<?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: Wall Street &#124; Business &#38; Money &#124; TIME.com</title>
	<atom:link href="http://business.time.com/category/wall-street-markets/investing-wall-street-markets/wall-street/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 19:27:40 +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>Dow Has Its First Close Above 15,000 Points</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/05/07/dow-has-its-first-close-above-15000-points/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/05/07/dow-has-its-first-close-above-15000-points/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 20:14:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>AP / Matt Craft and Steve Rothwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street & Markets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=79462</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[(NEW YORK) — Just two months after recovering the last of its losses from the financial crisis, the Dow Jones industrial average charged higher Tuesday, closing above 15,000 for the first time. It was another milestone in the market&#8217;s epic ascent of 2013. Good economic reports, strong corporate earnings and fresh support from central banks have eased investors&#8217; concerns about another economic slowdown. Many had been on the lookout for signs that a spring swoon would derail the rally, as happened in each of the past three years. Instead, Wall Street has climbed almost 15 percent since Jan. 1. &#8220;The thing that&#8217;s been driving stocks is rising confidence,&#8221; said James Paulsen, chief investment strategist at Wells Capital Management. &#8220;Economic growth, job creation and the housing market have been better than expected.&#8221; News of stronger hiring over the past three months briefly propelled the Dow over 15,000 on Friday, but it ended the week below that mark. Wall Street followed Japanese and European markets higher after they responded to good news about central bank stimulus and the German economy. In the U.S., the market got a lift from higher quarterly profits at satellite TV company DirecTV and watchmaker Fossil. The Dow closed at 15,056.20, up 87.31 points, or 0.6 percent. The Standard &#38; Poor&#8217;s 500 index added 8.46 points to 1,625.96, a gain of 0.5 percent. Both indexes reached all-time highs earlier this year, then kept climbing, largely driven by optimism that the U.S. economy will continue gaining strength. &#8220;We don&#8217;t think people are giving enough credit to the strength of the economy,&#8221; said Ryan Detrick, a senior technical strategist at Schaeffer&#8217;s Investment Research. &#8220;We still like the market.&#8221; The gains piled up with the growing realization among investors that the traditional threats to a rising market — higher interest rates, falling profits, a possible recession — are unlikely to appear anytime soon. What&#8217;s more, with interest rates near record lows, they see few other places to put their money. (MORE: How Silicon Valley is Hollowing Out the Economy) In a round of interviews on<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=79462&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/05/07/dow-has-its-first-close-above-15000-points/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Stocks</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/wall-street-markets/investing-wall-street-markets/stocks-investing/</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>Is the Price of Gold Signaling an Economic Slowdown?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/04/29/is-the-price-of-gold-signaling-an-economic-slowdown/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/04/29/is-the-price-of-gold-signaling-an-economic-slowdown/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:45:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Austerity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bonds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commodities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economic Indicators]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emerging Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Portfolio Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street & Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World Finance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=78807</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Friday’s GDP number was a disappointment. The consensus among economists was that growth for the first quarter would be at least 3% (at an annual rate adjusted for inflation). The actual number was only 2.5%. And even that wasn’t as good as it looked. Growth late last year was very weak, so part of the first-quarter gain was simply a short-term bounce back from the previous quarter. Nonetheless, those results appear to fit with conventional wisdom: A lethargic economy has managed to crank out minimal but steady growth for almost four years. And the outlook is slowly getting better rather than getting worse. Some contrarians challenge that view. They sees signs that the U.S. economy is losing momentum and is heading for another slowdown, if not another recession. The leading indicators of such a future downturn include price trends for important commodities, as well as for Treasury bonds. The most significant bellwether is the recent drop in the price of gold – the sharpest in 30 years. Since the U.S. abandoned the gold standard in the mid-1970s, consumer prices have quadrupled, but gold has risen more than ten-fold. The gold price hasn’t moved higher consistently – it was relatively flat during much of the 1980s and ’90s. But there have been only three periods in which gold prices suffered a significant and rapid decline. The first was from 1980 to ’82, when Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker raised interest rates to crush double-digit inflation and the U.S. economy experienced two closely spaced recessions. The second was in 2008, when the financial crisis caused a credit crunch and a worldwide recession. (MORE: A Nation of Renters: Should We Be Worried That Fewer Americans Own Homes?) The third period began in 2011, when gold peaked at $1,896 an ounce. Since then, the price has fallen to $1,440. Strikingly, this decline is occurring at a time when the Fed is pumping money into the banking system, interest rates are extremely low, and the U.S. economy has not had a negative quarter for nearly four years. Why<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=78807&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/04/29/is-the-price-of-gold-signaling-an-economic-slowdown/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/2013/04/rtxymy9-copy.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/rtxymy9-copy.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/rtxymy9-copy.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Watches and gold jewellery in a display case inside the Gold Standard jewellery store, specializing in purchasing raw gold and silver in New York City, on April 15, 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>What the Boston Bombing Means for the Economy and the Stock Market</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/04/16/what-the-boston-bombing-means-for-the-economy-and-the-stock-market/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/04/16/what-the-boston-bombing-means-for-the-economy-and-the-stock-market/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:23:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bonds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commodities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Exchanges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutual Funds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Portfolio Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tourism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Travel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street & Markets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=77856</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Terrorism poisons everything. The greatest damage, of course, results from the lives that are lost and the people who are injured. Nonetheless, it’s natural to wonder whether an event such as yesterday’s bombing at the Boston Marathon is likely to have a longer-term impact on the economy and the stock market. Anything that makes people more anxious and uncertain about the future has a negative effect on business and on stocks. The bombing occurred shortly before 3 p.m. E.T., and the Dow — which had earlier