Mortgage rates in the US fell for the third week in a row, with the benchmark 30-year fixed mortgage rate falling to the lowest level in more than six months, according to Bankrate.com's weekly national survey. The average 30-year fixed mortgage has a rate of 4.09%, the lowest since November 16th 2016, and an average of 0.25 discount and origination points.
The larger jumbo 30-year fixed slid to 4.02%, and the average 15-year fixed mortgage rate dropped to 3.31%, also the lowest since mid-November. Adjustable mortgage rates were mixed, with the 5-year ARM inching down to 3.41% while the 7-year ARM nosed higher to 3.60%.
Between inflation rates stalling out, consumer spending softening and ongoing questions about a White House scandal and its implications for policy initiatives, there is just enough uncertainty to keep bond yields and mortgage rates on a downward trajectory. Mortgage rates are closely related to yields on long-term government bonds, which appeal to investors any time uncertainty, or low inflation, is in the air. With a looming employment report for the month of May, investors will be looking for some confirmation of more robust economic activity in the current quarter than the anemic 1.2% annualized pace of growth in the first three months of the year.
At the current average 30-year fixed mortgage rate of 4.09%, the monthly payment for a $200,000 loan is $965.24.
30-year fixed: 4.09% -- down from 4.13% last week (avg. points: 0.23)
15-year fixed: 3.31% -- down from 3.32% last week (avg. points: 0.22)
5/1 ARM: 3.41% -- down from 3.42% last week (avg. points: 0.30)
(Source: Bankrate)
Things have been looking okay for the US’ overall economy, and with implementing change in Washington, who knows what’s to be of the economy in months to come. Samuel E. Rines, Senior Economist and Portfolio Strategist at Avalon Advisors LLC discusses for Finance Monthly below.
The US economy currently finds itself in a familiar position. Following a weak start affected by statistical anomalies and an absent consumer, the economy is beginning to find its footing. But this does not mean that the US economy is going to suddenly take-off. On the contrary, the US economic outlook is heavily reliant on decisions made in Washington.
Recently, manufacturing, employment, and personal consumption indictors have been generally positive. While headline job creation in May was disappointing, jobless claims and other indicators of labor market stress have been subdued. There are certainly areas of the US economy that are less encouraging. Inflation and lackluster wage growth remain conundrums of sorts given the extremely low unemployment rate. Most economic models would have wages and inflation accelerating at these levels.
Taken together, the current state of the US economy is much the same as it has been for the past several years: not too hot, not too cold. Slow and steady growth around the post-recession trend growth of around 2 to 2.5%. Nothing to become too excited about, but also fast enough to generate sustainable growth. There are reasons to suspect the US economy will significantly accelerate its pace of growth in the second half.
While little has changed for the US economy so far in 2017, numerous events and policies could alter the trajectory over the next year or so. The most important are the Trump Administration’s promised tax breaks and fiscal policies, closely followed by the Federal Reserve’s policy decisions. And, in many ways, the two are related.
Following the election of President Trump, the markets cheered these pro-growth policies as yields on US government debt rose and equity markets made all-time highs. But some of this initial optimism—euphoria even—has dissipated. At least partially, this is due to the declining potential for timely fiscal policy changes. It has taken GOP members of Congress and the Senate far longer to come to agreement on what their version of the healthcare bill should be than markets anticipated.
The importance of the healthcare bill, and, the drawn out debate surrounding it, are difficult to overstate. To do meaningful tax reform, the healthcare reform must be completed first as there are taxes and costs embedded in the ACA law that the GOP deal with before it can fully rework the tax code. And reducing the costs within the ACA is critical to freeing up fiscal room to maneuver greater tax breaks than would otherwise be achievable. Until healthcare is completed, tax reform is on the backburner.
Further reducing prospects of growth boosting initiatives are the significant headwinds Trump Administration faces to implementing its agenda. Many of the headwinds are likely to pass over time, but that is precisely the problem—time. Unless there is a significant acceleration in the pace of legislation, tax reform now appears to be a late 2017 or early 2018 catalyst.
Because of this extended timeline, markets may be forced to refocus on the Fed’s policy trajectory. The Trump Administration’s fiscal policies are incorporated into economic projections used to recommend monetary policy changes. Simply, policy timing matters—not only for markets and the economy—but also for the evolution of the Fed’s monetary policy.
