I realize that and normally I wouldn’t bother, but it was quoted from this almanac I never heard of, so now I need to know if its BS or are their other factors involved.

Something is wrong with your facts.  The Dow probably grew at about 6% (not including dividends).  Even at just 3% growth, it would have grown to around $56,000.  Are you sure it wasn’t $100 or $1,000?  Were there withdrawals?  Something just has to be wrong.  Otherwise, it is statistically inaccurate.  It’s possible taht someone didn’t account for mergers/splits/acquisitions/removals from the Dow/additions to the Dow, etc.  But that seems highly unlikely.  I think you’re just missing a fact somewhere.

I realize that and normally I wouldn’t bother, but it was quoted from this almanac I never heard of, so now I need to know if its BS or are their other factors involved.

Here’s a piece of advice.  Unless it comes from someplace like Goldman Sachs, Ibbotson, or some other well know financial institution, don’t put much stock in those “facts”.  The old saying “figures never lie and liars never figure” is true.  If it sounds wrong, it probably is.

Using Investment View software, DJ Industrial (not including dividends) has averaged 7.17% since May 1950.

My guess is that he is trying to refer to the Stock Trader’s Almanac, not the Stock Market Almanac.  It is published by Wiley & Sons.  There is a wealth of info in the almanac, although I think some of it is more misleading than helpful.  On a quick skim through the book this morning, I didn’t see what he would have been looking at, although that doesn’t mean that it isn’t in there somewhere.  If it is though, I would suspect either a misprint or a bad calculation or interpretation error by the reader (most likely an accidental/intentional error by the podcaster). 

Thank EDJ.  I sent the guy an email so that he could explain himself.  I have to at least get him to admit he made a mistake.

I wonder if he was using current dollars and adjusting for inflation. Even then he would be wrong.