Value Added
Buy Stocks Now -- and Hold Them
One of the nation's best-known market historians says stocks are poised to rally -- not just this year, but over the coming decade.
By Steven Goldberg, Contributing Columnist, Kiplinger.com
June 29, 2009
Advertisement
Scared of stocks? Who can blame you? Standard & Poor's 500-stock index lost a staggering 55% from October 9, 2007, through March 9 of this year -- the worst bear-market loss since the Great Depression. Foreign stocks got hammered even harder. Bonds -- except for Treasury IOUs -- suffered, too.
But as surely as sunrise follows night, bull markets follow bear markets. Jeremy Siegel, a finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and one of the nation's best-known market historians, thinks that a bull market has already begun -- and that it will be a dandy. (Siegel also writes a column for Kiplinger's Personal Finance.) Indeed, the S&P 500 soared 36% from March 9 through June 26.
RELATED LINKS![]() | |||
![]() |
6 Stocks Poised for Big Gains | ||
![]() |
5 Stocks to Ride the Real Estate Rebound | ||
![]() |
How Investors Can Bet on Rising Gas Prices | ||
Over the next ten years, Siegel predicts, the market will return roughly 8% annualized -- after inflation. If Siegel is right and consumer prices rise 3% a year, as they have over the long haul, U.S. stocks will deliver double-digit returns -- not every year, but on average -- over the next decade.
Shorter term, Siegel thinks the S&P 500 could easily return 10% to 12% this year (year-to-date through June 26, the index gained 3.1%; Kiplinger's forecasts a return of 5% to 8% in 2009). He's also bullish on high-yield "junk" bonds, even though they have rallied strongly this year after tumbling in 2008.
Making predictions about short-term market moves is extremely hazardous, as Siegel well knows. Like me, he failed to predict the collapse in the financial system last September and its impact on the markets. "I didn't see the balance sheets of these banks and investment banks," Siegel says. "I didn't realize they held so many subprime mortgages."
What's behind his long-term forecast? In studying stock-market performance since 1802, Siegel discovered remarkably consistent after-inflation returns of 6.5% to 7% annualized over different 20-year periods. He also found roughly the same results in Great Britain, Germany and Japan.
If Siegel is right, investors will do far better than they have during the century's wretched opening decade. Most have lost money since stocks peaked in March 2000 -- a period of more than nine years. Losing money in stocks over such a lengthy span is a fairly rare occurrence. "In the long run, stocks do tend to revert to the mean," Siegel says.
Protracted periods of pathetic performance, Siegel says, have usually presaged outsize bull markets. After the Depression, stocks produced superior returns until the late 1960s. Starting in 1982, stocks did far better than their long-term average until early 2000. Says Siegel: "The more the stock market goes down, the better the deal. Selling because the market has gone down is the dumbest of all reasons." Siegel's current bullishness stems mainly from the market's poor results this decade.
What's different this time from past bear-market troughs? "People say the market is still not cheap," Siegel notes. After all, average price-earnings ratios dropped into single digits by 1982. Today, the S&P 500's P/E (based on operating earnings) is 21 -- slightly above its historical average of 19. Siegel counters that ten-year Treasury bond yields peaked at 15% in 1981. Today, they're less than 4%. Moreover, the market's current P/E is bloated because the recession has depressed profits.
"Tell me what investment will do better than stocks today," Siegel says. "Real estate is in the doghouse. Commodities aren't cheap. Bonds, except for junk bonds, are overpriced. Treasury bonds are ridiculously overpriced."
But isn't the economy weaker now? What about the trade deficit, the federal deficit, the troubled banks, the overextended U.S. consumer? Siegel acknowledges the economy's problems, but he says that the nation has gone through similarly tough times before -- and still stocks have churned out long-term returns of 10%.
At any rate, Siegel thinks the economy has probably turned up already: "We're going to have a faster recovery in the second half of the year than most people think. The upward slope on the V will not be as steep as usual, but we're not going to have an L-shaped economy, either." (Most economists expect a sluggish recovery.) Siegel allows, however, that the unemployment rate may continue to rise for another 12 to 18 months.
