<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Business &#38; MoneyCategory: Real Estate &#124; Business &#38; Money &#124; TIME.com</title>
	<atom:link href="http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/real-estate-economy-policy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://business.time.com</link>
	<description>The latest news and commentary on the economy, the markets, and business</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 17:22:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='business.time.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://business.time.com/osd.xml" title="Business &#38; Money" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://business.time.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>The Next Real Estate Bubble Has Already Begun (But It&#8217;s Not What You Think)</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/05/23/the-next-real-estate-bubble-has-already-begun-but-its-not-what-you-think/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/05/23/the-next-real-estate-bubble-has-already-begun-but-its-not-what-you-think/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 09:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Matthews</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Agriculture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=80612</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The American public is, for obvious reasons, a bit gun-shy when it comes to asset bubbles. Ever since the financial crisis, market watchers have worried about bubbles in the stock market, in high yield debt, and even the reinflation of the real estate bubble. The latest asset class to receive worried attention from policy makers? Farmland. That&#8217;s right, according to The Financial Times prices on U.S. farmland have doubled over the past decade, and are on pace to rise more than 10% again this year, even in the face of weaker grain markets of late. The main force that has been driving the increases in farmland prices has been a steady bull market in agricultural commodity prices. But according to the FT report, lately &#8220;big investors&#8221; have been dipping their toes into the farmland market in an attempt to take advantage of high agriculture profits and as a hedge against inflation. (MORE: The Accounting Trick Behind Thirty Years of Scandal) This run up in prices, combined with the fact that interest rates are at historic lows, have some land owners and policy makers worried that this bull market could end in heartbreak for many of America&#8217;s farmers &#8212; especially in the Midwestern corn belt, where price increases have been most pronounced. The dynamic has gotten the attention of the Federal Advisory Council, a group which advises the Federal Reserve on monetary policy. According to Bloomberg, the council warned the Fed in February that, &#8220;Agricultural land prices are veering further from what makes sense . . Members believe the run-up in agriculture land prices is a bubble resulting from persistently low interest rates.” The effect of a farmland bubble bursting, however, probably shouldn&#8217;t be of much concern to those of us not directly involved in agriculture. As real estate economist Robert Shiller wrote back in 2011, &#8220;farmland is much less important than other speculative assets. For example, U.S. farmland had a total value of $1.9 trillion in 2010, compared with $16.5 trillion for the U.S. stock market and $16.6 trillion for the U.S. housing market.&#8221; Since the value of farmland<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=80612&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/05/23/the-next-real-estate-bubble-has-already-begun-but-its-not-what-you-think/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Real Estate</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/real-estate-economy-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/168780384.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/168780384.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/168780384.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Corn is planted in a field outside in Henry, Ill., U.S., on May 14, 2013.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/8f9a71742e964af96ca58c01a0577a0d?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">christopherrmatthews</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>US Homebuilder Confidence Rises in May from April</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/05/15/us-homebuilder-confidence-rises-in-may-from-april/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/05/15/us-homebuilder-confidence-rises-in-may-from-april/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 14:35:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>AP / Alex Veiga</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=80074</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Confidence among U.S. homebuilders rebounded this month, reflecting improved sales trends during the spring home-selling season and the strongest outlook for sales over the next six months in more than six years. The National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo builder sentiment index climbed to 44 this month from 41 in April. It was the first increase since December. Measures of customer traffic and current sales conditions also improved from April&#8217;s reading. Readings below 50 suggest negative sentiment about the housing market. The last time the index was at 50 or higher was in April 2006. (MORE: This Housing Upturn Looks Like the Real Thing) Concerns over rising costs for land, building materials and labor have dimmed builders&#8217; confidence in recent months. Regardless, steady job creation, near record-low mortgage rates and rising home values have spurred sales this year.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=80074&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/05/15/us-homebuilder-confidence-rises-in-may-from-april/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Real Estate</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/real-estate-economy-policy/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cbef58d71daefb9ddab6c6b20018290c?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timeassociatedpress</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>This Housing Upturn Looks Like the Real Thing</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/05/15/why-this-housing-upturn-looks-like-the-real-thing/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/05/15/why-this-housing-upturn-looks-like-the-real-thing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 09:45:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Construction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economic Indicators]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreclosures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Home-Equity Loans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mortgages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate & Homes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate Markets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=79982</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ever since the recovery began in 2009, a weak housing market has held back the U.S. economy. The first rebound in home prices was lackluster and after only a year was followed by another dip. But the recent upturn in home prices looks like the real thing. One clear sign of a turning point: In March, homeownership hit a 17-year low, while the 12-month gain in home prices was the biggest in seven years. Those two extremes suggest that the market has hit bottom. The people who are least well financed have been squeezed out, while demand is growing among people who can afford to pay higher home prices. If that trend continues – and there are good reasons to believe it will – a substantial burden will be lifted from the U.S. economy. The great surprise since the recession ended has been the weakness of the economic rebound, which has been particularly clear in the housing market. After falling 31% from 2006 to 2009, home prices rose almost 5% over the following year. But that recovery faltered, and during the next 20 months prices fell to a new low. Then the current recovery began, and barring another recession, all the evidence indicates that it will be sustainable: In the first quarter, home prices were higher (compared with a year earlier) in 133 of 150 metropolitan areas, according to the National Association of Realtors. On a national basis, the median home price gained 11.3%, the biggest yearly gain since 2005. (MORE: The Housing Mirage) The glut of homes for sale has diminished, down almost 17% compared with the previous year. In addition, the number of foreclosures in April (including bank repossessions and scheduled auctions) was 23% lower than a year earlier. Mortgage applications were up 7% in the most recent week, helped by low mortgage rates. Refinancings, which typically improve homeowners’ finances, have been generally rising in recent months and reached their highest level since December. And a Fannie Mae survey of consumer expectations for housing found that a majority of those surveyed in<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=79982&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/05/15/why-this-housing-upturn-looks-like-the-real-thing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Real Estate &amp; Homes</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/personal-finance-2/real-estate-homes/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/600_ml_housing_03271.