Dr. Siegel, one of the top academics in finance, has provided a comprehensive, up-to-date overview of investing in stocks. His book is based on data going back 200 years and is fact based, rather than just opinions or theories. I have been involved in investing for over 30 years and found much new, useful information. This book is a great read for anyone interested in stock investing, whether a rookie or a veteran.

Siegel's masterpiece is a must buy for anyone who wants to stop wasting money on mutual fund fees and start accumulating wealth. I give this book and Professor Siegel an A+.

Andrew Nissenbaum

Recently published (end of 2007) very helpful to give an overall view of the world stock markets, with enphasis on the american market of course. In my opinion it gives a helicopter view of the economy and the stock market movements and in doing so it provides you with a map of the "territory" you are moving in (as it were). Great statistic amount of information.

Jeremy Siegel is the Russell E. Palmer Professor of Finance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He appears regularly on networks like CNN, CNBC and NPR, and is a frequent contributor to financial periodicals.

"Stocks for the Long Run" is the best known book by Siegel, and widely cited. There are more than 100 books that cite "Stocks for the Long Run".

Most of the book takes a long-term view of the financial markets. Siegel takes an empirical perspective to answer some major investing questions. Even though the book has been termed "the buy and hold Bible", the author occasionally concedes that there can be some market inefficiencies that can be exploited. The book is very easy to comprehend and is targeted to wide audience.

If you like the idea of scrutinizing major investing questions, popular beliefs and conventional wisdoms, I would recommend "The Only Three Questions That Count" by Kenneth L. Fisher, which is much deeper than "Stocks for the Long Run".

This is much improved from the first and second editions. (I didn't read the third edition and may not have read all of the second.) The book contains a lot of useful information, presented, for the most part, clearly, and Siegel's commentary on the factual material he has compiled incorporates up to date research. The book can be read as a (slightly to moderately advanced) investment guide rather than just a compendium of reasons to chose stocks over other investments (or at least over fixed income investments). To his credit, Siegel has learned a lot about investing since the first edition.

Although this point is not made in the book, market indexes definitely can be beat through the careful selection of actively managed mutual funds -- requiring only (first) reading a broad selection of books on investing, subscribing to and reading Morningstar, and reading fund prospectuses and reports. (This may seem like a lot of work, but it's very doable regardless of other demands on your time, and far preferable to searching for a competent investment advisor -- a genuine high-risk activity.) Critics of this approach such as David Swenson and Paul Samuelson (to mention only two otherwise very able investment thinkers) are just wrong. Past performance can predict future success in investing as in most other endeavors. Admittedly, there is a theoretical basis -- the efficient markets hypothesis -- for contending that investing is qualitatively different from, say, chess playing, but ascribing the results of the many long-term successful investors to luck or excess (and lucky) risk taking seems to me more an act of faith than reason.

This is much improved from the first and second editions. (I didn't read the third edition and may not have read all of the second.) The book contains a lot of useful information, presented, for the most part, clearly, and Siegel's commentary on the factual material he has compiled incorporates up to date research. The book can be read as a (slightly to moderately advanced) investment guide rather than just a compendium of reasons to chose stocks over other investments (or at least over fixed income investments). To his credit, Siegel has learned a lot about investing since the first edition.

Although this point is not made in the book, market indexes definitely can be beat through the careful selection of actively managed mutual funds -- requiring only (first) reading a broad selection of books on investing, subscribing to and reading Morningstar, and reading fund prospectuses and reports. (This may seem like a lot of work, but it's very doable regardless of other demands on your time, and far preferable to searching for a competent investment advisor -- a genuine high-risk activity.) Critics of this approach such as David Swenson and Paul Samuelson (to mention only two otherwise very able investment thinkers) are just wrong. Past performance can predict future success in investing as in most other endeavors. Admittedly, there is a theoretical basis -- the efficient markets hypothesis -- for contending that investing is qualitatively different from, say, chess playing (poker might be a better example due to the chance factor), but ascribing the results of the many long-term successful investors to luck or excess (and lucky) risk taking, seems to me more an act of faith than reason.

This is much improved from the first and second editions. (I didn't read the third edition and may not have read all of the second.) The book contains a lot of useful information, presented, for the most part, clearly, and Siegel's commentary on the factual material he has compiled incorporates up to date research. The book can be read as a (slightly to moderately advanced) investment guide rather than just a compendium of reasons to chose stocks over other investments (or at least over fixed income investments). To his credit, Siegel has learned a lot about investing since the first edition.

Although this point is not made in the book, market indexes definitely can be beat through the careful selection of actively managed mutual funds -- requiring only (first) reading a broad selection of books on investing, subscribing to and reading Morningstar, and reading fund prospectuses and reports. (This may seem like a lot of work, but it's very doable regardless of other demands on your time, and far preferable to searching for a competent investment advisor -- a genuine high-risk activity.) Critics of this approach such as David Swenson and Paul Samuelson (to mention only two otherwise very able investment thinkers) are just wrong. Past performance can predict future success in investing as in most other endeavors. Admittedly, there are theoretical reasons -- the efficient markets hypothesis -- for contending that investing is qualitatively different from, say, chess playing (poker might be a better example due to the chance factor), but anyone who seriously subscribes to this belief (the right word) not only must account for the phenomenal success of a number of investors, who as an examination of their methods will show are not just lucky or excess (and lucky) risk takers, but, if they practice their faith, resign themselves to never getting rich -- admittedly, not worth spending a lot of time on unless you can really strike it big, but a lot of fun to attempt and an opportunity, if you are so inclined, to do a few good deeds.