Jeremy Siegel, Ph.D. The Future for Investors

Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, October 17, 2008, 3:05AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

The recue bill won't rescue us. The government won't rescue us, nor will the financial institutions. They will tell you they are and sell you a seat on the rescue boat that is coming, but don't hold your breath. You have two choices. Tread water until you drown or learn to swim. You are the only one who can rescue you, but you have to be willing to get a real financial education to do it. You have the power, but apparently you don't have the knowledge or you wouldn't be in this mess. Do you know how to get out of debt? Do you know how to protect your assets from taxes and market losses? Maybe you need to stop waiting for the boat to show up and start learning. I suggest www.maxhouse.com. Good luck!

Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, October 14, 2008, 6:34AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 2/5

thanks for stating the blatantly obvious sherlock!

Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 13, 2008, 11:33PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

Siegel knows zilch about how the financial market works, let alone how the economy works. He simply regurgitates what the authorities say. He does not know there are alternatives to this bailout plans. We see for ourselves that the new measures, first announced by UK, which include the direct equity investment in banks, have addressed the market concerns ten times better than the original Paulson plan had done. And those who wonder how banks could have lent so much toxic loans should read this article http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/081010/0842b4104036827981.html . This crisis is completely manmade and could have been avoided had the authorities had half a brain.

Yahoo! Finance User - Sunday, October 12, 2008, 11:50AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

This plan was that last thing a capitalist like Paulsen would have wanted. The question is what kind of hand was he dealt. When you are in a position of no choice, you make the choice you HAVE to. Objectively if started with our countries value deterioration, that is exemplified by the controlling interests of the house of representatives, and senate. .....or maybe he should have let it all go under without a fight....it still might.............In the upcoming election, we may further get what we deserve unfortunately................The Socialist States of America

Yahoo! Finance User - Sunday, October 12, 2008, 10:44AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

Why are we bailing out these banks that made those trillion dollar bets called credit default swaps. We are being dum dumbed by economists and journalists into beleaving it is all the consumers fault, oh, yes and maybe the poor illigal ailients. But the real crooks are getting rewards by the millions and even billions, and we are giving ourselfes the blame for what they did. Or maybe some folks do not quite understand what this credit default swap story is all about. We all need to learn about it, we need to know how exactly we were being used and still are.

Yahoo! Finance User - Saturday, October 11, 2008, 6:03PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

The face value of distressed mortgage-backed securities is perhaps a trillion dollars. The amount of market capital already lost in anticipation of the impact on the economy is already several trillion dollars. Clearly, if TARP can substantially relieve the expected economic impacts, it's worth doing.

Yahoo! Finance User - Saturday, October 11, 2008, 5:45PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

Look up "Peloton Partners." This was a hedge fund that, earlier this year thought its investment in higher quality, distressed MBS would turn a nice profit. Trouble is the marketplace for these securities never unfroze. Peloton went belly up earlier this year after having turned sensational profits in '07. The trouble with the Paulson plan is it assumes the housing slump is the root cause of MBS troubles. Truth is the real problem is a global economic breakdown crisis. There simply is not enough real wealth being generated to maintain the mountain of financial leverage built up by Wall Street and the City of London. The attempt to prop up these worthless securities will prove hyper-inflationary, save a social revolt. So, as long as a bunch of monetarist monkeys loyal to British free market economics are running the show, there will be no semblance of recovery, an increasingly collapsing physical economy, and a threat to the very existence of our once wealthy country (much as was intended from the get-go, and make the likes of Greenspan a treasonous criminal). Sorry to be the bearer of bad news...

Yahoo! Finance User - Saturday, October 11, 2008, 4:27PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

2nd Guys Math is ALL wrong...

Yahoo! Finance User - Saturday, October 11, 2008, 1:44PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 2/5

Were this misbegotten plan to benefit anyone it will never be the taxpayer. Why does this article fail to address this fact. Will I a taxpayer ever see a tax refund because of this "plan", NEVER NEVER NEVER.

Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, October 10, 2008, 11:14PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 3/5

HERE IS THE PLAN OF ALL PLANS..... I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG. Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend. To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18 . Our population is about 301,000,000 /- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up.. So divide 200 million adults 18 into $85 billon that equals $425,000..00. My plan is to give $425,0 00 to every person 18 as a We Deserve It Dividend. Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So let's assume a tax rate of 30%. Every individual 18 has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes. That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam. But it means that every adult 18 has $297,500.00 in their pocket. A husband and wife has $595,000.00. What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family=3D3F Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved. Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads Put away money for college - it'll be there Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs. Buy a new car - create jobs Invest in the market - capital drives growth Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean or else Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18 including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other compan y that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces. If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 economic incentive that is being proposed by one of our candidates for President. If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18 ! As for AIG - liquidate it. Sell off its parts. Let American General go back to being American General. Sell off the real estate. Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up. Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't. Sure it's a crazy idea that can work. But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party! How do you spell Economic Boom=3D3F I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion We Deserve It Dividend more than the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC . And remember, The Family pla n only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam. Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.

Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, October 10, 2008, 3:57PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

It may be possible that this plan benefits everybody, but highly unlikely.

Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, October 10, 2008, 10:10AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 2/5

The people on this comments log are right-- immediate relief for the people is needed. The government must take over and regulate the banks and forgive the loans of the people and the loans between the banks. The consequences will still be tremendous, but not as bad as the path we are on now. China is not going to loan us anymore money-- we have to keep the economy going and this is the only way to save capitalism and our nation. Forget politics-- forget about McCain and Obama-- they're fighting about tax revenues-- there are no tax revenues without corporations making money and people having confidence in the system. The citizens, the taxpayers--- the owners of this great nation-- must fight for direct relief to save our economy, to save the retirement funds that workers have worked so hard for years to save, and to create jobs for working class families.

Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, October 10, 2008, 9:36AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 3/5

This may be called a rescue plan, what is it? You want to restore order, then use this money to produce good paying jobs for America. Improve and repair our infrastructure. That would make lots of jobs and put the money right into the economy. They could spend their money on products of US corporations. If our government regulated fair and reasonable compensation for corporate executives the way the laws are written, the corporations that deserve to make it will be ok. How about investing money towards restoring manufacturing in America. That might produce some jobs. One hybrid automobile plant could result in as many as 30,000 good paying jobs. A few of those might help the economy. If you just give the money to the same crooks that got us into this situation, you will git what you have always got. High executive pay, lots of perks, too much spent on advertising in an over competitive market, shrinking pay for the workers in name of meeting earnings gains. Earnings cannot always go up, but that should be ok as long as they make a profit. This is taxpayers money and I am a taxpayer. I don't want more of the same, so invest this where it will have a lasting effect, from the bottom up. Let the taxpayers/consumers decide which mega corporations to save.

Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, October 10, 2008, 12:47AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

One of the best aspects of the article is the comments it evoked. Ken from Corona's history lesson is worthy of an article of its own and, although I am a free market type, I must agree with his conclusions and suggestions. Other comments about stupid government lending and other mandates being a big problem was also spot on. The only thing I have to add is the role of developers and home builders in creating this mess. Building homes way too big was a big mistake. I heard a homebuilding exec state the other day that the pricing must come up because houses are selling for much less than the cost to construct. Well, he could only build those homes because people who couldn't really afford them could get easy credit and buy them. The cost to build the inventory that already exists has nothing at this point to do with the laws of supply and demand that ultimately determine the price of the existing housing stock. If he thinks he can start building McMansions any time soon he is in for a long wait. This same sort of nonsense kept the big 3 auto makers building SUVs and contributed to the oil mess. Housing may have been the powder keg, but $150 per barrell oil is the spark that set it off. We never seem to learn.

Yahoo! Finance User - Thursday, October 9, 2008, 3:19PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 3/5

