One hurdle to first-time homebuyers is starting to get a little lower: The average down payment for a home fell to less than 15 percent in the first quarter of 2015 to its lowest level since early 2012. The average down payment for the quarter was $57,710, according to RealtyTrac.

The lower down payments reflect new loan programs recently introduced by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and lower insurance premiums for Federal Housing Authority Loans. The market is also adjusting as large, institutional investors who had been buying starter homes as rental investments dial back.

Related: U.S. Homeownership Dips, But Household Formation Rises

“Down payment trends in the first quarter indicate that first-time homebuyers are finally starting to come out of the woodwork, albeit gradually,” RealtyTrac vice president Daren Blomquist said in a statement.

Broken down by type of loan, the average down payment for conventional loans was 18.4 percent ($72,590), and the average down payment for FHA loans was just 2.9 percent ($7,609). FHA loans as a share of all mortgages increased from 21 percent in January to 25 percent in March.

Among the country’s largest counties, Wayne County in Detroit, Mich., had the lowest average down payment (12 percent), and New York had the highest (37 percent).

While lower down payments are good news for first-time homebuyers, they also are a reminder of practices that led to the housing bubble that began to burst in late 2006 and contributed to the financial crisis. During the height of the boom, buyers were able to purchase homes that they couldn’t really afford by putting little or no money down on the property.

Amid growing signs that the U.S. faces nothing but bad choices in its war against ISIS, Rep. Jim McGovern, a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts, today denounced Congress as “the poster child for cowardice” for refusing to debate a new war powers resolution to set parameters for the Obama administration’s efforts to “degrade and defeat” the jihadist terrorists in Iraq and Syria.

At the behest of Republican and Democratic leaders, Obama sent a proposed war powers resolution to Congress in February outlining his core objectives of systematically destroying the jihadist terror group through a sustained campaign of airstrikes, supporting and training allied forces on the ground and humanitarian assistance – but without committing a large number of U.S. combat troops to the effort.

Related: U.S. Shoots Itself in the Foot By Accidentally Arming ISIS 

The administration proposal would give the military “flexibility” to confront unforeseen circumstances, potentially by deploying Special Forces in the region. But it would limit the mission to three years and would not authorize “enduring offensive ground combat operations.” 

But rather than roll up their sleeves and debate and vote on the president’s request for new military authorization, Republican leaders have effectively shelved the issue and moved on to other things, such as rewriting the rules for NSA spying on Americans’ phone calls and providing Obama with fast track authority to negotiate a new trade pact with Asian countries.

With many conservative Republicans including Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina complaining that the president’s strategy for defeating ISIS woefully inadequate and some Democrats worried that it goes too far in committing U.S. troops and resources to a no-win situation in the Middle East, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Bob Corker (R-TN) said recently he had no incentive to take up the issue in his committee.

Related: Why Congress Should Simply Bag the War Powers Debate

Frankly speaking, this is unacceptable,” McGovern, a member of the House Rules Committee,  said on the House floor today, adding that if the Congress “doesn’t have the stomach” to authorize the war it should vote to bring U.S. forces home, according to Politico. McGovern introduced a bipartisan resolution that would require full debate within 15 days on whether U.S. troops should withdraw from Iraq and Syria. His bipartisan resolution is co-sponsored by Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Barbara Lee (D-CA).

“This House appears to have no problem sending our uniformed men and women into harm’s way,” McGovern said in prepared remarks. “It appears to have no problem spending billions of dollars for the arms, equipment and airpower to carry out these wars. But it just can’t bring itself to step up to the plate and take responsibility for these wars.”

A practically unheard-of billionaire, Amancio Ortega, just blew past household name Warren Buffett to be the second-richest man in the world, according to Bloomberg. Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who is worth $85.5 billion, remains first.

Oretega, who has amassed a net worth of $71.5 billion, is the founding chairman of the Inditex fashion group, the world’s largest apparel retailer. Inditex is best known for its chain of Zara clothing and accessories shops, which had sales of $19.7 billion in fiscal 2014.

Related: Bill Gates Is the World’s Richest Man Again. Or Is He?

