"Do you want to own a bond with less than a 3% coupon for 10 years, or do you want to own a good-quality company with a 3.5% yield and a growing dividend? To me, it's something of a no-brainer,"
I believe this to be a false dichotomy. A particular asset class may generally be a better value at any given moment than some other asset class in the generic way that Rothenberg notes but that does not make the one that is a better value a proxy for the other one. If 3% for a ten year debt issue is unattractive to you but you want fixed income exposure then logically you would look for segments in the fixed income market that are attractive, not equities. A high yielding equity should not be expected to have the same volatility characteristics as debt.
Also from Barrons in the Trader Column "...cash earning no interest at the bank keeps up the pressure to invest." Hopefully you don't believe this. It might be very frustrating to take in such a paltry yield but the part of your allocation that should not take risk should not take risk. If the yield in that part of the investment world is ten basis points , ok, but we all have certain money that should not take risk and that should not be forgotten.
Last night the University of Minnesota-Deluth won the NCAA mens hockey championship in overtime on a goal by Kyle Schmidt. To recirculate a joke I made before, that kid will never have to buy a meal or a drink in Minnesota for the rest of his life.
The picture is from Mount Pilatus in Switzerland. Kind of looks like Dr. Evil's secret volcano lair, doesn't it?