer practical recipes for all budgets, along with photos and step-by-step directions.

Sunday, September 25, 2011

What It Takes to Become a Millionaire (BLOG)

The idea of becoming a millionaire may seem like a pipe dream.

When it comes to retirement, most Americans doubt they've saved or invested enough to retire comfortably, let alone reach that million-dollar milestone. A new AP-CNBC poll finds nearly one-third (31 percent) of U.S. residents believe they would need a minimum savings of $100,000 to $500,000 if retiring this year in order to be confident of living comfortably in retirement, and 22 percent believe the minimum is $1 million or more to retire comfortably.

Only one-fifth of U.S. respondents think it's likely that their net worth will total at least one million dollars in the next 10 years, while 62 percent said that is "very unlikely." The consensus from the majority of respondents (61 percent): It is "extremely" or "very difficult" to become a millionaire in the United States today.

But many are still trying to hit that million-dollar mark — and millions of Americans have already attained that goal.

The number of millionaires in the country is growing. The U.S. has more than 10 million. Despite the European debt crisis and worries about the U.S. economy, a May 2011 report from the Deloitte Center for Financial Services projects that the number of millionaire households in the U.S. will more than double to 20.5 million in 2020, with combined wealth of $87 trillion, up from $39 trillion in 2011.

Money makes money, but it can be tough to make that money grow in these rocky financial markets. The AP-CNBC poll found six in 10 U.S. residents (62 percent) say their confidence in investing has been shaken by recent volatility in the stock market. That sentiment has increased over the past 12 months. Today, 65 percent of those who own stocks, bonds and mutual funds are less confident about investing, compared with 61 percent last year.

Respondents in the AP-CNBC poll say they're making saving and investing a top priority. The survey asked people what they would do with a million dollars and found, on average, that Americans would spend 31 percent on saving or investing; 17 percent on giving to family; 14 percent on spending; 13 percent on paying down debt; 12 percent on buying real estate and 11 percent on charitable donations. Unfortunately, the reality is that mounting expenses, lower wages and job losses require many Americans to dip into those savings to pay for household bills or pay down debt.

[Click here to check savings products and rates in your area.]

The reality is that investors who stayed the course and did not pull their money out of the market in the last few months may actually have fared pretty well. Despite an almost 8 percent decline since mid-July, the broader stock market, represented by the S&P 500 Index, is up nearly 8 percent over the past 12 months. Certainly it's been a rough few years with the S&P 500, down 8 percent in five years. But over the past decade, the broader stock market is up by more than 10 percent.

In most cases, the road to financial security in retirement comes with steady savings, strategic investing, and probably a later retirement date than you may have envisioned at the start of your career. Keep these three rules in mind: First, you need to live within your means. Next, you have to commit to saving a certain amount every month and stick to that goal. Then, you have to make sure your investments are in a diversified portfolio — a mix of stocks, bonds, and alternative investments (commodities and real estate) and rebalance that mix to attain your goals for growth.

So how long will it take until you're a millionaire?

If you start with an initial $10,000 investment and your portfolio grows by 5 percent every year, here's how much you need to save each month to reach your $1 million goal by age 70, according to Bankrate.com's calculator.

• 25-year-olds have to save $450 a month. That's just $15 a day for the rest of your working years.

• 35-year-olds have to save $850 a month.

• 45-year-olds have to save $1,700 a month.

• 55-year-olds have to save $4,000 a month. (Of course, with an average inflation rate of 3 percent, that $1,000,000 nest egg will only be worth $642,000 in today's dollars. So that means you'll likely wind up having to save even more.)

Still, for those who start early and save often, becoming a millionaire doesn't have to be a pipe dream.

___ 

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Fed moves to push rates lower, boost economy (BLOG, VIDEO)

It's back to the future for the Federal Reserve.

Faced with a lethargic economy and a jobless rate hovering at 9 percent, the nation's central bank reached deep into its bag of tricks on Wednesday and pulled out a move to spur growth that it hadn't used in 50 years.

The move, dubbed "Operation Twist" when it was first used in 1961, is intended to push long-term interest rates lower, which the Fed hopes will spur lending, induce businesses to expand and tempt consumers into spending more.

The Fed said it will do that by selling $400 billion worth of short-term securities to buy longer-term securities, much like a homeowner swapping higher-rate credit card debt for a lower-rate home equity loan.



"The Committee intends to purchase, by the end of June 2012, $400 billion of Treasury securities with remaining maturities of 6 years to 30 years and to sell an equal amount of Treasury securities with remaining maturities of 3 years or less," the Fed said in a statement after a meeting of its Federal Open Market Committee.

"This program should put downward pressure on longer-term interest rates and help make broader financial conditions more accommodative," the Fed said. "The Committee will regularly review the size and composition of its securities holdings and is prepared to adjust those holdings as appropriate."

The Fed said the economy remains mired in a rut. Job growth is sluggish, household spending has been rising at a slow pace and the housing market is weak.

Its outlook wasn't much sunnier:

"The Committee continues to expect some pickup in the pace of recovery over coming quarters but anticipates that the unemployment rate will decline only gradually toward levels that the Committee judges to be consistent with its dual mandate," the Fed said, referring to its stated goals of promoting maximum employment and economic growth while keeping inflation in check.

The Fed also gave a nod to the European debt crisis, which threatens to expand and risks pushing the global economy back into recession:

"(T)here are significant downside risks to the economic outlook, including strains in global financial markets," the Fed said.

Inflation was one of the bright spots, the Fed said, as was business investment in equipment and software.

Not all the members the Fed's committee, which sets monetary policy, agreed with the move to push long-term interest rates lower. Three dissented because they did not support additional policy accomodation. The split on the FOMC was echoed in financial markets, which fell after the Fed made its announcement.

"The one thing that weighs on any decision here is that we are still seeing dissenters in the Fed. And that doesn't bode well for a stable recovery," Carl Larry, director of energy derivatives and research for Blue Ocean Brokerage, told Reuters.


bottomline

The 10 richest Americans (BLOG)

A good year at the top

The 400 richest Americans saw their collective wealth grow by 12% over the past year, meaning the nation's wealthiest slightly outperformed the Standard & Poor's 500 Index ($INX) over the period.

