Jeremy Siegel wrote a book in 1994 that basically changed how every financial advisor on the planet talks to their clients. It was called Stocks for the Long Run. If you’ve ever been told to "just buy and hold" or that "the market always goes up eventually," you’re essentially hearing echoes of Siegel’s research. He looked at 200 years of data. Not two decades. Two centuries. He found that, despite wars, depressions, and the occasional total collapse of the global order, stocks tended to return about 6.5% to 7% after inflation. It’s a staggering consistency.
But here’s the thing.
People treat this book like a holy text, but they often miss the nuance that makes it actually useful. It’s not just a "buy stocks" cheerleader manual. It’s a deep, sometimes technical look at why equities outperform bonds and gold over massive time horizons. Honestly, most people just read the title and assume they know the rest. They don't. They miss the warnings about valuation and the shifts in international markets that Siegel updated in later editions, like the massive 6th edition released recently to account for the post-pandemic madness.
The 200-Year Math That Scares Bond Traders
When Siegel first dropped the data, it was a bit of a shock to the system. He used a series of total return indices starting all the way back in 1802. Think about that for a second. In 1802, the U.S. was basically an emerging market. We didn't have a standardized currency yet. Yet, through the Civil War, World War I, the Great Depression, and the stagflation of the 70s, the "real" return of stocks stayed eerily stable.
He calls it the "equity premium."
It basically means you get paid for the stress of owning companies. Bonds don't have that same engine. Over long periods—we are talking 20 to 30 years—the probability of stocks outperforming bonds is nearly 100%. That’s a bold claim. It’s also one that has held up remarkably well since the book’s first publication. If you had invested $1 in 1802, by the time the 5th or 6th edition of Stocks for the Long Run rolled around, that dollar would be worth millions in real terms, while a dollar in gold would barely buy you a decent dinner.
But wait.
There is a massive trap here. Siegel’s data is "survivorship bias" adjacent. He’s looking at the U.S. market, which happened to become the greatest economic engine in history. If you were in the Russian stock market in 1917 or the Japanese market in 1989, your "long run" looked very, very different. Siegel acknowledges this more in the later editions, emphasizing international diversification. You can't just bet on one horse and assume it’ll run forever just because it did for 200 years.
Why Everyone Quotes Siegel but Nobody Follows Him
It’s easy to be a long-term investor when the S&P 500 is hitting all-time highs every week. It’s significantly harder when your portfolio is down 34% and the news says the world is ending. This is where the psychology of the book hits a wall. Siegel is a Wharton professor. He’s a math guy. He looks at the numbers and says, "See? It’s fine."
The average person is not a math guy.
The average person has a mortgage and a looming sense of dread when they see their 401k shrinking. One of the most important takeaways from Stocks for the Long Run isn't actually about the 7% return. It’s about the risk of not being in the market. Siegel shows that over a 1-year period, stocks are way riskier than bonds. No surprise there. But as you stretch the timeline to 10, 20, or 30 years, the risk of stocks actually falls below the risk of bonds and T-bills because inflation eats the "safe" money alive.
Inflation is the silent killer.
Siegel proves that stocks are a natural hedge because companies can raise prices. If bread gets more expensive, the company selling the bread makes more money. Bonds? They’re stuck with a fixed payment that buys less and less every year. This is why he argues that for a retirement horizon, "safe" assets are actually the riskiest things you can own. It’s a complete flip of conventional wisdom.
The Problem with P/E Ratios and Modern Valuations
In the more recent updates to the book, Siegel had to tackle the elephant in the room: tech stocks and high valuations. For decades, a P/E ratio of 15 was considered "normal." If the market got to 20, it was expensive.
Today? We see 25, 30, or even higher as the "new normal."
Siegel has actually defended these higher valuations to some extent. He argues that lower transaction costs (no more $50 commissions to buy 10 shares of IBM) and more efficient markets mean investors are willing to pay a premium. Plus, the disappearance of high-interest rates for a long stretch made stocks the only game in town. However, he isn't a blind bull. He’s very clear that if you buy when the entire market is trading at 40x earnings, your "long run" returns are going to be significantly lower than that 7% average.
You’re basically "borrowing" returns from the future.
Beyond the S&P 500: Small Caps and Value
One of the more interesting sections of the book dives into the "size effect" and "value effect." For a long time, the data suggested that small-cap stocks and "cheap" value stocks outperformed the big, flashy growth names.
- Small companies have more room to grow.
- Value stocks are often ignored, leading to a "spring-loaded" recovery.
- Dividends represent a massive chunk of total returns—way more than most people realize.
Actually, if you strip out dividends, the historical chart of the stock market looks a lot less impressive. It’s the reinvestment of those little quarterly checks that creates the exponential "hockey stick" curve. Siegel is a huge proponent of not just owning the market, but understanding that the dividends are the fuel.
But lately, the "value" factor has been getting its teeth kicked in by "growth" (think Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft). Some critics argue that the "Siegel Constant" of 7% is under threat because the modern economy is so top-heavy. If the top 5 companies represent 30% of the market, are you really getting the broad economic participation that Siegel’s 200-year data promises? It’s a valid question.
Actionable Strategy: How to Actually Use This
Reading the book is one thing; not panicking in October is another. If you want to apply the principles of Stocks for the Long Run without losing your mind, you need a specific framework.
First, ignore the noise. The data shows that trying to time the market is a fool's errand. Even if you missed the worst 10 days of the market, you’d be rich. But if you missed the best 10 days, your returns would be cut in half. Since those days usually happen within weeks of each other, you basically have to stay invested all the time.
Second, watch your costs. Siegel’s 7% is a "real" return. If you’re paying a 1% management fee and 0.5% in hidden fund costs, you’ve just shaved off a massive portion of your lifetime wealth. Use low-cost index funds. Period.
Third, diversify internationally. The 6th edition makes it clear: the U.S. might not dominate the next 100 years like it did the last 100. Emerging markets and developed foreign markets are a necessary hedge against a stagnant domestic economy.
Finally, rethink your "safe" bucket. If you’re 30 or 40 years old, having a large chunk of your portfolio in cash or low-interest bonds isn't "playing it safe." Based on Siegel’s 200-year analysis, it’s a near-guarantee that you will lose purchasing power.
👉 See also: Form 926 Filing Requirements: What You Actually Need to Know to Stay Out of Trouble
The core of the book is simple but incredibly difficult to execute: the market is a machine designed to reward those who can sit on their hands. It sounds boring because it is. But as Siegel shows, boring is what buys the beach house.
Step 1: Audit your current portfolio’s expense ratios. If you are paying more than 0.20% for a broad market fund, you are losing money needlessly.
Step 2: Automate your contributions. The "Long Run" only works if you are consistently adding fuel to the fire, regardless of whether the headlines are screaming about a recession or a boom.
Step 3: Re-read the chapter on "The Valuation of the Stock Market." It’ll help you understand that even in a "high" market, being out of the market entirely is usually the bigger mistake.
The data is there. The history is there. The only variable left is whether you have the stomach to actually wait.