For markets, tax and infrastructure are imperative: the lower the taxes, the greater the after tax profits, and the higher the valuations. That dynamic is undeniably a positive for markets. Infrastructure spending would boost revenues for companies associated with building the nation’s infrastructure. Not only in the common sense of infrastructure, but communications, electrical grid, and other areas in need of national investment—again, a positive for markets. The only outstanding issue is when the positives might arrive.
One of the odd dynamics for US growth is that “good enough" growth is likely to prove "good enough" for a couple more Fed rate hikes this year. In the absence of fiscal policy, this could cause some issues for markets with growth and Fed tightening awkwardly out of sync. The evolution of politics in Washington will have a direct, and uncomfortable, influence on both. The US economy will be heavily, if not solely, reliant on Washington for its direction for the next couple of years.
The White House is on fire. Every day – almost every few hours – new scandals are breaking. From investigations about Russian collusion to alleged obstruction of justice, the blaze is white hot. But when it comes to the world of businesses and law, it's not the alleged criminal law bombshells that are causing the most panic. James Goodnow, talks to Finance Monthly.
On June 1st, US President Donald Trump formally announced what everyone knew was coming: the US is out of the Paris Climate Accord. The announcement and its build up set off another explosion the likes of which Trump and his Twitter account aren't as accustomed to fighting: a neck-snapping backlash from the business community and the lawyers who represent them.
Trump Thumbs His Nose at Business
“Global warming is an expensive hoax!” Donald Trump famously — or infamously — tweeted in January 2014. With that shot across the bow at the global scientific community, Trump started his war against climate change. His claim served as a rallying cry for his base supporters — many of whom believed that rejecting limits on carbon emissions would lead to a resurgence of US jobs in the coal industry. And the strategy was largely successful, catapulting Trump into the White House.
Despite Trump's bluster, the business community largely took a wait-and-see approach following Trump's election. The reason: Trump engaged in plenty of campaign hyperbole that was ultimately dialed back once he assumed office. Obamacare "repeal and replace" is stalled, construction has not started on Trump's border wall with Mexico, and his travel ban has been blocked by the courts. Perhaps the withdrawal from the Paris Accord would end with the same fate: a promise that would be delayed or not fulfilled.
The business world miscalculated. What business leaders monitoring the situation failed to account for is the fact Trump was backed into a corner. He needed a win with his base. And withdrawal from the Paris Accord is one of the only "successes" he could accomplish unilaterally.
The Business World's Reaction
The response from the business and legal community has been swift. On June 1, 25 major US companies, including juggernauts Apple, Facebook, Google and PG&E signed an open letter to the president that appeared in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. The letter makes the business case for the Paris Accord: "Climate change presents both business risks and business opportunities."
The day before the announcement, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk gave Trump an informal ultimatum on Twitter, saying he will have "no choice but to depart" from Trump advisory councils if Trump pulled the plug on the Paris Accord. Musk's comments are not isolated. Since the election, over 1000 businesses signed the Business Backs Low-Carbon USA statement.
The chorus of voices coming from the business community is united by a common theme: US withdrawal from the Paris Accord is not only ethically questionable, but leads to dangerous instability for business. Every day, business leaders make difficult decisions about where to allocate resources. A stable and uniform framework allows businesses to confidently invest in technology that will last into the future. According to the Business Backs Low-Carbon USA statement: "Investment in the low carbon economy ... give[s] financial decision-makers clarity and boost[s] the confidence of investors worldwide."
Legal Community Reaction
Trump's decision has also put lawyers into hyper-drive. Within Washington, there is widespread disagreement about the legal implications of Trump's move. Last week, a group of 22 US lawmakers, including Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, warned Trump in a letter that his failure to withdraw from the Paris Accord could open the litigation floodgates: “Because of existing provisions within the Clean Air Act and others embedded in the Paris Agreement, remaining in it would subject the United States to significant litigation risk." But it's far from clear that US withdrawal from the Paris Accord will immunize the White House from the courts – with groups that favor the agreement already having vowed to sue.