Bill Gates is the nation's richest person for the 18th consecutive year; the last time he didn't rank No. 1 was 1993, when his good friend Warren Buffett eclipsed him. Buffett's fortune tumbled by $6 billion this year, making him the biggest loser among the nation's most wealthy. Buffett gave away $3.3 billion, and he was pinched by a 10% decline in the value of Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) stock.

This year's headlines may belong to a younger group of entrepreneurs marching their way up the ranks, particularly those who are impacting social behavior online. Leading the pack is Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, who added $10.6 billion to his fortune, making him the year's biggest gainer and pushing him into the top 20 for the first time, with a net worth of $17.5 billion. Zuckerberg came in one notch ahead of Google (GOOG) co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, who added $1.7 billion apiece to their fortunes but slipped five spots in the rankings and are tied at No. 15.

Notable newcomers include Bob Stiller of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters (GMCR) and The Go Daddy Group's Bob Parsons. Among those returning to the list this year are Howard Schultz of Starbucks (SBUX) and Dan Gilbert, the chairman and founder of Quicken Loans.

Following is a closer look at the top 10. Go to Forbes.com for the full list of the richest people in America

Google Takes the Hot Seat in Washington (BLOG)

WASHINGTON — In Google’s most public antitrust hearing to date, Eric E. Schmidt, the company’s chairman, is expected to testify before a Senate panel Wednesday about how Google produces its search results, and whether it favors its own businesses, thwarts competition and hurts consumers.

The hearing, which begins at 2 p.m., is one of several ongoing inquiries into Google’s behavior, including a broad-reaching investigation by the Federal Trade Commission.

Antitrust scrutiny has intensified since Google has expanded into new businesses, like comparison shopping, local business reviews and travel search, where it competes with the same Web sites it indexes in its search engine.

After Mr. Schmidt testifies, three Google rivals will speak. They are Jeffrey G. Katz, chief executive of Nextag, a comparison shopping site; Jeremy Stoppelman, chief executive of Yelp, a site where users review local businesses; and Thomas O. Barnett, a lawyer for Expedia, the travel site. Susan A. Creighton, a lawyer representing Google, is also expected to testify.

Wednesday’s hearing, held by the Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights, was not intended as a step in building a case, but to raise policy questions and explore the arguments on both sides of the antitrust debate about Google, said Senator Herb Kohl, Democrat of Wisconsin and chairman of the panel.

“Google has enormous influence on consumers and businesses in America — how they find information on the Internet, what they see and the commercial choices they are presented,” Mr. Kohl said in an interview before the hearing.

Google’s dominance of search and search advertising is not an antitrust issue, he said, but there is cause for concern if Google is abusing its market power.

“Does it bias its search results in favor of its own business offerings and services?” he said. “That’s the crux of what we’re looking at.”

In written testimony to the Senate panel, Mr. Schmidt described the search giant as a company facing fierce competition on many fronts and as a relentless innovator in a dynamic industry. He emphasized the open Internet, where consumers can easily switch to competing services.

Mr. Schmidt made the case that Google has been making for months as its business practices have come under increasing scrutiny from antitrust regulators in the United States, Europe and South Korea. But he presented the company’s defense of its actions and motivations in a document that is pointed and succinct, yet comprehensive.

Google’s success, Mr. Schmidt wrote, is a byproduct of its corporate ethos of putting consumer interests first.

“Keeping up requires constant investment and innovation,” he wrote, “and if Google fails in this effort users can and will switch. The cost of going elsewhere is zero, and users can and do use other sources to find the information they want.”

Google has generated $64 billion in economic activity for small businesses, he wrote. Google has said that comes from enabling online sales for businesses, sharing ad revenue with Web site publishers and grants to nonprofits.

He said the F.T.C. investigation, with which Google is cooperating, is largely the result of complaints by disgruntled competitors.

In his oral testimony, which will likely differ somewhat from the written version, Mr. Schmidt was expected to talk about his personal history in Silicon Valley and how it has shaped his point of view on these issues, and to emphasize the ways in which technology companies cooperate and compete at the same time.

Google’s rivals are expected to make the case that it has abused its dominance in search.

“Unfortunately for consumers, there are strong indications that Google is, in fact, foreclosing competition rather than simply competing on the merits of its own products,” Mr. Barnett, who is a former head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, wrote in his prepared testimony.

Google’s products, like Google Maps, have often beaten out incumbents like Mapquest, he said, and Google has the incentive to steer Internet users to its own pages because it can then earn additional advertising revenue. While Google identifies ads, it does not identify links to its own products. Its practices are even more worrisome on mobile phones, Mr. Barnett said, where it almost completely dominates search.

Mr. Stoppelman has said that Google lists its own local review product, Google Places, above Yelp results, and until recently used Yelp’s reviews in Places without its permission.

The Senate hearing will have no direct consequences for the investigations under way in the United States and Europe. But the testimony could influence policy makers and the public by articulating the potential threat to consumer welfare, competition and innovation if a corporate giant overreaches.

In 1998, for example, soon after Bill Gates of Microsoft was challenged by senators and competitors at hearing, the federal government and 20 states filed an antitrust suit against Microsoft.

As antitrust scrutiny has intensified, Google has ramped up its lobbying efforts in Washington and its communications campaigns nationwide. The company has shown television ads in some markets, including in Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl’s home state, that trumpet Google’s role in helping small businesses and creating jobs.



latimes

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Even in a down economy, pork rinds crackle (BLOG)

To make Baken-ets pork rinds for No. 1 client Frito-Lay, the $13 billion-a-year snack arm of PepsiCo, Rudolph Foods uses what it calls a secret two-step process at its flagship plant in Lima, Ohio — “the pork rind capital of the world,” Rudolph claims.

