Hold up $1.7 billion in 2005 to $1.9 billion in 2007 is not 13.4%. 1.9billion/1.7billion = 1.118 but it's over 2 years so: 1.118 ^.5 = 1.057 which is ~2% faster than inflation.
Edit: 1.7billion * 1.7 * 1.057 * 1.057 = 1.9billion and 1.9 billion * 1.057 ^5 is 2.5billion in 2012. So, their numbers seem off.
CAGR = ((last number/firs tnumber)^(1/number of years))-1
The assumption is that the first year is 1.7 billion, last year is 3.6 billion and the number of years are 6, as they appear to assume that "by 2012" means 2012 is not included as a year in the calculation, giving a 7 year span. But they also excluded 2005 to give a 6 year span.
so the calculation is ((3.6 / 1.7) ^ (1/6)) -1 = 13.2%.
Still, they are off by 0.2% if you keep to 2 significant digits in the calculations and not use selective rounding. And they did fudge the span of years, making (intentional or not) the growth look better.
Comments
Hold up $1.7 billion in 2005 to $1.9 billion in 2007 is not 13.4%. 1.9billion/1.7billion = 1.118 but it's over 2 years so: 1.118 ^.5 = 1.057 which is ~2% faster than inflation.
Edit: 1.7billion * 1.7 * 1.057 * 1.057 = 1.9billion and 1.9 billion * 1.057 ^5 is 2.5billion in 2012. So, their numbers seem off.
They calculated the compound annual growth rate
CAGR = ((last number/firs tnumber)^(1/number of years))-1
The assumption is that the first year is 1.7 billion, last year is 3.6 billion and the number of years are 6, as they appear to assume that "by 2012" means 2012 is not included as a year in the calculation, giving a 7 year span. But they also excluded 2005 to give a 6 year span.
so the calculation is ((3.6 / 1.7) ^ (1/6)) -1 = 13.2%.
Still, they are off by 0.2% if you keep to 2 significant digits in the calculations and not use selective rounding. And they did fudge the span of years, making (intentional or not) the growth look better.