Alas, my favorite read each week has let me down once again! I look forward to the weekly delivery in the mailbox, not just because it's not a bill or caterpillars for my kid's science experiment (well, OK, he gets some pretty cool stuff in the mail too), but because it's the best balance for me in terms of not overly "dumbing down" the personal finance and investing content (like the press touting the New Normal, which is totally not what PIMCO's El-Erian envisioned when he made the phrase popular this year) like some of the other publications on the news stand, balanced with an occasional new investment vehicle or idea that I end up investigating further and in some cases, blogging about after taking it a step further. Well, occasionally, I come across typos, mathematical modeling errors and other gaffes that disappoint for such a widely disseminated and venerable magazine. Where are the editors on this?
Can you spot what's wrong with this graph from this week's edition?
Hey, and since this is a totally random post, make sure to stop by my new blog Darwin's Finance on Monday, as I'm hosting the Carnival of Personal Finance where you'll find the best in money and finance from top bloggers around the world all consolidated into one edition.
If you enjoyed this article, make sure to Subscribe to this feed .
For Trading Updates and Post Alerts in Real Time, Follow my Twitter.
RECORD LOWS on Mortgage/Refi Rates - Compare your Savings and get Free Quotes: Mortgage Calculator
[7/03/2009
|
2
COMMENTS HERE
]











2 COMMENTS HERE
I admit it took me a second - if you didn't point it out, I probably would not have noticed:
It says $1,000 a month instead of $1,000 a year.
You definitely spotted something wrong there. What's even odder is that it doesn't really add up for an annual investment either though, since the net amount after say, 10 years, would be much higher. Evidently, they really screwed up the calculation; not sure what the chart reflects at all.
Post a Comment