Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This index uses the arithmetic average of the current and based period quantities for weighting. It is considered a pseudo-superlative formula and is symmetric. [12] The use of the Marshall-Edgeworth index can be problematic in cases such as a comparison of the price level of a large country to a small one.
The geometric mean is more appropriate than the arithmetic mean for describing proportional growth, both exponential growth (constant proportional growth) and varying growth; in business the geometric mean of growth rates is known as the compound annual growth rate (CAGR). The geometric mean of growth over periods yields the equivalent constant ...
The geometric average return is equivalent to the cumulative return over the whole n periods, converted into a rate of return per period. Where the individual sub-periods are each equal (say, 1 year), and there is reinvestment of returns, the annualized cumulative return is the geometric average rate of return.
The second form above illustrates that the logarithm of the geometric mean is the weighted arithmetic mean of the logarithms of the individual values. If all the weights are equal, the weighted geometric mean simplifies to the ordinary unweighted geometric mean. [1]
This function of volatility / represents the volatility tax. (Though this formula is under the assumption of log-normality, the volatility tax provides an accurate approximation for most return distributions. The precise formula is a function of the central moments of the return distribution. [5])
The average rate of return on a 401(k) ranges from 5% to 8%. However, the typical 401(k) holds a mix of roughly 60% stocks and 40% bonds, so it’s also subject to the whims of the larger marketplace.
The power mean could be generalized further to the generalized f-mean: (, …,) = (= ()) This covers the geometric mean without using a limit with f(x) = log(x). The power mean is obtained for f(x) = x p. Properties of these means are studied in de Carvalho (2016).
The earliest reference to a similar formula appears to be Armstrong (1985, p. 348), where it is called "adjusted MAPE" and is defined without the absolute values in the denominator. It was later discussed, modified, and re-proposed by Flores (1986).