Pork skins, removed from slaughtered pigs by mechanical skinners at meat packing companies, arrive at Rudolph’s plants in 20-ton lots aboard refrigerated 18-wheeler trucks. Precut into roughly one-by-three-foot rectangles, they are trundled around in metal bins holding up to 1,800 pounds each and fed into mechanical cutters that dice them into one-inch squares.

Other pork rind makers send these squares directly by conveyor belt into a succession of cookers and renderers that wring out most of the fat and water; Rudolph smokes them first — though exactly what wood or curing spices it uses on what are now called pellets is part of a closely guarded recipe at the family-owned company. “I only have half of it,” deadpans Jim Rudolph, 49, Rudolph’s chief executive officer. “My brother Rich [who serves as president] has the other half.”

After smoking and curing, Rudolph’s rinds are rendered at 240 degrees Fahrenheit. They’re inspected by an optical sorter that kicks out misshapen and discolored rinds, or any foreign objects — pig bones, for example. Rudolph then fries its pellets for one minute in 400-degree lard, where they fluff up like popcorn. Cooled and seasoned on conveyors, the finished rinds are ready for bagging six to eight hours after the process began: featherweight, crunchy, hint-of-bacon snacks that are one of the bright spots in the snack food industry. Frito-Lay sold almost 49 million bags of Baken-ets over a 12-month period ending May 15, up 11 percent over the previous year. Not bad in a sputtering economy.

Rinds are also the object of an intense rivalry, with Rudolph’s claim to being the “largest pork rind manufacturer” hotly contested by Chicago’s Evans Food Group. “No question, we are the No. 1 pork rind maker in the world,” says Alejandro Silva, Evans’s CEO and principal owner. Privately held Evans sells two of its mainstay brands, Mac’s and LaTonita, to Wal-Mart Stores and has a brisk business making private-label brands for about a dozen well-known snack concerns, including Pennsylvania-based Utz Quality Foods. Last year, Evans processed more than 100 million pounds of raw pork skins, raking in more than $100 million in revenue. Rudolph? Well, it also reports more than $100 million in revenue, on similar volume.

If either company is to be the King of Rinds, both agree, it will be because it’s shrewder than the other on distribution and more effective at cultivating the taste of the fast-growing Hispanic market. Hispanics consume more rinds by volume than any other ethnic group in the U.S., and, following an endorsement by George H.W. Bush and the popularity of low-carb diets such as Atkins, constitute the greatest force bringing pork rinds into the mainstream. Silva believes rinds will hit $500 million in retail sales by 2013, better than twice where they were two decades ago. “The Hispanic demographic augurs well for the future,” says Mary Gotaas, a snack food analyst for IBISWorld. “The pork rind business is a very good business to be in.”

Mark Singleton agrees. Eight years ago, Rudolph’s Dallas-based vice-president of sales and marketing says he “leapt in with two feet and never regretted it.” While rind sales may seem slim next to the $7.6 billion a year potato chips pull in, he says, “That’s just an opportunity to educate millions of new people around the world that they need to give rinds a chance.”

Each year, 100 million to 120 million pigs go to their slaughter in North America, producing roughly 650 million pounds of skins. In 2009, according to the U.S. Agriculture Dept., 110.3 million head were killed in the U.S. alone. The gelatin industry buys up about 60 percent of the skins to make products for the drug and cosmetics industries, as well as Jell-O. About 5 to 10 percent go into making leather goods. (Not footballs, though. Early footballs were made from inflated pig bladders and somehow got the name pigskins. Today’s footballs are either synthetic or fashioned from cowhides.)

Pork rind makers capture the rest. While raw pigskin prices are at an all-time high of 41¢ a pound, putting pressure on profits, margins in the rinds business typically run better than 20 percent, analysts say. (A pound of skins can be converted into at least 10 1.5-ounce bags of rinds that retail for 99¢.) Raw pigskin prices are at historic highs these days, in part because the oil rendered from skins, known as “choice white grease,” is sold into the bio-diesel market, and thus pegged to the price of crude oil.

The growth of the rinds business is all the more phenomenal given its humble roots. In the U.S., rinds were once confined to a food fetish of the South. Hardscrabble farmers, not wanting to waste an ounce of the hog they’d slaughtered, fried up fatty pork skin into a dish they called cracklings. Modern rinds are cracklings (often spelled cracklins) with the fat removed. Southerners still love their cracklings and rinds; blacks migrating from the South to America’s great cities brought this love with them.

Spaniards also made cracklings in the Old Country and carried their recipes to the New World, which begins to explain why the Hispanic market in the U.S., Mexico, Central America, and parts of South America remain pork rind strongholds. Rinds, however, still have an image issue outside their base. Or as Dawn Jackson Blatner, a registered dietician and nutritional consultant to the Chicago Cubs baseball team, puts it: “I can’t imagine a need to eat fried pigskin anytime soon.”

Europe, where neither Rudolph nor Evans has made much headway, illustrates the cultural challenges of developing demand. The Spanish still snack on rinds, as do the Danes, who raise a lot of pigs and like to eat them. Norwegians, too, have a thriving snack food industry and like to experiment. But the Swedes next door? “They won’t touch them,” says Silva. “The French? Never. Same with the Italians.”

Russia, Poland, the Czech Republic, other Eastern Bloc countries? No, no, no, and no. This is why the Bush Sr. moment was so crucial in America.

“See this man? He did more for pork rinds than anybody can imagine,” says Silva, a gold pig pin enlivening his crisp blue suit jacket. Standing before a crowded bookcase in his cramped, utilitarian office, he points to a photo of the 41st President. In the waning days of the 1988 Presidential campaign, Bush declared his love of rinds as he tried to distance himself from his preppy image. He won, of course, and so many gift bags of rinds flowed to the White House that Barbara Bush finally banned them. Rind sales, which had plateaued at about $200 million a year, soared.

