Tuesday, September 28, 2010

The Empire State Building- what it was not designed to do

I grew up believing that the mast on the Empire State Building in midtown Manhattan, New York City, was put there to serve as a docking port for dirigibles. Dirigibles were a flight of fancy, most notably advanced by the Germans as a source of national pride, for transatlantic flights.

One featured prominently in an Indiana Jones movie, and, most tragically, in a fiery crash in Lakehurst, New Jersey. Now, don't be confused by the blimps floating over football stadiums. Dirigibles have a metal frame to suppor its skin. A blimp is nothing more than a big bag of helium.

The New York Times puts the kibosh on the link between the Empire State Building and dirigibles:
THE new exhibition at the Keith de Lellis Gallery, “New York: A Bird’s-Eye View,” has a striking assortment of aerial views of the city. No image is more arresting than that of the Navy dirigible Los Angeles docking at the mooring post of the Empire State Building, a giant cigarlike cylinder coming nose-to-nose with the tallest building in the world.
That the photograph is a composite, a fake, is disappointing but not surprising: no airship ever docked there, and indeed the whole mooring mast concept was a bit of a stunt itself.
Now, I didn't know that. Did you? Read the full article.

For your next title order or
if you have questions about what you see here, contact
Stephen M. Flatow, Esq.
Vested Title Inc.
165 Passaic Avenue, Suite 101
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Tel 973-808-6130 - Fax 201-656-4506
E-mail vti@vested.com - www.vested.com
Sphere: Related Content

Monday, September 27, 2010

Thinking of a savings account? FDIC and NCUA insurance important

There's one thing that we should remember when it comes to opening a savings account or any type of bank account - deposit insurance.

Here's an informative article from E-Wisdom.com that you should find helpful.

"Consumers may consider a number of options when picking a new savings account, including its yield and fees, especially as new federal regulations cause banks to look for different ways to make up losses.

"A recent report from U.S. News and World Report Money's Jim Wang noted there are a number of factors consumers may consider when looking at a new savings account.

"The first thing they should check is if the banking institution is insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Credit unions should have backing from the National Credit Union Administration.

"FDIC and NCUA insurance protect up to $250,000 per depositor and if a financial institution doesn't have that protection, pass on it," Wang wrote. "There's no reason why you should put your savings in a bank that isn't insured."

"Interest rates are another factor, and banks may offer a promotional period that lasts a set amount of time. Wang said consumers should make sure the "post-teaser" level is comparable to other offers.

"Potential fees also present a concern and these charges may be connected to how much money is in an account. Some savings accounts, for example, require that a specified minimum balance be maintained to avoid a monthly fee."

Go to the website- FDIC and NCUA insurance important when considering savings accounts

For your next title order or
if you have questions about what you see here, contact
Stephen M. Flatow, Esq.
Vested Title Inc.
165 Passaic Avenue, Suite 101
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Tel 973-808-6130 - Fax 201-656-4506
E-mail vti@vested.com - www.vested.com
Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, September 23, 2010

New York Times - The U.S.-China Exchange Rate Squeeze

Confused by all this talk of the effects of the exchange rates between Chinese and U.S. currency? I know I am. The following opinion by Sewell Chan appeared in the Sunday New York Times.
WASHINGTON — Say there was a way to create a half-million American jobs over the next two years without adding a dime to the debt or deficit. And say it would also revive moribund Rust Belt factories, reduce the country’s gaping trade deficit and help stabilize the international economic system.

All of this would occur, some economists say, if only China would stop manipulating its currency, keeping it artificially undervalued as a means of boosting its exports and fueling its tremendous economic growth.

Anger over China’s exchange-rate policy nearly boiled over in Congressional hearings last week. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner accused China of violating international norms. President Obama plans to press the currency issue, along with complaints about China’s policies on trade and intellectual property, at the Group of 20 summit meeting in South Korea in November.

That China has undervalued its currency, the renminbi, for much of the past decade to boost its surging export-driven economy is not seriously doubted; China intervenes in the markets by buying an estimated $1 billion a day using renminbi. For the lay observer, it’s befuddling. Why does this situation persist?

