Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Penelope Cruz Expecting Second Baby


Penelope Cruz baby

By Mike Krumboltz, Yahoo!
Tue, Feb 12, 2013, 1:00 am PST
Penelope Cruz and husband Javier Bardem areexpecting their second child together. Cruz and Bardem welcomed their first child, a boy named Leo, in January 2011. A source told E! News that Cruz is about three months pregnant. Cruz and Bardem began dating in 2007 and married in 2010.
Picture credit: PA Photos
PENELOPE CRUZ is pregnant. The Vogue cover girl is expecting her second child with actor husband Javier Bardem.
Reports had been circulating for a while, but the actress finally confirmed the news earlier today to Spanish television station, TVE, saying that she was "tremendously happy and excited".
Cruz and Bardem already have a two-year-old son together, Leo. 
Associated Press/Matt Sayles, file - FILE - This Feb. 27, 2011 file photo shows actors Javier Bardem, left, and Penelope Cruz at the 83rd Academy Awards in the Hollywood section of Los Angeles. A publicist 

MADRID (AP) — Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem are expecting their second child.
Cruz publicist Javier Giner told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the Spanish actress is pregnant.
He declined to provide any further details, including when the baby is due.
The 38-year-old Cruz and 43-year-old Bardem had their first child, a boy called Leo, in January 2011.
The couple became romantically involved after appearing together in Woody Allen's 2008 film "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" and later married.



Thursday, November 8, 2012

Tips To Qualify For a Low Mortgage Rate

 If you want to qualify for a low mortgage rate, here are a few tips on how to do it.

Photo: Thinkstock
Are you thinking about buying a home or refinancing the one you've got, but worried you won't qualify for a low mortgage rate?
Well, they say knowledge is power, so you may want to read about what the experts say you'll need to qualify for today's best rates.
And if you have any doubt that today's rates are low, consider that Mortgage News Daily, an organization that provides housing news and analysis, reports that as of September 25, 2012, "we've never seen rates move lower this quickly from all-time lows to 'even lower all-time lows.'"
That rate, they say, as of September 25, 2012, is 3.33 percent for a 30-year fixed rate mortgage, a 52-week low.
[Want to save on your mortgage costs? Click to compare rates from multiple lenders now.]
Of course, that rate is for those with qualities such as excellent credit, sufficient equity, job stability, and a few other things that impress lenders, as we'll explore below.
But if you fall short on any of these, don't give up. We've asked experts to weigh in with tips on how to correct any "issues" you might have.
Read on to see if you have what it takes to qualify for a historically low mortgage rate and save money for the next, oh, 30 years or so.

Criteria #1: Excellent Credit Score

Do you have wonderful relationships with your credit card companies? You know: never fighting, no nasty letters exchanged, never any penalties? If so, you probably have a great credit score as well, which is the first thing a lender will check, says Don Frommeyer, president of the National Association of Mortgage Professionals (NAMB).
"A good credit rating is absolutely vital to qualifying for a low rate," he says.
But what's a good credit rating, you ask? Good question. According to Chris L. Boulter, president of Val-Chris Investments, Inc., a California company specializing in residential and commercial loans, you'll need a rating of at least 720 on the Fair Isaac (FICO) scale, which Boulter says is the scale most banks use. The scores run from a low of 300 to a high of 850.
[Got a good credit score? Click to compare mortgage rates now.]
If your credit score is lower than 720, don't worry. You can still qualify for a loan, but it may be offered at a higher rate, says Boulter.
Tips to Qualifying: Not quite where you want to be on the scale? Here are some steps to improve your credit score:
  • Pay your bills on time. According to the FICO website, prompt payments are one of the biggest factors in determining your score.
  • If you are having trouble making payments, FICO suggests calling creditors to work out a payment plan, or using a credit counseling service.