For investors with ten or more years to go before they need their money, Siegel suggests a portfolio of roughly 75% stocks and 25% junk bonds. He'd put close to half the stock money overseas, with a big chunk in emerging markets. "We have to be outward-looking. There are huge, growing consumer markets outside the U.S." Population growth in the U.S. and other developed nations, meanwhile, is slowing.
I think Siegel is on solid ground with his long-term predictions. Long-term market returns have been remarkably consistent, as he demonstrated in his groundbreaking book Stocks for the Long Run. And those returns came in spite of dislocations far worse than the sort that we're experiencing today -- including world wars, a civil war, hyper-inflation, shuttered stock markets and depressions.
Steven T. Goldberg (bio) is an investment adviser.




Reader Comments (9)
Posted by: Ted Sanders at 06/29/2009 06:05:47 PM
Great Article.
Posted by: Fred at 06/30/2009 09:32:44 AM
I think perhaps you have caught the wrong train. The train you are on should read high risk. Siegel should take a look at the recent history of the markets in Japan and other developed countries for his reference as well as domestic markets. Also, recommending a 7 to 10 year time frame puts one in the same postion as we were in during the 2000 Tech. Bubble. It appears we could be repeating a new type of cycle. Did Siegel predicate the problems in the recent markets?
Posted by: David M. Gardiner at 06/30/2009 09:53:15 AM
Having been invested in the Kiplinger 25 from 2005 through 2009 and lost 65% of my money, I recommend caution in putting 75 percent of your saving in the Stock Market and "Junk Bonds". Hire a Financial Planner, don't make the mistake I made of managing your portfolio through Magazines Articles and Internet post like these. Analysts like the one quoted in this article are a dime a dozen. If their right they look like geniuses if their wrong, it's your money that disappeared.
Posted by: Dave at 06/30/2009 10:59:45 PM
My father in law never made more than 30,000 a year. Last week, he purchased a neighbor's home and 30 acres. Did he take out a mortgage? No. Paid cash. Not big into stocks, but CD's. After all, it's not how much you make, it's how much you KEEP that's important. He averaged about 6% over the last 25 years. He never took a 40% tank. Caution. Save more, keep more.
Posted by: George MacGregor at 07/01/2009 08:07:18 AM
It really depends on how much time an individual can spend on researching their stocks. Holding for 5-10 years gives me serious pause. It's been my experience that a few simple rules in buying stocks and attentiveness to your holdings works best. A company with a strong relative strength range(RS) is necessary. A company with a high dividend($3.50 annual) or more with a history of increases) suggests a strong an viable company. One can get an inexpensive advisory service for advice. Here are the fundamental research is done. Following these steps mentioned religiously has worked well for me.
Posted by: JD at 07/02/2009 05:24:14 PM
Dave on June 30, realize that the average return of stocks since 1970 is 9%. That's after the last year+'s big loss. It was 13% before. So a true long-term investor was still better off with stocks than CDs.
Posted by: Guest at 07/06/2009 04:10:43 PM
Since Jeremy Siegel makes his money...through his Wisdom Tree funds, articles, etc, he wants you to be invested just like the mutual fund companies that always give you some reason to buy and hold the stocks so they can make money off your money.
Posted by: Kenboe at 07/06/2009 10:53:58 PM
Responses to S. Goldberg's "Buy Stocks Now" can be categorized as mostly cautious or bearish. And as Mr. Goldberg points out, "shorter-term market predictions can be extremely hazardous." Okay so given the caution, the bearishness and the prediction hazards -let's focus on one undeniable fact: the stock market today is a lot cheaper (and of more value) than it was in say September, 2008. Given that fact why not dollar-cost-average into a passive, total US market mutual fund or ETF and into a passive total international mutual fund or ETF? If the market heads lower -it's the better short-term outcome for DCA. And if it heads higher -you're not "left at the station." Of course if you've already lost a ton, you probably feel like you're tapped out in Vegas. Even in this case you should consider this conservative strategy.
Posted by: Pops at 07/22/2009 01:33:27 PM
...I believe we need less of hearing simply about a writer's opinion and more data based on facts so the readers would have actual information that we can plan our investment strategies with.