Would China benefit by letting the renminbi rise?

Yes, most experts agree that China would probably be better off if the renminbi’s value rose. Doing so would give Chinese consumers more purchasing power, lessen the risk of inflation and asset bubbles, and potentially reduce stark inequalities that have contributed to social unrest.

What’s stopping China, then?

Exporters, concentrated along the southern coast, wield enormous clout in Beijing and benefit from an undervalued currency, said Minxin Pei, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, Calif. So do state-owned enterprises, which have excess capacity and need to be able to sell goods cheaply abroad. China’s importers are unhappy with the undervalued renminbi — as are officials at the central bank — but both groups are relatively weak.

In the United States, there must be someone against a stronger Chinese currency, right?

Large multinational corporations, and Wall Street, are comfortable with a weak renminbi. Many of the biggest American conglomerates make goods in China (or sell them in the United States) and benefit from the undervalued currency. Financial services companies find deal-making easier with a strong dollar and want to help invest the capital sloshing around China.

But aren’t the forces on the other side just as strong?

A high dollar places tremendous competitive pressure on American agricultural producers and domestic manufacturers, and thereby hampers job creation.

So, it’s not surprising that Midwest politicians and labor unions have been among China’s fiercest critics. High unemployment has also prompted the White House and most Congressional Democrats (and a substantial number of Republicans) to side with the critics.

How have previous problems with a strong dollar been handled?

In the late 1960s, rising federal spending during the Vietnam War and the Great Society pushed inflation upward. The United States had a trade deficit for the first time in the postwar era. Manufacturers were furious. President Richard M. Nixon responded by taking the country off the gold standard in 1971, which caused the dollar to fall by about 20 percent.

From 1981 to 1985, the dollar soared again, as the Federal Reserve boosted interest rates to combat inflation and the Reagan administration borrowed to finance big budget deficits. In September 1985, Treasury Secretary James A. Baker III met Japanese and German officials at the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan. Faced with threats of protectionist action by Congress, the two countries agreed on a plan to devalue the dollar.

So, could such an agreement happen again?

A rapid devaluation of the dollar is unlikely anytime soon. No country, even an ally, wants to see its currency suddenly rise in value (and its exports become more expensive) amid a fragile global recovery. The international monetary system has also gotten more complex, with the creation of the euro and the rise of large emerging economies like Brazil, India and Russia.

Though China allowed its currency to rise by more than 20 percent against the dollar from 2005 to 2008, the financial crisis (which led investors to flock to the dollar) led to a return to old ways. In June, Beijing promised greater exchange-rate flexibility, but since then the renminbi has risen by only about 1 percent. Too little, too late, Mr. Geithner testified last week.

Ultimately, says Jeffrey A. Frieden, a Harvard political scientist, exchange rates reflect broader macroeconomic forces. For the dollar to get back in sync, Americans must save and invest more and consume and borrow less, and the Chinese, Germans and Japanese have to recognize that excessive reliance on exports is not to their long-run advantage.

“It’s conceivable that the Chinese might conclude it’s in their own self-interest to let the currency rise,” Professor Frieden said, “but it’s not going to come from browbeating and it’s not even going to come from well-meaning attempts at cooperation.”

Read the column on-line here.

For your next title order or
if you have questions about what you see here, contact
Stephen M. Flatow, Esq.
Vested Title Inc.
165 Passaic Avenue, Suite 101
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Tel 973-808-6130 - Fax 201-656-4506
E-mail vti@vested.com - www.vested.com
Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

How Underwater Mortgages Can Float the Economy

We have previously written about the plight of homeowners whose homes are now worth less than the mortgage. Some have decided to walk away from property while others are making their mortgage payments. In the face of low mortgage interest rates, refinancing would be a good idea but with LTVs, loan to value ratios, being what they are homeowners cannot refinance.

The Federal government stepped in with a program allowing banks to make loans up to 125% of LTV, but there have been few loans made.