Criteria #2: Stable Job History

Stability: it's a word that lenders place a lot of emphasis on…especially when it comes to your job.
In fact, Boulter says one way to qualify for a good rate is to be with the same company for at least two years. And if you've changed jobs, lenders want to see that you are still working in the same industry.
"It shows stability," says Boulter. And stability, he says, translates into a "reliable borrower who will pay us back."
[Think your job history will qualify you for a good rate? Click to compare mortgage rates now.]
But what if you've had a disruption in your employment? The good news: you could still qualify for a mortgage. The bad news:  it just might be at a higher interest rate, says Boulter.
Tips to Qualifying: Want the lowest rates? Here are a few pointers:
  • If you are self-employed, make sure your job title on your tax return reads the same each year.
  • If you were recently promoted or have been in the same job or industry for five years or more, make sure you point that out to your potential lender, says Boulter.

Criteria #3: Sufficient Income

You'd think that banks would want to lend everyone money; after all, they make more money when you pay them back with interest.
But that's the thing: banks need to be sure you can actually afford to pay them back. One way they gauge this? By ensuring you have sufficient income for the mortgage you want.
Of course, lenders realize that people have many monthly expenses, from food and clothing to car loan and credit card payments. So the bank is going to use what they call a debt-to-income ratio to calculate whether you are a good risk for borrowing their money, says Boulter.
To do this, they'll look at certain monthly expenses, such as your new mortgage payment, property taxes, homeowners insurance, credit card payments, car insurance payments, etc. All of this together cannot add up to more than 40 percent of your gross monthly income. Lower is better for getting the best rates, says Boulter.
[Got a sufficient income? Click to compare mortgage rates now.]
Tips to Qualifying: Wondering how to improve your debt-to-income ratio?
  • If you're self-employed, consider writing off less in your taxes so you effectively "earn" more money.
  •  Pay down credit cards to lower your monthly payments.
  •  Shop for less expensive houses to lower your monthly mortgage payment.

Criteria #4: Good Down Payment

Think of your down payment as collateral for your loan.
If you put more money into a down payment, the less risk the lender has of losing money should you stop paying back your loan, also known as defaulting.
So, the higher your down payment, the more at ease lenders will be about lending you money, and the more inclined they'll be to offer you their lowest mortgage interest rates, says Boulter.
But how much is enough?
"Banks want to see a 20 percent down payment," says Boulter. That's the minimum for qualifying for the best rates, he says. It also gets you out of another expense: private mortgage insurance (PMI), which lenders often require if your down payment is less than 20 percent. PMI helps to insure them against you defaulting and costs $50 to $100 a month, according to the Federal Reserve System, which oversees national monetary policy and the banks.
[Ready to put down a good down payment? Click to compare rates from multiple lenders now.]
Tips to Qualifying: Here are a few ways to make a larger down payment:
  • Consider taking money out of other, under-performing investments to increase your down payment; Boulter advises seeking a financial expert's advice before such a move, however.
  • Shop for a less expensive home with the same down payment. That effectively increases the amount of your down payment.

Criteria #5: Adequate Assets

Your bubbly personality might be a great asset at cocktail parties, but it's not going to get you anywhere with a lender. They want to see assets that can be turned into cold hard cash relatively quickly, if you want to qualify for the best interest rates, says Boulter.
"[Lenders] want to know that you can pay your bills and your mortgage should you hit a bump in the road," says Boulter. These bumps he's referring to can include anything from unemployment to unexpected medical expenses.
So how big of a bump do you need reserves for? Boulter says lenders want you to have four to six months worth of reserves - that is assets that are in cash or can be quickly converted to cash. Some examples include stocks, bonds, and retirement accounts.
Tips to Qualifying: Check out these tips on how to increase your assets:
  • Though they are not considered liquid, Boulter suggests listing assets such as jewelry, artwork, cars, etc., when applying for a loan. It can't hurt.
  • If it's possible to do so without a penalty, convert investments to cash and bolster your savings account. But, says Boulter, this should be done only after consulting a financial expert.

 

Monday, October 29, 2012

Senior Citizens Are Dying Poor, Hold On To Your Savings

By Fast Company Staff


Illustration by David Cowles

Retiring comfortably is no longer something we can count on. It’s not new information, but a recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research really puts it into perspective:

More than 46% of senior citizens in the U.S. die with less than $10,000 in financial assets.