It’s also true that, until the Atkins diet phenomenon, rind sales were dampened by concerns that they were high in fat and sodium. These hang-ups still plague rinds, even though Men’s Health called them “genius junk food” in 2008 because they contain no carbohydrates and have “nine times the protein” found in carb-heavy potato chips. While rinds are indeed high in fat, research shows that 43 percent is unsaturated fat, akin to the “good fats” found in olive oil. Rinds are a poor choice, however, for those on sodium-restricted diets: A one-ounce serving has 521 milligrams of salt, nearly a quarter of the daily recommended intake. During the Atkins craze, says Singleton, dieters “who before would have just as soon as kissed a pig” tried rinds as a source of low-carb protein and loved the bacony taste.

Yet if taste remains a factor, the battle to be King of Rinds increasingly is fought over prized distribution channels. Almost half of all rinds are sold in convenience stores; supermarkets and mass merchandisers account for most of the rest. The companies jostle for these channels not just in every rind market in the U.S., which accounts for 65 percent of global sales, but in more than a dozen countries abroad. “It’s a fight,” says Silva. “How do I get the right channels of distribution, into the convenience stores, the retailers, the dollar stores? Those are trenches.”

Deep-fried success
In a modular temporary office during a remodeling of Rudolph headquarters, Rudolph executives eagerly share their version of the climb to the top of the rind heap. It’s eerily like Evans’s story. Both companies have factories in Ohio, Texas, California and Mexico. Worldwide, Rudolph has about 400 employees, about 100 fewer than Evans.

Before the talk turns to numbers, Jim Rudolph, the trim, enthusiastic son of the founder, John Rudolph, is eager to talk quality — particularly Rudolph’s proprietary two-step cooking process. At Evans, “they use a one-step process,” says Jim. Adds Chief Financial Officer Mike Harper: “With our rinds, the mouthfeel is different, the color is different. Ours are much better — better color and mouthfeel.” (Applied to food, mouthfeel, a term often associated with wine, is a measure of crispness and texture.)

As their stories unwind, the Evans and Rudolph histories seem more and more parallel, with both companies saying they were founded on “passion.” Both also survived early crises that almost sank them. Rudolph began in 1955 when John, now 86 and retired, bought a tiny specialty nut snack maker and “almost by accident” stumbled into making rinds. For the first two years, Jim relates, pork skins arrived at Rudolph having been smoked by the meat processing plants. Smoking made pigs easier to skin while imparting a bacon-like flavor to the rinds.

In 1957, mechanical skinners eliminated the need for smoking — bad news for Rudolph, since John couldn’t conceive of consumers liking rinds without the smoky taste. His wife, Mary, came to the rescue. Harper tells the story: “ ‘What are we going to do?’ John said to Mary. Mary replies, ‘I have a degree in home economics from Bowling Green. We’ll figure this thing out.’ And they basically worked around the clock and came up with the secret recipe, and basically that process is intact today.”

Setting up shop in Mexico
Silva, 63, grew up middle-class in Monterrey, Mexico, savoring his mother’s home-cooked pork skins, called chicharrónes. He got into the rinds business in Mexico in 1979 when he first saw bagged rinds come in from the U.S. He had a degree in food technology and had spent seven months at a meat distribution company. He knew his pigs and knew Mexicans loved their rinds, which until the U.S. imports arrived had always been sold as large “artisanal slabs” in butcher shops.

“Every Mexican knows this food,” says Silva. “The moment that I saw the margins for the product, I said, ‘Why don’t we do this in Mexico instead of importing from the U.S.?’”

Life was good until 1982, when the Mexican peso underwent a massive devaluation and the “entire Mexican economy went downhill,” Silva recalls. He realized he’d have to start an American operation to stay alive. After a detour to Sioux City, Iowa, where he set up a factory “to be close to the skins,” he got a call from a private equity firm that had taken over Evans. Evans was then a small private pork rind maker in Chicago that sold mainly to the African-American market. The private equity group had bought Evans to make money, not pork skins, and was eager to flip it. “They knew about me because I was a competitor, selling my product cheap just to keep the plant going. They said, ‘What are you doing? What is your purpose in life?’ ‘To be the biggest pork rind maker in the world,’” Silva replied. “ ‘Buy us out,’ they said.”

That was 1985. Silva swung the deal on credit, putting up his remaining Mexican properties as collateral. “From Day One, we were almost as big as Rudolph,” says Silva. “We would grow bigger.” Oh, and Evans dates back to 1947—“so my company is older than theirs.” Today, on the strength of Evans tripling sales since 1993, Silva owns a lakeview condo on Michigan Avenue near Chicago’s Magnificent Mile. And his growth-oriented stewardship of Evans landed him a seat as a director of Walgreen, the Chicago-based drugstore chain.

Which tastes better?
As for Rudolph’s belief that its rinds taste better, Silva says: “They smoke the rinds, yes. We add smoke, liquid smoke. Is that a different quality? I think it depends to some extent on what spices you use. People eat rinds without flavorings. They may notice a bit of a difference. But really, distribution sells the product. If you have it in the store, they’ll buy it.”

Silva has built a formidable network. “My largest customer is Wal-Mart. The second is Family Dollar. We have national distribution with them,” he says. That said, about half of Rudolph’s business is producing rinds for Frito-Lay — not a bad client to have, he concedes. In fact, the largest single selling brand in the U.S. is Frito-Lay’s smoky-flavored Baken-ets. All the same, Rudolph, which also packages and sells eight of its own brands, doesn’t want to talk in any detail about Frito-Lay, calling the relationship “confidential.”

But back to the core issue: Who is actually the No. 1 pork rind maker in the world? For all the competitive posturing, it turns out that Rudolph and Evans entertained an amicable merger in 2007. It didn’t work out, according to Silva, “but that’s how I know I’m bigger. We had to disclose certain information. I saw their books and they saw mine. And I said, ‘Now tell me, who is the one who makes more?’”

Rudolph’s Singleton yields no ground: “I’m very sure we’re No. 1.”



bloomberg

Need a Job? 14 Firms Hiring Big Time Now (BLOG)

While millions are out of work, many companies are having trouble hiring the right employees. These 14 firms have almost 10,000 openings available:

There's an interesting dynamic going on in the job market right now. Despite the fact that millions of people can't find jobs, millions of employers can't seem to find the right employees, either.

