3 ms·

This is an aside, but I take exception to their figure, "Nowhere to put your money". I find it manipulative. Look, I quickly rearranged their figure by just r

This is an aside, but I take exception to their figure, "Nowhere to put your money". I find it manipulative. Look, I quickly rearranged their figure by just reversing the order of the 6 tranches (which is arbitrary, and not actually connected - though they seem that way). Original: http://imgur.com/6my8mqu http://imgur.com/6my8mqu Reversing the order of the 6 charts: http://imgur.com/mq61KrL http://imgur.com/mq61KrL Just flip back and forth! It shows a different impression. I haven't changed any of the data. The original impression only exists because they sorted the six downward (by end-point of each of the 6 charts - they even make those end-points bold dots). That's an awful shifty way to tell a story of something moving down over time.... Plus - how did they select these six? Indonesian Stocks - Manhattan Office buildings? Could it be they selected six that fit well together? (Mine, lacking this preselection, is way more jumpy.) That said, I enjoyed most of the article and don't like this sleight-of-hand, which calls it into question for me.

JimboOmega 12y ago
The point isn't so much the ordering, but that they are all - across different traditional returns - outside of historical norms. It's more about the grey bar - wherever it is, the asset is below it or at about the bottom.
- logicallee 12y ago
  And why do the seven years 2004-2011 provide the "historical norms"? Regardless, it is a rather small point and I will readily agree that all six assets have been falling. But arrange them vertically - or better yet, superimpose them - instead of listing them side-by-side, sorted in descending order by 2014 value and selected to dovetail together! and the story isn't nearly as clear.... Just try it. The graph is set up to tell a macro story far beyond 2 years. It looks hastily like a 12-year story of rising from 6% to a high of under 8 and falling sharply and steadily down to 3 (briefly under 2). But that's not what the graph says at all. It just looks that way visually.

JimboOmega 12y ago

The point isn't so much the ordering, but that they are all - across different traditional returns - outside of historical norms. It's more about the grey bar - wherever it is, the asset is below it or at about the bottom.

logicallee 12y ago
And why do the seven years 2004-2011 provide the "historical norms"? Regardless, it is a rather small point and I will readily agree that all six assets have been falling. But arrange them vertically - or better yet, superimpose them - instead of listing them side-by-side, sorted in descending order by 2014 value and selected to dovetail together! and the story isn't nearly as clear.... Just try it. The graph is set up to tell a macro story far beyond 2 years. It looks hastily like a 12-year story of rising from 6% to a high of under 8 and falling sharply and steadily down to 3 (briefly under 2). But that's not what the graph says at all. It just looks that way visually.