I have mixed views about the article but on the whole found it unconvincing.
I am much more comfortable buying equities for the longer term than I am buying bonds - given (i) that the earnings yield (inverse of PE) is higher than the yield on longer term bonds (YMMV - depending on which equities and which bonds you are talking about) and (ii) I belive that corporate earnings as a whole should grow over time (in both nominal and real terms), in my rather simplistic view of the investing universe, equities are actually safer preservers of wealth in the longer term than bonds. Given that I expect we will continue to see at least modest inflation in the forseeable future, this would hold true even if corporate earnings only grew in nominal (not real) terms.
I appreciate that in the shorter term (or longer) there will be occasions in which equities do very badly - but that does not destroy the longer term case for owning equities. Instead, it leads to the important conclusion that one shouldn't hold all equities...
I think you are well past the trainee stage as an investor I very much agree with this post.
If the articles point is that even over long 20+ years periods of time stock maybe a poorly performing asset class, and if you have bad timing for retirement you can be in trouble. Then my response is well
.
If the article's point is that stocks in the future are going to underperform bonds (especially treasury bond) then I just don't buy it and the author certainly didn't prove it.
I think there are fundamental reason that equities will outperform bonds and it has to do with perceived risk plus a fundamental ignorance among most people about investments, coupled with my believed that continued productivity gains will increase corporate profits.
There are two ways that any assets will generate returns for investors: the greater fool theory, and an fundamental increase in the future earnings potential of an investment. The vast vast majority of financial reporting, and discussion focus on the greater fool theory, p/e expansion, earnings momentum, investor confidence, future interest rates etc., the 20 something who struck it rich by flipping house, bond trading billionaires etc. Fundamental improvements in an asset, e.g. the new Pampers which are more absorbent, and requiring 10% less material to make and are built in a new factory that requires 1/2 the labor, are generally ignored.
Over the last decade just as back in 99 and 2000 many people
believed that stocks only went up, but for every person who was guilty of this fallacy (including myself ) there were several people who felt the same way about houses. The reality reset of 2008 and the overall lost decade of stocks shattered most people illusions about equities, and probably about houses. It is entirely possible that the average person is going to be scared off from investing in equities for a long period, perhaps in many cases for the rest of their life, like what happened to many of the "greatest generation" who swore off stocks after the depression.
This very well may cause a decrease in demand for equities that might persist for many decades and perhaps would cause returns to drop below the historical 7% or so average. However, stocks don't exist in a vacuum many people were similarly burned in real estate. Imagine a person who saw his 401K drop from $401,000 to $201,000 and then recover to $300,000, at the same time he saw his $500K house that he put $100K down, drop to $300K and now $250K and is walking away from it. Which is going to be the more traumatizing? the $100K loss of his down payment and the ruining of his credit score or the $100K paper loss in his 401K balance. I am not sure which is going make the investor more gun shy, but I think that a future real estate investment would be scarier.
Right now most of the scared money is in bonds, 0% interest money markets, and 1-2% interest rate CDs. I believe a few more European countries defaults along some big cities in the USA, plus some losses for California and Illinois bond holders will be sufficient to traumatize bond holders.
It is entirely possible, I'd even argue likely, that many investors by 2012 will have managed to hit the trificta losing money in stocks, real estate, and bonds. Given the alternatives stocks stop looking that scary on a relative basis.
However, all of this discussion is once again focused on the greater fool theory, what sucker can I sell my asset to so I can make money.
The Buffett/Graham quote "In the short run the stock market is a voting machine in the long run it is weighing machine.", applies to all capital market not just the stock market.
On a fundamental level, corporations/stocks look significantly better than they did a decade ago and relative basis much better than bonds, real estate or commodities. I don't think anyone would argue that ability of bond issurers (the vast majority being government not corporate) are in better position to repay their debt now than they were a decade ago. I am no real estate expert, but I suspect the future prospect of real estate over the next 10-30 years looked better in 2000 than they do today.
In contrast the fundamentals of corporations look very good. They have strong balance sheets, many have record profits, and productivity gains have accelerate over the last decade.
Most importantly while they have probably lost 30 million (un and underemployed) consumers in the US and equal number in Europe in the last decade, they have picked hundreds of millions of new consumers (maybe even a billion) in Brazil, Russia, India, China. These BRIC consumer while they can't individually buy as much stuff as laid off auto worker or outsourced IT guy, collectively more than make up for their lost purchasing power.
Then again, I'm something of an equity cultist.....
Me too because the only way for me to keep up with the emerging markets is to have ownership of companies who provide these new consumers with goods and services.