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/600_ml_housing_03271.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/600_ml_housing_03271.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Housing</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b8875a12f713f52ecc28fe72efed7fd4?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">michaelsivy</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Survey: US Home Prices Up 10.5 Pct. in Past Year</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/05/07/us-home-prices-up-10-5-pct-in-past-year/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/05/07/us-home-prices-up-10-5-pct-in-past-year/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 15:13:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>AP / Christopher S. Rugaber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=79439</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WASHINGTON — A survey shows U.S. home prices rose 10.5 percent in March compared with a year ago, the biggest gain since March 2006. Core Logic, a real estate data provider, said Tuesday that annual home prices have now increased for 13 straight months. Prices are rising in part because more buyers are bidding on a limited supply of homes for sale. Prices increased in 46 states over the past year — 11 of them posting double-digit gains. And when excluding distressed sales, which include foreclosures and short sales, prices rose in every state. A short sale is when a home sells for less than what is owed on the mortgage. Nevada led all states with a 22.2 percent annual gain. It was followed by California (17.2 percent), Arizona (16.8 percent), Idaho (14.5 percent) and Oregon (14.3 percent). (MORE: Private Colleges Offering More Financial Aid Than Ever) Home prices also rose 1.9 percent in March from February, signaling a solid start to the spring buying season. And 88 of the 100 largest cities reported price gains compared with a year earlier, down slightly from 92 in February. Prices in Phoenix rose 18.8 percent in March from a year earlier, the largest gain of any city. Los Angeles, Riverside, Calif., Atlanta and Houston posted the next largest gains. Steady job creation and record-low mortgage rates have boosted home sales and construction in the past year. More demand, along with a limited supply of homes for sale, has pushed prices higher. The number of homes for sale fell nearly 17 percent in March compared with a year ago. That supply would be exhausted in about 4.7 months at the current sales pace. That&#8217;s below the 6 months of supply that is typical in a healthy market. Rising home prices can help sustain the housing rebound and lift the economy. More potential homebuyers may seek to purchase a house before prices rise further. And homeowners are more likely to put their houses on the market once they expect a good price. (MORE: How<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=79439&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/05/07/us-home-prices-up-10-5-pct-in-past-year/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Real Estate</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/real-estate-economy-policy/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cbef58d71daefb9ddab6c6b20018290c?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timeassociatedpress</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Hope for Underwater Homeowners</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/05/02/new-hope-for-underwater-homeowners/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/05/02/new-hope-for-underwater-homeowners/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 17:59:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Matthews</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=79162</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Given the consistently good news we&#8217;ve seen from the housing market, it can be easy to forget just how much damage the bursting of the real estate bubble has wrought on the economy and the lives of average people across the country. According to analytics firm CoreLogic, 10.8 million homeowners remain underwater (meaning they owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth), representing 22% of all mortgages in the country. On top of the obvious human suffering caused by crushing debt, the fact that more than a fifth of the mortgages in this country are underwater is a huge drag on the economy. Underwater homeowners are much more likely to default on their mortgages, which puts downward pressure on home prices. They&#8217;re also generally unable to refinance at today&#8217;s low rates and thereby reduce their monthly costs, further increasing the odds of default and limiting their ability to spend. In addition, some economists have argued that the widespread phenomena of underwater homes has exacerbated the unemployment problem because it prevents the unemployed from moving to find jobs. To counter these effects, the Obama Administration has rolled out programs incentivizing banks to reduce the amount owed on the mortgages of underwater homes. In theory, at least, this can be a win-win-win solution to the problem of underwater homes: Homeowners instantly reduce their monthly payments and begin building positive equity in their homes; mortgage lenders benefit because above-water homeowners are far less likely to default and the foreclosure process is very expensive for banks; and the process helps speed recovery for the entire economy. (MORE: Is This Man Single-Handedly Stifling the U.S. Housing Recovery?) But for years now Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac &#8212; which have been owned by the federal government since 2008, and which owns or guarantees more than half of outstanding residential mortgages &#8212; have not been writing down the value of mortgages at all. The reason? Ed DeMarco, acting head of the the government entity that overseas Fannie and Freddie, has refused to sign on to such a program, arguing that<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=79162&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/05/02/new-hope-for-underwater-homeowners/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Real Estate</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/real-estate-economy-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/rtr1hzhs.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/rtr1hzhs.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/rtr1hzhs.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Fannie Mae headquarters in northwest Washington, D.C.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/8f9a71742e964af96ca58c01a0577a0d?