April 19, 2024

DealBook: Live Blog: House Panel Hearing on MF Global

Jon S. Corzine, former chief of MF Global, arrived to testify at a House Agriculture Committee hearing.Jay Mallin/Bloomberg NewsJon S. Corzine, former chief of MF Global, arrived to testify at a House Agriculture Committee hearing.

Jon S. Corzine, the former chief of MF Global, is set to appear before the House Agriculture Committee on Thursday to answer questions about the collapse of his brokerage firm and the disappearance of up to $1.2 billion in customer money. The panel began at 9:30 A.M.

Refresh nowUpdating…Feed

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=a9b69114604f64c6037d552135c1de95

Merkel and Sarkozy Issue Joint Call for European Treaty Changes

The leaders met over lunch at the Élysée Palace to prepare joint proposals to offer the full membership the European Union in Brussels on Thursday night. They agreed to propose automatic penalties for countries that exceed European deficit limits as well as the creation of a monetary fund for Europe. They also backed monthly meetings of European leaders.

But Mr. Sarkozy said the answer did not lie in issuing bonds backed by all the euro zone members.

“We want to make sure that the imbalances that led to the situation in the euro zone today cannot happen again,” the French leader said at a news conference after the lunch.

“Therefore we want a new treaty, to make clear to the peoples of Europe, members of Europe and members of the euro zone, that things cannot continue as they are,” he said.

The overall deal that much be reach will not be one transformative leap. The various goals are to show resolve to protect Italy and Spain, revise the economic governance of the euro zone and prevent further debt crises, according to officials involved in the talks over the deal.

The Thursday evening meeting is considered a last chance this year to set the euro right, even as some investors and analysts are beginning to predict its collapse.

“The survival of the euro zone is in play,” one senior European official said. “So far it’s been too little, too late.”

The emerging solution is being negotiated under great pressure from the markets, the banks, the voters and the Obama administration, which wants an end to the uncertainty about the euro that is dragging down the global economy.

In the process, European leaders will begin to change the fundamental structure of the union, creating a form of centralized oversight of national budgets, with sanctions for the profligate, to reassure investors that this kind of sovereign-debt crisis is finally being managed and should not happen again.

The immediate focus of worry is on Italy and Spain, which have been buffeted by market speculation even as they move to fix their economies. That process took an important step on Sunday, as Italy’s cabinet agreed to a package of austerity measures to put the country in line for aid that would improve its financial stability.

The new euro package, as European and American officials describe it, is being negotiated along four main lines. It combines new promises of fiscal discipline that will be embedded in amendments to European treaties; a leveraging of the current bailout fund, the European Financial Stability Facility, to perhaps two or even three times its current balance; a tranche of money from the International Monetary Fund to augment the bailout fund; and quiet political cover for the European Central Bank to keep buying Italian and Spanish bonds aggressively in the interim, to ensure that those two countries — the third- and fourth-largest economies in the euro zone — are not driven into default by ruinous interest rates on their debt.

After consecutive, expensive failures to stabilize the markets and protect the euro, the broad plan emerging this week may have a better chance at succeeding, analysts say, in part because it weaves together measures that deal with the various issues of the euro, particularly the provision of a central authority that can monitor and override national budget decisions if they break the rules.

Still, even if all the parts are agreed upon in the meetings, which are bound to be fraught, the fundamental imbalances in the euro zone between north and south and between surplus countries and debtor ones will not go away. The euro will still be a single currency for 17 disparate nations in the European Union.

One dividing line is that the Germans, along with the Dutch and the Finns, remain adamantly opposed to what some consider the simplest solution: allowing the European Central Bank to become the euro zone’s lender of last resort and to buy sovereign bonds on the primary market, in unlimited amounts. Mrs. Merkel is also dead-set for now against collective debt instruments, like “eurobonds,” that would put taxpayers, particularly German ones, on the hook for the debt of others, which her government regards as illegal.

