MONEY home prices

These Places Have the Best Housing Bargains in the Country

Scioto River and Columbus, Ohio skyline at dusk.
Columbus, Ohio, skyline at dusk. VisionsofAmerica/Joe Sohm—Getty Images

As the market tries to adjust to a post-recession world, there are plenty of deals to be had. But there are also plenty of markets where housing is more unaffordable than ever.

With housing price growth slowing down nationwide, and a gradually improving economy, many Americans who’ve been waiting to make a decision on a home are wondering if it’s time to buy or sell.

Here’s some data that might help with those decisions: A new study by RealtyTrac determined which housing markets are more and less affordable relative to their historical averages. The real estate data firm computed the numbers by determining what percentage of an area’s median income would be needed to make payments on a median-priced home in over 1,000 counties, and then compared that to the county’s historical price-to-income ratio over the past 14 years.

So which areas are looking like a bargain? RealtyTrac identified 66 counties with a combined population of 16 million (about 5% of the total survey area’s population) where home prices are lower than historical averages and the unemployment rate was 5% or lower—well below the national unemployment rate of about 6.2%.

This, according to RealtyTrac, is the best way to measure affordability because many markets with cheap housing don’t have quality jobs to offer to new residents. Some undiscovered markets are “undiscovered for good reason because their economies are struggling,” says Daren Blomquist, vice president at RealtyTrac. “A good example of that is Detroit. Affordability alone isn’t an indication that a market is a good one to buy in or invest in.”

The study found Columbus, Ohio; Oklahoma City; Tulsa; Akron, Ohio; Omaha; Greenville, S.C.; and Des Moines, Iowa, are among the markets with an advantageous combination of employment and affordable housing.

Courtesy of RealtyTrac

Why is housing in these areas undervalued? Basically, the overall real estate market is still recovering from the recession, and prices have yet to adjust in certain markets as investors are slow to discover lesser-known areas with strong economic growth. This pro-buyer environment might not last much longer, though. Blomquist says there’s been an uptick of institutional investor purchasing in Columbus, which means prices are set to rise in the near future.

There’s good news for prospective sellers as well. Prices in over one-third of the counties surveyed are less affordable than their historical averages, suggesting homes there may be over-valued. These cities include San Francisco; Portland, Oregon; Austin; San Antonio; Houston; and Atlanta.

Courtesy of RealtyTrac

Should sellers jump at the high prices? If you’re a homeowner in one of these markets, a lot of things are going your way. As prices rise, institutional investors are rushing to invest in these markets, inflating values even further. But there’s also a lack of supply because builders are still reluctant to start new construction.

“It’s a sellers market still [in these areas] because you have a combination of strong demand from this new breed of buyers and low supply because builders are very hesitant,” says Blomquist. “If you’re a seller, you’re not competing against too many others and you have a long liner of buyers.”

However, he cautions that for sellers looking to buy another home in the same market, less affordable home prices may be a double-edged sword. “The catch-22 is if you’re trying to buy too — if that’s the case, then it’s not a great market to buy in.”

MONEY mortgages

WATCH: How You Can Benefit from Easier Mortgages

Mortgage loans are easier to get now. Here's how you can take advantage of it.

MONEY Ask the Expert

Can Rental Income Save Your Retirement?

140605_AskExpert_illo
Robert A. Di Ieso, Jr.

Q: Is rental income a good way to diversify my retirement portfolio?

A: For some people, yes. “Rental property can provide another stream of income, a hedge against inflation if rental prices rise and an asset that hopefully will appreciate over time,” says Diann McChesney, a certified financial planner at Asset Strategies Inc. in Avon, Conn. But being a landlord isn’t for everyone and not all properties are a good investment, says McChesney.

To get the most out of a rental property, be judicious about where you buy. Like most things in real estate, location is critical. Buy in a place where there is strong demand for housing so you can command a good rent and you don’t have a hard time finding tenants. You may not want the hassle of owning it in your older retirement years, If you plan to sell it down the road, it’s important to own a property that will be attractive to other investors.