In case you missed it, last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the economy created no jobs in August, and that the unemployment rate held steady at 9.1 percent.

At the same time, however, the BLS also reported that nearly 2.7 million jobs went unfilled in August, and, according to CareerBuilder's 2011 Q3 hiring forecast, 26 percent of employers report having difficulties filling open positions -- a 4 percent increase over 2010.

To help close this employment gap, and match job seekers in need of work with companies in need of their services, we've put together a list of employers that are hiring in large volume right now.

The following 14 companies have a combined total of nearly 10,000 job openings -- and they need employees as badly as you need a job.

1. PNC

Number of jobs available: 1,000+

Types of jobs: Mortgage loan officer, bank branch manager, software engineer, part-time teller, relationship manager and financial advisor

2. AON

Number of jobs available: 1,390+

Types of jobs: Risk management, insurance brokerage services, benefits outsourcing, human capital consulting and actuarial

3. U-Haul

Number of jobs available: 1,575+

Types of jobs: General manager and trainees, shop manager, customer care representative, programmer, web designer, traffic control manager, storage team manager, structural engineer, production manager and transfer driver

4. Yellowbook

Number of jobs available: 1,000+

Types of jobs: New media specialist, client service representative, entry-level customer service, finance, it- engineering, developer, programmer, entry-level production and entry-level field distribution management

5. Comfort Keepers
Number of jobs available: 900+

Types of jobs: Caregiver, home health aide, LPN, personal care aide, registered nurse, community relations and marketing director

6. Motorola Solutions

Number of jobs available: 600+ globally

Types of jobs: Various IT and engineering roles: product manager, systems engineer, information security specialist and software engineer

7. Red Ventures

Number of jobs available: 500+

Types of jobs: Inside sales, web developer, online marketing, sales trainer, corporate recruiter, php developer, sales recruiter, human resources and copywriter

8. Bridgestone Retail Operations

Number of jobs available: 400+

Types of jobs: Retail management trainee, retail sales (full-time and part-time), automotive technician (full-time and part-time) and automotive maintenance technician (full-time and part-time)

9. Earthlink

Number of jobs available: 300+

Types of jobs: Account executive, major account executive, national account executive, system sales, channel sales, sales engineer, field technician, NOC technician and branch manager

10. UniTek Global Services
umber of jobs available: 400+

Types of jobs: Cable installer, satellite installer and wireless installation project manager and foreman

11. Certified Payment Processing

Number of jobs available: 400+

Types of jobs: Outside sales

12. Pilot Flying J

Number of jobs available: 500+

Types of jobs: Retail and restaurant managers

13. Senior Helpers

Number of jobs available: 400+

Types of jobs: Certified nursing assistant, caregiver, scheduling coordinator, marketing manager, client services manager, community relations coordinator

14. Harbor Freight Tools

Number of jobs available: 500

Types of jobs: Field positions at all level within our stores, nationwide. Corporate positions in all functions: finance, legal, marketing, sourcing, category management, etc.


careerbuilder

Moving Back Home: A Gift and a Curse (BLOG)

If you had told me in college that I would end up back under my parents' roof a few months after graduation, I probably would have quipped in response, "Until you do right by me, everything you even think about gonna fail." I had plans, and none of them included me being back in the very place I'd worked so hard to get away from.

But as I've noted before, mistakes of the past can quickly alter your present. Plans change. Speaking of changes, the phrase "You can't go home again" no longer carries the sting that it used to. Attribute that to the new reality the economy has produced -- one in which millions of people are finding themselves going back from whence they came at the worst-possible time of their lives. In its latest look at income and poverty levels, the U.S. Census Bureau reveals that 5.9 million Americans -- or 14.2 percent -- between the ages of 25 and 34 are living with their parents.

That's a 25.5 percent increase since the recession began in 2007. Worse, the findings reveal that if half of those people weren't living under their parents' roof, they would be added to the 46.2 million people found to be living below the poverty line -- the highest sum in at least half a century.

This frightening figure includes college graduates. A separate report claims that college alums represent the fastest-growing demographic of consumers who have filed for bankruptcy within the last five years. Even the likes of 34-year-old former Baltimore Ravens cornerback Chris McAlister now says in court documents that he lives with his parents.

No matter what situation put them there, it goes without saying that it's better for anyone to room with his or her parents rather than with some random person on the sidewalk. However, perspective and gratitude don't automatically reverse the great humbling effect that moving back in with the folks can have on a person. I, for one, know just how humiliating that circumstance can be.

After missing out on one opportunity, I assumed that another would soon come as I continued to travel back and forth from my parents' home in Houston in search of a job back in 2007. It did not, which meant that I spent the next 18 months living my worst nightmare.

I love my parents, but my home life was volatile, and our greater community wasn't exactly a land of opportunity. In the interim I could net only small jobs with paltry checks that could barely cover the student loans now hovering over my head, let alone the expenses that came with full-fledged adulthood.

After a while, certain family members started offering unsolicited advice that translated into me giving up my dream. "I know you want to write," they said, "but in the meantime, do you think you can be a juvenile-detention officer like your brother?" No, I didn't want to baby-sit teenage murderers (and neither did he).

The longer I was there, the more apparent it became that if I wanted the kind of career I'd worked so hard in college to get, I would have to leave home again. I didn't have enough money, which made me stuck and helpless for the first time in several years. I tried to hold on to my ambition, but my good feelings wavered after the pressure -- largely self-inflicted -- kept mounting.

By the end of 2008, I was sinking -- to the point that while en route to the doctor for a routine physical, I found myself having what I now realize was a panic attack on the freeway. I was reliving everything I wanted to get away from and felt too financially frail to do anything about it. The doctor had a solution: citalopram, a generic form of the anti-depressant Celexa, to treat anxiety.

A friend of mine in California had another idea: that I just up and move to a room in her apartment. The physician felt that the two couldn't coexist. I compromised anyway. The medicine helped, but not as much as deciding to move forward with my life and being fortunate to have a few things fall in place not long after.

