This news story has 4 comments:

Register or Login to rate comments »
•  
  

  • bricki: 
  • Comments (659)
  •  • Instablog (1)
  •  • StockTalk (7)
  How did this same analysis look 10 years ago?
  
  Stocks are inherently more volatile than bonds. If you do single point in time comparisons like this you will get answers that vary tremendously because of this volatility.
  
  With the likelihood of inflation in the near future it is probable that we are in one of the worst periods in history to be concentrating investments into bonds.

  Oct 25 11:10 AM | Link | Reply
•  
  

  • zorrow: 
  • Comments (84)
  Is there a study that compares only dividend paying stocks to bonds?
  I'm sure there not comparing junk and worthless MBS on the bond side of the equation, so why load the stock side up with junk stocks?

  Oct 25 01:26 PM | Link | Reply
•  
  

  • a fat panda: 
  • Comments (478)
  •  • Instablog (5)
  •  • StockTalk (4)

  • •
  • Joe The Economist
  The problem with this chart is that it is a specific 10 year period. Looking at the last 10 years and saying that bonds are a better deal than stocks is self-evident. Seriously who would have thought that bonds would out-perform stocks in a bear market. This is no more informative than throwing water on someone and saying "Hey they are wet."
  
  You should consider what the average 10 year period return is. You need to make sure that dividends and interest are reinvested net of taxes.

  Oct 25 01:51 PM | Link | Reply
•  
  

  • Graham and ...: 
  • Comments (1883)
  •  • Instablog (656)
  •  • StockTalk (1359)

  • •
  • R.W. Wentworth & Co.
  We believe in cycles of more like 35-40 years. So 30 years pretty much captures it. But it might take 5-10 more years for the cycle to fully play out, before stocks significantly outperform bonds.

  Oct 25 03:35 PM | Link | Reply