Things are bad enough without exaggerating the situation. The big problem with the great depression was not the size of the crash but the duration of the recovery. Our view of the money supply seems a bit more effective these days and it seems unlikely that the recession that comes out of this situation will last as long.
Like you say, things are bad enough without exaggerating the situation.
If you think this is all over in anything less than 4-5 years in terms of economic impact, I don't think you've understood what has really just happened and is about to happen.
I'm guessing that index does not capture total return. For example, DAL has offered ~2-3% annual dividends at least since 2013, which adds up to a pretty substantial difference to between total return and asset price if reinvested. It's not clear if that's when they resumed dividends or if Yahoo Finance just doesn't have data going back further.
You want me to . . . hand-calculate market-weighted total return of an index? Without access to the underlying financials? That's a big ask for an internet comment.
I didn't dismiss the article. I provided additional context that might be helpful in evaluating its claims. You are free to do with that what you will.
> You want me to . . . hand-calculate market-weighted total return of an index? Without access to the underlying financials? That's a big ask for an internet comment.
Here’s a handy tool to do just that! Unfortunately only goes back to 2007, so not useful in present case of airline stocks. But a very useful tool.
So your solution is to "guess" that it didn't happen?
>I didn't dismiss the article. I provided additional context that might be helpful in evaluating its claims.
You didn't add anything. You insinuated that it wasn't correct, with zero evidence or knowledge.
Why didn't you add other things, like maybe the journalist made the entire thing up? Or perhaps the whole measure of the index is simply a lie and doesn't exist?
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people here consider random aspersions "adding context".
I'm puzzled that you think factual and relevant context is an aspersion. The article is technically correct that asset prices took a long time to recover to the previous levels. But it is limited in its application. In order to judge the return of an investment, you have to look at not just its asset price but what it produces. A chicken only decreases in value from the time it begins laying eggs, but that doesn't make it a bad investment. Same with the airlines.
> So your solution is to "guess" that it didn't happen?
It's not a guess. It's an informed inference from my knowledge of airline dividend habits, which I subsequently backed up with a citation. However, I will not do hours of modeling work to satisfy your curiosity. If you want that information, do it yourself.
I think my understanding of the current situation is about as good as any layperson. I have been following closely, I called all the policy changes in my state to within a day or two, etc. I don't think that the evidence on what will happen next is so clear that all right-thinking people will come to the same conclusions, as you imply.
we have better communication and technology today as well. The trouble is, we have no idea when recovery will even begin. The human spirit can move past this; but many people can't even begin right now.
It's not an exaggeration. You should take the macroeconomic effect seriously. This is the first major recession in over 100 years caused by an external market factor. Factor in 18 months for vaccine clinical trials and distribution, 1-2 years for industries to get back on their feet, and slews of international policy regressions...you're looking at a 4-5 year impact. Not to mention, social distancing is really taking a mental toll on the world population, regrettably giving more weight to the word "Depression."