in the day started to rally from the day’s lows — fell another 120 points in the last hour of trading. Is that likely to be it? Or should investors expect further big losses over the coming days and even weeks? The attack on September 11, 2001, seems to suggest that the effects of a terrorist attack might be long lasting. Following that tragedy, the Dow dropped 1,400 points and needed more than two months to get back to even. However, it’s worth noting that at the time of the attack on the World Trade Center, the Dow was already down 1,500 points from the year’s high. And after the market made up its losses from 9/11, it went on to gain another 1,000 points in the first four months of 2002. So clearly there were other factors driving stock prices. Moreover, not all incidents have such a drastic impact. In fact, it’s possible to divide terrorist acts into four categories with dramatically different economic results: Attacks on individual companies. Terrorism that targets a specific company — such as the kidnapping of employees or the bombing of offices — has a damaging effect on the shares of the company targeted. In some cases, a stock can be hit hard and have a sizable loss. But overall, the effect tends not to be very great. A recent study found that in 75 incidents, the average stock-market loss was only 1% or 2%. Competitors were not affected one way or the other. Attacks on the energy sector.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=77856&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/04/16/what-the-boston-bombing-means-for-the-economy-and-the-stock-market/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Wall Street &amp; Markets</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/wall-street-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>
		<item>
		<title>Why Derivatives May Be the Biggest Risk for the Global Economy</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/03/27/why-derivatives-may-be-the-biggest-risk-for-the-global-economy/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/03/27/why-derivatives-may-be-the-biggest-risk-for-the-global-economy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:06:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bonds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commodities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Exchanges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investment Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Equity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Too-Big-To-Fail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street & Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wealth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World Finance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=75881</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Four years after the U.S. recession ended, the global economy is still beset by problems. The present danger comes from Cyprus – where the sea foam once gave birth to the goddess Aphrodite but now only creates froth in panicky financial markets. The proposed bailout plan for troubled Cypriot banks would impose losses of up to 40% on the largest depositors. And that, in turn, could undermine confidence in the banks of other troubled euro zone countries. Cyprus is only the latest challenge for global financial stability, however. In the U.S., deteriorating urban finances – from Detroit to Stockton, Calif. – threaten municipal bond holders, public-sector workers, and taxpayers. In addition, a rise in long-term interest rates seems inevitable sooner or later, either because of inflation or because the Federal Reserve backs away from its easy-money policies. Higher interest rates would mean big losses for bond investors, and also for government-sponsored entities, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that hold mortgage-backed assets. The greatest risk of all, however, may be one of the least visible – namely, the expanding, shadowy market for derivatives. These highly sophisticated investments have contributed to financial disasters from the 2008 bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers to J.P. Morgan’s 2012 trading losses in London, which totaled more than $6 billion. (MORE: The $600 Billion the IRS Can&#8217;t Collect) Basically, derivatives are financial contracts with values that are derived from the behavior of something else – interest rates, stock indexes, mortgages, commodities, or even the weather. Just as homebuyers make only a down payment when they buy a house with a mortgage, derivatives traders put down only a small amount of cash. Moreover, one derivative can be used to offset or serve as collateral for another. The result is that a massive edifice of derivatives can be supported by a relatively small amount of real money. Some derivatives, such as typical stock options, trade on exchanges. But many are simply private contracts between banks or other sophisticated investors. As a result, it’s hard to know the total<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=75881&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/03/27/why-derivatives-may-be-the-biggest-risk-for-the-global-economy/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>
		<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>Can the U.S. Dollar Become Almighty Once Again?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/03/20/can-the-u-s-dollar-become-almighty-once-again/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/03/20/can-the-u-s-dollar-become-almighty-once-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:35:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Austerity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commodities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Currency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economic Indicators]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutual Funds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Portfolio Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street & Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wealth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World Finance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=75257</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Financial turmoil in Cyprus, where the parliament rejected a plan an eurozone bailout deal that would have taxed bank deposits, is prompting investors to shift cash from the euro zone to the U.S. That’s boosting the value of the dollar &#8212; and it’s just the latest installment in a story that has helped the dollar strengthen for more than a year. Despite gridlock in Washington and a string of economic mishaps, the dollar has risen by 7% since late 2011. That’s a striking turnaround for a currency that was in relentless decline for decades. If the upward trend continues – and there are good reasons to think it will – then the U.S. dollar could become almighty once again. The dollar’s decline over the past 30 years has been far greater than most Americans realize. It has lost almost half its value against other major currencies since 1985 and is down 33% in the past 11 years alone. Indeed, the value of the U.S. dollar is lower today than it was in 2009 when the recession ended. In part, this fall occurred because of government policies in Europe and Japan that kept the euro and the yen overvalued. A weak currency can bolster a country’s economy in the short run, by making goods cheaper for foreign buyers and thereby encouraging exports. But over the longer term, a robust economy is typically accompanied by a strong currency. A currency rises in value when more foreign money is flowing in than is flowing out. These inflows occur not only because of export sales but also because foreigners see investment opportunities or are seeking safe places to park their cash. As a result, a stronger dollar is a bellwether of an improving economy and a brighter outlook for U.S. stocks. And there are three reasons economists think the dollar’s rise could continue: (MORE: Cyprus: The E.U. &#8216;Rescue That Risks Backfiring) Other major countries are worse off economically. The U.S. economy may be sluggish, but it has grown for 14 straight quarters since the recession ended<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=75257&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/03/20/can-the-u-s-dollar-become-almighty-once-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>World Finance</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/world-finance/</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>
		<item>
