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.
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".