In-house lawyers are no doubt sweating, as well. Lawyers at large corporations with operations in the United States are tasked with providing recommendations to business leadership on what they can and can't do from a regulatory perspective. With Trump pulling the US out the Paris Accord, lawyers now have to look to domestic regulations — a scheme that itself could be turned upside down — and try to reconcile those with international protocols. All of this uncertainty may translate into lawyers feeling like they are walking on quicksand.
Trump's Political Miscalculation?
Trump prides himself on operating on instinct. Prior to making his decision to pull out from the Paris Accord, he no doubt felt the rumblings of this business backlash coming. Why, then, did he move forward? Part of the answer may lie in his examining his base. Recent polls show that, for the first time, Trump's support among his core supporters is starting to erode. And that may spell danger for Trump, who relied on a mobilized and rock-solid base to ride into the White House. Trump thus decided that his need for a political victory and appeasing his base was worth the kickback from the business community.
But Trump may be missing something here. According to many reports, moderate conservatives and centrists who voted for Trump did so in part because they believed his rhetoric was nothing more than puffing that wouldn't ultimately be acted on. They were willing to throw their support behind him believing that he would revert to more traditional GOP, pro-business values.
But Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Accord demonstrates that Trump isn't all talk. When his back is against the wall, he is willing to act – even if it means acting against the interests of non-base voters who helped elect him. That realization may alienate the critical segment of the business electorate he needs to win again in 2020. More immediately, it may spell trouble for Republican members of Congress in 2018.
The White House is on fire. But it may not be heat from the blaze that stops Trump politically – but rather a cooling to Trump and his policies from moderate Republicans and the business world.
James Goodnow is an attorney and legal and political commentator based in the United States. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School and Santa Clara University. You can follow him on Twitter at @JamesGoodnow or email him directly at james@jamesgoodnow.com.
US real estate markets are increasingly becoming international, and changing demographics brought forth by immigration and growing interest from foreigners are positioned to bolster home sales activity and prices. That's according to speakers at an international real estate forum organized by the REALTOR University Richard J. Rosenthal Center for Real Estate Studies session here at the 2017 REALTORS® Legislative Meetings & Trade Expo.
NAR's Danielle Hale, managing director of housing research, was joined by Alex Nowrasteh, immigration policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity at the Cato Institute, to share insight on the current and future impact of foreign buyers and immigration on the US housing market.
According to Nowrasteh, the rising US population is being bolstered by a growing number of immigrant households, and their presence will continue to transform the housing market. Referring to data from the 2015 American Community Survey, Nowrasteh said of the roughly 321.4 million residents in the US, 278.1 million are born here (natives) and the remaining 43.3 million – made up of 20.7 million naturalized citizens and 22.6 million non-citizens – are foreign-born.
"Immigration affects rents and home prices far more than it affects the labor market," said Nowrasteh. "An expected 1% increase in a city's population produces a 1% uptick in rents, while an unexpected increase results in a 3.75% rise."
Nowrasteh, pointing to studies conducted on immigration and housing, explained that the effects of immigration on real estate are localized, with most of the impact felt where immigrants tend to reside: low-to-middle income counties. Each immigrant adds 11.6 cents to housing value within that county. In 2012, 40 million immigrants added roughly $3.7 trillion to US housing wealth.
Referencing the Legal Arizona Workers Act that went into effect on January 1st 2008, Nowrasteh said the decline in population resulting from the law likely exasperated the drop in home prices the state experienced during the downturn. Fewer households purchasing or renting property subsequently lead to higher vacancies and lower prices. "Immigration is the best way to increase population, housing supply and prices," he said.
Presenting some of the key findings from NAR's 2016 Profile of International Activity in US Residential Real Estate released last July, Hale said foreigners increasingly view the US as a great place to buy and invest in real estate. She noted the upward trend in sales activity from resident and non-resident foreign buyers1 in the past seven years, with total foreign buyer transactions increasing from $65.9 billion in 2010 to $102.6 billion in the latest survey.
"A majority of foreign buyers in recent years are coming from China, which surpassed Canada as the top country by dollar volume of sales in 2013 and total sales 2015," said Hale. "Foreign buyers on average purchase more expensive homes than US residents and are more likely to pay in cash."