		<title>Dow Jones Closes at Record High — So What?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/03/06/dow-jones-closes-at-record-high-so-what/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/03/06/dow-jones-closes-at-record-high-so-what/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2013 10:45:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martha C. White</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bonds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street & Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dow]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dow Jones Industrial Average]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[S&P]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[short-term interest rates]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=73949</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When the trading day ended on Tuesday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at a record high of 14,253.77. It surpassed the index&#8217;s previous closing high of 14,164.53 reached back in the pre-recession days of October 2007. For all the headlines devoted to the event, you&#8217;d think this was a really big deal — either a signal that our economy has zoomed past the lingering aftereffects of the Great Recession, or evidence of a bubble about to pop, as CNBC wondered a little while ago. The reality is probably much less exciting. &#8220;Investors should curb their enthusiasm,&#8221; says Mitchell O. Goldberg, president of ClientFirst Strategy. Experts say the Dow&#8217;s record high means relatively little in the grand scheme of things. Here are a few reasons why: The Dow Doesn&#8217;t Reflect the Entire Economy &#8220;To the average guy in the public, the Dow means the market,&#8221; says Wayne S. Kaufman, chief market analyst at John Thomas Financial. &#8220;But it’s only 30 stocks.&#8221; What&#8217;s more, the index is price-weighted, meaning more expensive stocks have an outsized impact on the number. The 30 stocks that currently constitute the Dow Jones Industrial Average make up a pretty narrow slice of American economic output. Analysts say the S&#38;P 500, a much bigger index, is more reflective of the market as a whole. (It ended Tuesday at a five-year high, but fell short of record-breaking status.) (MORE: Are We Already Planting the Seeds of the Next Financial Crisis?) Also, the companies included in the Dow have changed over the years, and inflation is not factored in, so measuring today&#8217;s record against its previous high is an apples-to-oranges comparison. &#8220;When you see the Dow hitting new highs, it’s not the same Dow we had in &#8217;07,&#8221; Goldberg says. He points out that manufacturing stalwart General Motors was booted out, as were Citigroup and Kraft, and he argues the current index skews too tech-heavy to encompass the true scope of the U.S. economy. The Fed Did This &#8212; and It Can Undo It Too Stocks have been particularly buoyant because they&#8217;re floating<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=73949&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/03/06/dow-jones-closes-at-record-high-so-what/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Stocks</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/wall-street-markets/investing-wall-street-markets/stocks-investing/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/163135776-1.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/163135776-1.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/163135776-1.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Dow Jones Average Passes Its All Time High</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>Mergers and Acquisitions Boom! Is This a Good Sign for the Economy?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/02/15/mergers-and-acquisitions-boom-is-this-a-good-sign-for-the-economy/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/02/15/mergers-and-acquisitions-boom-is-this-a-good-sign-for-the-economy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:00:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Matthews</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economic Indicators]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investment Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Equity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street & Markets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=70728</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wall Street dealmakers are off to a busy start to 2013, as some of corporate America&#8217;s most recognizable names have become involved in multi-billion-dollar mergers and acquisitions. Just yesterday, American Airlines and US Airways announced they would be merging in an $11 billion deal, while private equity firm 3G and Warren Buffett&#8216;s Berkshire Hathaway announced a $28 billion joint acquisition of  food conglomerate H.G. Heinz. And these two deals follow hard upon $24.4 billion leveraged buyout of Dell by private equity firm Silver Lake Partners and the firm&#8217;s founder, Michael Dell. Indeed, according to data from Deallogic, U.S. companies have spent $219 billion on mergers and acquisitions so far in 2013, a sharp increase from 2012, when firms spent just $85 billion during the same period. And U.S. firms are on pace to have the biggest year in M&#38;A activity since 2000. While all this activity will be surely benefit shareholders of acquired firms &#8212; as well as lots of Wall Street investment bankers &#8212; what does it say about the health of the economy? Since the late 19th century, mergers and acquisitions have tended to come in waves, spurred by the availability of credit, changes in government policy, or bursts of private-sector innovation. Deregulation, for instance, motivated a wave of mergers in the airline industry in the 1970s and the consolidation of the banking industry in the 1990s. But perhaps the most important factor in motivating these bursts of M&#38;A is economic conditions, particularly the strength of the stock market. Mergers in particular are often financed with stock, and high stock values give companies the resources with which to make purchases. (MORE: Why Can’t This Economy Really Get Going?) But the stock market has been doing pretty well for a few years now, with the S&#38;P 500 up more than 138% since its bear-market lows of 2009. So why are we only now seeing the first glimmer of an M&#38;A boom? Surely one reason is that today&#8217;s market is heavily fortified by quantitative easing. The Federal Reserve has taken unprecedented action to keep interest rates low in both the short and long<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=70728&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/02/15/mergers-and-acquisitions-boom-is-this-a-good-sign-for-the-economy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Wall Street</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/wall-street-markets/investing-wall-street-markets/wall-street/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/bull.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/bull.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/bull.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bull</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>Herbalife Defends Itself Against Pyramid Allegations. But Does the Market Believe?