New Investor Center - This content requires the free Adobe Flash player.
Should you still be holding stocks? © Image Source Pink/Jupiterimages

Extra7/15/2009 12:01 AM ET

Should you still be holding stocks?

The past decade has given investors ample reason to question whether there is such a thing as 'investing for the long run.' But there's a case for hanging in.

By Jeremy J. Siegel, Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine

Stock market investors are an unhappy bunch. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index ($INX) is no higher than it was 12 years ago, and over the 10 years that ended in May, stocks have returned a dismal -1.7% per year. So it's no surprise that investors wonder whether "buy and hold" and "stocks for the long run" are discredited concepts (see "Can you time the market?").

The short answer is that stocks are still the best long-term investments. As bad as the past decade has been, there have been other 10-year periods during which stocks have recorded even bigger losses. Yet over periods of 20 years or longer, stocks have never lost money, even after inflation. Including the latest bear market, stock returns have averaged 7.8% per year over the past 20 years and 11% annually over the past 30.

Nevertheless, the assault on buy-and-hold investing continues. Rob Arnott of Research Affiliates recently observed in a widely publicized article that over the past 40 years, even lowly government bonds had outperformed stocks. Events have overtaken that claim, though, as stocks rallied from their March lows and bond prices skidded.

Brighter future

After periods of sluggish returns, stocks tend to regain their oomph. Stock returns over the past five and 10 years have fallen to the bottom quartile when measured against all five- and 10-year periods since 1871. But history shows that after reaching such a low, stocks' average return for the next five years has been almost 9.5% annually after inflation.

Furthermore, once stocks have plunged 50% from their highs, which they have done during the current bear market, investors have always been rewarded with winners over the next five years -- and that includes the Depression decade of the 1930s. In December 1930, stocks were 50% off their highs of September 1929. Yet, over the next five years -- when the economy was experiencing the greatest contraction in its history -- investors were rewarded with an annual return of 7% after inflation.

Value stocks

All the returns I've quoted reflect indexes based on market capitalization, the indexes that are used to measure market performance. But research has shown that investors would have done better if they had tilted their portfolios toward value stocks -- stocks that have higher-than-average dividend yields and lower-than-average price-earnings ratios. Even after the collapse of financial stocks over the past year (most financials fell into the value category), the Russell 3000 Value Index has outperformed the capitalization-weighted index over the past five, 10, 20 and 30 years.

Evidence suggests that investors may be able to outdo the indexes by pursuing an activist strategy that shifts into or out of stocks depending on their valuation. However, this strategy requires investors to sell stocks of companies that have done well and buy shares that have done poorly -- an exercise that requires a huge (and often impossible) amount of self-control.

Video on MSN Money

Bogle: Buy and hold is eternal © Morningstar
Bogle: Buy and hold is eternal
In an interview with Morningstar, the Vanguard founder and former chairman disputes the notion that buy and hold is dead. (June 28)

But now there are new indexes that rebalance stocks automatically and have outperformed capitalization-weighted and even value indexes. These so-called fundamental indexes rank stocks by their dividends or earnings (or some other measure of a company's worth) instead of by their market value. Fundamental indexes automatically sell stocks that move up in price beyond their dividends or earnings and buy stocks whose prices lag.

Dividend-weighted indexes have outperformed value indexes over the past 10, 20 and 30 years; earnings-weighted indexes have done even better.

In the long run, stocks are still the way to go. And if you want to give your returns an extra kick, value-oriented stocks and fundamental indexes may be your best bet.

Columnist Jeremy J. Siegel is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and author of "Stocks for the Long Run." He also advises Wisdomtree Investments, which issues low-cost, fundamentally weighted exchange-traded funds.

Rate this Article

Click on one of the stars below to rate this article from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). LowRate it 1Rate it 2Rate it 3Rate it 4Rate it 5High

Glossary Search

Need answers fast? Find definitions for investing or financial terms.