A good rental property has many of the same things you look for in a home: A nice neighborhood, well-regarded schools and jobs that attract people to the area. Be careful about buying a fixer-upper. Unless you are handy or have a lot of time to handle repairs, maintenance problems will eat into the income. Today’s low interest rates make taking on a mortgage reasonable but the real key is ensuring that the rental income generates positive cash flow. If you want an income from the property, rent should more than cover your mortgage, property taxes, maintenance and repairs, says McChesney.

Keep in mind that banks require a larger down payment for—20% to 25%—and charge higher rates. It’s also an illiquid asset, so you won’t be able to tap your investment as easily as you can money in, say, an IRA. While you can get a tax break writing off expenses while you hold the property, once you sell it you’ll pay taxes on that depreciation.

The bottom line: A rental property can be a good way to diversify your retirement portfolio and provide another source of income in your later years. But “there’s a lot more to it than collecting rent,” says McChesney.

MONEY Millennials

The 15 Most Affordable Cities for Millennials

Greeting Card from Augusta, Georgia. ca. 1943
Universal Images Group (Lake County Discovery Museum)—Alamy

Finding an affordable place to live is one of the biggest challenges for millennials. This list should make it easier.

Last week, we told you about the 15 most expensive cities for millennials to live in based on a recent study by RealtyTrac. This week, we bring you the other side of the story: the 15 areas that are the most affordable, and the most attractive, to young people.

To quickly review how this list came to be, RealtyTrac ranked counties with at least 100,000 people by the percentage of median income one needs to spend in order to make a median housing payment or pay an average rent bill on a three-bedroom property. To make sure these cities are actually places young people would want to live, the company only included areas where millennials make up at least 24% of the population, and where the percentage of millennials has increased over the past six years.

So which area wins the most-affordable crown? It depends if you’re renting or buying. As is often the case, renting is significantly more expensive than making payments on purchased property. The best county for buyers—Richmond County, Georgia, which includes the city of Augusta—will cost an owner 10% less of their median income than if they were renting in Bossier Parish, Louisiana, the most affordable area for leasing.

For renters, Bossier Parish, home to Bossier City, will cost about 20% of the area’s median income. Average rent on a three-bedroom is a paltry $943. There aren’t as many familiar names on this list as its less affordable cousin, but some relatively major cities do make an appearance. Dane County, ranked ninth, includes Madison, Wisconsin; a beautiful city that also houses one of the nation’s top universities. Franklin County, home to to Columbus, Ohio, also offers a great city for millennials to live. Minneapolis, Minnesota’s Hennepin County even squeaks in at number 14.

Those willing to purchase a home are going to see a very different ranking. While Baltimore and Philadelphia are some of the least affordable places to rent, they’re actually one of the more affordable cities for buyers. Philadelphia County and Baltimore City rank 5th and 6th respectively, and payments will cost buyers around 14% of their area’s median income. Other highlights are Milwaukee, Minnesota, which comes in 9th, and Columbus’s Franklin County, which makes another, more highly ranked appearance.

Want the whole list? Here it is:

MONEY Millennials

The 15 Most Expensive Cities for Millennials

Skateboarder on the Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, California
And the "winner" is...the City by the Bay. Jordan Siemens—Getty Images

Finding an affordable place to live is hard, especially when you're just starting out. Here are 15 cities where you'll be pinching pennies.

In June, I moved out of my college dorm room into what I thought was a reasonably priced apartment. I need two roommates to afford the monthly rent, and my room lacks space for anything more than a bed and tiny desk. But I figured those were luxuries my peers in other big cities gave up in their first apartment, too, right?

Wrong.

A new report from RealtyTrac ranks New York, my home town, as the one of the least affordable areas for millennials in the entire country. The study ranked counties with at least 100,000 people by the percentage of median income one needs to spend in order to make a median housing payment or pay an average rent bill on a three-bedroom property. In order to focus on young people, RealtyTrac only included areas where millennials make up at least 24% of the population, and where the percentage of young people has increased over the past six years.

When it comes to least affordable counties to buy a house, four of NYC’s five boroughs take up almost a third of the list, with Manhattan (New York County), Brooklyn (Kings Country), the Bronx (Bronx County), and Queens (Queens Country), each “earning” a spot.

The West Coast isn’t off the hook, either. Beating out Manhattan for the dubious honor of most expensive city for young people is San Francisco. Buying a median-priced three-bedroom house—$950,000 as of this April— in the City by the Bay will cost median income earners more than 78% of their wages.