Perhaps foreshadowing where a bulk of future home purchases from immigrants will come from, Hale said that in NAR's latest survey roughly over half of all foreign buyers purchased property in Florida (22%), California (15%), Texas (10%), Arizona or New York (each at 4%). Latin Americans, Europeans and Canadians – who tend to buy for vacation purposes in warm climates – mostly sought properties in Florida and Arizona. Asian buyers were most attracted to California and New York, while Texas mostly saw sales activity from Latin American, Caribbean and Asian buyers.
NAR's 2017 Profile of International Activity in US Residential Real Estate survey is scheduled for release this summer. Looking at the past year, Hale said monthly data from the Realtors Confidence Index revealed a rise in responses from Realtors® indicating they worked with an international buyer.
"Chinese buyers are once again expected to top all countries in both total dollar volume and overall sales," said Hale.
1The term international or foreign client refers to two types of clients: non-resident foreigners (Type A) and resident foreigners (Type B).
Non-resident foreigners: Non-US citizens with permanent residences outside the United States. These clients typically purchase property as an investment, for vacations, or other visits of less than six months to the United States.
Resident foreigners: Non-US citizens who are recent immigrants (in the country less than two years at the time of the transaction) or temporary visa holders residing for more than six months in the United States for professional, educational, or other reasons.
(Source: National Association of Realtors)
With a flurry of news breaking in Washington, US mortgage rates moved to the downside with the benchmark 30-year fixed mortgage rate falling to a five-month low of 4.15%, according to Bankrate.com's weekly national survey. The 30-year fixed mortgage has an average of 0.25 discount and origination points.
The larger jumbo 30-year fixed slid to 4.08%, and the average 15-year fixed mortgage rate dropped to 3.35%. Adjustable mortgage rates were on the decline as well, with the 5-year ARM sinking to 3.42% and the 7-year ARM reverting to where it had been two weeks ago at 3.62%.
There's nothing like a good old fashioned political crisis to make investors nervous and bring mortgage rates lower. Mortgage rates are closely related to yields on long-term government bonds, which have been in high demand amid the turmoil in Washington. While the White House scandal was the catalyst for a measurable drop in the past couple days, mortgage rates had already moved a bit lower thanks to a slower than expected rise in consumer prices. Another factor helping keep long-term yields, and mortgage rates by extension, in check is that the Federal Reserve seems poised to raise short-term interest rates as soon as June. An increase in short-term rates can be seen as good news by long-term bond investors as it keeps the inflation genie in the bottle.
At the current average 30-year fixed mortgage rate of 4.15%, the monthly payment for a $200,000 loan is $972.21.
SURVEY RESULTS
30-year fixed: 4.15% -- down from 4.22% last week (avg. points: 0.25)
15-year fixed: 3.35% -- down from 3.44% last week (avg. points: 0.21)
5/1 ARM: 3.42% -- down from 3.48% last week (avg. points: 0.30)
(Source: Bankrate.com)
Commodities declined in April on weakening industrial demand expectations out of China and increasing US crude inventories, according to Credit Suisse Asset Management.
The Bloomberg Commodity Index Total Return performance was negative for the month, with 15 out of 22 Index constituents posting losses.
Credit Suisse Asset Management observed the following:
Nelson Louie, Global Head of Commodities for Credit Suisse Asset Management, said: "Geo-politics continue to remain at the forefront of macroeconomic attention. Meanwhile, European economic data have been generally constructive as of late, and political stabilization may make it easier for the positive momentum to continue, which could be supportive of economically-sensitive commodities. Within the Energy sector, global crude oil and petroleum products inventories continue to tighten, partially due to the OPEC-coordinated production cuts, with a decision in May on the table as to whether or not to extend those cuts. The resulting higher prices has led to increased US crude oil production, though not enough to fully offset the production cuts or increased demand. Thus, there are some positive signs indicating the tightening may have begun as the fundamentals underlying these markets continue to slowly improve."
Christopher Burton, Senior Portfolio Manager for the Credit Suisse Total Commodity Return Strategy, added: "The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration signaled the possibility of a return to an El Niño phenomenon in late summer. Resulting weather events may affect the key production cycle for agricultural crops, particularly grains within the US, which may cause prices to rise. Separately, the March Jobs Report indicated that the US unemployment rate fell to its lowest level in almost ten years while wages continued to gradually increase. These statistics are suggestive of a tightening labor market and possible progress towards the US Federal Reserve's goal of sustainable maximum employment. However, the Fed still maintains its forward guidance of only two additional rate hikes this year. This slow normalization of interest rates coupled with rising wage pressures may increase the probability that inflation overshoots expectations."
