April 16, 2024

Bucks Blog: Rising Rates, and the Rent vs. Buy Decision

Mortgage rates have been rising, making it a bit more expensive to borrow to buy a home.

Home prices have been on the upswing, as well. (The Standard Poor’s Case-Shiller home price index showed a 12 percent gain in home prices in 20 cities from April 2012 to April 2013.)

But some perspective is warranted. Mortgage rates are still historically low — they’re expected to hover around 4 percent for the second half of the year, according to Freddie Mac. (The average rate for a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage was 3.93 percent last week; a year ago, the average was 3.71 percent).

And while home prices are rising, they are still relatively affordable. According to a Freddie Mac statement on June 18, “At today’s house prices and income levels, mortgage rates would have to be nearly 7 percent” before the typically priced home would be unaffordable for most families making a typical income.

Jed Kolko, chief economist at Trulia, a real-estate site, wrote in a recent blog post that despite the recent upswing in mortgage rates, the cost of owning a home is still low when compared to the main alternative: renting. In most markets, he argued, buying is cheaper than renting, and it will remain so until mortgage rates move significantly higher.

To see how much rates would have to rise before it becomes cheaper to rent, Trulia updated its “rent vs. buy” analysis to reflect home prices and rents (based on properties listed for sale and for rent on Trulia) from March, April and May. The result? Rates would have to rise to an average of 10.5 percent before the scales tip in favor of renting nationally, Trulia found.

In some markets where home prices are much higher, like many cities in California, the calculated “tipping point” is much lower. In San Francisco and San Jose, rates have to climb just over 5 percent to make renting more attractive. In New York and New Jersey, the tipping point comes around 7 percent.

While such rent vs. buy comparisons can be informative, they are, by necessity, made using a series of assumptions, which may or may not reflect your personal financial situation, said Daniel McCue, research manager at the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University.

For instance, he noted, Trulia’s calculator assumes a 20 percent down payment. For a $200,000 home, that is $40,000 — an amount the typical renter is unlikely to have handy.

The site’s rental listings also may not capture many individual apartments owned by smaller landlords, which may be less expensive than large, investor-owned apartment complexes, he noted.

The analysis also assumes that the buyer will stay in the home for seven years and so will   benefit from a modest appreciation in price. But if you are young and mobile, you aren’t necessarily going to stay in a house that long — so you lose out on the chance to earn back closing costs and other home-buying expenses.

(A complete list of the calculation’s assumptions is available on Trulia’s Web site).

In short, rent vs. buy calculations can help track trends, but it’s hard to say that there is a single, magic number where home buying must be cheaper than renting — for you.

Are rising mortgage rates affecting your decision to buy a home? Do you think continuing to rent makes sense?

Article source: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/rising-rates-and-the-rent-vs-buy-decision/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bucks Blog: Defining Who Can Invest in Private Offerings

In the years before the financial crisis, private offerings of stock held much allure. They often offered outsize returns, but only to those who seemed to have the inside track.

But the great recession inflicted much damage to many of those offerings — defined as anything from real estate deals to hedge funds. While some of the investments in these offerings dropped significantly in value, there are still offerings that hold the prospect of large returns.

Paul Sullivan, in his Wealth Matters column this week, discusses the current guidelines for who can participate in private placements, the term the financial industry uses. The two most commonly used measures are annual income — over $200,000 for an individual and $300,000 for a couple — and net worth of at least $1 million.

But Mr. Sullivan talks to a number of lawyers and financial service professionals who argue that wealth should not be the sole criterion for these types of investments. Instead, they said, investors need to have a certain financial sophistication so they understand the risks of private placements.

The question for regulators, as he points out, is how do you define who is wealthy enough and financially sophisticated enough to invest in these offerings? Any suggestions?

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=6c65af59a27b77420c4475a9a6e87f06

DealBook: A Walk Down Money Lane

Manhattan’s financial district offers a wealth of history for the real estate-inclined tourist. Richard M. Warshauer, a senior managing director at Colliers International, has been leading the annual tours for 24 years. Earlier this year, DealBook’s Ben Protess took a walk with Mr. Warshauer to see what he could learn.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=0ba5ad8d3f25ebb9a5600d610a3a608a

DealBook: American Apparel Warns of Bankruptcy

American Apparel

American Apparel is losing its appeal among young urban shoppers.

The clothing retailer warned in a regulatory filing on Thursday that it might have to file for bankruptcy unless demand picked up for its cotton T-shirts and leggings — and its overall financial situation improves.

The company, known for its provocative advertising and controversial founder, has endured a rough year.

American Apparel reported an $86 million loss in 2010, compared with a $1 million profit the year prior. Cash flows were negative, too. And the company is predicting much the same for 2011, according to its annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The company says it is hashing out a plan to spruce up its business. It is renegotiating real estate leases, a step that could include closing some stores. It is working with vendors and landlords to push back its bills. And it is considering laying off retail staff.

American Apparel, which has hired an outside financial adviser, is also trying line up additional sources of capital. It may also need to restructure some debt.

But unless its financial picture gets better, the company said bankruptcy could be the next stop.

“If the company is not able to timely, successfully or efficiently implement the strategies that the company is pursuing to improve its operating performance and financial position, obtain alternative sources of capital or otherwise meet its liquidity needs, the company may need to voluntarily seek protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code,” American Apparel disclosed in its filing.

It is the latest problem for a company that has been dogged by financial and legal issues over the past year.

In August 2010, the company disclosed that it had received a federal subpoena over its decision to change its accounting firm. At the same time, American Apparel said it was in danger of not complying with the terms of a loan, which raised doubt that the retailer could survive.

Last month, a former sales associate at American Apparel filed a lawsuit against Dov Charney, the company’s flamboyant chief executive and founder. She is accusing Mr. Charney of sexual harassment in a claim that names three other women.

As the company has suffered, investors have fled. In the last 12 months, the retailer’s stock has fallen by nearly 70 percent to less than $1.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=52ccd7f9c878a49836764e5dc13a2420