In terms of renting, the picture changes—but only slightly. Bronx county is the least affordable of the nation’s millennial-heavy areas, not because three-bedroom rent—averaged at about $1,850 a month—is particularly expensive, but because median incomes are relatively low. In 2014, the median Bronx household is estimated to make only $32,891.

For residents of San Francisco, renting is actually relatively more affordable than buying. Leasing an apartment will take about 40% of a median earner’s income, almost half of what the usual housing payment would take away.

OK, we all knew New York and San Francisco were going to be expensive (just maybe not this expensive), but there are some surprising names on the list, too. Our nation’s capital takes up two spots on the most unaffordable homes list, and snowy Denver, Colorado, comes in before Portlandia‘s notoriously expensive namesake.

(No word on whether Denver has restaurants that inform you how many friends your chicken dinner had growing up.)

Renters will also notice that some cities they thought were cheap are a lot less affordable than expected. Baltimore, home of The Wire, is the the second least affordable city, behind the Bronx. Philadelphia comes in third, but the good news is that millennials have been surging into the city recently. From 2007 to 2013, Philly’s young-person population has increased by a fourth. At least you’ll have people your age to complain to about the rent.

What’s also notable are the cities not on this list. Hubs like Boston, San Antonio, Chicago, Houston, and San Jose are nowhere to be found. That doesn’t mean they’re cheap, but their prices might be more manageable than most people realize.

Check out the full list below for even more information.

More: The 5 Cities That Have Recovered Most—and Least—From the Recession

 

MONEY Ask the Expert

The Best Yard Tools for Your Money

140605_AskExpert_illo
Robert A. Di Ieso, Jr.

Q: We just moved out of the city and are gearing up for our first yard work. How do we decide what type of lawnmower, hedge-trimmer, leaf blower, and other machines to buy? Our options include gas, plug-in and battery-powered.

A: Welcome to suburbia! As you begin to enjoy the many benefits of lawns and foliage, you’ll also likely quickly discover yard work needs to be done weekly during much of the year, taking anywhere from an hour to a whole day depending on the chore at hand and the size of your property.

You might shell out $1,000 to $5,000 on the equipment you’ll need, but assuming you stay with your do-it-yourself plan for perhaps five years or more, that investment will more than pay for itself compared with hiring a pro to tackle the work. (If you’ve never before used mowers, string trimmers, leaf blowers and such, get a friend who owns them to give you a lesson before you buy.)

Gas-powered equipment is the gold standard. You get virtually unlimited run time (as long as you keep your gas can full), with plenty of power. There are downsides though: Gasoline engines need regular service (technically every year), and they’re bulky and loud. They may require a strong arm to start, especially as they age.

Plug-in machines, on the other hand, start with the flip of a switch and need no maintenance, other than sharpening blades perhaps once or twice a decade. They weigh less than a gas tool and cost less too. The price for a handheld machine, such as a leaf blower or hedge-trimmer, comes in at just $50 to $70, compared with $130 to $250 for gas. The problem is that plug-ins lack the power of gas, plus you have to drag long extension cords around to use them. That’s why Chris Bolton, of the giant Michigan equipment retailer Weingartz, doesn’t recommend plug-in tools for anything larger than a postage-stamp-size lot.

Battery-powered machines have long been the also-rans of the outdoor power equipment world. Thanks to new battery technology, though, they’ve leapfrogged plug-ins and now offer a middle ground between burning gas and dragging cords in terms of power, weight, and convenience. The downsides: They are pricey, with a high-quality handheld coming in at $400 to $500 (perhaps twice the price of an equivalent gas machine), and the batteries typically only last 4 to 5 years. Replacements run about $80 apiece.

As long as you’re able-bodied enough to handle their weight and power, go with gas for your mower and snow thrower (if you need one), which are jobs that demand maximum power, says Bolton. If you prefer batteries for other tools, go with the same top-of-the-line name brand for them all. That way you’ll get plenty of power and the batteries will be interchangeable. Buy two so that when you’re using one, the other can be charging. Also spring for the quick-charger upgrade so you never have to wait on a battery and can get back to enjoying your new yard as fast as possible.