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/01/11/herbalife-defends-against-pyramid-allegations-does-the-market-believe/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/01/11/herbalife-defends-against-pyramid-allegations-does-the-market-believe/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2013 13:00:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Matthews</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street & Markets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=66477</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the more entertaining spectacles in the financial world this past month has been the recent battle between hedge fund manager Bill Ackman and nutritional supplement company Herbalife. The multilevel marketing (MLM) firm came under serious pressure late last month when Ackman put a massive $1 billion short bet on the company, following a high-profile, three-hour presentation during which he accused Herbalife of being nothing more than a complex pyramid scheme that would either collapse under the weight of its own fraudulence or fall apart due to regulatory action by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Since that time, several high profile investors have lined up on the side of Herbalife &#8212; not necessarily endorsing Herbalife&#8217;s business model as completely ethical, but arguing that the firm is selling real products to real people and that it doesn&#8217;t face the risk of any regulatory intervention. And yesterday, Herbalife itself weighed in with a two-hour-plus presentation of its own in which it picked apart some of Ackman&#8217;s presentation and generally argued for the financial strength of the company. In my opinion, Herbalife failed to put Ackman&#8217;s critique to rest. The market was also unimpressed, as Herbalife&#8217;s stock actually fell on the day by 1.78%. Ackman&#8217;s argument is long and complex, but its basic contours are as follows: Herbalife compensates its distributors mainly for recruiting other distributors, rather than for selling products. If true, this would make Herbalife a pyramid scheme practically and by the FTC&#8217;s definition. Herbalife has only grown by entering new markets. Each time it enters a new market it experiences a &#8220;pop and drop,&#8221; in which rapid revenue growth is followed by a steep drop in sales. Therefore Herbalife&#8217;s growth cannot continue forever. Once it exhausts new markets, it will collapse &#8212; if, that is, the FTC doesn&#8217;t shut it down first. Herbalife did manage to poke holes in some of Ackman&#8217;s critique, but by no means did it provide a point-by-point, definitive rebuttal. While Ackman explained in detail how he arrived at his determination that over 90% of<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=66477&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/01/11/herbalife-defends-against-pyramid-allegations-does-the-market-believe/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Wall Street</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/wall-street-markets/investing-wall-street-markets/wall-street/</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>Lots of Goodies Were Stuffed into the Fiscal Cliff Deal­</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/01/07/lots-of-goodies-were-stuffed-into-the-fiscal-cliff-deal%c2%ad/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/01/07/lots-of-goodies-were-stuffed-into-the-fiscal-cliff-deal%c2%ad/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:00:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Agriculture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Austerity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business of Sports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Construction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Green]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hollywood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investment Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Manufacturing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutual Funds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Equity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street & Markets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=65939</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You’d think that Congress would have kept the fiscal cliff negotiations as simple and tight as possible. The size of the deficit, the threat of automatic spending cuts, and the need for a last-minute tax deal deserved everyone’s full attention. And yet, the Congressional Budget Office breakdown of the bill shows that there were all sorts of goodies buried in the fine print, benefiting everyone from filmmakers to rum distillers. The problem is so-called “tax expenditures,” which are basically ways to subsidize various kinds of activities through tax breaks (as opposed to direct payments). The fiscal cliff deal consists of three parts – personal taxes, business taxes and energy taxes – and each includes its own giveaways. Many of these were simply increases or extensions of tax expenditures that already existed. And some of them may be perfectly reasonable public policy. Perhaps it’s worthwhile to spend an additional $9.7 billion over the next 10 years on additional subsidies for student loans or $5.6 billion for adoptions, although both those figures seem like a lot considering that employer-provided childcare is getting only $209 million. More money is at stake in subsidies for various businesses, $46 billion, and for alternative energy, $18 billion. But even when those tax expenditures are justifiable, they merit separate and thorough discussion, rather than being mixed into what is supposed to be a debate over personal income tax rates. Moreover, there are plenty of lesser tax expenditures that seem to deserve some skepticism. Indeed, Senator McCain criticized such tax benefits last week, saying that &#8220;special-interest giveaways,&#8221; including a $15 million subsidy for asparagus growers, would feed cynicism at a time when tough choices have to be made about the deficit. Here’s a quick look at where some of the other small bequests are going: Railroad tracks. A special 50% tax credit for maintaining tracks is projected to cost $331 million over the next two years. Racetracks. Tax benefits for certain motorsport racing track facilities will cost more than $100 million over the next seven years. Native Americans. Business property on Indian reservations will receive<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=65939&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/01/07/lots-of-goodies-were-stuffed-into-the-fiscal-cliff-deal%c2%ad/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>
		<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>Election Day Hangover: Stock Markets Plunge as Investors Eye Fiscal Cliff</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/11/08/election-day-hangover-stock-markets-plunge-as-investors-eye-fiscal-cliff/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/11/08/election-day-hangover-stock-markets-plunge-as-investors-eye-fiscal-cliff/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2012 10:45:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Matthews</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street & Markets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=60451</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Dow Jones Industrial Average had its worst day of the year yesterday, dropping 313 points or 2.36% as investors worried about the economic health of the eurozone and the effects of tax increases and spending cuts set to go into effect in 2013. The S&#38;P 500 and the Nasdaq also suffered serious declines, falling 2.37% and 2.48%, respectively. Market watchers gave many reasons for the decline &#8212; some blamed the election of Barack Obama, who ran on a platform to increase taxes on the wealthy, including capital gains taxes and taxes on dividends. If such policies were to go into effect, they would most likely depress asset values. Some investors were hoping that a more business-friendly Mitt Romney would be elected, and optimism for that outcome helped drive a stock market rally on Election Day. CNBC host Jim Cramer said yesterday that a belief in a late surge by Mitt Romney led investors to buy shares in financial institutions as well as coal companies, as Mr. Romney promised he would ease environmental regulations and roll back the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. &#8220;I think the selling makes sense because there was a big run up yesterday, and a lot of those buyers were Romney buyers,&#8221; Cramer said. (MORE: CFPB Takes on Debt Collectors With New Oversight) But the main reason given by investors for the sharp decline was that Wall Street began yesterday to focus in earnest on the looming austerity measures that are set to go into effect at the end of the year. Current law dictates that the Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers will expire, as will the temporary payroll tax cut which was extended by President Obama and Congress in 2011. In addition, a round of cuts in military and so-called discretionary spending will begin in January. Economists predict that if something isn&#8217;t done to modify these plans, it will suck as much as 4 percentage points of GDP growth out of the economy in 2013, enough to force it back into recession. &#8221;The minute such a deal is<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=60451&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/11/08/election-day-hangover-stock-markets-plunge-as-investors-eye-fiscal-cliff/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Wall Street &amp; Markets</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/wall-street-markets/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/biz-dow-election-1107.