Worth noting is that Warren Buffett, whose net worth of $70.2 billion puts him at third place, would be in second-place if not for his philanthropic giving.

A native of Spain, Ortega refuses almost all interview requests and until 1999, no photograph of him had ever been published. However, Zara is not so low-profile. The world’s biggest fashion retailer operates over 6,600 stores in more than 88 countries.

Inditex has shown strong growth year over year. In March, it reported net profit up 5 percent from the previous fiscal year. In addition, the company said it planned to open up 480 more stores this year.

Related: America’s Highest Paid CEO Is Not Who You Think

Key to Ortega’s success has been keeping Zara’s manufacturing close to its home base in the ancient port city of La Coruña, rather than outsourcing production to China to cut costs. This allows Zara to act quickly on new trends and put new products into stories right away. Zara shops receive new shipments of clothing twice a week, virtually unheard of among retail stores.

If Inditex brands continue to grow and Zara’s popularity extends to millennials and beyond, the mysterious billionaire’s wealth could eventually push him to number one on the list.

Embattled Commerce Department Inspector General Todd Zinser, who has been accused of misconduct and retaliation against whistleblowers, just announced that he is stepping down after seven years at the agency. 

In an internal email to his staff, Zinser said he would be leaving his watchdog post to “pursue opportunities outside of government service,” GovExec first reported.

Zinser, the top watchdog in charge of keeping tabs on the Commerce Department, has been under intense scrutiny for nearly a year amid allegations of whistleblower retaliation and improperly hiring a woman with whom he was said to be romantically involved.

Related: Corruption in Commerce Dept? Lawmakers Want Him Out

For months, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) and two independent watchdog groups, have been calling on President Obama to fire Zinser over the alleged misconduct, which has been the subject of at least one federal probe by the White House Office of Special Council.

The White House has not responded to comment on whether Zinser was asked to leave.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers have been probing into multiple allegations brought by whistleblowers against Zinser for the better part of a year.

“The Committee has uncovered evidence questioning whether the Commerce IG’s office is functioning with integrity. We must determine if these allegations are true and if so, they are the result of systemic issues that may require legislative action,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter published last year.

Related: Why This Government Watchdog Needs Watching 

In one instance, the IG reportedly failed to discipline two employees in his office who intimidated potential whistleblowers.

Another whistleblower told the committee that the IG improperly hired his “girlfriend” for a senior role in the office, which had an annual salary of $150,000 plus bonuses. Zinser maintained that he and the woman were not romantically involved and defended her employment. 

He told the Council of Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) that she was hired solely “on business necessity.”

There is currently a Government Accountability Office investigation into Zinser’s office conduct that is expected to be published in the coming months. 

Zinser previously served as the Transportation Department’s acting inspector general and deputy inspector general.

As hurricane season gets underway, real estate analytics firm CoreLogic is warning that there are more than 6.6 million U.S. homes at risk of being hit by a storm surge. That could lead to as much at $1.5 trillion in damage.

The homes are in 19 states and the District of Columbia along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. Six states account for more than three-quarters of all at-risk homes, with Florida having the most (2.5 million), followed by Louisiana (760,000), New York (465,000), New Jersey (446,148), Texas (441,304) and Virginia (420,052).

Related: How Climate Change Costs Could Soar to the Billions

“The number of hurricanes each year is less important than the location of where the next hurricane will come ashore,” CoreLogic’s senior hazard risk analyst said in a statement. “It only takes one hurricane that pushes storm surge into a major metropolitan area for the damage to tally in the billions of dollars. With new home construction, and any amount of sea-level rise, the number of homes at risk of storm surge damage will continue to increase.” 

The District of Columbia has the lowest number of properties at risk (3,700), followed by New Hampshire (12,400) and Maine (22,500

State Table (Ranked by Number of Homes at Risk)

* The "Low" risk category is based on Category 5 hurricanes, which are not likely along the northeastern Atlantic coast. States in that area have N/A designated for the Low category due to the extremely low probability of a Category 5 storm affecting that area.
** Washington, D.C. has no Atlantic coastal properties, but can be affected by larger hurricanes that push storm surge into the Potomac River. Category 1 and 2 storms will likely not generate sufficient storm surge to affect properties in Washington, D.C. 

