November 15, 2024

Wealth Matters: Rushing Into a Mortgage Can Prove Costly

But there are still many ways that buyers or investors can end up paying more than they should. And the extra costs are so embedded in the mortgage documents — and the mortgage rate itself — that consumers have to be vigilant to find them. That is especially true when buyers rush into a deal and do not take the time to make sure they are not paying thousands of dollars extra in closing costs and tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars more over the life of a loan.

“People today are less concerned with pricing,” said Joe Parsons, a loan officer at PFS Funding in Dublin, Calif. “They’re more concerned about, ‘Can you get my deal done?’ There are so many more moving parts.”

Joseph Wilbur, for instance, signed a contract to buy a co-op apartment in Forest Hills, Queens, in March 2012 and made it clear that he wanted to close quickly because he and his fiancée were getting married in August. Mr. Wilbur said the mortgage broker told him that would not be a problem.

The couple finally had their closing on Dec. 13, after spending the first few months of their marriage living with his parents. A few days before closing, Mr. Wilbur said the broker gave him a good-faith estimate — the basic information about the terms of the mortgage and the estimated costs of the loan — that he should have had at the start. Shortly after that, he got the HUD-1 statement, which formalizes the closing costs.

“It became clear early on that the guy wasn’t all that knowledgeable about mortgages for co-ops,” he said. “He made a whole bunch of mistakes.”

But Mr. Wilbur pressed on because he wanted to close and did not want to lose the apartment. “As much as I was concerned that I hadn’t seen something that was telling me I was paying thousands more than I had expected, I just wanted to get through with this,” he said. “The fact that my wife and I were getting married shortly was more of an issue. I didn’t have time to start with a new bank and the whole application process.”

Mr. Wilbur’s story may be a worst-case situation. But what should buyers be aware of and how can they avoid feeling cheated?

Many buyers think the good-faith estimate is the cornerstone of the mortgage process. It estimates the costs, like inspections and title insurance, buyers pay to close on a mortgage. But Mr. Parsons said the document did more to hide fees than illuminate them.

“It’s essentially a useless document for the consumer,” he said. “It lumps a lot of costs into the figures that are carried onto the good-faith estimate rather than itemizing them.”

Rick Allen, chief operating officer of MortgageMarvel.com, a Web site that allows consumers to search for different mortgages, ran three sets of closing costs in the first week of January for the same mortgage in the New York area and got three different good-faith estimates.

The estimates for closing costs on a $300,000 house with a 30-year mortgage at a rate of 3.5 percent were between $6,911.78 and $9,742.97. The biggest differences were the origination fee the bank charged, the discount the bank gave — or did not give — for the particular interest rate and the cost of title insurance from a third party. The origination fee and the mortgage credit vary because they are one of the ways the lender makes money from the loan.

“The reality is the consumer needs to do lots of homework,” Mr. Allen said. “The government would say that you need to apply with multiple lenders and get multiple good-faith estimates. But providing an application is not always a painless process.”

He said MortgageMarvel.com offers a guarantee on the closing costs within $50. But borrowers would still have to compare various lenders to know that they were getting the best estimate.

Of course, most people don’t do that. Elizabeth Safran, who owns her own public relations company in New York, said she asked a friend in her apartment building whom he had used.

“My main criteria for refinancing was to bake the closing costs into the loan so there would be no cash out of pocket,” she said.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 18, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated the Queens neighborhood where Joseph Wilbur bought an apartment. It is Forest Hills, not Astoria.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/your-money/mortgages/rushing-into-a-mortgage-can-be-costly.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Media Decoder Blog: Facebook Gives Users a Primer on Ads

Millions of users who visited their Facebook pages on Wednesday may have noticed a light blue banner that read: “About Ads: Ever wonder how Facebook makes money? Get the Details.” Clicking on a link in the text took visitors to a page that explained why Facebook users see the ads they see.

“It takes a lot of money to hire the best engineers and build the technology needed to keep Facebook up and running,” a Facebook product manager named Ami explains in a video on the page.