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/biz-dow-election-1107.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/biz-dow-election-1107.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">image: Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange in New York City, Nov. 7, 2012.</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>Who&#8217;s Better for Markets: Romney or Obama?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/11/05/whos-better-for-markets-romney-or-obama/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/11/05/whos-better-for-markets-romney-or-obama/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:30:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rana Foroohar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bonds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street & Markets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=59919</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There’s a growing bit of conventional wisdom that says that if Mitt Romney is elected, the stock market will soar, and if President Obama gets another term, we’ll enter a bear market. Romney said as much himself to a group of $50,000-a-plate supporters during his infamous 47% dinner talk. But does historical evidence support this claim? In a word, no. Sure, there are plenty of investors who believe that the markets would favor a Romney victory. A recent Barclays survey of institutional investors, hedge-fund managers and corporate executives found that most thought that stock markets would rally more, and longer, under a President Romney, though their enthusiasm was muted by worries over a more hawkish Fed (Romney has hinted that he’d like a Fed head that would tighten the money spigots) and protectionism. (Romney may score campaign points by talking tough about China, but no corporate leader wants to risk a trade war, or even a trade skirmish, with the Middle Kingdom, which has been responsible for the bulk of the world’s post-financial-crisis growth.) (MORE: U.S. Economy Adds 171,000 Jobs in October, but Challenges Remain) But while much of Wall Street is, of course, going to believe in a candidate that is less likely to raise taxes on the rich and get tougher on banks, I’m more interested in the historical data put out by folks like renowned fund manager Ken Fisher, showing that over the past eight decades or so, stocks tend to rally no matter who is elected President, mainly because it alleviates political uncertainty and (at least for a few months) unleashes pent-up animal spirits. Interestingly, the only scenario in which stocks do tend to dip is when a Republican President is replaced by a Democratic one &#8212; which, obviously, isn’t an option this time around. (PHOTOS: The Recession in Pictures: America Copes with a Stagnant Economy) I think it’s fair to say that bonds will continue to do better with an Obama victory, because that’s likely to indicate a continuation of “business as usual” at the Fed,<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=59919&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/11/05/whos-better-for-markets-romney-or-obama/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Wall Street &amp; Markets</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/wall-street-markets/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/biz-stock-president_1105.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/biz-stock-president_1105.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/biz-stock-president_1105.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">image: Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange in New York, Aug. 7, 2012.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/1c372315300738b8325eb1812b2ba263?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">ranaforoohar</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Risk is Back in Fashion</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/10/03/why-risk-is-back-in-fashion/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/10/03/why-risk-is-back-in-fashion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2012 12:00:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dan Kadlec</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bonds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mortgages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutual Funds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ben Bernanke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[QE3]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quantitative easing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stimulus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moneyland.time.com/?p=45263</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In one respect, at least, Ben Bernanke may be getting his way. When the Fed chief last month unleashed his latest round of stimulus, known as QE3, it was (among other things) a shot across the bow of investors who have been squirreling away assets in super-safe securities like short-term Treasuries, bank CDs, and money-market funds. These investments yield less than the rate of inflation, and with the third installment of his “quantitative easing” strategy, Bernanke all but guaranteed that things will stay that way until the economy is really moving again. But the point of QE3 wasn&#8217;t just to keep rates down and encourage home buying. It was also intended to frustrate holders of conservative, low-yielding assets, pushing them to seek higher returns in riskier investments and thereby fund job-generating business activity &#8212; and it seems to be working. (MORE: 4 Key Financial Moves After Landing a New Job) Frustrating savers shouldn&#8217;t be difficult. In fact, the job is largely done: In the second quarter, U.S. households earned $252 billion in interest payments, according to the Commerce Department. That&#8217;s down from an inflation-adjusted $355 billion in the fourth quarter of 2007. This is one result of falling yields and it is playing havoc with the finances of retirees. The Bernanke push is partly what’s behind impressive gains in the stock market the past few months, and now it seems as if home prices are getting a welcome bounce as well. After years of playing it safe, at least some folks have tired of paltry returns and are gaining the confidence to stick their necks out a bit. In a survey of affluent investors, Merrill Lynch recently found that far fewer describe themselves as conservative today. Just 30% say they are leaning toward low-risk investment options—down from 36% last year and 50% two years ago. The shift is most apparent among those with the longest time horizons. Among those 18 to 34 years old, 23% describe themselves as conservative, down from 52% two years ago. (MORE: 10 Questions for Gerhard Richter) There’s<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=45263&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/10/03/why-risk-is-back-in-fashion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Financial Planning</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/planning/financial-planning/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/bernanke1.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/bernanke1.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/bernanke1.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Ben Bernanke</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d69b05e696e822e7e41ae630be72226a?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">dankadlec</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Occupy Wall Street, One Year Later: Did It Make a Difference?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/09/17/occupy-wall-street-one-year-later-did-it-make-a-difference/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/09/17/occupy-wall-street-one-year-later-did-it-make-a-difference/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:39:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martha C. White</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Educational Financing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bank of America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capital One]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumer Financial Protection Bureau]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Debit card fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[occupy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy Wall Street]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moneyland.time.com/?p=44709</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A year ago today, a group of people angry about economic inequality, corporate greed and financial injustice staged a protest in Lower Manhattan&#8217;s Zuccotti Park, pledging to &#8220;Occupy Wall Street.