Talk:Compound annual growth rate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Business and Economics Portal This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject.
Stub	rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
High	rated as high-importance on the assessment scale

[edit] Propose to redirect this to rate of return which I will be editing

The calculation given here is only the standard Future Value of a Dollar. This is covered at the site time value of money and the detailed sites referenced from there. The calculation will only work if there is only one cash flow at the beginning of the investment. The discussion paragraphs I believe to be wrong. I don't know how long I should wait for your input before acting. If there is a 'norm' let me know. Any other thoughts? --Retail Investor 20:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't have a clue about the different methods of calculation. But neither rate of return nor time value of money mention the term "compound annual growth rate" or "CAGR". I just looked up the term, but didn't find a explanation. From a user view i hardly care about the lemma i'm redirected to - as long as i find a definition of the term i looked for. Could you maybe fill this gap? --Zinnmann 10:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I asked the people at rate of return if they would allow an edit. They said no. I edited Time value of money and Compound interest but did not include any reference to CAGR because I personally have never heard the term used. Judging from all the other pages that covered the same topic, using different terms, the concept goes by many monikers. Since you know where and how CAGR is used, why don't you go ahead and provide the appropriate reference in the appropriate page.Retail Investor 02:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but in fact I don't know, what CAGR is. I stumbled across it in a business spreadsheet and needed some background information. There's a short sub-article at de:Wachstumsrate#Compound Annual Growth Rate. I'll try a translation but can't guarantee the correctness - neither factual nor grammatical :-) So, if you think that it's nonsense, please put in a VfD. On the other hand: what's wrong about the version [1] you have replaced with that redirect? --Zinnmann 15:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You can see what I think wrong with the entry at the top of this page.Retail Investor 18:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Since you insist on having this page (even though you say you don't understand it), I have corrected it. If anyone else wants to redirect it, go ahead.Retail Investor 16:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)