I seem to be the bad guy, Terrence, who seems not to understand the English language as you write it. It's nothing personal here; please believe that.
You are saying:
"the severity of decline in our market, as measured by the DJIA, will be at least twice that which occurred in '29. I am not suggesting the percentage of decline will be twice, or the length, twice, but that it will most likely, in its aggregate, be demonstrated to be about twice as severe. ... I do know, without question, the bear-market period will be unlike any that ever preceded."
Of course the percentage of decline can't be twice that of '29, since that would yield an impossible negative DJ value ( > 100% decline). But if you are talking pure point drop, the high value of DJIA in 1929 was 381; the low DJIA in 1932 was 41. The drop was 340 points. A drop twice as severe (in points) is 680, only six percent, a drop which anyone can anticipate and survive.
If severity is not measured in percentage, in length of time, or in point drop, what does "in its aggregate, twice as severe" mean?
Please clarify. With claims like yours, specificity conveys more meaning than abstraction. I'd like to think we're communicating in the same language, but so far I just don't understand you. |