&#8221; There was no overarching agenda and no official spokespeople, just the famous rallying cry of &#8220;We are the 99%.&#8221; But that slogan was enough to hold together a loose confederacy of protesters who camped out for nearly two months before eventually being removed by police. The movement ignited populist anger against banks four years after the financial crisis and eventually spawned &#8220;occupations&#8221; around the globe. (PHOTOS: Occupy Wall Street, One Year Later) Occupy &#8220;struck a resonant chord with middle-class Americans who might never join a protest themselves but who are still angry that their homes are underwater, that their neighbors are jobless and that the economy is in disarray,&#8221; says Ed Mierzwinski, a consumer advocate at U.S. PIRG. But did it matter? Did the Occupy movement make any kind of lasting difference in banking practices, financial regulation or ordinary Americans&#8217; lives? Measuring the effect of an amorphous social movement is difficult, and a look at the broader economic landscape is sobering. A year later, big, powerful banks remain big, powerful banks. Unemployment is still high, Americans&#8217; home equity and personal savings are depleted, and total student-loan debt tops a record $1 trillion. (MORE: Terrible Financial Advice: Top 10 Money Tips You Shouldn&#8217;t Follow) That said, there are a few notable changes in the financial industry that took place post-Occupy; while they might have occurred even if nobody ever held signs or chanted, &#8220;We are the 99%,&#8221; in Zuccotti Park, those protesters captured the zeitgeist in a way few other social movements can claim. Consider the following: Debit-card fees. Last fall, Bank of America announced plans to charge customers a monthly fee to use their debit cards. Several other national and regional banks, including Chase, Wells Fargo and SunTrust, either had been testing similar fees or had announced plans to adopt them. Consumers were furious, especially at Bank of America&#8217;s planned<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=58474&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/09/17/occupy-wall-street-one-year-later-did-it-make-a-difference/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Wall Street</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/wall-street-markets/investing-wall-street-markets/wall-street/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/034008041.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/034008041.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/034008041.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Occupy Wall Street one year anniversay in Lower Manhttan</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>Are Dividend Stocks the Next Bubble?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/07/24/dividend-stocks-the-next-bubble/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/07/24/dividend-stocks-the-next-bubble/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:00:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dan Kadlec</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Portfolio Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retirement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bubble]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dividend-paying stocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dividends]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moneyland.time.com/?p=42437</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dividend-paying stocks have been on a tear, and if you believe the experts it has all gone much too far. We are now in yet another bubble, this one comprising just about any stock with a yield. Look out below. Certainly, there is reason to take notice. In the last three months, traditional dividend-paying industries including telecom (13.7%) and utilities (7.5%) have far outperformed the broad S&#38;P 500 (-1.2%) and individual sectors like materials (-3.4%) and financials (-5.4%).  The Wall Street Journal reports that dividend-payers are now valued in the market at 25% more than non-dividend payers. (MORE: Subprime Private Student Loans: No Way Out) And the money keeps rolling in. From The Journal: “Investors have plowed a net $16 billion into U.S. dividend equity funds since the beginning of the year, with inflows picking up in recent weeks. By contrast, some $25 billion has been withdrawn from non-dividend funds, says data tracker EPFR Global.” So something is afoot. But every rally is not a bubble. What’s happening to dividend stocks seems analogous to the housing market in, say 2002. That’s when the bubble talk began and, of course, a bubble was building. But it took another five years and prices rose another 50% before the bubble burst. Even with the brutal decline since 2007, most who bought real estate in 2002 are about even. Bubbleologists may be misreading the dividend frenzy. Wall Street generally attributes the latest rush to dividends as a result of the persistent Euro crisis and recent hiccups in the China growth story. Fearing a global slowdown, the thinking goes, investors are shifting out of economy-sensitive stocks into sectors like healthcare and consumer staples—considered defensive because of their steady cash-flow even in hard times and their commitment to paying a dividend. (MORE: U.S. Authorities Ramp Up War on Offshore Tax Havens) Yet this defensive shift is but a small part of the story. What’s really driving the trend to dividends is the low yield environment that has retirees, especially, so desperate to secure an income stream<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=42437&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/07/24/dividend-stocks-the-next-bubble/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Portfolio Strategy</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/wall-street-markets/investing-wall-street-markets/portfolio-strategy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/74356685.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/74356685.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/74356685.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Stock Index</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d69b05e696e822e7e41ae630be72226a?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">dankadlec</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The New Normal: From Families to Nobel Winners, It&#8217;s All About Less</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/06/13/the-new-normal-from-families-to-nobel-winners-its-all-about-less/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/06/13/the-new-normal-from-families-to-nobel-winners-its-all-about-less/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:00:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dan Kadlec</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Budgeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Careers & Workplace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Job Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paying With Plastic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Portfolio Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving & Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[housing market]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[median income]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nobel prize]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moneyland.time.com/?p=40596</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What exactly is the new normal? Politico says it’s pervasive rudeness. Huffington Post says it’s prosecuting whistleblowers while letting criminal bankers go free. On NBC this fall, it will be a sitcom about yet another dysfunctional household. We sure throw that term around a lot. For most of us, though, the new normal is about a perpetually slow economy and what that means for our financial well being. The new normal for retirees is ultra-low savings rates that make income difficult to secure; for job seekers, it’s a tough market that means working for less. For homeowners, it’s lost equity and mobility. For just about everyone it means diminished opportunity. (MORE: Wealth Transfer? Boomers Banking on a Mirage) That includes the world’s greatest minds. The cash awarded to the next round of Nobel Prize winners will be down by 20%, The