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">christopherrmatthews</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>US Home Prices Up 9.3 Pct, Most in Nearly 7 Years</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/04/30/us-home-prices-up-9-3-pct-most-in-nearly-7-years/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/04/30/us-home-prices-up-9-3-pct-most-in-nearly-7-years/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:44:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher S. Rugaber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=78934</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WASHINGTON — U.S. home prices rose 9.3 percent in February compared with a year ago, the most in nearly seven years. The gains were driven by a growing number of buyers who bid on a limited supply of homes. The Standard &#38; Poor&#8217;s/Case-Shiller 20-city home price index increased from an 8.1 percent year-over-year gain in January. And annual prices rose in February in all 20 cities for the second month in a row. Phoenix led all cities with an annual gain of 23 percent in February. Prices jumped nearly 19 percent in San Francisco. In Las Vegas, home prices increased 17.6 percent and in Atlanta they rose 16.5 percent. Eleven of the 20 cities reported price gains in February compared with January. Those monthly numbers are not seasonally adjusted and reflect the slower winter buying period. The index covers roughly half of U.S. homes. It measures prices compared with those in January 2000 and creates a three-month moving average. The February figures are the latest available. (MORE: Say Goodbye to Bones: How the Chicken Nugget Won) Steady hiring and near-record low mortgage rates are driving up demand, helping sustain the housing recovery that began last year. Buyer traffic was 25 percent higher in March than it was a year ago, according to the National Association of Realtors. At the same time, prices are surging because buyers have fewer homes to bid on. The number of homes available for sale has fallen nearly 17 percent in the past year to 1.93 million, the Realtors&#8217; group said last week. At the current sales pace, that supply would be exhausted in 4.7 months, below the 6 months that is typical in healthier markets. Home prices nationwide are still about 30 percent below their peak reached at the height of the housing bubble in August 2006. They are only back to where they were in the fall of 2003. And Stan Humphries, chief economist at Zillow, a real estate data provider, cautioned that the national figures are being skewed by sharp rebounds in cities<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=78934&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/04/30/us-home-prices-up-9-3-pct-most-in-nearly-7-years/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Real Estate</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/real-estate-economy-policy/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cbef58d71daefb9ddab6c6b20018290c?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timeassociatedpress</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Forget Lowballing: Bidding Wars Return in Hot Housing Markets</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/04/30/forget-lowballing-bidding-wars-return-in-hot-housing-markets/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/04/30/forget-lowballing-bidding-wars-return-in-hot-housing-markets/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:18:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brad Tuttle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Borrowing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology of Money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate & Homes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving & Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Smart Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asking price]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bidding wars]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Denver]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hartford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[home listings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York City]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real estate agents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[San Francisco]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Seattle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Underpriced Homes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=78883</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Are buyers being manipulated into overbidding for the relatively few attractive homes on the market? Earlier this year, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) announced that the number of homes for sale in the U.S. had reached a low not seen since 1999. More homes have hit the market since then, but Lawrence Yun, NAR&#8217;s chief economist, said in March that in many areas around the nation, the inventory of homes for sale is unlikely to keep up with the number of interested buyers. &#8220;Buyer traffic is 40% above a year ago, so there is plenty of demand but insufficient inventory to improve sales more strongly. We&#8217;ve transitioned into a seller&#8217;s market in much of the country,&#8221; said Yun. &#8220;We expect a seasonal rise of inventory this spring, but it may be insufficient to avoid more frequent incidences of multiple bidding and faster-than-normal price growth.&#8221; (MORE: Code Police! 6 Things That May Be Surprisingly Banned in Your Front Yard) Bidding wars have been commonplace in Connecticut this spring, especially for mid-range properties ($300K to $600K), reports the Hartford Courant. Buyers are reportedly frustrated by &#8220;the slow trickle of new listings,&#8221; and &#8220;they are ready to pounce,&#8221; according to a local realtor, when an attractive property in their price range comes onto the market. Bidding wars have also been popping up in cities such as Denver, where half of new homes on the market have been selling in under 30 days. CNN Money recently noted that nine in 10 homes in hot markets in northern and southern California have attracted bidding wars, as have at least two-thirds of properties in Boston, New York City, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. &#8220;The only question is not whether a new listing will get multiple bids but how many it will get,&#8221; one agent in the Sacramento area explained. But is the increase in multiple bids a sign of a hot housing market &#8212; or one in which underpricing has become the standard? A bidding war is a sign that the home is probably underpriced—and the<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=78883&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/04/30/forget-lowballing-bidding-wars-return-in-hot-housing-markets/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Real Estate Markets</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/personal-finance-2/real-estate-homes/real-estate-markets/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/970_biz_housing_0430.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/970_biz_housing_0430.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/970_biz_housing_0430.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Suburban homes in Massachusetts</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/f8de938518e7b986d552694ed99aa54d?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bradtuttle</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Nation of Renters: Should We Be Worried That Fewer Americans Own Homes?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/04/26/a-nation-of-renters-should-we-be-worried-that-fewer-americans-own-homes/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/04/26/a-nation-of-renters-should-we-be-worried-that-fewer-americans-own-homes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:45:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Matthews</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=78582</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Big Wall Street banks and consumer-advocacy groups like the Center for Responsible Lending don’t agree on much. But recently, these strange bedfellows have been brought together by their opposition to new rules governing mortgage-underwriting standards that have already been issued or are set to be issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in the coming months. Ever since the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation was passed in 2010, these once-and-future foes have been fighting the so-called &#8220;qualified mortgage&#8221; (finalized in January) and &#8221;qualified residential mortgage&#8221; (soon to be finalized) rules. Basically, these rules say that if the loans they make don&#8217;t fit a certain profile — 20% down and a debt-to-income ratio of no more than 43% — the banks won&#8217;t get certain legal protections from borrower lawsuits, and they&#8217;ll have to retain at least 5% of the loan on their books. The logic here is pretty simple: One of the main causes of the 2008 financial crisis was that mortgage originators made loans with little regard for those loans&#8217; quality because they quickly repackaged them and sold them to investors. So if these banks want to keep issuing loans without keeping some of the value on their books, those loans have to meet certain requirements. (MORE: Will Reform of Fannie and Freddie Kill the 30-Year Mortgage?) The mortgage industry doesn&#8217;t like these rules because it doesn&#8217;t want restrictions on its business decisions. Consumer groups, meanwhile, are afraid that the rules will restrict lending to lower-income home buyers. Of course, that&#8217;s the whole point of having mortgage standards in the first place: some people aren&#8217;t going to be able to get mortgages. And that&#8217;s not necessarily a bad thing. Ever since the financial crisis, the news media have been filled with negative-sounding headlines describing the state of homeownership in America, which has recently fallen to nearly 20-year lows. More recently, we&#8217;ve heard tales of first-time buyers&#8217; getting outbid by cash-rich investors looking to take advantage of cheap real estate. Some may interpret these stories as further evidence of rising income inequality or another example of<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=78582&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/04/26/a-nation-of-renters-should-we-be-worried-that-fewer-americans-own-homes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Real Estate</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/real-estate-economy-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/house1.