Debt is seen as one of the causes of the Great Depression, particularly in the United States. Macroeconomists including Ben Bernanke, the current chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, have revived the debt-deflation view of the Great Depression originated by Arthur Cecil Pigou and Irving Fisher: in the 1920s, American consumers and businesses relied on cheap credit, the former to purchase consumer goods such as automobiles and furniture, and the latter for capital investment to increase production. This fueled strong short-term growth but created consumer and commercial debt. People and businesses who were deeply in debt when price deflation occurred or demand for their product decreased often risked default. Many drastically cut current spending to keep up time payments, thus lowering demand for new products. Businesses began to fail as construction work and factory orders plunged. Massive layoffs occurred, resulting in US unemployment rates of over 25% by 1933. Banks which had financed this debt began to fail as debtors defaulted on debt and depositors attempted to withdraw their deposits en masse, triggering multiple bank runs. Government guarantees and Federal Reserve banking regulations to prevent such panics were ineffective or not used. Bank failures led to the loss of billions of dollars in assets. Outstanding debts became heavier, because prices and incomes fell by 20 to 50% but the debts remained at the same dollar amount. After the panic of 1929, and during the first 10 months of 1930, 744 US banks failed. (In all, 9,000 banks failed during the 1930s). By 1933, depositors had lost $140 billion in deposits. Bank failures snowballed as desperate bankers called in loans which the borrowers did not have time or money to repay. With future profits looking poor, capital investment and construction slowed or completely ceased. In the face of bad loans and worsening future prospects, the surviving banks became even more conservative in their lending. Banks built up their capital reserves and made fewer loans, which intensified deflationary pressures. A vicious cycle developed and the downward spiral accelerated. This kind of self-aggravating process may have turned a 1930 recession into a 1933 great depression. So what is different from the last crash? As you can see, there's nothing different. I think the problem today is much more complex. We have people who are 100's of thousands of dollars in debt. and trillians of dollars in bad loans and credit debt. and a country is is 10 trillian dollars in debt. Putting 700 billion dollars in front of this bailout is like putting a drop of water in an empty well and expecting people to drink from it. The drop evaporates seconds before it even hits the bottom of the well. The markets will hit rock bottom before Christmas 2008. The only way to recovery is through the consumer....not a bailout that provides billions to banks. 700 Billion isn't even enough to bail out Bank of America. The only real solution is to use that 700 billion dollars to create public works projects, create new jobs, and allow people to take that money and re-deposit it into banks. It's NOT wise to give this money to mismanaged banks...as proven by AIG's flagrant mismanagement of $400,000.00 this past week. Ken Eynon (Corona, CA) - Thursday, October 9, 2008, 10:54AM ET Today an unbiased indicator is Shipping and is a very competitive, free-wheeling global business with minimal regulation. http://www.dryships.com/index.cfm?get=report It shows that shipping rates for dry bulk cargo (e.g. coal, sugar, salt, iron ore, fertilizer, etc) have collapsed by almost 50% in the last few months. Shipping is a very competitive, free-wheeling global business with minimal regulation, so what happens there is a good and proper indicator of actual conditions in the "real" economy folks. Obviously, then, things are rather serious in the "real" economy. In a nutshell, the current crisis is destro

Yahoo! Finance User - Thursday, October 9, 2008, 10:54AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 4/5

Debt is seen as one of the causes of the Great Depression, particularly in the United States. Macroeconomists including Ben Bernanke, the current chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, have revived the debt-deflation view of the Great Depression originated by Arthur Cecil Pigou and Irving Fisher: in the 1920s, American consumers and businesses relied on cheap credit, the former to purchase consumer goods such as automobiles and furniture, and the latter for capital investment to increase production. This fueled strong short-term growth but created consumer and commercial debt. People and businesses who were deeply in debt when price deflation occurred or demand for their product decreased often risked default. Many drastically cut current spending to keep up time payments, thus lowering demand for new products. Businesses began to fail as construction work and factory orders plunged. Massive layoffs occurred, resulting in US unemployment rates of over 25% by 1933. Banks which had financed this debt began to fail as debtors defaulted on debt and depositors attempted to withdraw their deposits en masse, triggering multiple bank runs. Government guarantees and Federal Reserve banking regulations to prevent such panics were ineffective or not used. Bank failures led to the loss of billions of dollars in assets. Outstanding debts became heavier, because prices and incomes fell by 20–50% but the debts remained at the same dollar amount. After the panic of 1929, and during the first 10 months of 1930, 744 US banks failed. (In all, 9,000 banks failed during the 1930s). By 1933, depositors had lost $140 billion in deposits. Bank failures snowballed as desperate bankers called in loans which the borrowers did not have time or money to repay. With future profits looking poor, capital investment and construction slowed or completely ceased. In the face of bad loans and worsening future prospects, the surviving banks became even more conservative in their lending. Banks built up their capital reserves and made fewer loans, which intensified deflationary pressures. A vicious cycle developed and the downward spiral accelerated. This kind of self-aggravating process may have turned a 1930 recession into a 1933 great depression. So what is different from the last crash? As you can see, there's nothing different. I think the problem today is much more complex. We have people who are 100's of thousands of dollars in debt. and trillians of dollars in bad loans and credit debt. and a country is is 10 trillian dollars in debt. Putting 700 billion dollars in front of this bailout is like putting a drop of water in an empty well and expecting people to drink from it. The drop evaporates seconds before it even hits the bottom of the well. The markets will hit rock bottom before Christmas 2008. The only way to recovery is through the consumer....not a bailout that provides billions to banks. 700 Billion isn't even enough to bail out Bank of America. The only real solution is to use that 700 billion dollars to create public works projects, create new jobs, and allow people to take that money and re-deposit it into banks. It's NOT wise to give this money to mismanaged banks...as proven by AIG's flagrant mismanagement of $400,000.00 this past week.

Yahoo! Finance User - Thursday, October 9, 2008, 6:03AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 4/5

When did our politicians ever understand economics. Given that we would not be in this mess if it were not for the decisions made buy congress, it seems it might be a good time to stop listening to them, and listen to those whe really understand.