New York Times reports. Each prize will now be worth $1.1 million, down from $1.4 million—the first reduction in the face value of the prize since 1949. Why cut the award? The Nobel Foundation’s investment portfolio lost 8% last year and returns have not kept pace with costs for a decade. Sounds a lot like the new normal in ordinary households, doesn’t it? Witness the stunning finding, also reported in The New York Times, that U.S. families’ median net worth has fallen to levels last seen in the early 1990s. Citing a coming Federal Reserve report, The Times notes that two decades of accumulated prosperity has vanished; the median family net worth stands at $77,300, down from $126,400 before the Great Recession. Median family income has also fallen—to $45,800 from $49,600 pre-crash. Much of the hit to net worth is from the housing collapse. The median value of Americans’ home equity has fallen to $75,000 from $110,000 before the financial crisis. Median means that half are higher and half are lower. All figures are adjusted for inflation. (MORE: The Swing Voter Who Matters Most) According to the Fed report: The share of families saving anything fell to 52% from<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=40596&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/06/13/the-new-normal-from-families-to-nobel-winners-its-all-about-less/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Economics &amp; Policy</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/personal-finance-2/economics-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/house1.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/house1.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/house1.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">House</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d69b05e696e822e7e41ae630be72226a?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">dankadlec</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Apparently, Even Wall Street Thinks Little Of Wall Street</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/03/27/wall-street-reputations-reach-historic-low/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/03/27/wall-street-reputations-reach-historic-low/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:00:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dan Kadlec</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Goldman Sachs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moneyland.time.com/?p=36041</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It’s not just Goldman Sachs. Wall Street firms across the board deserve barbs from the public, according to a poll of financial industry marketing executives. A stunning 96%—virtually every last Wall Street pro in the poll—said people in their industry invite negative public perception by their actions or inactions, according to the 2012 Makovsky Wall Street Reputation Study. In an epic round of self-flagellation, these executives said: Increased regulation of financial services will help restore trust (74%). This is a group that never asks for more rules. The Occupy Wall Street movement had a real impact on business and it will continue to hurt past the election (71%). What? Those jobless idealists? Sniff. Wall Street pay will continue to batter the industry’s reputation (81%). Bankers simply must be paid millions, no matter what. The industry’s collective PR effort was either average or failing (57%). Or hopeless. Firms seen as having the best reputation include Bank of America (35%). And this bank is in just about everyone’s doghouse—from long suffering stockholders to troubled mortgage holders to regulators who won’t okay a dividend hike. Goldman Sachs, of course, maintains a huge lead in the my-name-is-dirt sweepstakes. The now famous departure of derivatives executive Greg Smith who blasted the firm’s culture of greed in an op-ed is just the start. Smith is reportedly close to signing a book deal that should help keep Goldman in a negative PR spin for many months, if not years. The firm has had a rash of regulatory run-ins, and The New York Times just unearthed more evidence that the firm is willing to bankrupt clients in pursuit of its own profits. (MORE: A Step Backward in Spreading Financial Literacy) It’s been a rough ride for Goldman. But everyone in the industry is feeling blue.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=57401&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/03/27/wall-street-reputations-reach-historic-low/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Wall Street</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/wall-street-markets/investing-wall-street-markets/wall-street/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/wallstreetflag1.jpeg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/wallstreetflag1.jpeg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/wallstreetflag1.jpeg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Wall Street</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d69b05e696e822e7e41ae630be72226a?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">dankadlec</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Solutions to 9 Puzzling Financial Frustrations</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/03/21/solutions-to-9-puzzling-money-problems/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/03/21/solutions-to-9-puzzling-money-problems/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:00:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emma Johnson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Financial Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving & Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[banks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bills]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[credit cards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debit cards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debt collectors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Fixes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[home repair]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Home Values]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[housing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Money Problems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moneyland.time.com/?p=35537</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While you can't control the price of gas or the direction of the stock market, many of life's most irritating money challenges do have reliable solutions. Here are 9 all-too-common financial annoyances, and strategies for resolving them.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=35537&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/03/21/solutions-to-9-puzzling-money-problems/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Financial Planning</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/planning/financial-planning/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/downloadedfile1.png?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/downloadedfile1.png?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/downloadedfile1.png?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Crossword</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/44310a1af940f994952d1e4db73096cd?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">TIME.com</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>What Will Replace the 401(k)?