A version of this article appears in the November 2012 issue of Fast Company.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

More colleges charging $50,000-plus a year

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- A growing number of colleges are joining the once-elite club of schools charging more than $50,000 per year. For the 2012-13 academic year, 151 colleges charged annual tuition, fees, room and board totaling more than $50,000, according to College Board data analyzed by the Chronicle of Higher Education. That's up from 123 schools last year, 100 schools the year before and only 58 schools the year before that. One college even priced out of the $50,000 range this year, charging more than $60,000. Sarah Lawrence College, in Bronxville, N.Y., boasted a $61,236 sticker price -- which includes tuition, fees, room and board -- after hiking costs by 3.5% this year. Selective liberal arts colleges like Wesleyan University, Vassar College, Williams College and Bowdoin College were among the most expensive schools, as were Ivy Leagues like Harvard University, Stanford University and Dartmouth College. In addition to being the priciest schools in the nation, at least 146 of the 151 schools charging $50,000-plus increased their costs this year. But hikes weren't reserved for just the most expensive schools. Among the more than 3,000 schools in the Chronicle of Higher Education's database, more than half increased tuition, fees, room and board this year. Costs at Angelina College in Texas surged 46%, followed by a 26% jump at University of West Alabama and a 22% increase at University of Alaska-Southeast. Overall, 40 schools raised costs by 10% or more.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Retirement Guide: 5 Years Left? Do This Now




This story is part of Money magazine's Retirement Guide 2013, where you'll find strategies to guide you through the last stretch, starting at 10 years out, then five years, one year, and, finally, your first year of leisure.
With just five years left before you retire, you need to begin solidifying your plans. Make sure you're still on track, but also nail down where you'll live (the largest expense in retirement) and how you'll meet your health care needs (the second biggest).
What to do
See if you need a course correction. A lot can happen between years 10 and five that could necessitate a change in plans -- including an illness, a job loss, or an extended bear market. Or maybe you just haven't managed to accrue the nine-times-salary savings that would be ideal at this point.
You're not out of luck: You may be able to retire on less than you'd hoped or get to your goal by working longer.
A one-time review with a financial planner who charges by the hour (find one at napfa.org) can be worth the $1,000 or so investment to help you figure out where you stand.
At a minimum, plug your info into T. Rowe Price's Retirement Income Calculator (troweprice.com) to see your chances of retiring with your desired income.
Examine health care costs. Better include an estimate for health insurance and out-of-pocket care costs in your income-needs projections.
If you'll retire before Medicare kicks in at 65, you could have a big expense ahead. For a 62-year-old couple with one spouse in ill health, premiums run up to $2,300 a month on the individual market, according to eHealthInsurance.com.
Exchanges created under the 2010 reforms may reduce costs, but you'll still pay more than you do now. Have an independent agent (find one at nahu.org) price plans for you.
You may also have the option to buy into your work plan for 18 months through COBRA; ask HR what that will cost. "COBRA may be the better option," says Cheryl Fish-Parcham, a policy expert at Families USA. It's not priced by age and has no exclusions.
Keep in mind, Medicare isn't a free ride either: Premiums and out-of-pocket costs average $4,600 a year, AARP reports. Approximate your outlay at Medicare.gov.
Plan for LTC -- ASAP. With a year in a nursing home topping $78,000, "long-term-care costs can drain your savings faster than a bear market," says wealth planner Jeff Townsend.
Insurance can offset costs, but premiums are as much as $4,000 a year -- and rising -- for a couple in their early sixties.
So buy only if your assets total $250,000 to $1.5 million, says San Diego financial planner Gil Armour. Below that, you're likely to exhaust your money fast enough to qualify for Medicaid; above it, you can pay your own way.
If you are going to buy, do so now because the older you are, the higher the premiums. Go with an insurer that does a lot of its business in LTC and gets an A or a B+ credit rating.
Make plans to get out of the house. Now that your kids are grown and your work life is winding down, do you really need that big home in the good school district→
A Brookings Institution paper found that housing near a high-scoring public school costs an average of 2.4 times more than housing near a low-scoring one. So simply moving to a town nearby could slash your costs and free up cash for your nest egg.
Downsize, and you'll bank even more.
Have another locale in mind? Find out what it will cost to live there, down to all the taxes, says Chicago planner Cicily Maton: "You might notice real estate taxes are lower, but that could be offset by higher income or sales taxes."
Practice your retirement job. Begin laying the foundation for any work you'll do in retirement. Ease the transition by getting credentials you need now or using relevant volunteer work to reorient your resume.
Want to consult? Get launched before you lose contacts in the field or your experience starts to look stale, says Art Koff of RetiredBrains.com. Start picking up assignments on the side so that you'll have steady clients at the ready when you're about to leave your job.
 
