What is expense growth in this diagram?
"The ""c."" is probably circa, or ""about.""  Regulatory settlements is in blue because it's negative; the amount is in parentheses, which indicates a loss. WB and CB might be wholesale banking and commercial banking? BAU probably means ""business as usual"" or things that don't directly apply to the project. Incremental investment is the additional cash a company puts towards its long-term capital assets. FX is probably foreign exchange."
"First, please allow me to recommend that you do not try gimmickry when financials do give expected results.  It's a sure path to disaster and illegality.  The best route is to first check if accounts are being properly booked.  If they are then there is most likely a problem with the business.  Anything out of bounds yet properly booked is indeed the problem. Now, the reason why your results seem strange is because investments are being improperly booked as inventory; therefore, the current account is deviating badly from the industry mean. The dividing line for distinguishing between current and long term assets is one year; although, modern financial accounting theorists & regulators have tried to smudge that line, so standards do not always adhere to that line. Therefore, any seedlings for resale should be booked as inventory while those for potting as investment.  It's been some time since I've looked at the standards closely, but this used to fall under ""property, plant, & equipment"".  Generally, it is a ""capital expenditure"" by the oldest definition.   It is not necessary to obsess over initial bookings because inventory turnover will quickly resolve itself, so a simple running or historical rate can be applied to the seedling purchases. The books will now appear more normal, and better subsequent strategic decisions can now be made." "There are a couple of misconceptions I think are present here: Firstly, when people say ""interest"", usually that implies a lower-risk investment, like a government bond or a money market fund. Some interest-earning investments can be higher risk (like junk bonds offered by near-bankrupt companies), but for the most part, stocks are higher risk. With higher risk comes higher reward, but obviously also the chance for a bad year. A ""bad year"" can mean your fund actually goes down in value, because the companies you are invested in do poorly. So calling all value increases ""interest"" is not the correct way to think about things. Secondly, remember that ""Roth IRA fund"" doesn't really tell you what's ""inside"" it. You could set up your fund to include only low-risk interest earning investments, or higher risk foreign stocks. From what you've said, your fund is a ""target retirement date""-type fund. This typically means that it is a mix of stocks and bonds, weighted higher to bonds if you are older (on the theory of minimizing risk near retirement), and higher to stocks if you are younger (on the theory of accepting risk for higher average returns when you have time to overcome losses). What this means is that assuming you're young and the fund you have is typical, you probably have ~50%+ of your money invested in stocks. Stocks don't pay interest, they give you value in two ways: they pay you dividends, and the companies that they are a share of increase in value (remember that a stock is literally a small % ownership of the company). So the value increase you see as the increase due to the increase in the mutual fund's share price, is part of the total ""interest"" amount you were expecting. Finally, if you are reading about ""standard growth"" of an account using a given amount of contributions, someone somewhere is making an assumption about how much ""growth"" actually happens. Either you entered a number in the calculator (""How much do you expect growth to be per year?"") or it made an assumption by default (probably something like 7% growth per year - I haven't checked the math on your number to see what the growth rate they used was). These types of assumptions can be helpful for general retirement planning, but they are not ""rules"" that your investments are required by law to follow. If you invest in something with risk, your return may be less than expected." "Here is where I am confused. On the income statement I am looking at it has a line item in cogs that is ""change in jobs in progress"".   Change in JIP =  (Starting raw materials, wip, and finished goods) - (Ending raw materials, wip, and finished goods) for the accounting period.  From what I researched cost of goods manufactured is added to cogs:  ""The formula for the cost of goods manufactured is the costs of: direct materials used + direct labor used + manufacturing overhead assigned = the manufacturing costs incurred in the current accounting period + beginning work-in-process inventory - ending work-in-process inventory.  A manufacturer's cost of goods sold is computed by adding the finished goods inventory at the beginning of the period to the cost of goods manufactured and then subtracting the finished goods inventory at the end of the period.""  