So Mr. Sarkozy and other European leaders are working on a less elegant and more phased way to create a pool of bailout money that is large enough to convince the markets there is little chance of a default on Italian and Spanish bonds, which should drive down rates to sustainable levels, European and American officials say.

Mrs. Merkel says it is time to get the euro’s fundamentals right. She is insisting on treaty changes to promote more fiscal discipline, including a limit on budget deficits, with outside supervision and surveillance of national budgets before they become dangerous, and clear sanctions for countries that fail to adhere to the firmer rules. Berlin wants the new standards backed up by the European Court of Justice or perhaps the European Commission, with the power to reject budgets that break the rules and return them for revision.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=220b0b08fca60b81a0b6c4705c47887a

Economix Blog: How the Fed Rescue Benefited Banks

A report by Bloomberg News offers a new way of quantifying the Federal Reserve’s vast efforts to save financial companies from collapse during the crisis that peaked in 2008.

The central bank provided emergency loans, asset purchases and other aid totaling roughly $7.8 trillion during a two-year period ending in March 2009, easily the largest component of the government efforts to bulwark the financial system.

In an article in the January issue of Bloomberg Markets, published online Sunday night, Bloomberg offers an estimate that the aid allowed financial companies to book profits of roughly $13 billion during that period, largely by borrowing from the Fed at low interest rates and then using the money to make loans and investments with higher rates of return.

The benefit for the six largest American banks was about $4.8 billion, according to Bloomberg’s calculations, or roughly one-quarter of their total profits over the two years.

The profit estimate is based on the simple expedient of multiplying the amount each firm borrowed from the Fed by its net interest margin – a key indicator of bank profitability that measures the difference between the amount the bank pays to get money and the amount it charges to provide money. In other words, the Bloomberg calculation basically assumes that banks invested the money they got from the Fed at roughly the same rate of profitability as money they acquired from other sources.

The estimate may well overstate the direct value of the Fed’s loans, as banks used much of the money for short-term purposes that tend to have lower profit margins. Importantly, however, it also greatly understates the broader value of the loans: The money helped many recipients to survive.

Citigroup is a case in point. Bloomberg estimates that the Fed’s loans increased the bank’s profits by $1.8 billion. The real story, of course, is that government help saved the troubled bank from collapse.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=a0061e4cce9dae006c31092877c8cf48

Bucks Blog: Lessons for Investors in MF Global’s Collapse

Customers of the bankrupt commodities brokerage firm MF Global have not had an easy time since the firm collapsed on Oct. 31. Some customers’ commodities trading accounts have been transferred to other firms, though not the full value. And those who had securities accounts or who held cash in their accounts have not seen any of their money yet.

More worrisome is that the court-appointed trustee has reported that $1.2 billion appears to be missing from clients’ accounts, possibly because the firm used some of its customers’ money to meet its own obligations in its last days.

If it is true that the firm violated the rule requiring that customers’ money be segregated from the firm’s, it raises the question, Paul Sullivan writes in his Wealth Matters column this week, of whether investors’ money is being properly protected — not only at commodities brokerage houses but at other types of firms.

Paul spoke to several investment advisers who now tell their clients to do extensive research on any firm where they’re planning on putting their money. But one piece of advice they now give is an old one: don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

Are you one of MF Global’s customers who has been hurt in the fallout? And even if you are just watching the case unfold, do you have any advice for your fellow investors?

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=8ff60a1ea562ebcc4c67ac75b600e606

Economic Outlook in U.S. Follows Home Prices Downhill

The Markeys have since patched together a semblance of their old life, opening a new stone-cutting shop. But they do not expect that they will ever recover financially from the loss of equity in their old home.

“For two years I kept thinking that things would get better,” Mr. Markey, 51, said as he stood in his empty store on a recent weekday. “Now I think the future doesn’t look so good.”

The United States has a confidence problem: a nation long defined by irrational exuberance has turned gloomy about tomorrow. Consumers are holding back, businesses are suffering and the economy is barely growing.