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/house1.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/house1.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">house</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/8f9a71742e964af96ca58c01a0577a0d?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">christopherrmatthews</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can Housing Power the Economic Recovery?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/04/04/can-housing-power-the-economic-recovery/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/04/04/can-housing-power-the-economic-recovery/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2013 09:45:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Matthews</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=76490</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Economic recoveries usually begin at home. Even though the housing construction has historically only accounted for roughly 5% of America&#8217;s economic activity, that number tends to rise following recessions, placing a disproportionate burden on the housing sector to lead the economy to recovery. Why is this? There are several reasons. First of all, since a new home is usually the biggest purchase any of us will make, we tend not to do it during recessions. Recessions cause housing demand to become pent up and then released once a recovery begins. Secondly, investment in a new home usually necessitates many other big ticket purchases like furnishing and appliances. Finally, construction is a a great source of relatively high-paying jobs for lower-skilled workers &#8212; the sorts of jobs that we&#8217;ve been sorely missing since the financial crisis. And just as housing construction creates demands for different consumables, it also has a trickle-down effect on employment, creating the need for real estate brokers, landscapers, and lawyers, just to name a few. (MORE: Home Price Gains Continue Increasing Nationwide) But the 2008-2009 recession was different. Housing didn&#8217;t come roaring back as it did after the 2001 and 1991 recessions. In fact, the housing sector continued to be a drag on the overall economy until last year. Not that this is surprising given the genesis of the recession was a real estate bubble &#8212; one that wiped out trillions in wealth and severely damaged the financial system. But over the past year, the housing market has begun to recover. On Tuesday the analytics firm Core Logic announced that in February, home prices increased 10.2% year over year &#8212; the largest increase since 2006 &#8212; marking 12 straight months of year-over-year national home price increases. And the job market is starting to reflect these gains. Earlier this month, the Labor Department announced that the construction sector added 48,000 jobs in February and 151,000 total jobs since September. So we&#8217;re making progress, and housing seems to be a big factor. (MORE: Will Reform of Fannie and Freddie Kill the 30-Year Mortgage?) But<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=76490&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/04/04/can-housing-power-the-economic-recovery/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Real Estate</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/real-estate-economy-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/housing.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/housing.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/housing.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Housing Prices on the Rise</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/8f9a71742e964af96ca58c01a0577a0d?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">christopherrmatthews</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is This Man Single-Handedly Stifling the U.S. Housing Recovery?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/03/21/why-are-so-many-lawmakers-and-ags-calling-for-this-mans-job/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/03/21/why-are-so-many-lawmakers-and-ags-calling-for-this-mans-job/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:00:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Matthews</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=75254</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ed DeMarco may not strike you as the kind of man who is capable of fanning the outrage of broad swaths of the American public. But in the past year, this bespectacled economist and lifelong civil servant has endured protesters picketing outside his home, journalists labeling him &#8220;America&#8217;s most dangerous man,&#8221; and now 45 members of the House of Representatives and nine state attorneys general are petitioning the President of the United States for his dismissal. So what has the acting head of the Federal Housing Finance Administration &#8212; the federal agency in charge of housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac &#8212; in so much hot water? It&#8217;s his continued unwillingness to experiment with principal reduction for underwater homes. Proponents of this policy argue that reducing the amount owed on mortgages where the homeowner owes more than the home is worth is a win-win, because it greatly reduces the chance that the home will end up in foreclosure. And foreclosures are such a costly process that forgiving just part of the loan could end up saving money for the lender and keep the homeowner in his home, which is a boon for local housing markets. And remember: In the case of a Fannie- or Freddie-owned loan, the lender is the American taxpayer. This all sounds great, but DeMarco isn&#8217;t buying it. Even in the face of analysis that showed that implementing principal reduction would actually save taxpayer money, DeMarco refused to go along, arguing that such a program would lead so many people to purposefully default on their mortgages, that it would cause more harm than good. These so-called &#8220;strategic defaulters&#8221; are the unknown variable in this plan. If you assume there will be many of these people, then the program doesn&#8217;t make sense. If you assume there will be fewer, it does. But it&#8217;s very much unclear how anybody can accurately predict how many strategic defaulters there would be, because such a program on a widespread level has never been tried before. (MORE: Building a Better Bailout: Can Fannie and Freddie Help American<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=75254&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/03/21/why-are-so-many-lawmakers-and-ags-calling-for-this-mans-job/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Real Estate</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/real-estate-economy-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/600_eddemarco_0410.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/600_eddemarco_0410.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/600_eddemarco_0410.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">600_eddemarco_0410</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/8f9a71742e964af96ca58c01a0577a0d?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">christopherrmatthews</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>If There’s No Inflation, Why Are Prices Up So Much?