So it isnt wip that is in the income statement it is change in inventory. Why do they include the ""change of inventory"" in cogs? Wont this just be material and labor that should be in for the next accounting period cog calculation?" I don't understand the logic of converting a cost of funds of 4% to a monthly % and then subtracting that number from an annual one (the 1.5%).  Unfortunately without seeing the case I really can't help you...there was likely much you have left out from above. I mean isn't it implied that cash flows increase by the amount of the benefit of the investment each year? I'm a little shaky on cash flows tbh. My scope may be limited compared to yours I've never taken a financial management class but just from financial accounting knowledge since I recently finished that, it seems like cash flows would be increased if revenues are increased. Unless the revenue increase is for some reason solely in the form of accounts receivable or some asset other than cash. "I think we'd need to look at actual numbers to see where you're running into trouble. I'm also a little confused by your use of the term ""unexpected expenses"". You seem to be using that to describe expenses that are quite regular, that occur every X months, and so are totally expected. But assuming this is just some clumsy wording ... Here's the thing: Start out by taking the amount of each expense, divided by the number of months between occurrences. This is the monthly cost of each expense. Add all these up. This is the amount that you should be setting aside every month for these expenses, once you get a ""base amount"" set up. So to take a simple example: Say you have to pay property taxes of $1200 twice a year. So that's $1200 every 6 months = $200 per month. Also say you have to pay a water bill once every 3 months that's typically $90. So $90 divided by 3 = $30. Assuming that was it, in the long term you'd need to put aside $230 per month to stay even. I say ""in the long term"" because when you're just starting, you need to put aside an amount sufficient that your balance won't fall below zero. The easiest way to do this is to just set up a chart where you start from zero and add (in this example) $230 each month, and then subtract the amount of the bills when they will hit. Do this for some reasonable time in the future, say one year. Find the biggest negative balance. If you can add this amount to get started, you'll be safe. If not, add this amount divided by the number of months from now until it occurs and make that a temporary addition to your deposits. Check if you now are safely always positive. If not, repeat the process for the next biggest negative. For example, let's say the property tax bills are April and October and the water bills are February, May, August, and November. Then your chart would look like this: The biggest negative is -370 in April. So you have to add $370 in the first 4 months, or $92.50 per month. Let's say $93. That would give: Now you stay at least barely above water for the whole year. You could extend the chart our further, but odds are the exact numbers will change next year and you'll have to recalculate anyway. The more irregular the expenses, the more you  will build up just before the big expense hits. But that's the whole point of saving for these, right? If a $1200 bill is coming next week and you don't have close to $1200 saved up in the account, where is the money coming from? If you have enough spare cash that you can just take the $1200 out of what you would have spent on lunch tomorrow, then you don't need this sort of account." "Something I found helpful when I learned this, is to just use Excel to expand the series.   So start with A1 as ""175"", then in A2 put ""=175+(A1*1.004308)"" and paste that same formula down for a few hundred rows.  You'll find your answer on A216.  Most non-math-centric people don't have an intuitive grasp of how exponents (aka ""compounding""... and never mind the natural logarithms this is all derived from) behave; but you can play with the numbers ""unrolled"" in Excel to get a better idea of how they work. That formula is just applying 0.4308% interest every period (row), and adding in a fresh $175." "Fama-French would be a couple of names if you want to look at this from a value/growth dichotomy.  A simplified form of this was to take the stocks with a lower Price/Book Value that would be the value stocks while the others would be the growth.  The principle is that some of the beaten-down stocks will appreciate more than the growth stocks will.  6 Ways To Improve Your Portfolio Returns Today also makes note of the ""growth vs value"" split if you want another reference that way.  Historically, growth has been more volatile and produced lower returns, though past performance isn't necessarily always going to hold as some people like to invest in what is known as a ""slice & dice"" portfolio where a portion in invested in each of 4 corners: Large-growth, large-value, small-growth, and small-value.  