I'm aware that this story is not the most common one shared by those in a similar predicament. Still, I have multiple friends who have either just moved out of their parents' house for a second time around or recently moved back in. None are ecstatic about it.

The levels of pressure may vary, but we all agree that there is a hidden cost to free rent: time. Life feels as if it's standing still when you have to revert to that great a degree -- especially after earning one. Individually, each of us has the power to avoid getting sucked into the depths of despair over such a move. But none of us can escape what this growing problem might pose to society at large.

Timothy M. Smeeding, director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin, explained to the Los Angeles Times, "The next generation is going to be terribly punished if we don't find more jobs." Punished by having their earnings decrease for many years into the future. Punished by not obtaining the proper skill sets to advance in their careers as quickly as they normally would. Punished by possibly never being able to catch up on all the time that's been lost.

If that trend doesn't subside, it will have real ramifications for everyone over time, regardless of whether you live with your parents.


theroot

Monday, September 19, 2011

Should you buy a newly built home? (BLOG)

If a new house is listed for only slightly more than older ones you're looking at, is it worth jumping on? Here's a look at the pros and cons:

Some homebuyers will take nothing less than a new home with an untouched bathtub. Others want a home with character in an established neighborhood.

Personal preferences aside, there are pros and cons to buying a newly built home over a resale, as well as financial implications for each option.

New-home advantages
Rochelle Fitzgerald, a sales associate with Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage's Rockwall office near Dallas, says, "There's no question that some people prefer that 'new-home smell' and the idea that no one else's feet have been on the carpet. On top of that, many people like to personalize their home by picking out everything from the beginning."

Some buyers focus on the more practical aspect of buying a new home because it typically will require less maintenance than an older house.

"It's very important to some buyers to have everything new, plus they have the peace of mind that comes along with the builder's warranty," says Dan Kruse, broker/owner of Century 21 Affiliated in Madison, Wis.

On the financial side, builders, particularly in a slow real-estate market, offer plenty of incentives to buyers.

"In a sellers market, new homebuyers will often spend as much as 10% or more above the purchase price for optional features," says Jeff Ristine, broker/owner of Weichert, Realtors: Kingsland Properties near Chicago. "Now many builders are offering free options as an incentive to buyers, such as a finished basement and an upgraded kitchen. Builders are tailoring their incentives to specific buyers, so some will throw in things like initiation fees for a country-club membership."

New-home disadvantages
In spite of the added builder incentives, real-estate experts say new homes are typically more expensive than existing homes.

"Traditionally, new homes are more expensive because they are being built from the ground up," Kruse says. "In recent years, some new homes have come down somewhat in cost because the builders have been hurt so badly by the downturn in the housing market. For the most part, though, builders try to keep price integrity and will offer closing-cost assistance or upgrades rather than lower the base price."

Upgrades and closing costs are typically tied to the buyer using a builder-designated lender and title company.

"I would caution buyers, at least in our market in the Chicago area, to be careful buying a new home because builders are competing against foreclosures and it could be long time before a new home will increase in value," Ristine says. "Even with builder incentives, you are usually paying a premium for buying a new home, so you need to hold onto it for five years or more to build any equity."

Fitzgerald says buyers of new homes should expect to own for longer than buyers of existing homes because of differences in price appreciation.

"In a new-home community, if you need to sell within a year or two, you are competing against the other homes that are still being built and can be customized," Fitzgerald says. "Buyers will choose a brand-new home rather than a 1-year-old home, especially if the builder can offer incentives that a regular seller cannot."

One other downside is the potential for living amid a construction site for several years, particularly if the builder has slowed development because of the recession

When to buy a new home
Real-estate agents agree that the best values for a new home come when the development is nearly complete.

"In years past, buyers wanted to get in early to take advantage of pre-construction pricing and a better location within the community," Kruse says. "But now, buyers want to get in late, so if you have to sell you won't be competing with newer homes in the development."

Ristine says buyers should be cautious about buying before a community is nearly complete, because some builders are so financially strapped that they cannot complete their developments.

Existing-home advantages
"The biggest advantage of existing homes is the maturity of the community," Kruse says. Buyers can look at how well the homes have held their value historically. Plus, buyers willing to purchase a fixer-upper can more easily increase the value of their property than someone with a new home.

Fitzgerald says that buying in an established community allows homeowners to know more about the schools and neighbors before they buy.

Long-term value in new and existing homes
For most homebuyers today, the biggest concern is whether the property will hold its value.

"In 10 years, a new home purchased today is likely to have more value simply because you own a newer home designed to meet today's standards," Fitzgerald says. "A new community will have newer amenities, too, including schools and shopping areas."

Kruse and Ristine believe long-term value depends more on location than the age of the property.

"Value depends on where a home is located and how well the home has been maintained," Ristine says. "People do like new things, but if a home has been upgraded with a new kitchen and bath, it can compete very well with a new home."

Ultimately, the decision to buy a new or existing home comes down to what a buyer values more: a maintenance-free, new home or a mature neighborhood.



msn

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Morgan Stanley Chairman John Mack To Step Down At Year-End (BLOG)

Morgan Stanley's (MS) chairman and former chief executive, John Mack, will step down from the company's board at the end of the year, the firm said.

Mack's decision will end a two-year power-sharing agreement with Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman, who will become the New York company's chairman when the 66-year-old Mack steps down. Morgan Stanley's board voted on the move Thursday morning.

The decision represents a significant milestone in Morgan Stanley's evolution from a risk-hungry trading titan to a more careful generator of predictable fees in businesses like retail brokerage and merger advice.

(This story and related background material will be available on The Wall Street Journal website, WSJ.com.)

Mack hired Gorman from Merrill Lynch in 2005, shortly after Mack, a Morgan Stanley veteran, rejoined his old firm after stints at Credit Suisse Group (CS, CSGN.VX) and Pequot Capital Management. Gorman took over for Mack as CEO at the end of 2009.