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/03/12/if-theres-no-inflation-why-are-prices-up-so-much/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/03/12/if-theres-no-inflation-why-are-prices-up-so-much/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:45:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Austerity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commodities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Currency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economic Indicators]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate & Homes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street & Markets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=74397</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week, I ran out of ink for my printer and ordered some more online. My computer automatically pulled up the previous order, and I was shocked to see that the price of the ink cartridges I was buying had gone up 25%. To my mind, ink always seems overpriced. Manufacturers sell printers cheaply because they know that they can make lots of money on the ink. For the same reason, John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil is said to have sold millions of cheap kerosene lamps in order to make big profits selling kerosene. But since ink cartridges were already priced way above cost and official statistics show little general inflation, why had ink gone up 25% in less than a year? Price hikes for a particular item here or there don&#8217;t qualify as inflation. If one thing gets more expensive but something else gets cheaper, that’s what economists call a relative price change. Inflation is a simultaneous increase in prices across the board. Some measures of inflation, such as the GDP Deflator, track price changes that affect businesses as well as those that affect consumers. But the Consumer Price Index is supposed to focus on inflation at the consumer level. And the CPI has recorded minimal increases over the past four years. Since the recession ended, the 12-month change in consumer prices has averaged 2% and has never been as high as 4%. (MORE: Online &#8216;Predictions&#8217; Market Intrade Shuts Down Months After Federal Lawsuit) There are lots of other ways to gauge inflation, however, that give very different signals. Gold was $930 an ounce when the recession ended, and today it’s $1,583. So if you believe in the gold standard, prices have increased 70% in four years – or an annualized rate of 14.2%. Of course, many economists dismiss the gold price as an archaic indicator. So it may be more meaningful to look at price increases over a broad range of commodities. The Reuters CRB Commodity Index, which tracks the prices of coffee, cocoa, copper, and cotton, as well as<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=74397&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/03/12/if-theres-no-inflation-why-are-prices-up-so-much/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Economy &amp; Policy</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/inflation.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/inflation.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/inflation.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">inflation</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b8875a12f713f52ecc28fe72efed7fd4?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">michaelsivy</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Will Reform of Fannie and Freddie Kill the 30-Year Mortgage?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/03/04/will-reform-of-fannie-and-freddie-kill-the-30-year-mortgage/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/03/04/will-reform-of-fannie-and-freddie-kill-the-30-year-mortgage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2013 10:45:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Matthews</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate & Homes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=73534</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The sequester is all anybody wants to talk about. I get it: It&#8217;s the hip new crisis sweeping Washington. But remember Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? You know, the once quasi-independent housing giants whose takeover by the federal government has cost taxpayers upwards of $190 billion thus far? Well, Fannie and Freddie are still owned by the federal government and, on top of that, are the only thing holding the U.S.&#8217; badly battered housing-finance system together, as the Feds back 9 out of 10 mortgages issued today. But Congress and the President have been so bogged down in their never-ending budget battles that we&#8217;ve heard little from Washington on this subject in recent months. Until last week, that is, when the Bipartisan Policy Center &#8212; a think tank formed by former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole, and George Mitchell &#8212; tried to bring this very important issue back to the fore by releasing a 131-page report on the future of housing policy in America. (MORE: Home Prices Jump Again. Are We Out of the Woods Yet?) Their solution is to wind down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by slowly selling off their assets to the private sector as the economy improves. In their place, the government would create a public guarantor of mortgages, sort of like what Ginnie Mae does for FHA and VA loans now. This guarantor would not purchase mortgage-backed securities as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do now; rather it would simply insure mortgages in case of default, and charge a fee to do so. The BPC framework would also require issuers of mortgage-backed securities to purchase private insurance, so that the government guarantor would only have to step in in the case of a total real estate market meltdown, similar to the one we experienced in 2008. This system is more stable than the one in place prior to the crisis because the government guarantees would be explicit, and be accounted for in the budget. Furthermore, any losses the government would have to take<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=73534&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/03/04/will-reform-of-fannie-and-freddie-kill-the-30-year-mortgage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Real Estate</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/real-estate-economy-policy/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/8f9a71742e964af96ca58c01a0577a0d?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">christopherrmatthews</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Selling Your House? Choose Your Words Carefully</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/03/01/selling-your-house-choose-your-words-carefully/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/03/01/selling-your-house-choose-your-words-carefully/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:45:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martha C. White</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[California Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hawaii Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology of Money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate & Homes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Luxury Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate Market]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate Online]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Residential Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[San Francisco]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trulia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trulia.com]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=73274</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Certain phrases pop up again and again in real estate listings, and these keywords offer a good indication of the prices a property will command. A listing promising a &#8220;once-in-a-lifetime opportunity,&#8221; for instance, has an average price of $3.4 million, while a &#8220;cute little bungalow&#8221; asks around $62,000, on average. Quirky terms pop up in local markets, too: You&#8217;ll never guess what one of the top phrases in San Francisco is. After sifting through its 4.5 million-property database, Trulia.com has released a new study naming the real estate listing phrases that appear often in the highest- and lowest-priced homes. As might be expected, most of the phrases that fill out the highest-priced listings evoke magnificent estates; in fact, &#8220;magnificent estate&#8221; is one of the top 10. (The average listing price of a magnificent estate: about $3.6 million.) The priciest phrase of all is &#8220;parlor floor,&#8221; which corresponds to an average property price of $4.9 million. &#8220;Parlor floor&#8221; is a common descriptor for  luxurious townhouses in New York City, which is notorious for high real estate costs. Even the 250-square-foot shoeboxes under consideration by a space-squeezed city government would start at $940 a month to rent in NYC. (&#8220;Shoebox,&#8221; by the way, is not a term you&#8217;re likely to see in real estate listings.) The phrase &#8220;highest level&#8221; — another example of urban market-speak — corresponds to a $3.4 million price tag, but most of the other terms imply more spacious surroundings: &#8220;formal gardens,&#8221; &#8220;paneled library&#8221; and &#8220;motor court&#8221; all make the top 10 list. (MORE: The Best Times to Buy or Sell a House) More specific phrasing seems to be a better bet for sellers: Trulia found that specifying oak or bamboo rather than just saying &#8220;hardwood&#8221; in reference to the floor corresponded with a higher listing price. At the other end of the pricing spectrum, listings warning about defective paint or a &#8220;mold-like substance&#8221; clocked in with average listing prices of around $45K. When there&#8217;s a lead paint warning, the average goes down to $40K. Buyers looking for a<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=73274&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/03/01/selling-your-house-choose-your-words-carefully/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Real Estate &amp; Homes</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/personal-finance-2/real-estate-homes/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/110052980-e1362065937282.