Some may add in bonds, REITs, and foreign stocks but the idea is that in different years, different parts of the market will do better and this is a way to capture that in a sense." The issue I run into with that is that it does nothing to change the cash flows over the five years because it doesn't change any of the numbers across the board. This course has the worst worded assignments I have ever seen and I appreciate your assistance. He didn't lock in a growth rate of 4%. He locked in a yield of 4%. That's the amount the bond pays in interest on his original investment each year. If he just spends that money the bond will continue to pay 4% each year, but there's no growth. In order to get growth he has to reinvest the interest as it comes in; if he puts it into bonds, the return on that new money, and hence the growth, depends on the prevailing interest rate at the time that the interest is paid. That interest rate can be higher or lower than the original 4%; there's no connection between the two. "It's likely impossible to determine why premiums are increasing in a meaningful way; not only is the interrelationship between the various data points very complex, but some of the increases are likely due to decisions by people who do not and will not publicly post what they decided and why. However, it is possible to compare health insurance premium increases over time to see if the increases in employer-sponsored health insurance premiums are comparable or not to the pre-ACA timeframe. Since the ACA phased in over a few years, we can compare the period 2008-2010 ""pre-ACA"" and 2013-2015 ""post-ACA"", ignoring 2011-2012 as being unclearly affected by the ACA phase-in.  For this, I will look at single coverage premiums only for the purpose of simplifying the analysis. I found a good table of 2008-2010 premiums from the NCSL; they list the following: Kaiser Permanente had a good list for 2013-2015 here: From 2008-2010, the average growth was around 6% per year.  From 2013-2015, the growth averaged about 3%.  In both of these cases we are comparing total premiums (sum of employer and employee contributions). So, from a data-driven look, it seems that the premium growth is lower post-ACA than pre-ACA, so it's unlikely that the ACA could be accused of causing increased premium growth.  Of course, this is US-wide average, and on a state-by-state basis there may well be significant differences that may or may not be related to the ACA. One thing that is covered on the NCSL page linked above that is interesting: while the premium growth has slowed significantly (about 50% of the growth pre-ACA), health insurance premiums are a higher proportion of employee's wages, and that growth is continuing - because wage growth has not kept pace with inflation post-2008 recession.  Employee contributions also may be higher post-recession; many companies reduced their contribution percentage (as my then employer did, for example).   Finally, increases in the ACA plans are also commonly overstated.  They largely are in line with employer plans or even less.   In 2015, premiums were basically flat, decreasing slightly in fact - see the KFF analysis here.  2016 saw a 3.6% by this methodology (see the 2016 analysis).   It's very easy to cherrypick examples that are favorable to any interpretation from the data, though; there are such big swings as a result of the different conditions in the marketplaces that it's easy to pick a few that have high swings and claim the ACA has massive premium increases, or pick a few that have low swings and claim it's reducing costs." Is the following correct?  The firm needs $20,000 for the investment. It borrows $6,000 @ 7%, and supplies $14,000 in equity.  The interest expense on the borrowing is $420 ($6,000 times 7%).  After one year, the firm receives $26,500 from its investment. Subtract $6,420 (return borrowings plus interest). The firm is left with $20,080. Divide by starting equity of $14,000. Subtract 1 from the ratio.  **Levered return on equity is 43.4%.** http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/oct/16/tax-biggest-us-companies-uk#zoomed-picture  Has a nice infographic (and an actual infographic, not merely a diagram or picture as too many people on this sight seem think infographics are) on a bunch of large US companies with their turnover, net profits tax paid and percentage of net profit paid as tax. The headline is totally misleading.  Construction costs have risen by 30% according to the statistic. This is not construction wage growth by 30%. They don't address how much construction wage growth has actually occurred.  This increase in cost will be pushed onto the consumer. Increase in cost by 30% means people will have to get used to paying 30% more for construction services. Honestly, I’m not sure I understand your point. The figures suggest to me that the business invests (higher capex and amortisation) and grows it’s revenues and cash flow.  D&amp;A can be higher than new capex for a number of reasons including accelerated amortisation for tax purposes.  Why is D&amp;A contribution (actually i prefer to separate the concepts of P&amp;L and cash flow) to operating cash flow a problem or why does it evidence manipulation?