MONEY home prices

Backlash Against Foreign Home Buyers Takes Off

Foreigners are paying cash for U.S. real estate. Turns out some of that money is laundered. Fuse—Getty Images

It’s no secret that outsiders are collecting homes in cities around the country. Often the mystery is who they actually are, and where their money comes from.

Updated: August 1, 2014 11:00am

Foreign interest in U.S. real estate continues to grow, according to a report released this month from the National Association of Realtors. International sales rose from $68.2 billion to $92.2 billion over the past year, thanks to favorable exchange rates, affordable home prices, and rising affluence abroad.

In the wake of the housing bust, foreigners helped revive many U.S housing markets by scooping up properties when Americans were running scared. Despite the rise in prices since then, the attraction doesn’t seem to have soured. Experts estimate at least one-third of newly developed apartments in Manhattan go to international buyers. Other metropolitan areas including Los Angeles and Miami are also seeing demand, as well as even second-tier cities in places like Arizona and Texas.

Investors have been flocking from all over the map: China, Russia, The UAE, Switzerland. The industry catering to these faraway landlords—in charge of everything from managing payments to choosing lighting fixtures—has ballooned, since many of the apartments are rented out or sit empty.

Sales of ultra-high-end pads have received much of the media attention. Publications ranging from CBS News to Vanity Fair paid attention when two years ago a family member of Russian fertilizer oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev purchased the most expensive condo in Manhattan, for $88 million. But you’d be wrong to think it’s only billionaires that want a place on American soil. Buyers regularly hunt for homes and apartments at more mainstream prices (although, to be fair, the median price of a condo in Manhattan runs nearly $1.4 million). The National Association of Realtors reports that more than one-quarter of agents have worked with international clients. Chinese buyers spend $425,000 on average on U.S. homes, with about two-thirds of the deals being all-cash.

The Backlash

No surprise, the out-of-towners have earned a bad rap from many locals, who are losing bidding wars to the cash offers and feeling squeezed by the inflated prices. The outrage had grown strong enough in New York that in February writer Diane Francis, a Canadian who owns a place on Manhattan’s 57th Street, penned an opinion piece in the New York Post proclaiming that foreign real estate buyers in New York are not the enemy. She pointed out that she and her husband pay at least $25,000 a year in property and sales taxes but don’t cost the state’s schools, hospitals, or jails a dime.

Last month New York magazine fueled the rage with its cover story, “New York Real Estate Is the New Swiss Bank Account,” suggesting that wealthy foreigners are using property to hide—and sometimes launder—their rubles and yuan. Another story a few days later from the Nation, both part of a joint project that included the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, piled on. A few tidbits from New York magazine:

As New York magazine noted, it’s often anonymous LLCs and bank accounts behind the purchases:

“There is nothing illegal—at least from the destination nation’s perspective—about sending money from an anonymous offshore bank account to purchase property in America. On the contrary, it’s an everyday occurrence.”

Sometimes not even building managers or the best neighborhood snoops know who the mysterious owners are, or where the money came from.

“With a little creative corporate structuring, the ownership of a New York property can be made as untraceable as a numbered bank account…. Those on the New York end of the transaction often don’t know—or don’t care to find out—the exact derivation of foreign money involved in these transactions.”

While not all of the foreign money coming in is laundered, some of it is, and public officials so far haven’t taken up the issue. From the Nation:

“U.S. authorities don’t put up many roadblocks for foreigners who want to launder money through American real estate. Escrow and real estate agents aren’t required to find out the true identities of property buyers—the real people behind the front men or corporate shells.”

Will enough outrage boil up that politicians feel obliged to make buying less attractive for foreigners? The capital-gains tax rules were recently modified in London, dimming future returns for foreign investors (and likely sending more buyers to this side of the Atlantic). Yet Adam Davidson, writing in the New York Times Magazine, points out one upside:

“I initially felt anger and disgust at the idea of absentee billionaires hoarding Manhattan real estate, making the city even more unaffordable while they live like princes in Moscow or Hong Kong or wherever. But then I did the math. Assuming that their money has to go somewhere, it’s not so bad that these billionaires choose to put a chunk of it here. Any city official in Dayton or, for that matter, Philadelphia would do anything to have such problems.”

