Talk:Stocks for the Long Run

User:Foggy_Morning has tagged the article with "conflict of interest".

There is no explanation of how there is a conflict of interest.

No,I am not Siegel.

--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I tagged this article for COI because


 * 1) you are the only editor who has worked on the article
 * 2) it leads with such advertising phrases as "widely cited", "sealed the conventional wisdom" and "one of the 10 best investment books of all time"
 * 3) jeremyseigel.com is used as a reference 3 times
 * I did not assume you are Siegel, but the article is not written from a neutral point of view. This might be due to the sources you've used. See if you can modify the language in the lead section -- maybe start with something like Stocks for the Long Run : The Definitive Guide to Financial Market Returns and Long-Term Investment Strategies is a 1994 book by Jeremy Siegel about investing in the stock market. The fourth edition was released in November 2007. It was No.X on the NYT best-seller list in XXXX.
 * Happy editing! --Foggy Morning (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments.
 * The book is indeed widely cited. I will try to find a way to that it looks more neutral.
 * jeremyseigel.com has several of Seigel's articles avaialble that provide more detailed or more up-to-date discussion.
 * A technical book like this cannot ever be expected to be on NYT best-seller list. There is no other way of mentioning the significance of the book except who it has impacted the field.
 * I will keep your comments in mind. I am planning to add some more criticism as well.--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't a technical book, it's a mass-market book. Please keep that in mind in your edits. Happy editing :) --Foggy Morning (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Chakreshsinghai, take a break in editing, okay? --Foggy Morning (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Chakresh-ji, another great article, nice work. However I agree with Foggy that the first paragraph sounds like a promotion. Especially the reference to Amazon who is a book seller and has a bias towards all the books it sells. You might consider removing it even though you have given a nice reference to substantiate it. Keithbob--Keithbob (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The concept that Stocks are for the Long Run has been questioned recently (So Much for Buy-and-Hold Advice, Bottom may be in sight  ). I will add something about that.--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Many authors dispute the book scientific approach and results. Campbell and Viceira in their 2002 book have demonstrated that in a large class of models a buy and hold strategy in stock holdings is suboptimal for a long term investor. Even worst, identfying as Siegel does, risk as the annualized standard deviation of an asset(which decays with time) may lead the reader to believe the well-known Fallacy of Time diversification (i.e. Duval, 2006, but browsable in every finance blog), that is that "investment risk reduces with time". This is known to be false (and dangerous) since Samuelson, 1963. Stocks are not safer in the long term. A detailed criticism (indeed, a busting) of Siegel's book and methodology is present in R.D. Coleman's 2006 review. The criticism part needs to be widely expanded; indeed, in my view, must be made the most prominent section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.242.233.44 (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)