James Glassman, has published a new book, "Safety Net." In the book he makes an admission that he was wrong in his theory and understanding of the stock market described in his earlier book, "Dow 36,000," published in 1999. That book called for stocks to triple in value in 5 years. Glassman wrote then, at the height of the tech boom, that stocks could immediately double, triple or even quadruple as was happening at that time for tech stocks going public, and they would still not be too expensive. Part of the arguments rely on a definition of risk. Glassman said in his earlier book that stocks and bonds are equally risky in the long run, because stocks had never lost money over the long term and over long periods of time their returns were constant. But Glassman is using a technical definition of risk as how much returns can deviate from the average. What investors face in the real world is a common sense definition of risk, which is- what are the chances you will lose money? This point says Jason Zweig, is clearly stated in Howard Marks coming book, "The Most Important Thing." And what about the point about stocks never losing money, the central point in Glassman's thesis? Here research from Dimson, Marsh and Staunton of London Business School is useful. This research shows that in France from 1912 through 1977, stocks lost money after inflation. The upshot of this is to emphasize the need for looking at risks as real in the real world, where things have changed to the point where the current stock market rally is attributed by the Fed chairman to vigorous efforts to fight a downturn in the economy. For investors these risks are not going away with a sudden surge in stock prices....