According to Ami, that cost was $1 billion last year. To offset those costs, advertising keeps Facebook free for users.

“Unlike ads on television, ads on Facebook respond to your direct feedback,” the narrator says. Users can click on ads they don’t like and ask not to be shown similar ads in the future. “The ads on Facebook are meant to be useful, not disrupt your experience.”

While the new advertising page may be useful to some Facebook users who are curious about advertising, it also comes at a time when many users are increasingly concerned about their privacy online and whether their personal data is being shared with advertisers.

To address that concern, the new page explains that Facebook does not sell a user’s personal information, but instead it makes money by showing the right ads to the right audience.

Facebook has many different types of ads, but the ones that have been getting the most attention over the last few days are called “sponsored stories,” which, as reported in the technology blog TechCrunch, will begin appearing in user’s newsfeeds in 2012.

TechCrunch writer Josh Constine explains: “The ability to display promoted content alongside organic social content in the popular and highly addictive news feed is essentially the holy grail for advertisers. While users are attentively browsing photos and updates from friends, they’ll end up consuming ads as well.”

Facebook has been increasingly working with advertisers and advertising agencies by hosting “hackathons” and attempting to teach agencies how to better use the social networking platform.

In April, the company announced a new social ad unit created by Leo Burnett Chicago, part of the Publicis Groupe, that would allow advertisers to ask users questions. Other existing interactive ad units allow users to click that on an ad they “like”, answer questions in a poll, respond to event ads, accept free product samples, watch videos or use Facebook applications.

A Facebook representative issued this statement when asked about the new advertising page: “Educating people about how Facebook works is really important to us. We have a number of educational resources available, including in-line tips, a Help Center, a Safety Center, and a variety of Facebook Pages for different audiences and topics. Along these lines, we recently launched a page that we hope helps people better understand how advertising on Facebook works. We’ll be doing a number of similar proactive initiatives on different topics throughout the coming year.”

But no matter what users think about ads, or how much they know about them, one thing remains true: they cannot opt out of seeing them.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=c863974a8bb9c36aa40e2b2fed8de28b

DealBook: SABMiller’s Takeover of Foster’s Gets More Hostile

John Pollaers, chief of Fosters, announced the company's full year results in Sydney in August.Greg Wood/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesJohn Pollaers, chief of Fosters, announced the company’s full year results in Sydney in August.

LONDON – SABMiller’s takeover battle for Foster’s Group just became more hostile.

On Friday, the large global brewer accused Foster’s of making “misleading and deceptive” statements in its full-year results presentation last month.

SABMiller — which in August took its $10 billion bid for Foster’s directly to shareholders after getting rejected by the board — has asked Australia’s takeover panel to examine whether the brewer fully complied with accounting standards.

In particular, the London-based brewer called into question Foster’s pro forma net debt figure of 887 million Australian dollars ($948 million). SABMiller also challenged some of Foster’s earnings outlook and asked the takeover panel to look into whether the statements were reasonable. Foster’s said on Aug. 23 that its financial objectives “mid single digit sales growth” and earnings per share to increase faster than operating profit.

SABMiller's Grolsch and Fosters.Simon Dawson/Bloomberg NewsSABMiller’s Grolsch and Fosters.

“SABMiller submits that these statements do not meet the standards required in statements made in the context of a takeover bid and are misleading and deceptive,” the panel said in a statement. “SABMiller seeks final orders that Foster’s make an announcement to the market clarifying the information it claims is misleading and deceptive.”

Spokesmen in London for Foster’s and SABMiller declined to comment. The takeover panel said it had not decided yet whether to conduct proceedings.

SABMiller’s play for Foster’s has been contentious from the beginning.

The global brewer, whose portfolio of brands include Peroni and Castle, first announced a $10 billion bid for the Australian rival in June, but it was quickly rebuffed by the board. Then a few days before Foster’s was set to report earnings in August, SABMiller decided to go hostile in its pursuit, taking the offer straight to shareholders. Once again, Foster’s said the deal “significantly undervalues the company.”