There are good reasons for gloom — incomes have declined, many people cannot find jobs, few trust the government to make things better — but as Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, noted earlier this year, those problems are not sufficient to explain the depth of the funk.

That has led a growing number of economists to argue that the collapse of housing prices, a defining feature of this downturn, is also a critical and underappreciated impediment to recovery. Americans have lost a vast amount of wealth, and they have lost faith in housing as an investment. They lack money, and they lack the confidence that they will have more money tomorrow.

Many say they believe that the bust has permanently changed their financial trajectory.

“People don’t expect their home to regain value, and that’s really led to a change in consumer attitudes about the economy that we’ve just never seen before,” said Richard Curtin, a professor of economics at the University of Michigan who directs its Survey of Consumers. The latest data from the survey, released Friday by Thomson Reuters, shows that expectations for economic growth have fallen to the lowest level since May 1980.

In Orlando, a city that trades in upbeat fantasies, the housing crash has been particularly painful. The total value of area homes has fallen below the total mortgage debt on those homes, according to the real estate analytics firm CoreLogic. In the parlance of the real estate world, Orlando is underwater, a distinction matched by Las Vegas.

“I don’t know that it’s going to get better. We just have to get used to it,” said Sherry DeWeese, whose home in Ocoee, a northwestern suburb of Orlando, is worth less than she paid for it 13 years ago — and about a third of its value at the peak of the market. “It was nothing to buy whatever we wanted. Now we just think about what we really need.”

Economists have only recently devoted serious study to how a decline in housing prices affects consumer spending, not least because this is the first decline in the average price of an American home since the Great Depression. A 2007 review of existing research by the Congressional Budget Office reported that people reduce spending by $20 to $70 a year for every $1,000 decline in the value of their home.

This “wealth effect” is significantly larger for changes in home equity than in the value of other investments, such as stocks, apparently because people regard changes in housing prices as more likely to endure.

A recent paper by Karl E. Case, an economics professor at Wellesley College, and two co-authors estimated the decline in home prices from 2005 to 2009 caused consumer spending to be $240 billion lower in 2010 than it otherwise would have been. That figure is equal to about 1.7 percent of annual economic activity, enough to be the difference between the mediocre recent growth and healthy growth. And it does not include all the other effects of the housing crash, including the low level of new home construction, that are also weighing on the economy.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=8c7217c24310212117dd4f7612976976

RIM Offers Free Apps as Apology for Shutdown

BlackBerry users will soon be able to find out at no cost if there are $100 worth of apps that interest them.

By way of apology for a service collapse that left millions of BlackBerry users around the world without service for up to three days last week, the device’s maker, Research in Motion, said Monday it would offer a $100 credit for select apps in its online store.

Whether that will placate users, however, is unclear.

“RIM’s challenges are bigger picture,” said Mike Abramsky, an analyst with RBC Capital Markets. “It would mainly be of interest to some people who see value in apps.”

One major problem for both RIM’s apology and the company’s general fortunes is the relative lack of appealing apps for the BlackBerry, particularly compared with Apple’s iPhone or phones that use Google’s Android operating system.

In its announcement, RIM listed only 12 apps that would be available at no cost, although it said that more would become available before the downloading period began on Wednesday.

While the offer could conceivably prompt BlackBerry users who previously had not visited the BlackBerry App World to take a look, it might also remind them about the limited extent of the company’s software offerings.

Indeed, if users opt for the less expensive, professional version of DriveSafe.ly, which sells for $19.99, rather than the $79.99 “enterprise” version, and then buy all of the other apps on the list released on Monday, they will have spent only $76. Even that seems unlikely as some of those apps perform similar functions.

The free downloads will be available until the end of the year.

Instead of free apps, RIM is offering corporate and government users technical support at no cost for one month.