Feature requires Adobe Flash Player
Fund data provided by Morningstar, Inc. © 2009. All rights reserved.
StockScouter data provided by Gradient Analytics, Inc.
Quotes supplied by Interactive Data.
MSN Money's editorial goal is to provide a forum for personal finance and investment ideas. Our articles, columns, message board posts and other features should not be construed as investment advice, nor does their appearance imply an endorsement by Microsoft of any specific security or trading strategy. An investor's best course of action must be based on individual circumstances.
Join the discussion!
Sort by:
1 - 10 of 22
Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:27:57 AM

No more long term investment. Financial Consultants and market did not help much. We lost our RollOver IRA. We lost our retirements in Mutual Funds.

We lost so much confident in our financial systems and these "Analysts."

Time to take control and kiss long term investment good bye.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:15:21 AM

Long-term investing may be showing marginal results right now, but, short-term trading and market timing have consistently failed in the long run. The only people who make money off these schemes are financial advisors, Wall Street traders, and bankruptcy lawyers. Remember, all these people make most of their money off of your transactions, not the value of your portfolio. So which do you think they care about most?

 

Bogle is still more than half right when he advocates a buy and hold strategy, and he has never waivered in his position. By comparison, these churners who advocate trading investment strategies come up with a different strategy to move you into every year.

 

More than ever today, the sad reality is that individual investors only have two sensible choices. They can either buy and hold while enduring ever greater risk and volatility in the markets or they can just stay out of the stock markets entirely.  

 

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:23:19 AM

But what if our country is dying this time around?   Since corporate traitors have sent all our jobs to the slabor camps in Asia might we not be in a situation where we are on a permanent downward spiral?   Do you really think that retail jobs are going to make up for factory jobs and white collar desk jobs that have gone to India?  Remember, there is now an assault by American corporate leaders against knowledge workers here, not just against factory workers.  Any job that can be done at a computer can be sent overseas, and it will in the near future.

 

Only people who are making money from free trade would support free trade.  No average worker in any country could support such a self-destructive policy.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:40:08 AM
Anyone who is so short sighted as to decide NEVER to invest long term, or in stocks because of a few years of really bad market returns DESERVES to be poor and suffer from their stupidity. I find it hilarious that everyone knows the maxim "Sell when others are greedy and buy when others are scared" and yet most are still so dumb as to follow the crowd. This last year has been a golden opportunity for buying, and yet people have been dumping themselves into bonds that barely edge out inflation... And will miss all the early returns as things do bounce back, even if it is a very slow recovery.

Davicitova, I'm no fan out all the outsourcing we've done, and I have my doubts about the long term health of the country... But that doesn't change the fact that investing is the way to go. Even if we become poorer permanently there will be winners. The easiest is to simply invest in American companies that are profiting from outsourcing the most, and those that earn most of their profit overseas. America is blessed with many companies that dominate on a global scale, and even if America becomes poorer they will continue to grow and become more profitable. The second is to invest in foreign stocks.

I despise the idea of America becoming weaker because it is totally unneccessary... But everyone in this country has become socialist idiots and I'm going to get pulled along for the ride anyway... So oh well. Just look out for yourself, TRY when you can to change things for the better, but mostly make sure you'll be well off. If the country goes to hell but you're still living good, it could be worse!

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:46:49 AM

To Ancord: You buy a stock for under $8.00 (ARCC) and you get a dividend of nearly 20%.  You double your money in 5 years, and people say you shouldn't buy for the long term??  Buying and selling will only make the GS's of this country rich through commissions. 

In this economy there are many more stocks out there that could be bought for excellent long term gains.   One only has to do some research. 

Your problem was you had all your money in a fund.  And probably a small cap fund at that.  Yes, they lost money (so did mine), but in a family of funds, you could have moved your money without penalty to a less aggressive fund a year or so ago.   When the economy gets better, and you didn't sell your small cap fund at a loss already, it will come back.   You just have to wait - long term.