Yahoo! Finance User - Thursday, October 9, 2008, 5:25AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

Everybody loses when we reward incompetance. You are advocating the we reward incompetance. You loser.

Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, October 8, 2008, 10:42PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 2/5

To believe that this bailout could possibly net a profit for the US government is to believe that the government can better assign a true value to these mortgage backed securities than the entire market as a whole. That is utter foolishness, and the logic behind it takes its roots in the same socialism "government central planning" that utterly destroyed the Soviet Union. Is this the path we want to follow in this country?

Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, October 8, 2008, 8:55PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

Terrible column. Where is Milton Friedman? We need Milton, Now!

Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, October 8, 2008, 8:50PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

Why does it take a Ph D. to write a (well though out) web column and politician to lead our country?

Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, October 8, 2008, 7:53PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 3/5

John U - anyone who bought a home during the bubble days unfortunately paid an artificial price caused primarily by dishonest lenders and culpable assessors. I agree that these people should be punished. But you need to take responsibility for your purchase. You paid too much for your house - it's your fault too. I stayed out of the housing market because i couldn't believe the fairy tale prices. I felt like a loser for 5 years. Now I'm looking to buy once prices come down another 30%. Anyone who bought after 2002 was a bubble victim/sucker. And I finally feel like I did something right by not listening to those idiot real estate agents who tried to pressure me into buying at ridiculous prices.

Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, October 8, 2008, 5:05PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 4/5

I don't understand why people who couldn't afford to buy a house get to keep it now at a reduced price. Can't the government just confiscate the house and rent it back out to them? That way the government can sell it when the market recovers. As for the wealthy crooks who contributed to this crisis by the abuse of financial engineering, I have this to say: we live in the age of information technology and thus we can identify precisely who they are and we can estimate their culpability in creating systemic risk. They can and should be punished accordingly by confiscation of their wealth and in some cases imprisonment. This punishment can partly address the problem of moral hazard created by the bailout. Too bad it will never happen. I bought a home in 2004. It is a modest home I can afford, purchased with a fixed rate mortgage. I worked much of my life to be able to afford it. Stupid me.

Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, October 8, 2008, 4:46PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

All these guys are the same ones telling Main St for years to invest in stocks. Why didn't they notice our banks were loading up with bad debt? Most investors use mutual funds and many funds were loaded with Fannie and Freddie and Citi and Lehmann and on and on.These guys give advice thats useless. It is always backward looking. Explaining how we got here. Where was his column 2 years ago warning us about the impending doom?

Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, October 8, 2008, 4:35PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 4/5

Many of these woes are due to the government forcing banks to extend these loan and bundling the good with the bad, then giving certain tax advantages to the writing bank so do not be so naive that it was all Wall St.

Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, October 8, 2008, 3:15PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 2/5

I've listened to all the pundits. The problem is that we are bailing out WALL ST. but not helping MAIN ST. Get it? WALL ST. vs. MAIN ST. Now WALL ST. is on Wall St. and MAIN ST. is Main St. WaLl St. * MaInSt. / MAIN st. WaLl sT. = MAUL ST. WANE Street... so as the business on Mall Street's starts to WANE the MAULING starts and our dollars start to WANE... make sense? I heard it all during the presidential debates! Gosh golly, those folks are smart!

Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, October 8, 2008, 10:38AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 4/5

I majored in BANKING while I was in college. The 4Cs of lending are: Capital, Capacity, Cash and Character. Those sub-prime mortgages were made to people who had NO CAPITAL, NO CAPACITY (earning power), NO CASH (downpayment) and likely were bad Character (Never pay their debts) So those Bankers were out of their mind for doing business disregard of the 4Cs.

Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, October 8, 2008, 1:03AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 4/5

This article fits perfectly professionals like myself who are not Harvard MBAs (no background in economics or finance), but who are interested in learning the principles of economics/finance and prefer to think than to follow. Write more, please.

Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, October 8, 2008, 1:00AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

If you want more proof that the media blows everything out of proportion to make a sensationalist headline, all you need do is look at the leads for the OTHER stories concerning the bailout and then read the last sentence of this man's column, which, perhaps out of naïve optimism, I have chosen to believe . What we really need to know is right there: “The world would not have collapsed if the House didn't pass this measure. ” Hmmmm, ya don’t say! I believe this author. But you wouldn’t know that the world is not on the verge of economic meltdown from all the headlines you see; and you had to read to nearly the last syllable to catch that news in THIS piece. Yes folks, journalism as we knew it, is dead.

Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, October 8, 2008, 12:08AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

Stop the panic and the self-fulfilling prophecy!! If we all withdraw and stop spending we are sure to create a even bigger catastrophe. The foreclosures must stop and the banks must allow for affordable rates for people. This will work if we all stop the panic!!!