+0

# Think about a product with value 1. The owner sells at first x products. Then he sells 10 percent more of this x products. Then he sells 10 percent more of the second order. Then he sells 10 percent more of the third order. That goes on and on. How many products or x quantity of products has he sold after his lets say 10 order.

0
304
3

Think about a product with value 1. The owner sells at first x products. Then he sells 10 percent more of this x products. Then he sells 10 percent more of the second order. Then he sells 10 percent more of the third order. That goes on and on. How many products or x quantity of products has he sold after his lets say 10 order.

Guest Mar 26, 2017
#1
+7002
0

You do \(x+(1+10\%)x+(1+10\%)^2x+(1+10\%)^3x\)

which is 4.641x

MaxWong  Mar 26, 2017
#2
0

This is a simple exponential growth of 10% per year over a period of 10 years.

So, x products will grow to: x * 1.10^10 =2.5937424601x.

Guest Mar 26, 2017
#3
+1133
0

Mr. Banker, I was playing monopoly with my dog and cat again, just waiting for you chime in.

My cat was the banker this time and he hadn’t embezzled any money yet.  I asked him why and he said he was too excited about reading your newest post. For some reason my cat likes you. There is no accounting for his taste though; he likes mice and rats–especially rats.

Anyway, to the point: while the formula you present here is correct, there isn’t any explicit time involved in this question. Nope, just orders (or invoices, if you prefer). It might be a day, a week, a month, or years between the orders.  Your presentation would only be correct if the owner generated one sales invoice per year.  If that’s the case, he should fire himself. Probably, he just needs to fire his banker.

I understand that in banker theory, time equals money, but really, it’s what one does in time that counts.   The asker can probably figure that out though, he posted a reasonably articulated question, so he probably knows to substitute the order number for the time in this equation—which is impressive considering a banker didn’t.

You know, there’s a human who works for Lancelot Link’s A.P.E Company; he’s one of the very few humans in his employ. He’s the company’s principal investment banker.  Now, I would have thought that a genetically enhanced chimp would fill such an important position. I asked Lancelot why. He explained that while a genetically enhanced chimp would be vastly superior to a human, it would also be difficult to detect the sophisticated embezzlement schemes he would capitalize on. It’s much, much easier to catch humans.

Chimp Loki discovered a genetic marker that is very common in human bankers and extremely common in investment bankers. I asked chimp Loki to explain. What he said was quite funny, but shocking–so shocking, I’m sure one or more of the moderators will delete it, after reading it –maybe while laughing.  Because of the deletion risk, I will include it in a separate post.

GingerAle  Mar 26, 2017