 

To MESIMPSON:  There is the third alternative: Buy a dividend stock in a good brand name company for long term.  Most people put their money into one platform and if it loses, they lose big time.  You need more options than two.  Sometimes you have to create your own options.   I once thought the Stock market was where you could get rich quick, but have since learned, the market is only a vehicle to help you save and make money for the long term.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:09:17 AM

@ vaughn.

 

"But everyone in this country has become socialist idiots . So oh well. Just look out for yourself,  If the country goes to hell but you're still living good, it could be worse!"

 

these are your words...this has nothing to do with socialism (this term is being thrown around WAY too much, its lost its meaning and isnt relavent to anything going on)

 

but it is exactly this type of thinking that has gotten us in this shape.  make a quick buck, make a quick short term decision, the hell with the consequences, get yours and let the world burn.

 

I wish people like this would just come out and tell the truth.  tell us what you are really thinking.  just admit, you dont care about anyone, anything, the country, the stock market, right, left, children in bali, abraham lincoln.  you just believe in self serving and if you were really telling the truth, have a general disdain for others in general.

 

if socialism is the understanding that caring about the welfare of other people and the world at large is the best way to care for yourself, then we should all sign up.

 

to put it in terms that you might understand, if the rest of the world is burning and you have a little spare change, all those you dont care about will wind up in your back yard.  you dont get to be in this world all alone.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 12:10:47 PM
Mr. Siegel is correct. Value investing is probably the best way to go in the equity markets.  My thinking is that most people should not be in the market at all because they have no risk tolerance and no time to pay attention to the market.  For those who insist on being in the market (or have to ... 401k) then their best bet is a balance fund. Just contribute and forget about it. They should also have at least 12 months cash.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009 1:16:23 PM
The stock market should not be treated as some casino. Stock values in the short-term are random; in the long-run they need to reflect economic value. You cannot defy gravity forever.

With that said, for the market to function is has to be fair. The volatility created by hedge funds and traders at investment banks have created obstacles to price discovery. So, while the market is a valuable mechanism, a market that is rigged is NOT a "free market" at all. What sport does not have a rule book and no referee?

If the connection between market value and economic value are ever severed, the economy will end up in the ditch (you know like right now) because capital will be misallocated (perhaps on a monumental scale). This is why asset bubbles are so dangerous and why the current situation in the global economy is so confusing and dangerous.

There are some posters who think they can walk on water and escape the effects of a major economic downturn. Good luck but the odds are against you.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:18:21 PM
What a load of bull this article is.  The following statement made in the article is completely untrue, and just goes to show how self-interested financial sites such as these try to keep promoting the stock market.

"Yet over periods of 20 years or longer, stocks have never lost money, even after inflation"

There are many examples proving his claim false, but here's an easy one, go compare the Nikkei from 1984 to today, over 25 years later.  It's actually lower today than it was back then.  Even in US stock markets there have been many periods when you would have lost money over 20 years.  The article's claim is utterly false.


Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:09:25 PM

During the last 27 years since I accurately predicted the bottom of the stock market in AUGUST '82, there was a huge transformation in the mentality of investing.Almost everyone agrees that what we are seen now is "a huge casino",where most of the time the HOUSE comes out ahead and,like what happens occasionally,someone hits the jackpot,while a few succeed in breaking the house,like what is happening now.

One of the main causes of this mess,surprisingly,are the MUTUAL and HEDGE FUNDS that exert undue influence on the direction of the markets,often opinionated by only a bunch of managers,if not just one in many instances.

A new and vivid example of the incessant attempts at that are the DIREXION FAMILY OF FUNDS that try to boost their returns (frequently losses)by betting multiples of their available resources.

One should also not neglect the role of the FEDS in the mess these investment firms create,by succumbing to their incessant demands for ridiculously low interest rates that in turn force more,and often innocent people into this vicious circle.

I personally feel that,unless something is done to address this problem,it will eventually be the main cause of the demise of

"THE AMERICAN EMPIRE"

1 - 10 of 22
To add a comment, pleasesign in