A North Carolina native of Lebanese descent, Mack rose at Morgan Stanley as a bond salesman in the 1970s and 1980s before becoming president of the firm in 1993. He helped engineer a merger between the white-shoe Morgan Stanley and brokerage firm Dean Witter, Discover & Co. in 1997, but left the firm in 2001 after Dean Witter chairman and CEO Philip Purcell won a power struggle to stay at the merged firm's top spot.

After Morgan Stanley shares lagged behind peers in 2005, Purcell was forced out and Mack returned with a promise to bring back Morgan's "swagger." Television cameras rolled as traders applauded his return to Morgan's Times Square headquarters.

Mack soon pushed traders to take more risk and sell more esoteric, but profitable, mortgage products. In 2006, the firm enjoyed record results, but in 2007, the firm lost $9 billion on a proprietary mortgage bet.

In 2008, Mack started reducing risk on various trading desks, but it wasn't enough to keep Morgan Stanley from enduring a run on the bank after Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy that September. Mack scrambled to find capital and was able to convince Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group to invest $9 billion in the firm, which meant Morgan would avoid the distressed sale that several peers were forced into the same year.

Mack announced he'd step down as CEO to make room for Gorman in 2009, a year in which Morgan Stanley's bond-trading results dragged down its relative performance. Mack during 2010 and 2011 has visited key Morgan Stanley clients, but hasn't been involved in the day-to-day management of the firm, people familiar with the matter said.

Gorman, 53 years old, has no plans to appoint a president under him, a person familiar with his thinking said. Some observers had speculated that the Morgan Stanley CEO might use Mack's retirement as an opportunity to elevate one or more of his key lieutenants to that role.

For Gorman, the elevation to chairman is a vote of confidence at a time when his firm's stock price has suffered along with the broader decline in banking shares. Gorman bought 100,000 shares of the company last month when they were trading at about $20. On Thursday, Morgan Stanley shares were trading higher by 75 cents, to $16.23.

Gorman has been working on rebuilding Morgan Stanley's bond trading desk as a more consistent performer and integrating a brokerage joint venture with Citigroup Inc. (C) that Morgan Stanley controls. Next year, Morgan Stanley has the option of boosting its stake in the wealth management project--which would be a high-profile bet by Gorman, a former McKinsey consultant who ran brokerage operations at Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley before he was promoted by Mack to become Morgan Stanley's co-president in late 2007.

Mack is working on a book about his career and leadership that may be published by the fall of 2012. He has also started doing some fundraising for the Jon Huntsman presidential campaign.

He will serve as a senior adviser for Morgan Stanley, which isn't a full-time position. He may look to join other boards, said a person familiar with his thinking.



WSJ

2nd UPDATE: US Postal Service Considers Closing Facilities to Save Money (BLOG)

--Postal service studies closing as many as 252 mail-processing facilities; cutting 35,000 jobs

--Postal Service plan would slow mail-delivery service

--Postal service says move would save $3 billion a year

(Adds background on closure plans; more detail.)


By Siobhan Hughes
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The U.S. Postal Service said Thursday it was considering closing more than half of its 487 mail-processing facilities, eliminating 35,000 positions and slowing mail delivery service in an effort to return to profitability.

"We simply need fewer facilities to process less mail," said Megan Brennan, the chief operating officer of the Postal Service, at a press conference.

As more people communicate online instead of through paper and pen, the country's postal service has been losing money and says it now has more capacity than needed to process mail. The mail service, which says it lost more than $9 billion last year, has already proposed ending Saturday delivery service--a change that Congress has so far resisted. The postal service now wants to close more facilities and slash its work force to make up for ongoing declines in mail volumes.

The newest plan calls for a study of closing as many as 252 facilities in a bid to save about $3 billion a year. In addition, the U.S. Postal Service would end one-day delivery service for first-class mail. The move would enable it to sort letters more frequently each day, instead of waiting until the night to process mail collected during the day. The result would be greater efficiency, as processing could start at noon and occur 16 hours a day, instead of from 12:30 a.m. to 7 a.m. each day.

The Postal Service, which is the country's largest employer after the military and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT), said it intends to eliminate 35,000 mail-processing jobs, out of a total 151,000 such positions. It said it would work with the union and hopes to avoid layoffs, relying instead of retirements. The postal service currently has 559,000 employees.

The mail service also said that the restructuring would mean fewer mail trucks and half as much mail-processing equipment.

The plan still faces a comment period but the Postal Service says it could be implemented without congressional approval. Even so, with a list of possible facility closures circulating, lawmakers could push back and challenge the closure of facilities within their own districts.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

IRS Extends Key Deadline For 2010 Heirs (BLOG)