(Source: Credit Suisse AG)
As anticipation for President Donald J. Trump's first budget release in the next few weeks reaches a crescendo, there is much debate about whether cutting the deficit should be a priority for the administration. Apparently most American voters think it should be. In a unique survey in which respondents made up their own Federal budget, majorities proposed a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases that would reduce the deficit for 2018 by at least $211 billion. There were partisan differences, but Republicans and Democrats did agree on $86 billion in deficit reductions.
In the survey, which was conducted by the University of Maryland's Program for Public Consultation (PPC), a representative sample of 1,817 voters were presented discretionary spending for FY 2017 (broken into 31 line items), and sources of general revenues, actual and proposed. They were then given the opportunity to modify both spending and revenues, getting feedback as they went along about the effect of their choices on the projected deficit. Respondents were not instructed to reduce the deficit, and were able to both increase or decrease spending or revenues.
Overall, majorities cut spending a net of $57 billion. While both Democratic and Republican members of Congress are planning for increases in spending on national defense for 2018, this was the area that received the biggest cut from the public-- majorities cut it by $39 billion. Other significant cuts were for subsidies to agricultural corporations ($5 billion), intelligence agencies ($4 billion), homeland security ($2 billion), the State Department ($2 billion) and the space program ($2 billion), plus smaller trims in other areas. The one area to be increased was the development of alternative energy and energy efficiency, which was increased by $2 billion (a 100% increase).
The biggest changes, though, were on the revenue side, which were increased a total of $154.2 billion. The biggest source of revenues ($63.3 billion) arose from increases in personal income taxes for higher earners. Those with incomes over $100,000 saw their taxes go up 5%, while those with incomes over $1 million had increases of 10%.
"Clearly Americans are concerned about the deficit and are ready to make some tough choices to bring it down—more than Congress is even ready to consider," said PPC Director Steven Kull.
Other major increases came from an increase in taxes on capital gains and dividends from 23.8% to 28% ($22 billion), a new transaction fee on financial transactions of 0.01% ($20 billion), a 5% increase on corporate taxes ($17 billion), a tax on sugary drinks of $.05 an ounce ($9 billion), an increase in the estate tax ($7.8 billion), a tax on alcohol ($7 billion), a fee to banks who have large amounts of uninsured debt ($6 billion), and repeal of the 'carried interest' tax break for fund managers ($2.1 billion).
There were significant partisan differences. Republicans only cut $5 billion from defense, while Democrats cut $91 billion. Republicans cut $9 billion from education, while Democrats increased it $3 billion. Republicans cut environmental spending by $6 billion, while Democrats raised it by $1 billion. Most Republicans did not join in on increases to corporate taxes, estate taxes, and taxes on sugary drinks.
Nonetheless, Democrats and Republicans did converge on $86 billion in deficit reductions, including $69.2 billion in revenue increases and $17 billion in spending cuts.
Overall, Democrats made the largest reductions to the deficit of $306.5 billion, with $96 billion in net reductions to spending and $210.5 billion in revenue increases. Republicans made total deficit reduction of $134.2 billion, with $65 billion in spending reductions and $69.2 in revenue increases.
(Source: Voice Of the People)
Mortgage rates were little changed leading up to Wednesday's Federal Reserve announcement, with the benchmark 30-year fixed mortgage rate inching lower to 4.18%, according to Bankrate.com's weekly national survey. The 30-year fixed mortgage has an average of 0.22 discount and origination points.
The larger jumbo 30-year fixed was unchanged at 4.14% and the average 15-year fixed mortgage rate slipped to 3.39%. Adjustable mortgage rates were slightly lower, with the 5-year ARM dipping to 3.46% and the 7-year ARM retreating to 3.62%.