The trend may slow on its own, particularly at the ultra high end. Developers looking to cash in on the world’s wealthy may oversaturate the market. There is, after all, a fixed number of people worldwide who want—and can afford—to plunk down upwards of $20 million for a pied-a-terre. The New York Daily News recently pointed out that sales in at least one building on Manhattan’s West 57th Street, so-called Billionaires’ Row, have slowed.

Then last week, the conversation about luxury real estate shifted from shady foreign buyers to an issue much closer to home for most of us: the question of whether non-ultra-rich residents of a new luxury development on Manhattan’s Upper West Side will have to enter through a separate door.

 

Correction: A representative of Dmitry Rybolovlev stated in an e-mail to MONEY that the Manhattan apartment was purchased by Rybolovlev’s daughter, not by Rybolovlev, as the article originally indicated.

TIME

Housing Prices Jump Though Top of Market Cools Off

The start to the story is the same as it has been for months: the most recent housing price data came in, and prices jumped.

However, the influence of extremely speculative markets (think: Miami and Vegas) is moderating, causing the national numbers to begin coming in at a slower pace.

For the year, this meant that the 20-City S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index, which had clocked a yearly gain of 10.8% in April, slowed to high single digits, posting a yearly gain of 9.3% for the twelve months ending in May.

On a monthly basis, prices were up 0.1% for the index. For the year, every one of the twenty cities showed price increases.

However, gains for the cities at the top of the market slowed, which may presage softer numbers for the index as a whole in the coming months. Call it “hot hot” instead of “hot hot hot.” Las Vegas, which last month showed a yearly gain of 18.8%, decelerated to a yearly gain of 16.9%; Miami slid from 14.7% to 13.2%, and Phoenix slowed from a yearly rate of 9.8% to 8.2%.

The cities with the slightest gains were Cleveland (up 1.2% month-to-month, and 2.4% annually); Charlotte (up 1.4% month-to-month, and 4.7% annually), and New York (up 1.0% from April, and 4.8% annually).

One strong driver behind the market has been historically low interest rates. The rate for thirty-year “jumbo” loans — those with a loan balance of greater than $417,000 — fell this week to 4.21 percent, according to a weekly survey by the Mortgage Bankers Association. The MBA noted in a release that this was “the lowest level since May 2013.”

So continued low rates are supporting high prices. But what about the Federal Reserve? Wasn’t the Fed, which had been following a program of supporting low interest rates by buying debt, supposed to be slowly removing that support by buying less debt? Last year, when then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke had announced that the Fed would wean off its latest round of bond purchasing, that so-called “Taper Talk” sent rates jumping.

Yet they’re low again because the economy made one strong realization: that “tapering” can be neutral. Yes, the Fed is buying less debt in an absolute sense — it’s buying a lower dollar volume worth of bonds. But the Federal government is also issuing less debt, since tax revenues are up. So indeed there’s less buying — but there’s less to buy. “It’s not really tightening if the proportion is the same,” noted Doug Duncan, senior vice president and chief economist of the mortgage giant Fannie Mae, in a chat with Time last month.

Going forward, there’s a possibility that rates do spike as the taper ends completely, which is planned for later this year. However, if the history of the past couple of years is any guide, that impact will show in a slowing volume of home sales. Prices, though, seem on track to keep rising — albeit at a slowing pace. Maybe by the end of the year, we’ll be down to just one “hot.”

MONEY home prices

Case-Shiller Index Shows Home Price Growth Slowing

Home prices increased at their slowest pace since February 2013, according to the latest report on the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index.

The index, which compiles a 10- and 20-city composite of home prices, showed the 10-city composite posted price gains of 9.4% year-over-year, while the 20-city group showed gains of 9.3%. Both results were significantly lower than the 10.9% and 10.8% year-over-year increases the respective composites showed last month, and much less than the 9.9% gains analysts expected from the 20-city index.

All 20 cities posted some month-to-month price gains before seasonal adjustment, but 14 of 20 saw prices decline once seasonal factors were taken into account.

This is the second bit of bad news for home-sellers this month. On Monday, the National Association of Realtors reported that pending home sales dropped 1.1% in June, and were down 7.3% since June of 2013. Lawrence Yun, the NAR’s chief economist, blamed tight credit, low inventory, and flat wages for the decline. However, Yun predicted sales would increase slightly in the second half of the year, partially because price appreciation has slowed.