The vast majority of the billionaires in the U.S. made their money in one of two ways—they started a company, or they inherited their fortune or business.

But Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, has shown another path to riches. As a corporate manager, he may have amassed enough stock and boosted the share price enough to join the 10-figure club.

According to Bloomberg, Dimon is now worth $1.1 billion. His stake in JPMorgan through shares and options is worth $485 million and he also has real estate valued at $32 million. In addition, he has wealth from "an investment portfolio seeded by proceeds" from his previous stint at Citigroup. 

Related: America’s Highest Paid CEO: It’s Not Who You Think

While highly unusual, Dimon isn't the first billionaire professional manager or executive who gained his wealth from stock in a company he didn't found or take public. The first manager-billionaire in the U.S. was believed to be Roberto Goizueta, CEO of Coca-Cola during the 1980s and 1990s. During his tenure, Coca-Cola's stock jumped more than 70-fold and Goizueta had stock and options totaling more than $1 billion.

More recently, the billionaire managers have been from finance. James Cayne, the colorful CEO and chairman of Bear Stearns became a billionaire on paper—before Bear Stearns collapsed during the financial crisis.

Richard Fuld, CEO of Lehman Brothers, also became a paper billionaire in 2007—before the investment bank became the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history in 2008.

Plenty of other finance chiefs have become billionaires—from hedge-funders to private-equity kings Steve Schwarzman and David Rubenstein. Citi founder Sandy Weill was a billionaire, but he created the company.

So while he may not be the first, Dimon may make history another way—by becoming the first manager-billionaire in finance to run a bank that thrives for decades after his leadership. 

This article originally appeared on CNBC.
Read more from CNBc.

CNBC Charts the top 100 firms
Shift from slaes to planning fuels fee-only business
Harvard Receives Laegest Ever Gift

Ask anyone about the state of moral values in the U.S. and you’re likely to get a response along the lines of, “we’re going to hell.”

Most Americans — 72 percent — are convinced that moral values in the U.S. are decaying, according to a new Gallup poll, and most people believe the current state of moral values isn’t all that great to begin with. Nearly half of those polled, 45 percent, called the state of moral values in the U.S. “poor,” while 34 percent said they are “only fair.”

Just 19 percent rated American morals as either “excellent” or “good,” and only 22 percent say the state of moral values is getting better.

Unsurprisingly perhaps, social conservatives have consistently been most likely to tell pollsters that the nation’s moral values are deteriorating, but the latest Gallup findings showed an uptick from 2014 to 2015 among social moderates and social liberals who believe moral values are regressing.

Related: How U.S. Morals Stack Up Against the World

Gallup also found that Americans’ views of the moral acceptability of a number of key issues has been shifting to the left since 2001. The largest shift was on gay or lesbian relations, with a 23 percentage point increase in the share of people who say that behavior is morally acceptable. The change coincides with a sharp increase in support for same-sex marriage. 

Sex between unmarried people has also become more acceptable, as has having babies outside of marriage. Polygamy and divorce are also now acceptable to a greater portion of the population than in 2001. On the other hand, the views of married men and women having an affair haven’t changed much, with just 8 percent of Americans saying it’s morally tolerable.

However, respondents to the poll about the current and future state of moral values weren’t necessarily responding with those charged social and political issues in mind. In many cases, Gallup suggests, their views of the moral direction of the country were rooted in something much more basic: “That is, their views have less to do with greater acceptance of same-sex marriage or having babies out of wedlock and other hot-button issues, and more to do with matters of basic civility and respect for each other,” Gallup’s Justin McCarthy wrote.

Clearly, the Golden Rule is still the bedrock of our moral code: Love thy neighbor as thyself.

For a while, President Obama enjoyed a revival in popularity after years of public unease and displeasure with his stewardship of the economy and foreign policy. His approval rating jumped as high as 49 percent in mid-January, according to Gallup, and then tapered off a little amid renewed uncertainty about the economic recovery.