Questions to Ask Yourself Before Retiring  By Jeanine Skowronski


old couple beach
 Unpaid debts will contribute to your monthly expenses and play a huge part in how much money you will need to have on hand before you go ahead and leave the workforce. This is not to say that your house needs to be paid off in full before you retire.

“If you have a low interest rate [on your mortgage], you’ll have to ask, ‘Do I want to pay this off in full?’” Kinsey says. On the other hand, if the mortgage is more substantial, you may want to consider taking money out of your investment portfolio so you don’t have to worry about it moving forward. The point is, whichever option you do chose will have significant impact on your cash flow.

If you have other debts on the books, such as high credit card balances, you may want to look into what other factors may be behind the balances so you can get them paid off as much as possible before you abandon a steady paycheck.

 

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Lance Armstrong's Demise

Lance Armstrong Stripped of Tour de France Medals 

PHOTO: Lance Armstrong addresses participants at The LIVESTRONG Challenge Ride at the Palmer Events Center on Oct. 21, 2012, in Austin, Texas.

By (@NealKarlinsky) Oct. 22, 2012 
The global governing body of cycling today said it will officially strip Lance Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles and ban him from the sport for life, marking an epic downfall for the cyclist once lauded as the greatest of all time but now at the center of a doping scandal.
"Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling and he deserves to be forgotten in cycling," Pat McQuaid, the president of the International Cycling Union, known as UCI, said today at a news conference in Switzerland. "This is a landmark day for cycling."
The UCI's decision comes days after the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency banned Armstrong from the sport for life for alleged use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs. The USADA issued a 200-page report Oct. 10 after a wide-scale investigation into Armstrong's alleged use of performance-enhancing substances.
The agency said its investigators interviewed 26 people with direct knowledge of Armstrong's alleged doping, including 11 teammates, and collected 1,000 pages of evidence accusing him of cheating.
Tom Pennington/Getty Images
Lance Armstrong addresses participants at The... View Full Size
Lance Armstrong Leads Cancer-Fighting Charity Gala Despite Scandal Watch Video
Lance Armstrong Dropped by Nike, Quits Charity Watch Video
Lance Armstrong Steps Down as Livestrong Leader Watch Video
McQuaid accepted the USADA's sanctions and said he was "sickened" by the evidence in the report, pointing to testimony from one of Armstrong's former teammates David Zabriskie, in which he details how he was allegedly coercing into doping.
Armstrong tried to fight the USADA ban in court, but told the USADA in August that he wouldn't fight the doping charges against him. He has maintained he never cheated.
Armstrong made two appearances this weekend at the Livestrong Foundation's 15th anniversary charity gala, but did not concede much in the way of an explanation or apology for the alleged doping that cost him his medals and lucrative sponsors.
"People ask me a lot, 'How are you doing?' And I tell them, 'I've been better but I've also been worse,'" the cancer survivor said. "This mission is bigger than me. It's bigger than any individual."
Armstrong stepped down as the chairman of the Lance Armstrong Foundation, the cancer charity commonly known as Livestrong that he founded in 1997, a year after he was diagnosed with testicular cancer at age 25. He resigned last week to "spare the foundation any negative effects as a result of controversy."
Nike, Anheuser-Busch and Trek Bicycles are among the companies that severed ties with the cycling star last week in the wake of the scandal. Oakley sunglasses cut ties with Armstrong today after the UCI decision.
As Armstrong's sponsorships and reputation have fallen off a cliff, the silence surrounding his alleged doping methods over the years has begun to crack. In the USADA report, teammates describe years of systematic doping, using banned substances and receiving illicit blood transfusions.
A former competitor, Stephen Swart, testified in a deposition that Armstrong bribed him to throw a race with a $1 million prize. Swart said he was offered approximately $50,000 to allow Armstrong to win.
Lance Armstrong Steps Down as Livestrong Leader Watch Video