The financial impact of the offer on RIM, which has failed to reach recent financial targets, is unclear. There are about 70 million BlackBerry users worldwide, both consumer and corporate. While RIM will have to reimburse the developers of the apps it gives away, Mr. Abramsky said that it was impossible at this point to estimate that cost.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/technology/rim-offers-free-apps-as-apology-for-outages.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

RIM Offers Free Apps as Apology for Outages

BlackBerry users will soon be able to find out at no cost if there are $100 worth of apps that interest then.

By way of apology for a service collapse which left millions of BlackBerry users around the world without service for up to three days last week, the device’s maker, Research in Motion, said Monday it will offer a $100 credit for select apps in its online store.

Whether that will placate users, however, is unclear.

“RIM’s challenges are bigger picture,” said Mike Abramsky, an analyst with RBC Capital Markets. “It would mainly be of interest to some people who see value in apps.”

One major problem for both RIM’s apology and the company’s general fortunes is the relative lack of appealing apps for the BlackBerry, particularly compared with Apple’s iPhone or phones that use Google’s Android operating system.

In its announcement, RIM only listed 12 apps that will be available at no cost, although it said that more will become available before the downloading period begins on Wednesday.

While the offer could conceivably prompt BlackBerry users who previously had not visited the BlackBerry App World to take a look, it might also remind them about the limited extent of the company’s software offerings.

Indeed, if users opt for the less expensive, professional version of DriveSafe.ly , which sells for $19.99, rather than the $79.99 “enterprise” version, and then buy all of the other apps on the list released on Monday, they will only have only spent $76. Even that seems unlikely as some of those apps perform similar functions.

The free downloads will be available until the end of the year.

Instead of free apps, RIM is offering corporate and government users technical support at no cost for one month.

The financial impact of the offer on RIM, which has failed to reach recent financial targets, is unclear. There are about 70 million BlackBerry users worldwide, both consumer and corporate. While RIM will have to reimburse the developers of the apps it gives away, Mr. Abramsky said that it was impossible at this point to estimate that cost. But he added that the app giveaway would likely be less expensive than other, more direct forms of compensation.

The service failure was the longest and most extensive in the company’s history, but not the first. In the past, RIM has not compensated the wireless carriers that sell its phones and provide them with service.

RIM was faulted last week online by customers as well as by public relations specialists for the lack of information it provided during the early period of the service shutdown.

The company’s co-chief executives did not make any public comments until the issue was resolved.

On Tuesday, however, Mike Lazaridis, one of the chief executives will address a meeting of BlackBerry software developers in San Francisco. High on the agenda will be convincing them not only to increase the number of apps available for current BlackBerrys but to persuade them to develop programs for a series of phones expected next year, which will use a new, more sophisticated operating system.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=746a67cd3b05dafc87d7587933343413

Fed Sees Modest Progress in Bank Compensation Plans

Two years later, there has been only modest change, according to the findings of a long-awaited Federal Reserve report on bank compensation practices.

In the 27-page report released on Tuesday, Federal Reserve officials heralded a series of incremental improvements that showed big banks were delaying the payouts of a greater portion of their compensation, with senior executives now deferring more than 60 percent of their bonuses.

But most of the 25 large banks in the Fed’s review still do not adjust bonuses to fully reflect the riskiness of the bets made by bankers and traders. Some of the potential conflicts of interest that regulators initially flagged — like having risk managers report to executives who have influence over their year-end bonuses — still remain.

“Every firm needs to do more,” the report concluded.

The review was focused on the structure of pay, not on how much bankers made. It began as an effort to curb excessive risk-taking and reckless compensation practices that many cited as a leading cause of the housing boom and the subsequent market bust. At the time, the Fed itself was also coming under pressure from lawmakers who blamed its lax oversight of the banks as another cause of the collapse. Analysts suggested that the high-profile compensation review would show that the financial police were back on the beat.

But pay has quickly rebounded since the worst of the 2008 crisis — although experts project that 2011 bonuses will drop at least 10 to 30 percent from last year because of the slowdown in trading, lending and fee income, according to Johnson Associates, a Wall Street compensation advisory firm. Critics charge that the Fed’s review does little to impose tough measures.