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/110052980-e1362065937282.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/110052980-e1362065937282.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Couple looking into estate agents window</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/9a5a9e4f28beb5afb59b1202632d219a?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">marthacwhite</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>What Happens When the Fed Really Does Run Out of Ammunition?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/02/27/what-happens-when-the-fed-really-does-run-out-of-ammunition/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/02/27/what-happens-when-the-fed-really-does-run-out-of-ammunition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:45:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Austerity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Portfolio Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate & Homes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Economy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=72950</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Stocks dropped sharply last week, with the Dow falling some 200 points, after the Federal Reserve released the minutes of its January Open Market Committee meeting. Although the minutes reaffirmed the Fed’s easy-money policy, they also showed that some members of the committee had voiced concerns. The dissenters cautioned that quantitative easing, the current program of massive bond buying, could not be continued indefinitely without serious risks. Loading the Fed up with bonds creates the danger of big losses for the central bank if interest rates rise (which causes bond prices to fall). In a worst-case scenario, those losses could total half a trillion dollars over three years, according to one estimate. As a result, the January minutes included a carefully worded caveat: “Evaluation of the efficacy, costs and risks of asset purchases might well lead the committee to taper or end its purchases before it judged that a substantial improvement in the outlook for the labor market had occurred.” Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke remains undaunted, however. In his testimony before Congress on Tuesday he defended his easy-money policy, noting that it has &#8220;supported real growth in employment and kept inflation close to our target.&#8221; With consumer prices up only 1.6% over the past year, Bernanke declared: &#8220;My inflation record is the best of any Federal Reserve chairman in the postwar period — or at least one of the best.&#8221; (MORE: Italy&#8217;s Political Mess: Why the Euro Debt Crisis Never Ended) In addition he argued that worries about potential losses on the Fed&#8217;s ballooning bond holdings were overstated. Careful portfolio management, he said, would allow the central bank to absorb the losses over time by trying to hold bonds to maturity rather than selling at a loss. &#8220;We could exit without ever selling,&#8221; Bernanke said. This debate raises profound questions — probably not for the last time — about the effectiveness of the Fed&#8217;s easy-money policy. Why hasn&#8217;t it worked better? How long can it be continued? And, most important, what will happen when the Fed finally runs out of ammunition and quantitative easing comes to<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=72950&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/02/27/what-happens-when-the-fed-really-does-run-out-of-ammunition/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Economy &amp; Policy</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/biz-ben-bernanke-130227.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/biz-ben-bernanke-130227.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/biz-ben-bernanke-130227.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b8875a12f713f52ecc28fe72efed7fd4?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">michaelsivy</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Millennials Are Paying Off Debt — but That&#8217;s Not Necessarily Good News</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/02/26/millennials-are-paying-off-debt-but-thats-not-necessarily-good-news/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/02/26/millennials-are-paying-off-debt-but-thats-not-necessarily-good-news/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:00:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Josh Sanburn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Budgeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Decision Making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate & Homes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving & Spending]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=72872</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new study suggests that millennials are getting serious about paring down their debt. But a closer look at the numbers shows some troubling signs. Last week, Pew Research released a new study showing adults younger than 35 reducing their debt levels faster than older generations. Millennials cut their overall levels of debt by 29% from 2007 to 2010 (from $21,912 to $15,473) while Americans 35 and older only cut theirs by 8% ($32,543 to $30,070). In fact, according to Pew, the share of younger households with debt of any kind fell to 78%, the lowest level since the federal government started collecting that data in 1983. (MORE: Will High Marijuana Taxes Encourage Black Markets?) All that sounds great — until you realize that the biggest contributor to this dynamic is that millennials aren&#8217;t taking out mortgages, which generally make up the biggest piece of household debt. From 2007 to 2011, the percentage of young households who own their own homes fell from 40% to 34%. “Young adults don’t have the mortgage, but they also don’t have the house,” says Pew senior research associate Richard Fry, who authored the report. “Young adults probably have less debt, but they also have less assets. This is troubling.” A number of factors seem to be driving lower levels of home ownership. One is that millennials’ incomes are down and they can’t afford to take on a mortgage. Another may be that they want to buy a home but banks have tightened lending standards and made it difficult for them to do so. Student-loan burdens also appear to be playing a crowding-out role: In 2007, 34% of young households had outstanding student debt in 2007; by 2010, the rate had risen to 40%. (Note that those numbers are the exact inverse of the mortgage figures.) Another reason debt levels have fallen for millennials is a decrease in car ownership. It&#8217;s unclear if this is more of a cultural or economic shift, but millennials appear less inclined than previous generations to own a car, drive or even get a driver’s<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=72872&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/02/26/millennials-are-paying-off-debt-but-thats-not-necessarily-good-news/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Budgeting</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/saving-spending/budgeting-saving-spending/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/gs1363978.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/gs1363978.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/gs1363978.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Overhead shot of one dollar bills sitting on a leather background with a red rubber band.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d88247e41871fc555c4a2747167091d2?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">jsanburn</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is the World on the Brink of a Currency War?