The Sunday New York Times carries an Op-ed on the issue written by Glenn Hubbard and Chris Mayer.
“RECENT calls for another federal stimulus package raise an important question: Before considering costly short-term measures to raise overall consumer demand, have we done enough to ensure that financial markets will work properly and lead us to recovery? For housing — the sector at the center of the crisis — the answer is no. But the good news is that it might be possible to improve the housing market and invigorate the economy in a way that won’t require a costly stimulus package.
“In a normally functioning mortgage market, almost all homeowners would have refinanced their mortgages to take advantage of low rates. Yet today, low interest rates are doing little to stimulate the housing market because of other stresses, including declines in house prices, falling household incomes and banks’ wariness of making loans.
“To change this dynamic, we propose a new program through which the federal government would direct the public and quasi-public entities that guarantee mortgages — Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, the Department of Veterans Affairs loan-guarantee program and the Federal Housing Administration — to make it far easier and quicker for homeowners to refinance.”
Whoa, haven’t we been down this road? But, they write,
“This program would be simple: the agencies would direct loan servicers — the middlemen who monitor and report loan payments — to send a short application to all eligible borrowers promising to allow them to refinance with minimal paperwork. Servicers would receive a fixed fee for each mortgage they refinanced, which would be rolled into the mortgage to eliminate costs to taxpayers.”
How does this work in dollars and cents?
“Consider a family that bought a home in 2006 for $225,000, taking out a $200,000 fixed-rate mortgage at the prevailing 6 percent interest rate with monthly payments of about $1,200. That home is now worth about $175,000. The family still owes $189,000 and thus cannot refinance because they are underwater.
“But under our proposal, the family would be offered a new mortgage at today’s prevailing rate of 4.3 percent. The family would see a 15 percent decline in their monthly mortgage payment, saving more than $2,000 per year. This would not only help homeowners through the current crisis, but would be the equivalent of a 26-year tax cut of more than 4 percent of income, assuming the family spends around 30 percent of income on housing.”
But prior experience has shown mortgage programs to be a bust. They know it and ask,
“What went wrong? First, the program was not widely publicized relative to the federal government’s efforts to help with more modest loan modifications. Second, the refinancings require substantial upfront costs for borrowers. Third, many borrowers — those with second liens or shaky incomes — were locked out. (About 20 percent of all borrowers with federally backed mortgages have a second lien.) Last, many borrowers do not know the current value of their homes, and are reluctant to pay to get an appraisal only to be turned down for a refinancing.
“THE program we propose addresses these issues. It would have minimal costs, which we would roll into the cost of the mortgage rather than forcing homeowners to make a big upfront payment. For mortgages with second liens, the government could request a blanket approval from all servicers to allow the new mortgages to have priority over existing second ones. It is in the interest of the servicers of second liens to allow such refinancings, because they reduce payments on the first mortgage and thus lower default risk on the second lien.”
We think the proposal is a good one, what do you think?  Read the full Op-ed.
Glenn Hubbard, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush and the co-author of “Seeds of Destruction: Why the Path to Economic Ruin Runs Through Washington, and How to Reclaim American Prosperity,” is the dean of the Columbia Business School, where Chris Mayer is a senior vice dean.


For your next title order or
if you have questions about what you see here, contact
Stephen M. Flatow, Esq.
Vested Title Inc.
165 Passaic Avenue, Suite 101
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Tel 973-808-6130 - Fax 201-656-4506
E-mail vti@vested.com - www.vested.com
Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Congratulations to Michael F. Brandman, Esq.

Congratulations to our long time client Michael F. Brandman, Esq. on his appointment as Chair of the Supreme Court of New Jersey District Ethics Committee for Union County, District XII.

Michael is a partner in the firm of Weiler & Brandman located in Cranford, New Jersey.

District Ethics Committees are found throughout the state.  Their purpose is to review grievance complaints filed against attorneys, conduct hearings and recommend discipline, if warranted.

Appointment to an ethics committee is an honor.  We congratulate Mike on his being named Chair!


For your next title order or
if you have questions about what you see here, contact
Stephen M. Flatow, Esq.
Vested Title Inc.
165 Passaic Avenue, Suite 101
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Tel 973-808-6130 - Fax 201-656-4506
E-mail vti@vested.com - www.vested.com
Sphere: Related Content