A few things from yesterday worth mentioning this morning.br /br /Jeremy Siegel had a a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b788547c-b1bc-11de-a271-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1"commentary run in the FT/a re-making a case for equities for the long run. I don't disagree in the biggest picture sense but I am not as sanguine on the fate of domestic stocks versus foreign. The dynamic of many other countries gaining on the US as the US tries to hold on simply makes those other countries more compelling.br /br /span class="fullpost"He correctly, IMO, goes after Robert Arnott's comments from the spring about bonds outperformance noting that for that brief moment when stocks were at their low bonds did out perform but that cherry picking a point in time like that did not make a lot of sense. I a href="http://randomroger.blogspot.com/2009/03/ft-to-investors-fuggettaboutit.html"similarly picked on/a the Arnott article when it first ran.br /br /I think Siegel misses on a couple of points however. He notes that ...

Gold started off early morning Far East trading on Wednesday as it usually does lately…going into a slow decline. And, as usual, at 3:00 a.m…shortly before the London open…the price began to rise, this time sharply. But it was all for naught once again, as someone was there to sell gold hard the moment that the London a.m. fix was in. The decline lasted for the rest of the London session…through the Comex open…and only reversed at the close of London trading at 4:00 p.m….11:00 a.m. New York time. However, this attempted rally was not allowed to amount to much, but gold did close the Globex session about eight dollars above its lows.

click to enlarge

Silver was far more volatile. The price rise at the London open was impressive until it, too, ran into the same seller at …