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/02/21/is-the-world-on-the-brink-of-a-currency-war/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/02/21/is-the-world-on-the-brink-of-a-currency-war/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:45:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Austerity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bonds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commodities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Currency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Portfolio Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate & Homes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retirement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street & Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World Finance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=72468</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The latest hot topic among economic talking heads is the coming currency war. According to conventional wisdom, there’s a risk that major countries will – simultaneously – try to revive their sluggish economies by pushing down the value of their currencies. That strategy could backfire, according to this line of thought, stifling international trade, tipping economies back into recession, and possibly causing Depression-style hyperinflation to boot. Get ready to sell apples on the nearest street corner and buy your morning coffee with a wheelbarrow full of paper money. It all sounds very unpleasant. But the dogs of war are unlikely to slip their leash. In a classic currency war, a country prints money, holds interest rates down, or intervenes in foreign exchange markets in order to depress the value of its own currency. That makes the country&#8217;s exports cheaper and more attractive for foreign buyers. In theory, this can enable an economy to grow faster than would be possible on the basis of domestic demand alone. Only trouble is, if every country pursues a similar strategy, they all devalue their currencies at the same time and no country gains an advantage over its trading partners. It may look as though that’s what’s happening now, since many of the largest economies are following policies that could depress the value of their currencies. But they’re doing so for fundamentally different reasons – to address domestic economic problems rather than to boost exports. And while this creates some real risks, they aren’t the ones that the term &#8220;currency war&#8221; implies. (MORE: Why Can&#8217;t People with Student Loans Refinance at Better Rates?) Currency wars – and trade wars generally – have their origins in a 17th and 18th century economic theory known as mercantilism. The idea was that a country’s wealth comes from selling more than it buys. A colonial empire could achieve this positive balance of trade by acquiring cheap raw materials from its colonies and then ensuring that it exported more finished goods than it imported. This was usually accomplished with tariffs that made<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=72468&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/02/21/is-the-world-on-the-brink-of-a-currency-war/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Economy &amp; Policy</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/2100_ml_foreignmoney_0713.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/2100_ml_foreignmoney_0713.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/2100_ml_foreignmoney_0713.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">2100_ml_foreignmoney_0713</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b8875a12f713f52ecc28fe72efed7fd4?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">michaelsivy</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>If a Meteorite Hits Your Home, Are You Insured?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/02/15/if-a-meteorite-hits-your-home-are-you-insured/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/02/15/if-a-meteorite-hits-your-home-are-you-insured/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 19:42:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Victor Luckerson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=72286</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It’s been an odd day for Earth and celestial objects. A 10-ton meteorite exploded near the Russian city of Chelyabinsk, injuring hundreds and causing widespread panic. Meanwhile, a 143,000-ton asteroid passed just 17,000 miles away from Earth around 2:30 Eastern today, a little too close for comfort. All this talk of dangerous rocks falling from the sky &#8212; as NASA scientist Don Yeomans recently told my TIME colleague Jeffrey Kluger, a basketball size object hits the earth&#8217;s atmosphere every day &#8212; may have you wondering how a meteor shower or asteroid collision could theoretically affect your family or property. If a meteorite crashes through your roof, the damage to your house and belongings would generally be covered by a standard homeowner’s insurance policy, according to the Insurance Information Institute, a consumer education organization funded by the insurance industry. Meteorites are classified as a falling object, one of the many “named perils” for which insurance companies cover personal property damage. Other odd perils include a volcanic eruption, a riot, and a falling airplane. (MORE: Asteroid Hits Earth! How the Doomsday Scenario Would Play Out) “Your building is covered for all risks, except for the things that are specifically mentioned as excluded,” says David Vales, a claim team manager for State Farm. Named exclusions typically include relatively common natural disasters like floods and earthquakes, but also man-made problems like a nuclear accident, according to the Insurance Information Institute. Thankfully meteorites are not common enough to warrant charging an extra premium from insurance companies. While you’re likely covered if a space rock hits your house directly, things would be more complicated (in a lot of ways, obviously) if an Armageddon-sized asteroid like the one cruising near Earth today entered your vicinity. Standard insurance policies only cover personal property damage in your house if the falling object blasts directly through your roof or your walls. If an asteroid slams into the Earth a mile away from your house and your prized art deco sculptures tumble to the ground and shatter, insurance isn’t likely to cover<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=72286&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/02/15/if-a-meteorite-hits-your-home-are-you-insured/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Real Estate</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/real-estate-economy-policy/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/40c4f40351434bf8e04405d4231aaecd?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">vluck2012</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Comcast&#8217;s NBCUniversal Deal: As One Media Era Ends, Another Begins</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/02/14/comcasts-nbcuniversal-deal-as-one-media-era-ends-another-begins/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/02/14/comcasts-nbcuniversal-deal-as-one-media-era-ends-another-begins/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:00:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sam Gustin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Future of TV]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Information Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War for the Web]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=70612</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Comcast&#8217;s $16.7 billion deal to purchase the remaining half of NBCUniversal from General Electric solidifies the cable and broadband giant&#8217;s role as a media titan and represents a triumph for CEO Brian Roberts, whose father founded Comcast in 1963 by buying a 1,200-subscriber cable TV company in Tupelo, Miss. for $500,000. Since then, Comcast has steadily grown through acquisitions and savvy business deals. It is now the largest cable company in the United States, and one of the largest providers of broadband Internet and home phone service. GE&#8217;s sale of its remaining NBCUniversal stake marks a symbolic milestone in the history of American broadcast media, and the arrival of a new, digital era in which cable-giant Comcast has emerged as a dominant force in entertainment and communications. By assuming full ownership of NBC Universal &#8212; which includes NBC&#8217;s famed &#8220;Peacock Network,&#8221; NBC News, MSNBC, CNBC, Universal Pictures, the Universal theme parks and resorts, and several popular cable channels, including Bravo &#8212; Comcast takes full control of a crown jewel of American news and entertainment, whose history mirrors the emergence of modern broadcast media in the 20th