“It’s surprising to learn that practices that the Fed raised as problematic two years ago are still going on,” said Robert Jackson, a Columbia Law School professor and senior adviser on executive compensation in the Obama administration until last fall. “We are still waiting for hard evidence of any real change.”

For example, when Fed officials began their review in November 2009, they said that risk managers should be more involved in setting pay. Two years later, the report found “at some firms, risk experts primarily play a peripheral or informal role.”

Some concerns flagged by regulators early in the examination appear to have gone unaddressed. In letters to the banks documenting the review’s preliminary findings sent last spring, Fed examiners found that risk managers at several of the biggest banks still reported to executives who had influence over their year-end bonuses and whose own pay might be constricted by curbing risk.

Some banks have established separate bonus pools and incentive plans for risk and compliance officials, not directly tied to the financial performance of their business unit. Other big banks, according to the Fed report, have yet to take such action. The review encompassed Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and 12 other large lenders as well as the United States operations of nine large foreign banks like Barclays, Deutsche Bank and UBS. However, the report did not single out individual institutions.

The Fed report also found other signs of strained progress. Companies remained in the dark on the pay arrangements of workers lower down in the organization whose decisions could have a potentially devastating impact on the bank. Just over half of the 25 banks, in fact, had even identified groups of highly paid employees whose combined efforts could potentially put the firm at risk. “Some firms are still working to identify a complete set of mid- and lower-level employees and fully assess the risks associated with their activities,” report said.

At the start of the review, examiners also found that no firm had a well-developed strategy for adjusting payouts to account for risks taken by employees like traders or mortgage lending officers. Today, only a few banks are using sophisticated internal metrics that would lower the size of payouts to account for the riskiness of the bets.

The report provided few prescriptive measures for the banks and was vague about the timetables for adopting changes. For example, the report said the banks must continue to work on developing “appropriate policies and procedures to guide judgmental adjustments” to bonus payouts.

Under pressure from regulators, firms have installed claw-back policies and other measures that would later reduce bonus payouts in the event of large losses. Sixty percent of senior executive compensation is now deferred, and for some it is as much as 80 percent, the report said. That is up from about 40 percent before the 2008 financial crisis, according to compensation experts. As for next steps, the Fed said it would “monitor and encourage progress.” But it left it to the banks to “evaluate how well these deferral arrangements have worked and make improvements as necessary.”

The Fed hinted in the report that there might be better information about banker bonuses in the months ahead. It plans to use new disclosure requirements known as Basel Pillar 3 that call for, among other things, the publication of the number of bankers receiving bonuses at each firm, the number of bonus guarantees and the number of severance payouts.

Still, some suggest the Fed’s recent effort will do very little to improve pay practices. “The cost of this exercise has been enormous and the benefits have been quite small,” said Alan Johnson, a compensation consultant who specializes in the financial services industry.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=3a6c5cfa2fb3624125988d5cf5395715

News Analysis: Greece Awaits Votes on Rescue Package in Euro Crisis

It’s not clear whether the global markets will give them that much time. Investors will be watching a series of crucial votes by European parliaments due this week on an earlier package aimed at preventing a default by Greece, Ireland and Portugal.

Sensing urgency from the markets and keenly aware of the potential consequences of a rejection of that plan by the German Parliament when it votes on Thursday, Chancellor Angela Merkel drew parallels on Sunday between the risk of a Greek default now and the broader chaos in the financial system that followed the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. “We are doing it for ourselves,” she said in a radio interview on Sunday night aimed at persuading a skeptical German audience that setting aside hundreds of billions of euros to prop up shaky neighbors made sense. “Otherwise, the stability of the euro would be in danger.”

“We can only take steps that we can really control,” she said. If a Greek default started a fresh financial crisis, “then we politicians will be held responsible.”

