13,600 to 153,000,000 Divided By 8 Years

>>7963540
Also, why does 13,600 times 2.20 for eight years come out to 7,463,118 on a calculator?

>>7963549
Bump

>>7963540
I would do it:
153000000-13600=152986400
152986400/13600=11249
(1+p)^8=11249
(1+p)=3.209
p=2.209
which is approx. 220%

>>7963540
220% is the annualized rate of return with reinvestment. So if you start with 13600 and invest in something that has a 220% rate of return at the end of the year, and then keep reinvesting what you get each year for 8 years, you will have 153000000

>>7963807
Can you explain your math? For example, what is P, etc.? I'm stupid.

>>7963828
Can you show maths pls? No, this is not homework. I just don't understand why my initial calculation in the OP post is wrong while the 220 result is right. Didn't my calculation cover reinvestment?

Thank you Anons

>>7964556
P = percentage

>>7964556
It's simple. Let x be the amount invested and y be the amount this investment grows to at the end of the year.

The annual rate of return is r = (y-x)/x

y = rx+x = x(r+1)

So if we start with investment x, the amount this turns to after the first year is

y(1) = x(r+1)

Now we reinvestment, meaning x(r+1) becomes the new 'x'

y(2) = (x(r+1))(r+1) = x(r+1)^2

...

y(n) = x(r+1)^n

r = (y/x)^(1/n) - 1

Now we plug in our values and solve

r = (153000000/13600)^(1/8) ~ 2.20

>>7964590
r = (153000000/13600)^(1/8)-1 ~ 2.21

>>7963807
>>7963828
>>7964590
>>7964594
Thank you, Anons. Just one more question, here: >>7963549

Why doesn't 220/2.20 add up when plugged in?

>>7964625
I don't know what you plugged it into on your calculator...

>>7964631
13,600 * 2.20 ^ (X with the little Y in the upper right) for 8 comes out to 7,463,118.

>>7964870
I still don't understand what you're trying to do. What are X and Y? The correct way to calculate the gross amount is

13,600(2.20+1)^8 = 14,953,358

>>7964870

you need to add 1 to the rate of return

think of it this way

10% of 100 is 10

But if your 100 grows at 10%

You will have 100 + 100*0.1

= 100(1+0.1)

>>7964985
That's weird, but I now see.
So for 36%, I would use 1.36
For 136% I would use 2.36
For 236% I would use 3.36
And so on, correct?

>>7964886
I was multiplying 13,600 by 220% a year for eight years to verify the 220% anwer but it was giving an incorrect answer but it was just me being retarded.