McQuaid accepted the USADA's sanctions and said he was "sickened" by the evidence in the report, pointing to testimony from one of Armstrong's former teammates David Zabriskie, in which he details how he was allegedly coercing into doping.
Armstrong tried to fight the USADA ban in court, but told the USADA in August that he wouldn't fight the doping charges against him. He has maintained he never cheated.
Armstrong made two appearances this weekend at the Livestrong Foundation's 15th anniversary charity gala, but did not concede much in the way of an explanation or apology for the alleged doping that cost him his medals and lucrative sponsors.
"People ask me a lot, 'How are you doing?' And I tell them, 'I've been better but I've also been worse,'" the cancer survivor said. "This mission is bigger than me. It's bigger than any individual."
Armstrong stepped down as the chairman of the Lance Armstrong Foundation, the cancer charity commonly known as Livestrong that he founded in 1997, a year after he was diagnosed with testicular cancer at age 25. He resigned last week to "spare the foundation any negative effects as a result of controversy."
Nike, Anheuser-Busch and Trek Bicycles are among the companies that severed ties with the cycling star last week in the wake of the scandal. Oakley sunglasses cut ties with Armstrong today after the UCI decision.
As Armstrong's sponsorships and reputation have fallen off a cliff, the silence surrounding his alleged doping methods over the years has begun to crack. In the USADA report, teammates describe years of systematic doping, using banned substances and receiving illicit blood transfusions.
A former competitor, Stephen Swart, testified in a deposition that Armstrong bribed him to throw a race with a $1 million prize. Swart said he was offered approximately $50,000 to allow Armstrong to win.
The USADA also accuses Armstrong of trying to intimidate witnesses. Former Sports Illustrated reporter Selena Roberts said Armstrong and his inner circle tried to turn her into a villain with her bosses and smear her reputation personally when they heard she was investigation doping allegations.
"I don't really think there's any politician, celebrity or athlete who has really put together the machinery to suppress reporting about them like Lance Armstrong has," Roberts said.

For fans like me, Lance Armstrong doping saga spoils memories

Peter Ford, who covered Lance Armstrong's winning streak at the Tour de France for the Monitor, writes that Armstrong's doping has 'tainted some of my happiest memories of reporting in France.'

By , Staff Writer / October 22, 2012 

This file photo shows Lance Armstrong, center, waving from the podium in July 2002 as he holds the winner's trophy after the 20th and final stage of the Tour de France cycling race between Melun and Paris. Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned for life by cycling's governing body Monday.
Peter Dejong/AP/File 
 