While mortgage rates were little changed in the days leading up to the Fed meeting, they are actually one quarter%age point lower now than when the Fed hiked interest rates at their last meeting in March. Weakness in first quarter economic growth and geopolitical concerns surrounding North Korea, Syria, and an election in France all contributed to bringing mortgage rates lower. But with the Fed's glass-half-full economic outlook, dismissing the economic sluggishness at the beginning of the year as temporary, it is evident that the Fed remains inclined to continue raising interest rates. Mortgage rates are likely to trend higher through the balance of 2017 as interest rates rise, but as we've seen recently, there are likely to be plenty of ups and downs as economic sentiment swings back and forth.
At the current average 30-year fixed mortgage rate of 4.18%, the monthly payment for a $200,000 loan is $975.70.
Survey results
30-year fixed: 4.18% -- down from 4.19% last week (avg. points: 0.22)
15-year fixed: 3.39% -- down from 3.43% last week (avg. points: 0.21)
5/1 ARM: 3.46% -- down from 3.48% last week (avg. points: 0.28)
(Source: Bankrate.com)
America's economy can return to the days of 3% and higher annual growth rates if Washington embraces pro-growth economic policies, concludes the latest installment of Pacific Research Institute's Beyond the New Normal series released last week.
"Nothing impacts America's economy more than government economic policy," said Dr. Wayne Winegarden, PRI Senior Fellow in Business and Economics, and co-author of Beyond the New Normal. "Reviewing 60 years of economic policies, we found that when government embraces policies that incentivize growth, our economy grows. President Trump and Congress can bring back the days of 3 and 4% annual growth by enacting a pro-growth agenda."
In Part 4 of Beyond the New Normal, Wayne Winegarden and co-author Niles Chura analyze 4 key economic turning points where changes in the economic policy mix impacted the health of the US economy (covering the periods 1958-1970, 1970-1982, 1982-2001, and 2001-2015). Following a historical review of the economic policy mix during each of these periods, Winegarden and Chura found that:
Beyond the New Normal is a multi-part study by Dr. Wayne Winegarden and Niles Chura, which makes the case that future US economic growth can meet –or exceed – past growth trends if the right economic policies are adopted.
Dr. Wayne Winegarden is a Senior Fellow in Business and Economics at Pacific Research Institute. He is also the Principal of Capitol Economic Advisors and a Managing Editor for EconoSTATS. Niles Chura is the founder of Ouray Capital.
(Source: Pacific Research Institute)
Trump administration recently announced plans to expand offshore oil drilling in US waters, threatening recreation, tourism, fishing and other coastal industries, which provide more than 1.4 million jobs and $95 billion GDP along the Atlantic coast alone. The executive order directs the Interior Department to develop a new five-year oil and gas leasing program to consider new areas for offshore drilling. The order also blocks the creation of new national marine sanctuaries and orders a review of all existing sanctuaries and marine monuments designated or expanded in the past ten years.
"Our ocean, waves and beaches are vital recreational, economic and ecological treasures that would be polluted by an increase in offshore oil drilling, regardless of whether or not there is a spill," said Dr. Chad Nelsen, CEO of the Surfrider Foundation. "With today's action, the Trump administration is putting the interests of the oil and gas lobby over the hundreds of communities, thousands of businesses, and millions of citizens who rely on the ocean and coasts for their jobs and livelihoods."
New offshore drilling would threaten thousands of miles of coastline and billions in GDP, for a relatively small amount of oil. Ocean tourism and recreation, worth an estimated $100 billion annually nationwide, provides 12 times the amount of jobs to the US economy, compared to offshore oil production. Even under the best-case scenario, America's offshore oil reserves would provide only about 920 days, or 18 months supply of oil at our current rate of consumption, according to federal agency estimates.
"Tourism drives our local economy, and the approval of offshore drilling poses a huge threat to the livelihood and quality of life in our beach community," said Nicole D.C. Kienlen, Tourism Director of Bradley Beach, New Jersey. "The effects would be devastating on multiple levels."
Even when there are no accidents, offshore oil drilling seriously pollutes our water and food supply at every stage. The ground penetration, the drilling, the rigs, and the transportation tankers all release toxic chemicals and leaked oil. The standard process of drilling releases thousands of gallons of polluted water into the ocean. High concentrations of metals have been found around drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico and have been shown to accumulate in fish, mussels and other seafood.
