The media, me included, made reference to the fact that we have just seen the worst June since 1930 - and we all know what was going on back then (hint - the post 1929 crash bear market). The media has a job to do and it is not just provide information. It is to sell subscriptions or keep ratings high for advertising dollars and digging through the archives for a "worst June in 78 years" headline will definitely qualify.
Let's get some of these reporters on Jerry Springer, though. Where were the reports that the rally from the mid-April low to the ultimate peak in the S&P 500 in mid-May was just about the same size? How about the rally from the March low to the early April high being even bigger in terms of points than the June decline?
Everyone is lazy and cannot pick market starts and finishes. Calendar readings are so much easier. And we can even automate the process.
It does not matter that we measure from the start of the month to the end of the month but rather that we measure from the start to the end of trends of any size you choose. Calendar dates are artificial cutoffs and the market does not care about them.
Yes, we need structure to pay managers on performance and in that case it is apples to apples. Manager A beat Manager B in June and over time the intra-month peaks and troughs don't matter.
But if you are trying to create a sensationalistic headline with the worst June since the depression, please, please, please be fair and say that the "big decline" was preceded by an equally as big and equally as fast gain!
But when the market goes up everybody is happy and details are not so important, right? Sounds like complacency in a dangerous market.