Century. For Comcast, the deal represents a clear commitment to cable and broadcast television, even as the Internet revolution has given consumers more entertainment choices than ever before. Despite past fears that the Internet would eviscerate TV advertising, much as it has done to print media, television &#8212; especially cable TV &#8212; remains a highly profitable and growing business. (MORE: Liberty’s Virgin Deal Sets Up Media Clash Between Malone and Murdoch) &#8220;Our decision to acquire GE&#8217;s ownership is driven by our sense of optimism for the future prospects of NBCUniversal and our desire to capture future value that we hope to create for our shareholders,&#8221; Roberts said in a statement. Comcast shares jumped 3% Wednesday in response to the deal, touching a multi-year high; the company&#8217;s stock price has increased 46% over the past year and 68% over the past two years. For GE, divesting its remaining NBCUniversal stake is part of CEO Jeffrey Immelt&#8217;s plan to focus on the company&#8217;s industrial businesses. GE,<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=70612&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/02/14/comcasts-nbcuniversal-deal-as-one-media-era-ends-another-begins/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Media</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/companies-industries/media-companies-industries/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/biz-nbc-comcast-0215.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/biz-nbc-comcast-0215.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/biz-nbc-comcast-0215.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">A pedestrian walks in front of NBC Studios on 50th Street in New York City, Dec. 1, 2009.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/60187828ab0bda2734e1a17a173fabde?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">shgustin</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Can&#8217;t This Economy Really Get Going?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/02/12/why-cant-this-economy-get-going/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/02/12/why-cant-this-economy-get-going/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 13:00:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Austerity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bonds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economic Indicators]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Home-Equity Loans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate & Homes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street & Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World Finance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=70353</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It’s no secret that the U.S. economy isn’t doing especially well. But there’s a cliché – one that I’ve repeated myself – that conditions are improving, even if progress is disappointingly slow. That notion was exploded two weeks ago when the Department of Commerce estimated that GDP actually declined in the fourth quarter of 2012. It’s true that the drop wasn’t very big and was offset to some extent by better-than-expected results earlier in the year. But when you average results for the past four quarters, overall growth last year amounted to only half the normal rate, and there’s not really any upward trend. Those results are even worse than they sound. After a recession ends, the economy typically enjoys a bit of a boom. And the deeper the slump, the more powerful the rebound usually is. For brief periods, GDP growth can get up as high as 9% (at an annual rate). And over several years, the economy can expand considerably faster than the historical average rate of 3.25%. In short, after a recession there’s typically a catch-up period, in which the economy makes up some of its lost ground. (MORE: 9 Easy Ways to Save Money on Your Next Vacation) So the problem is not just that business conditions are taking a long time getting back to normal. What’s a lot more disappointing is that there hasn’t been any real rebound at all. In fact, GDP growth hasn’t outpaced the historical average rate for two consecutive quarters since the recession ended. This chronic weakness isn’t result of any single problem. Instead, there are a host of factors that have combined to produce the entrenched stagnation we see today. Among them: The housing bust. Home prices have stopped falling and have turned up over the past year. But many American families still have not recovered from the 30% drop in prices between 2006 and 2009. By some estimates, a fifth of all the homes with mortgages are worth less than is owed on them. Not only does this prevent many homeowners<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=70353&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/02/12/why-cant-this-economy-get-going/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Economy &amp; Policy</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/rtr3dn1w.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/rtr3dn1w.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/rtr3dn1w.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange after the opening bell Feb. 11, 2013.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b8875a12f713f52ecc28fe72efed7fd4?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">michaelsivy</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>6 Reasons the Stock Market Could Do Surprisingly Well in 2013</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/01/22/6-reasons-the-stock-market-could-do-surprisingly-well-in-2013/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/01/22/6-reasons-the-stock-market-could-do-surprisingly-well-in-2013/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:00:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Austerity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bonds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Portfolio Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate & Homes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street & Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wealth]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=67363</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The S&#38;P 500 hit a five-year high last week, and now some experts are saying that stocks are overpriced and that the overall market is vulnerable to a 20% drop this year. There are certainly plenty of things to worry about, from a lousy economy and political gridlock in Washington to the possibility of a financial crisis in the euro zone. But there’s an equally compelling case that stocks could do quite well in 2013. Indeed, it wouldn’t be hard for the Dow to sail through its all-time high of 14,164 and go on to top 15,000 before the year is out – a gain of 10% or more from current levels. There’s no denying the economy’s current problems. Since the recession ended more than three years ago, growth has been consistently disappointing for a recovery. Moreover, the economy has actually been slowing down recently – from a 3.1% annualized growth rate in last year’s third quarter to less than 1.5% in the fourth quarter. In addition, analysts project that the fiscal cliff deal, combined with attempts to cut the deficit, will knock as much as a full percentage point off GDP growth in 2013. In short, this year’s economy figures to be just as sluggish as last year’s – and maybe worse. But the pessimists’ case for a bear market is based on more than a limping U.S. economy. They think the bull market – up more than 100% over the past three-and-a-half years – has run its course. They expect a global slowdown that will cause 2013 corporate profits to fall short of expectations. Finally, they think the Federal Reserve’s extreme easy-money policies will either lead to inflation, or that the Fed will have to raise interest rates. Either way, it would send the prices of Treasury bonds into a tailspin and unsettle the stock market as well. Whew! That’s a lot to worry about. But today’s bearish commentators are making one crucial incorrect assumption – that share prices move in lockstep with the economy. It’s true that over the long term, share prices follow<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=67363&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/01/22/6-reasons-the-stock-market-could-do-surprisingly-well-in-2013/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Markets</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/wall-street-markets/investing-wall-street-markets/markets/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b8875a12f713f52ecc28fe72efed7fd4?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">michaelsivy</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