In the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, however, 45 percent of Americans say they approve of Obama’s job performance, while 49 percent disapprove. That is his weakest rating in the survey since late 2014. The president effectively lost five points in approval since January and he hasn’t seen majority support since May 2013, according to survey analysis.

Analysts blame the decline in the president’s approval on continued economic anxiety at home – despite a drop in the unemployment rate to 5.4 percent in April and other signs of economic revival – and the advance of ISIS and other Islamic extremists in Iraq and Syria. 

The condition of the economy consistently has topped the list of voters’ concerns heading into the 2016 campaign. The economic gains touted by the administration since the end of the Great Recession in June 2009 apparently haven’t been enough to calm fears, analysts say.

Seventy-three percent of those surveyed recently remain worried about the economy’s direction, and among them Obama’s approval drops to 35 percent, according to the survey. What’s more, Obama gets only a 31 percent approval rating specifically for handling the advance of ISIS militants, with 55 percent disapproving. Public approval of the president’s handling of the war against ISIS is 16 percentage points worse than his rating on handling the economy. 

What's the most common way to breach workplace etiquette and curb your career growth, if not derail it altogether?

AccountTemps says employers and staffers don't always see office etiquette the same. But bosses certainly have more leverage in the matter, since they can fire employees who buck the rules, and a company survey finds U.S. chief financial officers are most often bugged by workers "being distracted" on the job (27% of CFOs say so) and "gossiping about colleagues" (18%).

Other top offenses cited by CFOs:

• Not responding to calls or emails.
• Being late to meetings, or missing them.
• Not crediting other staffers when appropriate. 

Employers and workers may not see the top etiquette breaches equally, but they agree on professional decorum more than they disagree, and the shared message is easy to sum up: "Most jobs today require teamwork and strong collaboration skills, and that means following the unwritten rules of office protocol," says Bill Driscoll, a district president of Accountemps. "Poor workplace etiquette demonstrates a lack of consideration for coworkers."

Related: Modern Etiquette: Outclassing the Competition

Of course, the list of workplace professional breaches exceeds the AccountTemps list.

"I've seen it all," notes Nicole Williams, a workplace consultant and a career contributor to NBC's The Today Show. "Employees who lie on expense reports; who badmouth the company or boss on social media or to clients; proofreading mistakes; missing deadlines. Just to name a few."

If you do trip up on the job, it's best to be accountable. "If you really screw up, you have to suffer the consequences in silence," Williams says. "Don't protest, don't try and get out of it, and don't put the blame on someone or something else. People will respect you more for owning your mistakes."

This article originally appeared on Main Street

Read More from Main Street

• 10 Ways to Blow a Job Interview
• The 10 Worst Cities to Enjoy a Summer 'Staycation'
• 12 Universities with the Biggest Endowments

For years, critics of the SAT have claimed that wealthy students who can afford expensive, private test prep courses have a leg up on poorer students without access to such classes. 

That just changed. Starting yesterday, all students can access free, high-quality online test prep via a new partnership between the College Board, which administers the test, and online course powerhouse Khan Academy, a nonprofit supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Ann and John Doerr among others. The online program will include quizzes, video lessons and personalized lessons. 

The Official SAT Practice will focus on the recently redesigned SAT, with questions created by the tests’ authors.

Related: SAT Tests: Another Drain on the Family Budget

College test preparation is a $4.5 billion business. Private SAT tutors charge in excess of $100 per hour and classes from companies like Kaplan or Princeton Review run about $1,000. And those classes may help. Students from the wealthiest families have average test scores that are more than 300 points higher than students from the poorest families on average, according to the College Board.

In recent years, more colleges have moved away from the SAT and its competitor, the ACT, as a backlash against the tests have grown. 

More than 850 schools have made the tests optional for admission, according to advocacy group FairTest, choosing instead to focus on class grades and other factors. A study released last year of undergrads at those schools found no difference in either the GPAs or the graduation rates of students who took the SATs versus those that skipped it.