In an attempt to fend off the takeover, Foster’s management last month proposed returning 500 million Australian dollars ($525 million) to shareholders, possibly through a share buyback. Chief executive John Pollaers also said the company was about halfway through a three-year revamp that includes reducing costs and investments in brands.

The move came amid weak earnings results. For the year ended in June, Foster’s reported a loss of 89 million Australian dollars, mainly because of costs linked to the recent spinoff of its wine business.

An acquisition of Foster’s would give SABMiller control of a sizable portion of Australia’s beer industry and seven of the top 10 brands, including the No. 1 beer, Victoria Bitter. Foster’s is losing market share in Australia but the brewer’s profit margins remain high relative to the global industry.

Foster’s shares closed at 4.86 Australian dollars on Friday, below SABMilller’s offer of 4.9 Australian dollars a share. Shares in SABMiller fell 0.5 percent in London in early afternoon trading.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=c0e9ad95067ecdb63fb6577064685acc

Four European Nations to Curtail Short-Selling

The European Securities and Markets Authority, a body that coordinates the European Union’s market policies, said in a statement that these negative bets on stocks would be curtailed effective on Friday in France, Belgium, Italy and Spain. They are already banned in Greece and Turkey.

“Today some authorities have decided to impose or extend existing short-selling bans in their respective countries,” the authority said. “They have done so either to restrict the benefits that can be achieved from spreading false rumours or to achieve a regulatory level playing field, given the close inter-linkage between some E.U. markets.”

The statement said details for each country would be posted on their individual financial regulators’ Web sites.

European financial regulators have been discussing a continentwide a ban over the last few days amid fears from governments in places like France that these negative bets on stocks were driving a panic. In short-sales, a trader sells borrowed shares in hopes that they will decline in value before he has to buy them back to close out his loan. The difference in price is his profit, or loss.

But some countries, like Britain, came out publicly against a short-sale ban.

Critics say short-selling encourages speculation and pushes stock prices down, sometimes feeding on itself in a panicked market, while advocates say it keeps the market honest and maintains liquidity.

The increasing number of European governments banning short-selling puts United States regulators in a tricky position. Investors with negative views on bank stocks who are forced to close their negative bets in Europe might shift them to American banks. On Thursday, stocks in the United States continued their see-saw ride, surging 4 percent, buoyed by hopeful data on initial jobless claims.

The short-selling announcement in Europe stirred some immediate criticism. “It is a crisis of confidence, and when you do something like this, it shows a lack of confidence, which is exactly the opposite of what you want to say to the markets,” said Robert Sloan, managing partner of S3 Partners, a firm that helps hedge funds manage their relationships with their brokers.

Back in 2008, European and United States officials coordinated temporary bans on shorting financial stocks.

The bans in Europe are drawing to the list of comparisons that commentators are making between the current market unrest and the financial crisis of 2008.

Back then, governments around the world, including Britain and the United States, banned short-selling on financial stocks temporarily. The ban was meant to prevent bank stocks from falling further, but in time, stocks fell anyway.

Hedge funds, in particular, were hurt by the ban because it interfered with trading strategies that pair negative bets with positive ones.

The ban on short-selling in 2008 has been widely criticized and blamed for driving investors out of the market altogether, further hurting stock prices.

It is impossible to know whether the panic would have been worse without the ban, which protected companies like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, but general studies of short-selling have found that bans on that activity can lead to more volatility in the market and lower trading volume, according to Andrew W. Lo, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Mr. Lo said banning short-selling also removed important information about what investors think about the financial health of companies, and suggested that the bans served mainly political purposes.

“It’s a bit like suggesting we take heart patients in the emergency room off of the heart monitor because you don’t want to make doctors and nurses anxious about the patient,” he said.

