Word: march
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 2000-2009
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Ross then laid the carrots on thick, dispensing with the formal line that the U.S. doesn't talk to Iran. On the weekend of March 27, a U.S. diplomat discussed economic issues with his Iranian counterpart in Moscow. Days later, the U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, met with Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammed Mehdi Akhundzadeh at an international conference in the Hague. At a Friends of Pakistan meeting in Tokyo, one of Holbrooke's diplomats met with his Iranian counterpart. And in a secret back-channel outreach in April, State Department staffers working for Ross got clearance...
...Have you checked your 401(k) balance lately? Since the beginning of this decade, the stock market has been a money pit. At the market's nadir in early March, stock investors had lost more than 50% since March 2000, if you factored in inflation. Things have improved since then--to a mere 40% loss...
...crash, Siegel has retained his reputation. That's partly because his book (the fourth edition of which was published last year) is full of warnings that when he says long run he really means long run--say, 20 to 30 years. It's also partly because in March 2000, just as the stock market was peaking, Siegel warned in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed column that technology stocks were headed for a precipitous fall. But it's mainly that, despite the market carnage of the past year and decade, Siegel's basic argument that "stocks will remain the best...
...California and former editor of the finance wonks' bible, the Financial Analysts Journal--penned a much discussed article for something called the Journal of Indexes. Arnott pointed out that while stocks still beat bonds over the long, long run, they actually lost out to 20-year government bonds from March 1969 through March 2009. That 40-year period is, by most standards, a pretty long...
This wasn't because stocks were a horrible investment during that time--$1 put into stocks in March 1969, with dividends reinvested over the years, was worth $280 after 40 years. But bonds did even better ($1 to $294). Siegel, who has debated Arnott on CNBC and elsewhere, sees this as evidence that bonds are now too expensive rather than an argument against stocks--and Arnott doesn't entirely disagree. "I'd hate to have people read that and construe that bonds will win over the next 40 years," he says...