Paris Thirteen years ago, on an idyllic summer’s afternoon, I stood by the side of a road in the cheesemaking region of Cantal and watched Lance Armstrong speed by, tucked into the peloton, on his way to his first victory in the Tour de France.
It was 1999. A year earlier the Tour had been in tatters, devastated by a doping scandal that had seen police and judges raiding riders’ hotel rooms in the middle of the night, seizing drugs. Armstrong’s successful arrival on the scene after overcoming cancer “is symbolic of the way the Tour de France is emerging from its own battle against disappearance,” said the tour director at the time.
His victory would be “highly symbolic of the combat he fought against death, and that we are fighting against doping,” promised Jean-Marie Leblanc.
It turns out that Mr. Armstrong beat the Tour de France organizers just as he had beaten death. Today the International Cycling Union (UCI), accepting evidence gathered by the US Anti-Doping Agency that Armstrong was a serial drug-taker, stripped the US “champion” of all his titles.
Even back in 1999, people suspected something was wrong. “Armstrong is very strong, too strong, incredibly strong,” commented one French TV journalist the evening that the US rider won a punishing stage in the Alps.
But that could be dismissed as sour grapes, as an American charged into a sport long dominated by the French and swept all before him, “winning” a record seven Tours.
And we all wanted to believe in Armstrong, from the UCI – for whom he was a magnificent money-spinning mascot for his sport – down to the lowliest spectator standing by the side of the road who admired his comeback courage.
Well, not all of us. My (French) wife never believed Armstrong was clean. She never believed that any of the top riders were clean. In argument after argument over the years I called her cynical, pointing out that my hero had never failed a drug test. Now I know that she was just clear-eyed.
Everybody who followed Lance during his “glory days” will have his or her own way of feeling disappointed now that the truth, it seems, is out. (Armstrong has not acknowledged any guilt but says he will not challenge the USADA report.)
For me, the news has tainted some of my happiest memories of reporting in France. I used to love covering the Tour, driving halfway up an Alp one July afternoon, parking my car near a steep hairpin bend, picnicking sociably with whomever I found parked next to me (and there were always crowds of families waiting for the Tour to come by), sleeping in the car, and then the next day enjoying the hoopla of the publicity caravan before the riders themselves came by, just an arm’s length away, thighs straining, sweat pouring from their chins, teeth gritted.
It was an annual treat for me, the most fun I have ever had at work. And watching these men at the outer edges of endurance even inspired me to take up cycling myself: I had a go at one of the Tour’s mountain stages in 2005 and I spend my weekends now cycling up and down mountains. (You can imagine what my wife thinks about that….)
Lance Armstrong, whose feats excited a lot of interest in American newspaper readers, was my passport to this kind of fun, and now that we know he was cheating, it feels almost as though I was piggyback cheating by having that fun.
Even at the time though, I realize, I could not entirely ignore my wife’s doubts. That evening in July 1999, as I dictated my article over the phone to my editor, I ended it with something the spokesman for Credit Lyonnais bank, the Tour’s leading sponsor, had told me.
“We cannot be certain that a scandal won’t drop on our heads,” he said. “I have just one hope: that the rumors about Lance Armstrong are not true.”

Thanks to:

 Beijing Bureau Chief
Peter Ford is The Christian Science Monitor’s Beijing Bureau Chief. He covers news and features throughout China and also makes reporting trips to Japan and the Korean peninsula.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Buy a Ring, Get a Free Gun, Jeweler Offers

Buy a ring, get a gun is the brainchild of an Iowa jeweler trying to entice deer-hunting husbands-to-be. Anyone spending at least $1,999 on an engagement ring gets a free rifle. 

An Iowa jeweler is offering free rifles for husbands-to-be who spend at least $1,999 on an engagement ring at his store near Iowa City. Jeweler Harold van Beek told KCRG near Cedar Rapids that he wanted to "do something for the boy who doesn't like to hunt for diamonds but likes to hunt for deer." The deal at Jewelry By Harold in North Liberty starts Thursday and will run through the end of October. The rifle offer is subject to Iowa laws on gun ownership. Those barred include felons and addicts.

Buy A Ring, Get A Gun Deal At Iowa Jeweler

You can buy a ring and get a free gun at an Iowa jewelry store called Jewelry by Harold — a promotion that certainly brings new meaning to the term “shotgun wedding.”
The promotion covers engagement rings that cost at least $1,999, reports International Business Times. As long as you purchase a ring for $1,999 or more, you can get a voucher for a free gun. Harold van Beek, owner of Jewelry By Harold, stated:
“Diamonds are a girl’s best friend. So say: I’m hunting deer, and here is a diamond ring, dear.”
The buy a ring, get a gun promotion only lasts until October 31 and has some restrictions, including the fact that the purchaser must be eligible to own a gun in Iowa (a rule that discounts convicted felons and drug addicts).
Van Beek explained that he was inspired to run the promotion after seeing a similar deal in Georgia. Market Watch notes that the owner of Jewelry by Harold stated:
“We hope people know about the crazy jeweler in North Liberty that does crazy things. Fun is more important than anything else, we try to put some fun in it. Hunting season is coming up, I thought this is cool, so let’s do something for the boy who doesn’t like to hunt for diamonds, but likes to hunt for deer.”
The free gun voucher will allow the purchaser to receive a Remington 870 hunting shotgun, which usually retails for less than $500. The voucher can only be redeemed at Fin and Feather in Iowa City. The rifle is popular with military and police organizations, who have purchased Remington 870s in the past.
Would you take advantage of the buy a ring, get a free gun promotion at Jewelry by Harold, or is Harold van Beek going too far to try and make a sale?