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/03/21/what-will-replace-the-401k/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/03/21/what-will-replace-the-401k/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:15:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dan Kadlec</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutual Funds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Portfolio Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retirement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[401k]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pension]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retiring]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moneyland.time.com/?p=35569</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We’ve come full circle on retirement saving. Just 15 years ago 401(k) plans were widely embraced. Workers enjoyed managing their own money, believing that 10% annual returns for life would be a layup. Employers were happy to match contributions, giving them cover to shift away from costly traditional pension plans. Policymakers thought they had found an answer to the fraying social safety net. Today it all looks like a big mistake. Numerous reports in places like the Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal have chronicled the 401(k)’s shortcomings. They are legion. Too many people don’t contribute enough, don’t diversify and don’t repay loans from the plans; too many take early distributions and try to time the market. (MORE: Reverse Mortgages More Popular With Younger Homeowners) There are structural problems too. 401(k) plans don’t readily provide guaranteed retirement income and because you don’t know low long you’ll live you have to err on the conservative side and save like crazy. Meanwhile, in the recent downturn a lot of cash-strapped companies eliminated the matching contributions element of their plan. Many—but not all—have reinstated the match since the recession officially lifted. Despite all this, though, 401(k) plans would still be in our good graces if only the stock market hadn’t gone dead for the past dozen years. With little or no return for more than a decade—and just as baby boomers begin to retire—the savings crisis has pushed us to new levels of despair. More than half the population has less than $25,000 saved for retirement, according to the Employee Benefits Research Institute. This, as much as anything, has caused the 401(k) backlash. Interestingly, this backlash is reaching a fever pitch just as the economy shows signs of picking up momentum and the stock market, anticipating a stronger recovery, has been moving higher. Yet even if stocks start delivering again, the 401(k)’s flaws probably mean change is coming. (MORE: How We Feel Can Predict How We Deal With the Markets) In an op-ed in The New York Times, Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=35569&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/03/21/what-will-replace-the-401k/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Wall Street</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/wall-street-markets/investing-wall-street-markets/wall-street/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/401k_03211.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/401k_03211.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/401k_03211.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">401K</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d69b05e696e822e7e41ae630be72226a?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">dankadlec</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Goldman Rule: How to Vet Your Financial Adviser</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/03/15/the-goldman-rule-how-to-vet-your-financial-adviser/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/03/15/the-goldman-rule-how-to-vet-your-financial-adviser/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:50:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dan Kadlec</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Financial Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Adviser]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Goldman Sachs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Op-Ed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The New York Times]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moneyland.time.com/?p=35221</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A lot of folks dream of quitting their job in a blaze of bridge-burning glory. Few actually do, though, which is a good thing if they ever want to work again. Presumably Greg Smith, who dropped an H-bomb at Goldman Sachs on his way out the door Wednesday, is sufficiently financially fortified. Wall Street and the Internet lit up, some calling for high-level resignations at Goldman, after Smith, a senior derivatives manager, penned an op-ed that The New York Times published on his last day of employment. It’s a good read. But if you want the short version, according to Smith: Goldman is a soulless financial goliath that seeks to make the most money possible at the frequent expense of clients the firm is supposed to be serving. (MORE: Goldman Sachs Banker Quits ‘Toxic’ Firm: Will Clients Flee Next?) I’m not sure why Smith’s letter hit as such a revelation. This after all is a firm that Rolling Stone famously called a vampire squid. The stunning part, I guess, is that an insider went public with confirmation of what many long suspected. Yet this culture of greed is hardly confined to the hallowed halls of Goldman Sachs. A person close to me was denied a job as a broker’s assistant a decade ago after submitting to a personality test that revealed she was too honest. At the ill-fated Bear Stearns, former CEO Alan “Ace” Greenberg said he would not hold an M.B.A. against prospective hires but that he much preferred job candidates with a P.S.D.—his term, short for Poor, Smart, and a Desire to be rich. The lesson is clear enough: Trusting any financial adviser is a difficult leap; and you should carefully vet anyone who helps you with your money. How do you find the right financial planner? Here’s a three-step process: Gather a short list of names. Start with references from family and friends. That’s as good as it gets for a start. If you have to dig deeper, search online for planners in your neighborhood through reputable organizations<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=57320&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/03/15/the-goldman-rule-how-to-vet-your-financial-adviser/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Financial Planning</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/planning/financial-planning/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d69b05e696e822e7e41ae630be72226a?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">dankadlec</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>8 Celebrity-Endorsed Financial Products We Wouldn&#8217;t Buy</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/01/18/10-celebrity-endorsed-financial-products-we-wouldnt-buy/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/01/18/10-celebrity-endorsed-financial-products-we-wouldnt-buy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:00:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martha White and Josh Sanburn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Financial Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Odd Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retirement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving & Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Smart Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[50 Cent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Betty White]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Celebrity Endorsed Products]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Donald Trump]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Simmons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hulk Hogan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lenny Dykstra]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Montel Williams]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rudy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russell Simmons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Suze Orman]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moneyland.time.com/?p=30167</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Athletes, actors and other famous folks lend their recognizable faces to promote all sorts of products, from breakfast cereal to basketball sneakers to prepaid debit cards (see Suze Orman). But a celebrity endorsement is, of course, no guarantee that what they&#8217;re pitching is a good deal or a smart investment — a point that&#8217;s especially important to keep in mind when evaluating pitches for financial products. So ask yourself: Would I still buy these things without the famous face attached?<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=56883&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/01/18/10-celebrity-endorsed-financial-products-we-wouldnt-buy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Smart Spending</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/saving-spending/smart-spending/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/suze31.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/suze31.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/suze31.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Suze Orman</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/44310a1af940f994952d1e4db73096cd?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">TIME.com</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