If you're an executor for someone who died in 2010, mark your calendar for Jan. 17, 2012. That's the new date by which you must now file a key federal tax form.
In a issued today, the IRS announced the deadline for submitting the Form 8939, which was previously due on November 15, 2011. But there's still one missing detail: the IRS has yet to issue the form.
This is but the latest installment in the bureaucratic chaos that has surrounded the administration of 2010 estates. It stems partly from the new tax law that President Obama signed last December. Under this law, the executor (the person or institution that is in charge of administering an estate) of someone who died in 2010 must chose whether the estate will be subject to the law that was in effect for most of 2010 or subject to the new law.
What's the difference? Under the new law, which applies to all those dying in 2011 and 2012, each person can pass up to $5 million at death tax-free to non-spouse heirs. Above that $5 million, there's a 35% estate tax, as well a second extra layer of tax (known as the generation-skipping transfer tax) for bequests to grandkids whose parents are still alive.
But significantly, the cost basis of all assets in the estate gets adjusted or "stepped up" to their fair market value as of the date of the late owner's death--meaning inheritors can sell all the assets right away without owing any capital gains tax. This step up in basis applied in 2009 and before too. Apart from the tax benefits, it has always been considered a way to limit the administrative burden on executors and heirs.
By contrast, under the law in effect for most of 2010, someone could pass on an unlimited amount without an estate or generation-skipping transfer tax applying. But when heirs sell those assets, they have to use the original price paid for the assets (known as "carryover basis") to compute the capital gains taxes owed. That's the general rule. Each estate, however, is eligible to exempt up to $1.3 million of gains on assets left to non-spouse heirs from this carryover basis rule. Another $3 million exemption applies to appreciated assets left to a spouse.
Confused? When all is said and done, most estates worth $5 million or less will be better off under the new estate-tax regime, while those worth more than that may prefer to use the 2010 law. But many families will need to hire tax advisers to verify that by crunching the numbers.
Now families have until Jan. 17 to make up their minds and indicate their preference on Form 8939, Allocation of Increase in Basis for Property Acquired From a Decedent. This is the second time the Service has extended the deadline for filing the form.
The other key tax form that some families need to think about is Form 706, the federal estate and generation-skipping tax return. Executors must file either Form 706 (to remain in the default estate tax regime) or Form 8939 (to opt out of the estate tax).
With Form 706, too, the IRS had been dragging its feet, but finally issued the form and instructions on Sept. 8, as my colleague Hani Sarji explained . Form 706 is due Sept. 19, but families can get an automatic a six-month extension— both to file Form 706 and pay the tax due — if they file Form 4768 by that date. (In other years, you would generally have to give a reason for extending the time to pay the tax.) However, today's notice indicates that "interest will accrue on the estate tax liability from the due date of the return, excluding extensions."
So let's say you're the executor of a 2010 estate. What do you do next?
Have assets appraised
With either approach, as in past years, unless the date of death value of a costly asset is obvious (as it is for publicly traded securities, for example), the executor will need to start by getting an appraisal of the asset.
If you apply the new estate tax law, you need the appraisal information both to figure the total value of the estate and to compute capital gains when heirs hold onto the asset and later sell it.
If an estate elects to use the 2010 law, with the modified carryover basis system, the date of death appraisals are needed for a different reason. Subject to certain limitations, if an asset is worth more when someone dies than she paid for it, her estate can apply the $1.3 million/$3 million in allowed basis adjustment to the difference. If the gains in an estate are greater than those amounts, there might be income tax owed, but it's not triggered and doesn't have to be paid until the asset is sold.
Here's an example of how the 2010 law works. Let's say you inherit publicly traded stock from your mother. If she bought it for $500,000 and it's worth $2 million when she dies, there's $1.5 million of appreciation, or what tax geeks call "built in" or "unrealized" gain. Without a basis adjustment, if you immediately sold the stock, carryover basis rules would require you to pay tax on that $1.5 million gain. But instead the law allows you to bump the basis up by $1.3 million, so it's as if the stock cost $1.8 million ($1.3 million plus $500,000) instead. When you sell it, assuming the value hasn't changed since Mom died, you would pay capital gains tax on $200,000 ($2 million minus $1.8 million).
Locate purchase records
If you can't prove what assets originally cost, the IRS assumes the cost is zero and could try to saddle you with capital gains tax on the total sales amount.
With investments like Mom's stock, old brokerage statements can often help you determine the original cost of shares. But if the assets have been moved between financial institutions, the purchase date--let alone the original price--might not be on file with the current broker. What can you do in such cases? Accountants believe it will be acceptable to estimate an asset purchase date and then obtain price information directly from public companies or by checking newspaper archives or basis services available on the Web.
Real estate can pose a much bigger problem. Consider a home that has been in the family for many years. Basis consists not only of the purchase price, but also the cost of capital improvements that add value to the home. To re-create those records, you might need to scour grandma's attic for canceled checks showing what she spent to renovate the kitchen or add dormers to the country house, for example.
Cope with the new paperwork
Whatever Form8939  emerges is likely to ask executors to list each asset, along with its basis and date of death value. They will also need to indicate which assets the $1.3 million/$3 million in basis step-up will be applied to, and in each case how much the basis will get bumped up. There's no need to sell the asset before filing this form; what you're allocating is built-in gain between the original cost of the asset and the date of death value.
Certain limitations apply. For example, there is no basis adjustment on what is called income in respect of a decedent, or IRD. This is income that wasn't taxed before a person's death and would have been taxed if the individual had lived long enough to receive it. Examples include traditional individual retirement accounts, qualified retirement plans such as 401(k)s, a company bonus, income from an S corporation and money owed on a promissory note under an installment sale.
Also keep in mind that while the $1.3 million exemption can be applied to assets given to anyone, the $3 million exemption is limited to assets given exclusively to a spouse, either outright or in certain kinds of trusts. So you may not use this exemption if money is going into a trust that will benefit people in addition to the spouse.
Apply the basis allowance fairly
If some assets may be kept in the family, it's most efficient to allocate the basis to those that are likely to be sold first. But this strategy could cause some inheritors to benefit from the limited step-up in basis more than others. And that creates conflicts when an executor is also a beneficiary and allocating the basis a certain way would benefit herself.
This problem is analogous to one that has come up previously, when all assets were valued as of the date of death. Often several years pass before beneficiaries receive those assets. And meantime, values can fluctuate. When making in-kind distributions to beneficiaries (as opposed to handing out the proceeds of assets that have been sold), executors have always tried to give out assets that are not only roughly equal in value, but also have a roughly similar basis.
Guard against an executor's added risks




Legally, an executor is a fiduciary, who is expected to act prudently and be impartial. Under the best of circumstances, it can be a difficult job, with a risk of liability for missteps. Still, the complicated landscape this year, especially as it involves carryover basis, seems to leave an executor extra-vulnerable.

Executors can advise families that they are navigating uncharted waters, give reasons for any strategies they recommend and ask beneficiaries what they want to do. Along the way, it's wise to document conversations with follow-up correspondence and notes to the file.

If you're an executor and a family disagrees with your recommendations, it's best to do what they ask but get them to sign a document releasing you from liability and indemnifying you for losses. Such precautions are unusual–executors are expected (and often paid) to handle difficult situations. But in the current environment, you will probably feel more comfortable with this document in your back pocket.






forbes