Jeremy Siegel: Stocks are attractive, even at these valuations

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

Jeremy Siegel, Wharton School Professor and author of “Stocks for the Long Run,”  is interviewed by Dan Richards, of Strategic Imperatives, and founder of a new resource, ClientInsights.ca.

You can view this interview by clicking here or on the image. This is a good piece that you can share with your clients.

You can register to use the ClientInsights.ca resources free at ClientInsights.ca.

Tags: Ca Resources, Jeremy Siegel, School Professor, Stocks, Strategic Imperatives, Valuations, Wharton School
Posted in Markets | No Comments »

Jeremy Siegel: Did he get it wrong?

Thursday, October 15th, 2009

Jeremy Siegel is professor of finance of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsyilvania. But he is perhaps best known for his 1994 book Stocks for the Long Run, in which he explained why he believes buying and holding stocks is the best approach to investing.

In Part 1 of an interview with John Authers, investment editor of the Financial Times, Siegel is asked whether he got it wrong against the backdrop of last year’s market crash.

Click here or on the image below to view the video.

In Part 2, Siegel explains why the ageing populations in developed countries mean investors need to put money into emerging markets, or risk losing out.

Click here or on the image below to view the video.

Source: John Authers, Financial Times (here and here), October 14, 2009.

Tags: Backdrop, Book Stocks, Buying Stocks, Developed Countries, Emerging Markets, Finance, Financial Times, Investors, Jeremy Siegel, John Authers, Market Crash, Money, Money Markets, Populations, risk, S Market, Video Advertisement, Video Source, Wharton School
Posted in Emerging Markets, Markets | No Comments »

Stocks for the Long Run? Not so fast Jeremy

Friday, October 9th, 2009

John Keefe, columnist for CBS MoneyWatch, FT.com, and ex-Wall Streeter, refutes Jeremy Siegel’s “Stocks For the Long Run,” FT.com Op-Ed, stating that there is no long run, only many short runs.

Here is an excerpt:

The author and promoter of Stocks For The Long Run, Professor Jeremy Siegel of The Wharton School, is back. A few days ago in an op-ed submission Siegel revved up his old hypothesis - that investing in stocks always beats investing in bonds, sort of. In my view, his advice for individual investors was simplistic and dangerous when it was fresh in 1994, and seeing that Dr. Siegel’s patter has not been informed by the two stock market crashes since then, the message has become only more so. (This is a long post, but worth it; please bear with me.)

I. The beating stocks took in 2008 and 2009 did plenty to disprove, or at least soften up, Siegel’s hypothesis. At the stock market low in March, “stocks for the long run” (hereinafter SFTLR) was in tatters, because at that point, the returns to U.S Treasury bonds had beaten equities for the prior 40 years. (If 40 years doesn’t constitute the long term, I don’t know what does.)

Therefore this week I was disappointed to see that the Financial Times, a publication that I adore and sometimes have the privilege of writing for, had given Dr. Siegel time on its podium. Here’s a sample of his defense of SFTLR:

[F]or the 13 10-year periods of negative returns stocks have suffered since 1871, the next 10 years gave investors real returns that averaged more than 10 per cent per year. This return has far exceeded the average 6.66 per cent real return in all 10-year periods, and is twice the return offered by long-term government bonds.

Strong future returns also followed poor returns if one extends the analysis to the worst-performing of all 127 10-year stretches since 1871. Without exception, for each 10-year return that fell in the bottom quartile, the following 10-year period yielded positive real returns and the median return exceeded the long-run average…

He went on to suggest that the comparison with bonds for the last 40 years wasn’t fair, because their returns had been above average. Huh? He didn’t omit the above-average years for stocks.

You can read the whole article here.

Tags: Bottom Quartile, Cbs Moneywatch, Financial Times, Future Returns, Government Bonds, Hypothesis, Individual Investors, Investing In Bonds, Investing In Stocks, Jeremy Siegel, John Keefe, Patter, Professor Jeremy, Promoter, Stock Market Crashes, Tatters, U S Treasury, U S Treasury Bonds, Wall Streeter, Wharton School
Posted in Markets | No Comments »

Jeremy Seigel: Stocks for the Long Run (Still Alive)

Friday, October 9th, 2009

Jeremy Siegel, Wharton School Professor, has recently published an op-ed in FT.com, arguing in favour of his  “Stocks for the Long Run” thesis, which has been challenged in recent times as a result of the ‘lost decade’ in equity markets.

