FOX Translator
No data currently available.
No data currently available.
TITLE
We like to think that when we deposit a dollar at the bank, it goes into a big vault and we can pull out that same dollar at any time. But that¿s not how the U.S. banking system works. Banks take that money and invest it to make money themselves, so cash gets spread around. This, naturally, leads to a big risk: What happens if those investments go sour? Well, you¿d be out of luck. You can¿t get your dollar back.
The Federal Reserve doesn¿t like that scenario, so it prohibits banks from putting all the cash it has on deposit on the line. In fact, the Fed forces banks to keep a portion of their assets at the Federal Reserve itself, to make sure that some of your assets won¿t get squandered if the bank¿s bets go south. These are called ¿reserves,¿ (hence, Federal Reserve. Got it? Good), and usually amount to 10% of the total cash kept in checking accounts.
These reserves are never exactly 10%, and banks like to keep a little extra in reserve ¿ not, as you might think, to make you more comfortable that they¿re in good financial shape, but rather so they can take that excess and lend it to other banks and make money off it. (They¿re banks, they can¿t help themselves.) The rate at which they make these loans is called the Federal Funds rate, which is set by the Federal Reserve¿s Federal Open Market Committee.
When you hear people chattering about how the Fed cut or hiked interest rates, this is what they¿re talking about: the interest rate banks can charge for lending money from their reserves. This begs the question: If these are essentially loans between banks, why is the Fed Funds rate so important for the rest of the economy?
Well, simply put, because loans make the financial world go round. Bank A lends Bank B $10,000 at a Fed Funds rate of 5%. Bank B then lends out $10,000 to a small business at 7%. The small business then takes that money and expands the business and hires new workers. Now someone is employed, Bank B has made interest off the loan, and Bank A is the richer for making it all happen. It¿s perhaps overly simplistic, but you get the idea. When you want the economy to thrive, you make lending cheaper.
Of course, sometimes you don¿t want the economy to thrive. In fact, you might want it to cool down, mostly to avoid money flooding the system and causing inflation. In that case, the Fed raises interest rates, making it difficult to lend or borrow.
Home / Personal Finance / Lifestyle & Money / Consumer & Debt
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
What's Next for Real Estate?
Smart Money
We talked to two economists with starkly different views on the health of the housing market.
The will go down in the annals of history as one of the hottest real-estate markets ever.
From April 2004 to April 2005, home prices soared 15% nationwide, a gain not seen since 1980. In some local markets, particularly Southern California and Florida, the gains exceeded 30%. A record number of existing homes changed hands, and builders are on track to put up more homes than ever before, some 1.3 million units. This, of course, comes on the heels of a multiyear run-up that has exceeded every industry expert's expectations.
Was April the last gasp of speculative excess typically seen just before a crash, or a sign of a robust market that's in no immediate danger? Everyone from realtors in small towns across America to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has an opinion. Last week, Greenspan used the word "froth" in connection with some housing markets. "I think we're running into certain problems in certain localized areas," he said. "We do have characteristics of bubbles in certain areas, but not, as best I can judge, nationwide."
The comments reminded some of the first time Greenspan mentioned that the stock market was showing signs of irrational exuberance. Of course, that was in 1996, and the market went on to register three more years of outsize gains.
So which is it -- is the housing market on a delicate precipice or a solid foundation? We asked two economists for their take on the 2005 real estate market.
According to Dave Seiders, chief economist for the National Association of Home Builders, the underlying fundamentals of the real-estate market look healthy, and there are no signs of a slowdown in sight. Even if interest rates rise, as he expects, price appreciation will merely slow down, and prices won't decline on a national level. A bust, he argues, doesn't always follow a boom.
Dean Baker couldn't disagree more. The chief economist for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, says the market is dangerously overextended. It's a classic bubble, he says, and when it pops, home values could drop by up to 30%.| The Bullish
Case Dave Seiders National Association of Home Builders | The Bearish Case Dean Baker Center for Economic and Policy Research |
|
|
Market Snapshot
| Symbol | Last Price | Netchange | Volume |
|---|---|---|---|
| -- | -- | -- | -- |
| -- | -- | -- | -- |
| -- | -- | -- | -- |
| -- | -- | -- | -- |
| -- | -- | -- | -- |