"The Trump administration wants to pour money in to a sinking ship with relatively small return, instead of supporting growth industries like coastal tourism and renewable energy that are adding jobs to our economy," said Pete Stauffer, Environmental Director for the Surfrider Foundation. "We will stand up for what's best for the nation, and our oceans, by fighting new offshore drilling off our coasts."
(Source: Surfrider Foundation)
Florida Atlantic University College of Business has launched a new Center for Forensic Accounting, which will develop and disseminate knowledge on this growing area of study to students, government and the business community.
The Center is one of the first in the country and the only one in Florida to focus on forensic accounting, a field that generally employs a mix of accounting, auditing and investigation to scrutinize financial information and other forms of evidence to provide analysis to courts of law, corporations and others. Michael Crain, D.B.A., is the Center's director and an FAU faculty member since 2008. He has more than 30 years of experience as a practicing certified public accountant specializing in forensic accounting, economic damages and business valuation.
"In addition to education and outreach, one of the missions of the Center is to develop knowledge in forensic accounting and fraud detection and prevention," said Crain. "We're engaging with people who are directly responsible for regulating, detecting and reducing financial fraud and misrepresentation."
The Center recently held a joint two-day conference with the US Treasury Department on the "Forensic Accounting and the Bank Secrecy Act," which attracted participants from the banking industry, forensic accounting, certified fraud examiners and law enforcement from the federal, state and local levels.
FAU has the oldest forensic accounting concentration within a Master of Accounting degree program in the United States. The College of Business currently offers a Masters of Accounting with three different concentrations related to forensic accounting, including in digital accounting forensics and data analytics first offered in fall 2016, and a concentration in business valuation that was added several years earlier. FAU's School of Accounting Executive Programs offers these concentrations as two-year traditional in-person and online degree programs.
"Our School of Accounting is one of the largest in Florida and we support the development in this vital area of accounting that can help so many people," said George Young, Ph.D., director of FAU's School of Accounting.
The median compensation for forensic accountants with certification in the United States is $105,000, according to a 2015-16 global salary study by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. Forensic accounting and related fields in fraud and litigation support have been among the top niches in accounting firms in recent years, Crain said.
(Source: Florida Atlantic University College of Business)
Silicon Valley's Tesla overtook GM as the most valuable carmaker in the United States last week said Toronto Sumitomo Trading International.
Modern technology is working its way into our lives and infiltrating every aspect of our daily routines, automobile industry is no exception, the increased reliance on software and renewable energy paved the way for Tesla to climb to the top of the industry and claim the title, the biggest carmaker in the United States by market capitalization.
Tesla's stock price hit 312.39 dollars Toronto Sumitomo Trading International analysts upgraded its stock from neutral to overweight and upgraded the price target. Tesla's stock price jumped to all-time highs increasing 3.26% from the previous week's close.
"The company now is valued at 50.887 billion dollars beating GM by one million dollars, something will lead to an interesting discussion when the two Chief Executive Officers meet at the white house with president Trump to discuss the tax reforms and infra structure" said Daniel Holland, Director of Corporate Equities at Toronto Sumitomo Trading International.
Toronto Sumitomo Trading International Research showed that considering the number of cars Tesla sold last year, its market capitalization now will be equivalent to 667,000 dollars for each car sold, or looking forward it will 102,000 dollars for every car Musk plans to sell in 2018. On the other hand, GM's market capitalization is equivalent to 5,000 dollars for each car sold in 2016. This offers a great insight into consumer trust in technology.
Tesla's stock price has increased by 35% over the last month aided by investors' trust in Elon Musk's plans to revolutionize both the energy and the automobile industries. Meanwhile, General Motors' stock price has been declining in the past few years.
Tesla's advocates believe the lose making company's price is justifiable based on long-term outlook, arguing its acquisition of SolarCity and building the new battery cell plant will drive production costs lower.
"Tesla's valuation as a car company is unrealistic, but if we look at it as a battery company which can expand and innovate, the valuation might work" said Michael Hudson, Head of Mergers and Acquisitions at Toronto Sumitomo Trading International.
Many skeptics believe that Tesla is overvalued and its highly inflated stock price has made it a target for short sellers who bagged a valuation loss of 2 billion dollars so far in their portfolios.
(Source: Toronto Sumitomo Trading International)