Here is an excerpt:

A look at history shows that the recent experience is not uncommon and excellent returns are available to those who survive rough patches. Since 1871, the three worst 10-year returns for stocks have ended in the years 1920, 1974 and 1978.

These were followed, respectively, by real, after-inflation stock returns of more than 8 per cent, 13 per cent, and 9 per cent over the next 10 years.

In fact for the 13 10-year periods of negative returns stocks have suffered since 1871, the next 10 years gave investors real returns that averaged more than 10 per cent per year. This return has far exceeded the average 6.66 per cent real return in all 10-year periods, and is twice the return offered by long-term government bonds.

Strong future returns also followed poor returns if one extends the analysis to the worst-performing of all 127 10-year stretches since 1871. Without exception, for each 10-year return that fell in the bottom quartile, the following 10-year period yielded positive real returns and the median return exceeded the long-run average.

Stocks also swamp the returns on fixed-income assets over the long run. Even with the recent bear market factored in, stocks have always done better than Treasury bonds over every 30-year period since 1871. And over 20-year periods, stocks bested Treasuries in all but about 5 per cent of the cases.

Read the whole article here.

Tags: 10 Years, Bear Market, Bottom Quartile, Excerpt, Favour, Fixed Income, Future Returns, Government Bonds, inflation, Jeremy Seigel, Jeremy Siegel, Periods, Rough Patches, School Professor, Stock Returns, Stocks, Stretches, Treasuries, Treasury Bonds, Wharton School
Posted in Markets | No Comments »

Stocks vs. Bonds: What’s Next?

Friday, October 9th, 2009

A very interesting chart from Leuthold Group points out that this would be the third time since the 1920s that we have emerged from a period in which bonds have outperformed stocks.

In the periods following this re-emergence from bond superiority, stocks enjoyed massive outperformance. The first of the three periods outlined in the chart, was the 1930s bust, the second was 1949 thru 1955.

Jeremy Siegel, too, offers the following argument in favour of “stocks for the long run,” from his recent op-ed in FT.com (worth reading):

A look at history shows that the recent experience is not uncommon and excellent returns are available to those who survive rough patches. Since 1871, the three worst 10-year returns for stocks have ended in the years 1920, 1974 and 1978.

These were followed, respectively, by real, after-inflation stock returns of more than 8 per cent, 13 per cent, and 9 per cent over the next 10 years.

In fact for the 13 10-year periods of negative returns stocks have suffered since 1871, the next 10 years gave investors real returns that averaged more than 10 per cent per year. This return has far exceeded the average 6.66 per cent real return in all 10-year periods, and is twice the return offered by long-term government bonds.

Strong future returns also followed poor returns if one extends the analysis to the worst-performing of all 127 10-year stretches since 1871. Without exception, for each 10-year return that fell in the bottom quartile, the following 10-year period yielded positive real returns and the median return exceeded the long-run average.

Both Leuthold and Siegel make a notable case for the future of stocks, though Leuthold focuses on 5 year periods and Siegel on 10 year periods.

Earlier this year, we featured Robert Arnott’s thesis on Bonds for the Very Long Run (Bonds: Reversion Cuts Both Ways); Arnott focuses on the past 40 years:

For four decades, from time to time, we hear this question: Why bother with bonds at all? Bond skeptics generally point out that stocks have beaten bonds by 5 percentage points a year for many decades, and that stock returns mean-revert, so that the true long-term investor enjoys that higher return with little additional risks in 20-year and longer annualized returns.

Recent events provide a powerful reminder that the risk premium is unreliable and that mean reversion cuts both ways; indeed, those 5 percent excess returns, earned in the auspicious circumstances of rising price-to-earnings ratios and rising bond yields, are a fast-fading memory, to which too many investors cling, in the face of starkly contradictory evidence. Most observers, whether bond skeptics or advocates, would be shocked to learn that the 40-year excess return for stocks, relative to holding and rolling ordinary 20-year Treasury bonds, is not even zero.

Bill Gross, PIMCO’s Bond King, Chief Card Counter and Handicapper, has been exchanging high-grade corporate bonds for longer-dated government bonds, out of concern for deflation.

Is it possible they are all right? Bonds are forecasting deflation and stocks are forecasting reflation. The track record of the bond market, however, as a forecasting tool has proven to be more accurate historically. Pragmatic Capitalist says:

Bond investors (who tend to have a longer time horizon) are forecasting a long battle with deflation.  Equity investors (who tend not to think much farther than one quarter into the future), on the other hand, are putting their money on the line in the hopes that the reflation trade is alive and well.

Unfortunately for equity investors, they have a poor record of forecasting the future when compared to bond investors.   There have been 4 famous cases of such bond and stock divergences in the last 20 years.  The most famous is the summer of 1987.  We all know what occurred then.  The other three cases were fall ‘94, summer ‘98 and winter 2000.   All three preceded declines in the market.  Of all 4 instances, three of them preceded 15% declines in the S&P 500.

The strongest case for equities today seems to rest on the sheer amount of cash sitting on the sidelines; $10-trillion in the US and $1-trillion in Canada. Its a weak argument - investors do not invest simply because they have the cash, and these days investors aren’t exactly inspired.

James Bianco, of Bianco Research, however, (via WSJ), is skeptical of this simplistic theme:

“If you look at the mutual-fund flows there is a record amount going into bond funds. Forty-two billion dollars went into bond funds in August, which is an all-time monthly record. In fact, the all-time monthly record, I believe, for stock funds was $55 billion back in February of 2000. So it’s pretty close to the stock-fund record. But when you break it down, what you’ll find is that short-term muni funds, and short-term corporate funds, those are the funds that are getting huge, huge inflows.

The short-term corporate funds are up 12% this year. And as we talk right now, the S&P 500 is up around 16% this year and the Dow is up about 11% this year. That’s including dividends. So my conclusion was, “Yes, there’s a lot of money that’s built up in the cash on the sidelines. Yes, it is going to come out of that zero interest rate funds. And its going into short-term bond funds, which by the way are performing pretty much in line with the stock market. So don’t hold your breath. You’re going to be waiting a long time before you see that money ever matriculate into the stock market.””

And,

“Now a couple things about that. The first one is I hate when they say, “There’s $3.5 trillion on the sidelines and that’s a whole lot of money.” It implies that all of that money should be put in investments like the stock market. That’s not true. The vast, vast majority is in transactional balances.

It’s money that is going to be needed in a very short period of time, like, within a year. It’s going to be spent on something. They’re almost like checking accounts, if you want to think of it that way. It’s like somebody saying, “You’ve got $10,000 dollars in your checking account, why don’t you $10,000 worth of stocks?” And the answer is, “Well because I’ve got to pay my credit card bill and my rent.”

The strongest case for the bond market is coming out of PIMCO’s thesis, which calls for a ‘New Normal,” a future of De-Leveraging, De-Globalization, and Re-Regulation. The three elements combine as a recipe that ultimately results in stable and stronger dollar outcome as debt repayment repatriates cash from abroad as well as domestically into the credit and bond markets. A strong dollar on this basis results in falling prices, thus the case for deflation.

Bottom line: This may be time to use the equity market’s strength to rebalance out of equities in favour of government bond and money market allocations.

Tags: 10 Years, 1920s, 1930s, Bottom Quartile, Bust, Canada, Emergence, Favour, Future Returns, Government Bonds, inflation, Jeremy Siegel, Periods, Robert Arnott, Rough Patches, Skeptics, Stock Returns, Stocks, Stocks Bonds, Stretches, Superiority, Thesis, Third Time
Posted in Markets | No Comments »

Jeremy Siegel: “The Market Will Stage a Comeback”

Tuesday, July 14th, 2009

Jeremy Siegel, Wharton School prof and Director of Wisdom Tree ETFs, says “Now that it’s clear the recession will not turn into a depression, stocks are poised for a recovery.” Siegel recently was the subject of an interview conducted by Knowledge@Wharton. You may listen by clicking the player below, or read the edited transcript of the interview below.

Click Play to Listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Here is an excerpt:

Knowledge@Wharton: The market just had its first weekly [decline] in a number of weeks. What was driving that?

Siegel: I think there are two principal concerns in the market. One is the rising commodity prices — particularly energy prices and oil. And the other is the rising interest rates, which are in turn caused by fears of huge deficits, as well as rising commodity prices. My feeling is, the market would have been up last week, too, if it didn’t have to contend with those. And now, it’s concerned that those [factors] might push the economy down. Today [June 22], we had a decline in energy prices and in the market. But … energy prices and interest rates [are] our main concerns.

Knowledge@Wharton: Are the energy prices being driven by demand?

Siegel: Demand in China is rebounding very rapidly, although there are some experts who say that there’s still a lot of speculation in it, and that the price … has run a little bit ahead of itself. But China and India are recovering quickly. There are a record number of applications for new cars in China, and those generally use gasoline and oil. So, looking forward, over the next couple of years, those bulls in oil are saying there’s going to be a big increase in [consumption].

Knowledge@Wharton: Doesn’t the rise in demand [indicate] an improving economy overall?

Siegel: Certainly … a good part of the rebound in oil and in interest rates is because the depression scenario has basically been taken off the record. It’s now considered an extraordinarily low probability. So, we’re dealing with a severe recession, and [the question of] how fast we are going to improve from that. And once you’re into that mode, you don’t accept 2% to 3% bond rates any more, and oil won’t stay down at $35 a barrel. But I think some of [the movement has occurred] in anticipation of strong demand from China, particularly for oil, and, on the bond side, from the huge deficits, trillion-dollar-plus deficits that are going to cascade down on the market.

You may read the whole transcript here.

Source: Jeremy Siegel: ‘The Market Will Stage Another Recovery’, Knowledge@Wharton, June 24, 2009

Tags: Array, Bulls, Commodities, Commodity Prices, Consumption, Decline, Depression, Emerging Markets, Energy Prices, ETF, Excerpt, Fears, Gasoline, India, Jeremy Siegel, Kw, Little Bit, Mp3, New Cars, oil, Principal Concerns, Rebound, Recession, Rising Interest Rates, Speculation, Stocks, Upenn, Upenn Edu, Wharton School, Wisdom Tree Etfs
Posted in Emerging Markets, India, Markets | No Comments »

Jeremy Siegel: Outlook for Government Bonds

Friday, May 15th, 2009

Jeremy Siegel, on his outlook for government bonds:

40 years ago [US] treasury bonds were yielding over 6.3 percent, about twice their yield today. It is mathematically impossible for government bonds to come close to matching those 12 percent returns in future decades. Stocks, on the contrary, can easily repeat their returns over the past four decades, since those returns were near their
historical average…

For the 55-year period from December 1925, when the well-known Ibbotson stock and bond series begins, through January 1982, total real government bond returns were negative. This means that, by rolling over in long-term government bonds, reinvesting all the coupons, and thereby taking no income, investors’ bond portfolios were sinking in value.

Most strikingly, for the 40-year period from 1941 through 1981, government bond investors lost a whopping 62 percent of their value after inflation. A loss in purchasing power over this long a period has never happened in stocks. There has never even been a 20-year period when real returns in stocks have been negative. In fact, the worst 30-year real return for stocks is plus 2.6 percent per year, just slightly below the average real return investors earn with government bonds.

Looking at today’s markets, the forward-looking prospects for government bonds are very poor. Yields on 30-year inflation-protected bonds are 2.3 percent, and yields are only 4 percent on 30-year Treasuries. In contrast, after stocks have fallen 50 percent from their previous high, as they did in March of this year, their subsequent 30-year real returns have always been in excess of 10 percent per year.

The 40-year outperformance of government bonds over large stocks has ended.

As a addendum, Robert Arnott, of Research Affiliates opined about bonds vs. stocks in Bonds: Reversion Cuts Both Ways?

Tags: 1941, 30 Year Treasuries, Addendum, Bond Investors, Bond Portfolios, Bond Returns, Bond Series, Bonds Vs Stocks, Contrary, Government Bond, Government Bonds, Ibbotson, Inflation Protected Bonds, Jeremy Siegel, Outperformance, Poor Yields, Prospects, Purchasing Power, Research Affiliates, Robert Arnott, Stocks Bonds, Us Treasury Bonds
Posted in Bonds | No Comments »

Risk appetite rekindled on hope of better days

Friday, March 27th, 2009

Following Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s “nuclear option” announcement of last week, the action stayed on Capitol Hill with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner outlining his Public-Private Investment Program as well as “new rules of the game” for the financial services industry.

Whereas Nouriel Roubini’s reaction to the administration’s new plan to buy toxic assets was surprisingly positive, James Galbraith and Paul Krugman were not impressed. These gentlemen are included in this week’s harvest of video clips, sharing the platform with the likes of Bill Gross, Paul McCulley, John Bogle, Wilbur Ross and Jeremy Siegel.

As stock markets look set for a straight third week of gains, the debate as to the longevity of the nascent rally rages on. The featured video material sees Mark Mobius saying “the next bull market has begun”, Jeff Saut arguing the “odds are pretty good stocks have seen their lows”, but Laslo Birinyi taking a bearish stance and advising to sell stocks that gained in the rally.

The selection starts with a great discussion across the pond on the “future of capitalism” and ends with an educational clip about the ins and outs of quantitative easing.

Financial Times: Future of capitalism - London panel
“Does the financial crisis signal the end of the Reagan-Thatcher model of free markets and globalisation? FT editor Lionel Barber leads a discussion with Howard Davies, director of the London Schoof of Economics, Donald Brydon, incoming chairman of the Royal Mail, and John Studzinski, of US private equity firm Blackstone.”

Source: Financial Times, March 26, 2009.

CNBC: Geithner & toxic assets
“Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner discusses his plan to deal with financial institutions’ toxic assets, with CNBC’s Erin Burnett.”

Part 1

Part 2

Source: CNBC, March 23, 2009.

Financial Times: Geithner’s toxic asset plan
“The government has given the financial sector what it has wanted for a long time; it will pay investors to take the toxic assets off banks’ balance sheets. But the supercharged political environment could endager the program, says FT’s Francesco Guerrera.”

Click here for the article.

Source: Francesco Guerrera, Financial Times, March 23, 2009.

CNBC: Bill Gross buys in
“Pimco is intrigued by the potential double-digit growth from the toxic asset plan, says William Gross, co-chief investment officer/founder.”

Source: CNBC, March 23, 2009.

CNBC: Market masters wigh in on the Treasury’ plan
“The economy’s performance utimately drives stock prices, with Abby Joseph Cohen, Goldman Sachs, Paul McCulley, PIMCO, John Bogle, The Vanguard Group, and Bob Doll, BlackRock.”

Source: CNBC, March 24, 2009.

PBS News: Toxic asset plan may woo investors, but long-term impact is unclear
“While markets rose Monday on details of the toxic asset plan, critics voiced concern over taxpayer risk and the need for a long-term fix to financial sector troubles. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and Donald Marron of Lightyear Capital debate the details.”

Click here for the article.

Source: PBS News, March 23, 2009.

Bloomberg: Roubini says Geithner plan won’t stop nationalizations
“Nouriel Roubini, economist and professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business, talks with Bloomberg’s Maithreyi Seetharaman about US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s plan to remove toxic assets from the books of the nation’s banks. Roubini, speaking in London, also discusses the outlook for the meeting between the Group of 20 leaders in London.”

Source: Bloomberg, March 26, 2009.

Tech Ticker (Yahoo Finance): James Galbraith - Geithner plan “extremely dangerous”, banks “massively corrupted”
“Professor James Galbraith didn’t pull any punches on TechTicker this morning. He hates the Geithner plan, calling it ‘extremely dangerous’. He says the banks may game the plan to bid up the prices for their own crap assets and that getting bad assets off their books won’t get them lending again. Like Paul Krugman, Galbraith thinks the FDIC should just put the banks into receivership and have the banks’ subordinated bondholders pick up some of the cost of restructuring them.

Part 1: Getting crap assets off bank books won’t save economy

Part 2: Massive corruption

Source: Tech Ticker, Yahoo Finance, March 23, 2009.

CNBC: EU politician slams US economic recovery plan
“A top EU official slams the US economic recovery plan, calling it a way to hell, reports CNBC’s Carolina Cimenti.”

Source: CNBC, March 25, 2009.

CNBC: Ross: Due diligence integral to success of US plan
“The key issue would be how much due diligence the US government allows private investors to conduct in its toxic asset plan, says Wilbur Ross, chairman & CEO of WL Ross & Co. He speaks with CNBC’s Martin Soong & Sri Jegarajah.”

Source: CNBC, March 23, 2009.