Details were still emerging about each country’s policy. In France, the market watchdog banned short-selling or increasing short-selling positions, effective immediately, for 15 days on 11 financial institutions. They are: April Group, Axa, BNP Paribas, CIC, CNP Assurances, Crédit Agricole, Euler Hermès, Natixis, Paris Ré, Scor, and Société Générale.

Shares in the banks have slumped sharply, sometimes on market rumors. Société Générale’s shares plunged as much as 23 percent Wednesday before closing down 14 percent, on what the chief executive, Patrick Oudea, called “fantasy rumors.” Its shares recovered slightly on Thursday, gaining 3.7 percent.

The European authority does not have the authority to impose a policy on short-selling but it can make recommendations and coordinate cooperation among the European Union’s 27 governments. The European Parliament is considering legislation to give the authority additional powers.

Some investors are already anticipating that such a ban may occur, Mr. Sloan of S3 Partners said. He said that for the past two months many investors had been getting out of their short positions, in part out of fear that such a ban might be introduced. He also said if there were more short-sellers in the market now, the markets might be falling less than they are. That is because as markets fall, short-sellers often close their positions to cash in profits and in doing so, they have to purchase shares to cash out.

The markets could use these sorts of buyers now, said Mr. Sloan, who wrote a book after the 2008 crisis called “Don’t Blame the Shorts: Why Short Sellers Are Always Blamed for Market Crashes and How History Is Repeating Itself.”

Arturo Bris, a professor of finance at the IMD business school in Lausanne, Switzerland, studied financial stock prices in 2008 before and after a short-selling policy was put in place. On Wednesday, Mr. Bris said that he did not think such a ban in Europe would help in the long run. “If there is a ban in the European markets in the next couple weeks it would stop the blood, but it’s not going to solve the problem,” Mr. Bris said. “It would just delay the problem.”

Even with the European countries’ bans on short-sales of some stocks, investors who have negative opinions on companies may still find ways to bet against them in the derivatives market, if those sorts of trades remain allowed.

Liz Alderman contributed reporting.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=073fe95bf11527688fd936f5f422cb14

Media Decoder: A Magnate’s Postscript

Mike Theiler/Reuters Sidney Harman with his wife, Representative Jane Harman of California.

When Sidney Harman was found to have an aggressive form of leukemia several weeks ago, he sat down to write a short essay for Newsweek about his determination to beat the disease.

But Mr. Harman, the 92-year-old owner of Newsweek, decided not to publish the article, thinking that he had years left to live. He saw no reason to alarm anyone about an illness he believed he could outlive.

“When the tests came back and the path ahead looked promising, Sidney put this piece aside and decided just to wage the battle,” said Robert Barnett, Mr. Harman’s lawyer and close friend. “Seeing him only a few days ago and doing business with him until the very end, none of us thought the end was so near.”

Mr. Harman died last Tuesday, and Newsweek decided to publish the essay in this week’s issue to honor his memory. In it, Mr. Harman wrote defiantly about the illness, acute myeloid leukemia.

“I have known many cancer victims — friends and family. Without exception, each has declared, ‘I’ll beat this thing.’ They meant it, but for them that consisted of placing everything else on hold to face down the dragon. I have a different view. I have told the dragon to go stand in the damn corner. I have important stuff to do,” he wrote.

That important stuff, he said, included making sure the magazine he had committed to rescue would survive. And he pledged that the magazine would be on sure footing, even without his being around.

“My family successors and I are committed to the future of the magazine and to The Daily Beast,” he wrote. “They are solidly financed and will continue to be. I am convinced that I make significant business and intellectual contributions, but I know that the enterprise will move forward, if necessary, without me.”

Added Mr. Barnett: “This piece is vintage Sidney — scholarly, humorous, insightful, fearless, self-confident, but realistic.”

The essay, published as one of Newsweek’s signature “” columns, was an unintended coda to Mr. Harman’s contributions to the magazine. In 1979, long before he had moved to get into the magazine business, Mr. Harman wrote his first “My Turn” piece, on American industrial policy.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=42049210016293c754faafcb251eb27a