All 17 member countries of the euro bloc must approve the strengthening of the rescue package, known as the European Financial Stability Facility, with votes set on Tuesday in Slovenia, Finland on Wednesday and Germany on Thursday. So far, only six countries have signed off, but European leaders say the process should be completed by mid-October.

Only after that do they seem likely to come up with a broader rescue package aimed at relieving the anxiety that has driven markets lower in recent weeks. The markets may not wait that long.

Indeed, for political leaders like Mrs. Merkel, the problem now is that investors have already concluded that the 440 billion euro bailout fund, the expansion of which is being voted on this week, might not be enough to stop the contagion from spreading. On Friday, the yield on two-year Greek notes rose to 69.7 percent, suggesting that investors considered a default all but inevitable.

When the initial expansion of the bailout fund was agreed to in July, worries centered on three smaller countries on the periphery of Europe — Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Since then, however, fears have multiplied about the ability of Spain and Italy, the third-largest economy in the euro zone, to keep borrowing heavily, creating doubts about pools of debt from countries that right now are considered “too big to bail.”

The worry is that a default by Athens would threaten these and other sovereign borrowers, as well as banks in France and Germany that hold tens of billions of euros in Greek debt. That, in turn, has helped push shares of American banks, which are intertwined with their European counterparts, sharply lower, dragging down the broader market.

“The next three weeks are absolutely critical, and they can still stabilize the markets, but I wouldn’t tell my clients to put money to work until we see it,” said Rebecca Patterson, chief market strategist at J.P. Morgan Asset Management. “As we stand right now, European policy makers have gotten well behind the curve. It’s not about the periphery anymore; it’s about the core, too.”

A fresh indicator of market confidence in European borrowers will come as Italy sells billions of euros in bonds this week, culminating on Thursday. Weak demand at an auction on Sept. 13 brough global worries about the safety of Italian debt, which stands at a whopping $2.3 trillion, making Italy one of the world’s largest borrowers.

What is more, Italy’s debt load equals 120 percent of the country’s gross domestic product. In Europe, only Greece is in worse shape, with debt totaling roughly 150 percent of G.D.P.

In addition, the Greek Parliament must vote this week on a recently proposed property tax increase that is seen as a test of whether the country will stick to past promises to tighten its belt.

Greece is also trying to show its austerity program is enough to qualify for an aid payment due in October.

Last week, anxiety about Europe led to the worst week for the Dow Jones industrial average since the onset of the financial crisis in 2008, and as was the case then, it seems events are moving faster than political leaders, further narrowing their options.

Besides the 6 percent drop on Wall Street last week, investors are concerned about the continuing rout in European stocks, especially bank shares, which stand at two-year lows. In another troubling echo of the events of 2008, traders abandoned former havens like gold, oil and other commodities, preferring the safety of United States Treasury securities or, better yet, cash.

In Asia on Monday, investors remained nervous. The Nikkei 225 index in Japan was down about 2 percent in the early afternoon, and the Hang Seng index in Hong Kong was down about 1.5 percent.

Meanwhile, deep divisions persist, not just among political leaders in different countries but among policy makers and the heads of Europe’s biggest banks.

Under a deal worked out in July, European banks agreed to take a 21 percent loss on their holdings of Greek debt as part of a restructuring that would give Greece more time to pay back what it owes, but now it appears political leaders in Germany and elsewhere want the banks to take a bigger hit.

Wolfgang Schäuble, Germany’s finance minister, suggested as much in a tough speech delivered to international bankers at the Institute for International Finance over the weekend. He argued that because of their bad lending decisions, bankers shared the blame for Greece’s predicament and should also share in the cost.

“Without a substantial contribution from financial institutions,” he said, “the legitimacy of our westernized capitalized systems will suffer.”

But Josef Ackermann, chief executive of Deutsche Bank and the chairman of the Institute for International Finance, quickly rejected any effort to renegotiate what had been agreed to in July. “It is not feasible to reopen the agreement,” he said.

Now, not only must the original July plan be approved, but policy makers must agree on how to augment it in the face of widening worries.