“Housing has been turning in mixed economic numbers in the last few months,” said David M. Blitzer, chairman of the Index Committee at S&P Dow Jones Indices. “Prices and sales of existing homes have shown improvement while construction and sales of new homes continue to lag. At the same time, the broader economy and especially employment are showing larger improvements and substantial gains.”

Of the 20 cities measured by the Case-Shiller index, Charlotte was the only area to see its annual growth rate improve. Las Vegas experienced some slowdown in price appreciation, but remained the city with the fastest price growth (16.9% YOY), followed by San Francisco (15.4% YOY). Washington had the lowest year-over-year growth at 5.8%.

MONEY buying a home

What a Zillow/Trulia Merger Might Mean For Consumers

House with SOLD sign
Martin Barraud—Getty Images

UPDATED—4:21 P.M.

It’s official. Zillow and Trulia, the two largest sites in the home listings game, are merging. Together they account for about 48% (not including local websites) of listings web traffic.

The deal, worth $3.5 billion in Zillow stock, has already been good for investors. Both companies’ stock is through the roof as Wall Street rewards Zillow for effectively eliminating its major competitor. Zillow’s press release states that both brands will be maintained, but Trulia CEO Pete Flint will begin reporting to Zillow’s chief executive, Spencer Rascoff. For all intents and purposes, Zillow-Trulia is now the only game in town, with a combined traffic that’s more than 3.5 times that of its nearest competitor, Realtor.com, according to comScore.

What does Zillow’s new, even-more-dominant market position mean for the consumer? Probably not a whole lot—at least initially.

The major concern consumers have long held with both Zillow and Trulia is the accuracy of the services’ listing information. The notorious(ly questionable) ‘Zestimate’ aside, the big two have been dinged for having out-of-date listings information. Because neither company has access to the large sample of multiple listing service (MLS) data that members of the National Association of Realtors are privy to, each relies on a hodgepodge of MLS listings, third-party services, and individual brokerages for their listing information.

The results can be hit or miss. It’s not uncommon to find a home on either site that’s already off the market. Realtor.com, run by the National Association of Realtors (NAR), has made its large MLS network—the site has access to virtually all of the country’s listing services—and more accurate listing information the cornerstone of recent marketing efforts.

A Zillow/Trulia merger isn’t likely to make their listing information any more reliable, and Zillow doesn’t mention increased accuracy as one of the “expected benefits” of the deal. Sissy Lappin, a Texas Realtor and founder of ListingDoor.com, thinks the Zillow/Trulia merger is a pure-and-simple market share grab, not a quest for more or better data. “They’re buying out the competition,” Lappin says.

That shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, both because each company has likely already made deals with all of the data providers willing to do business, and because the data only needs to be accurate enough to attract customers, not necessarily to sell them a particular home. Zillow makes most of its money by providing real estate agents with early leads, and even its own CEO has gone so far as to endorse the notion that “a lead on a stale listing is still a good lead.”

At the end of the day, consumers might find themselves the losers in the merger. 24/7 Wall Street points out that less competition for agents’ business could lead Zillow to charge them higher advertising fees, and those agents may pass on the costs to the buyers they represent. That said, how much agents actually pay for ad space on Trulia/Zillow is a hotly debated topic, and it’s still unclear whether agents—who, after all, provide Zillow with listings—or the company itself has the upper hand in the relationship.

Ultimately, the big question is whether the merger will bring long-simmering tensions between brokerage firms and Trulia/Zullow to a boil. Brokers like the advertising and leads online listings sites provide, but they also don’t like that agents can circumvent real estate franchises and go to the customer directly. There’s always the potential that Zillow becomes so large it can muscle out the middle man, and if enough of the industry fears this is coming true, they could pull their listings entirely.

Zillow denies they have any aspirations beyond creating a mutually beneficial partnership. “We’ve never wanted to become a real estate brokerage,” stated one company spokesman. The question is whether brokers believe that partnership is more beneficial than threatening. If they don’t, and decide to pull their listings—the so called “nuclear option”—it would have a huge impact on the market, for both consumers and everyone involved in the real estate business.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this post stated that Trulia and Zillow shared 90% of online listings traffic. According to Zillow, that number is 48%.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser