Stocks for the Long Run? Not so fast Jeremy

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.