ORIGINAL: J_R
Since the difference in AMA membership between 2000 and 2004 is less than 500 members, I doubt that sufficient additional information would be be worth the effort.
Anyway, you know what they say: Statistics lie and statisticians are damned liars.
Well JR, I think your statistics are, shall I say, grossly in error.
Statistics from the head-shed say:
2000 165,365
2001 170,754
2002 173,420
2003 168,075
2004 163,709
>>> "....2000 and 2004 is less than 500 members,"...<<< More like 1656 with significant rise and fall in between.
Actually, in 1991 AMA had 168,190 members at year's end. In '97, the figure was 149,700. then back to the high of 2002.
So, ups and downs have happened before. I would prefer all UPs, however I ain't yet running for the bomb shelters.
EDITED to ADD:
If just 50% of the loss from 2002 through 2004 were open adult paying members (4855) then the financial loss would amount to $281,590.00. If almost all were open, it could well have been over a half million. Lots of money to throw away just for the sake of chasing after investment schemes.
AMA needs a new CFO!