“The Europeans are trying to balance the process of approval in 17 parliaments and trying to get the most firepower” from the stability fund, said Robert B. Zoellick, president of the World Bank.

Just how to do that, including what can be purchased and how it might be leveraged, was “richly discussed,” Mr. Zoellick said at the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank this weekend.

On both sides of the Atlantic, there is a feeling that policy makers have few arrows left in their quiver. A Federal Reserve announcement on Wednesday that it would buy $400 billion in long-term Treasury securities left the stock market unimpressed.

“It gets worse before it gets better,” said Adam Parker, Morgan Stanley’s chief United States equity strategist. “If you’re banking on a policy to bail you out, you will be disappointed.”

Landon Thomas Jr. and Jack Ewing contributed reporting.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/business/global/greece-awaits-votes-on-rescue-package-in-euro-crisis.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Mortgages: Paying for Title Insurance

If you take out a mortgage to buy a home, you have to buy this specialized form of insurance. If you refinance a mortgage, you have to rebuy it. And comparison shopping may not save you much money, as premium rates throughout the New York area are regulated.

Title insurance is a way to assure that no one but you has a claim on your home — that there are no outstanding liens, misfiled deeds or mysterious former owners. Mortgage lenders uniformly require that borrowers buy such a policy to cover the lender. Borrowers also may opt to buy an owner’s policy to cover themselves.

Local title agents, abstract companies or lawyers search legal records; then title insurance firms, generally big national companies, underwrite the insurance. From the consumer’s perspective, these often seem intertwined. Precisely how they set and split the charges varies among jurisdictions.

“The real buyer is not the consumer,” said J. Robert Hunter, the director of insurance at the Consumer Federation of America and a vociferous critic of title insurance. Mr. Hunter points out that title insurance agents, who receive commissions from the title insurance companies, usually pick the insurer. “No real shopping goes on.”

Like the rest of the mortgage industry, title insurers have been battered by the collapse of the real estate market. They lost money on operations in 2008 and 2009, according to A. M. Best, which analyzes and rates insurance companies. In 2010 the picture improved somewhat; this year, not much “changed materially,” according to the Best analysts Michael Russo and Neil DasGupta.

When a bank forecloses, it orders a title review, and that has become “an increasingly important source of revenue in the last couple years,” Mr. DasGupta said.

Consumers pay one-time premiums for title insurance. An owner’s policy lasts as long as the borrower owns the house, but the lender policy must be repurchased each time a loan is refinanced, albeit usually at a lower reissue rate.

Title insurance rates are usually a small percentage of the home’s cost, but they vary by locale. On a $300,000 home with a $240,000 mortgage in New York City, it would cost $1,164 for a lender policy at purchase, according to the First American Title Insurance Company. Opt at purchase for both lender and owner polices, and it would cost $1,749. A $240,000 refi lender policy two years later on that same property would cost $582.

Claim payoff rates are lower than for many other types of insurance. The industry argues that most of the effort goes into fixing title problems before the loan closes, rather than dealing with future claims.

In New York and New Jersey, most insurance companies join a sanctioned “bureau” that submits one rate request on behalf of its members, which means rates are identical.

In Connecticut, insurers apply for approval individually. “It’s a competitive market,” said Donna Tommelleo, a spokeswoman for the Connecticut Insurance Department.

Treatment of title search fees varies. For instance, New York splits the state into two zones. In one, basically from Albany south, the regulated premium covers search fees. Upstate, it doesn’t.

Rafael Castellanos, a managing partner at Expert Title in New York, argues that borrowers should still shop around among title agents. He contends that borrowers are better served by independent title companies than by agencies owned by or affiliated with lenders. (All of them generally are agents for the same big insurers.)

“The public policy is to keep everybody honest and keep everybody on the same playing field,” Mr. Castellanos said. “The rates will be the same; are you getting great service?”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=1a1138a94762ce3f2613188898d0bbc9