Financial Times: “New rules of the game”
“Treasury secretary Tim Geithner’s regulatory overhaul is ambitious, but the question is whether he can follow through, says FT’s Helen Thomas.”

Source: Financial Times, March 26, 2009.

CNBC: Restoring investors’ trust
“The stress test on banks is an essential step in restoring trust for investors, says Jeremy Siegel, Wharton School at The University of Pennsylvania professor of finance.”

Source: CNBC, March 26, 2009.

CNBC: AIG hearing - Timothy Geithner’s statement
“Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says AIG’s failure would have caused catastrophic damage.”

Source: CNBC, March 24, 2009.

CNBC: AIG Hearing - Ben Bernanke’s statement
“Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke discusses the importance of bailing out AIG.”

Source: CNBC, March 24, 2009.

Bloomberg: FDIC’s Bair says goldman should return US aid if able
“Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair talks with Bloomberg’s Kathleen Hays about the possible return of government bailout funds by Goldman Sachs Group. Goldman Sachs is talking with US regulators about repaying the $10 billion it received from the government by mid-April, a person familiar with the matter said. Bair also discusses Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s plan to remove toxic assets from the books of US banks.”

Source: Bloomberg, March 24, 2009.

Charlie Rose: An update on the economy with Krugman et al
“An update on the economy with Paul Krugman, Joe Nocera and Andrew Ross Sorkin.”

Source: Charlie Rose, March 23, 2009.

John Authers (Financial Times): Credit market gloom
“Perhaps the greatest cause for concern amid the equity rally is that credit markets, the target of all the rescue operations, are still working on the assumption of absolute disaster, says John Authers.”

Click here for the article.

Source: John Authers, Financial Times, March 27, 2009.

60 Minutes: President Barack Obama
“From the AIG bonuses, to the economic meltdown, to the war in Afghanistan, it has been an eventful two months in office for President Obama. Steve Kroft has the behind-the-scenes interview.”

Part 1

Part 2

Source: 60 Minutes, March 22, 2009.

Bloomberg: Mobius says stocks at beginning of a bull market
“The next bull market has begun and there are bargains in every emerging market following a record slump in stocks, Templeton Asset Management’s Mark Mobius said.”

Click here for the article.

Source: Bloomberg, March 23, 2009.

Bloomberg: Saut says odds “pretty good” stocks have seen their lows
“Jeffrey Saut, chief investment strategist at Raymond James & Associates, talks with Bloomberg’s Julie Hyman about the outlook for US stocks. Saut, speaking from St. Petersburg, Florida, also discusses the Treasury’s Public-Private Investment Program and financial stocks.”

Source: Bloomberg, March 23, 2009.

Bloomberg: Laszlo Birinyi - sell stocks that gained in rally
“Laszlo Birinyi, president of Birinyi Associates, talks with Bloomberg’s Betty Liu about his equity investment strategy. Birinyi, speaking from Westport, Connecticut, says investors who own stocks that rose as the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index rallied 20% since March 9 should consider selling them.”

Source: Bloomberg, March 26, 2009.

John Authers (Financial Times): Reading copper leaves
“Recovering commodity prices may signal that we have reached the bottom of this bear market.”

Click here for the article.

Source: John Authers, Financial Times, March 24, 2009.

Financial Times: Benita Ferrero-Waldner on eastern Europe
“Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU’s external affairs commissioner, says eastern Europe is important to the European Union. Ms Ferrero-Waldne also says the EU must re-engage in a broad dialogue with Russia to avoid another energy crisis.”

Source: Financial Times, March 23, 2009.

Marketplace: Quantitative easing
“Now the Federal Reserve has effectively cut the target lending rate to zero, it only has one more weapon in its arsenal. Quantitative easing. Senior Editor Paddy Hirsch explains what this ‘nuclear option’ is, and what the Fed hopes it’ll do.”

Source: Marketplace (via Vimeo), December 2008.

Tags: Ben Bernanke, Birinyi, Cnbc, Galbraith And Paul, Howard Davies, Incoming Chairman, James Galbraith, Jeremy Siegel, John Bogle, John Studzinski, Lionel Barber, Nouriel Roubini, Paul Krugman, Paul McCulley, Private Equity Firm, Risk Appetite, Royal Mail, Timothy Geithner, Treasury Secretary, Wilbur Ross
Posted in Bonds, Emerging Markets, Gold, Markets | No Comments »