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."
There is no generic formula as such, but you can work it out using all known incomes and expenses and by making some educated assuption. You should generaly know your buying costs, which include the purchase price, legal fees, taxes (in Australia we have Stamp Duty, which is a large state based tax when you purchase a property). Other things to consider include estimates for any repairs and/or renovations. Also, you should look at the long term growth in your area and use this as an estimate of your potential growth over the period you wish to hold the property, and estimate the agent fees if you were to sell, and the depreciation on the building. These things, including the agent fees when selling and building depreciation, will all be added or deducted to your cost base to determine the amount of capital gain when and if you sell the property. You then need to multiply this gain by the capital gains tax rate to determine the capital gains tax you may have to pay. From all the items above you will be able to estimate the net capital gain (after all taxes) you could expect to make on the property over the period you are looking to hold it for. In regards to holding and renting the property, things you will need to consider include the rent, the long term growth of rent in your area, and all the expenses including, loan fees and interest, insurance, rates, land tax, and an estimate of the annual maintenance cost per year. Also, you would need to consider any depreciation deductions you can claim. Other things you will need to consider, is the change in these values as time goes by, and provide an estimate for these in your calculations. Any increase in the value of land will increase the amount of rates and the land tax you pay, and generally your insurance and maintenance costs will increase with time. However, your interest and mortgage repayments will reduce over time. Will your rent increases cover your increases in the expenses. From all the items above you should be able to work out an estimate of your net rental gain or loss for each year. Again do this for the number of years you are looking to hold the property for and then sum up the total to give a net profit or loss. If there is a net loss from the income, then you need to consider if the net capital gain will cover these losses and still give you a reasonable return over the period you will own the property. Below is a sample calculation showing most of the variables I have discussed. It doesn't matter what industry. 25% *is* high growth. Especially for a company of that size. Their Debt/Equity was flat from '14 to '15, decreased in '16, and has decreased again LTM. And they aren't issuing equity, so how are they financing themselves?  Their inventory turnover has been greater than 8x since 2012 because a lot of their sales aren't actually held as inventory. So with AWS as the huge growth engine, along with Amazon Prime, and a significant portion of sales not tied to inventory, I'm not sure why you think the key driver of this equity will be inventory turns. That's just such a value play and frankly, I think, not that relevant to Amazon's future growth potential.  Almost all high growth equities are valued on a FY1 P/E ratio. That ratio is comped out on other metrics like same store sales (retail), average monthly users (social media), etc. and some sense of how those metrics convert to future earnings.  I personally think this method makes sense. Due to the compounding nature of growth rates and the high variability you are never going to get seriously comfortable with you future earnings projections. You basically say what are earnings going to be for the next 12 months and then express growth potential beyond that, the quality of NTM earnings and your uncertainty by adjusting the P/E. This diagram is very misleading. At first glance readers might think that the size of the bubble are the areas working class people cant afford to live in. In reality, its only cities that become too expensive for blue collars..which has always been the case. Outside of the Bay area and LA, MOST of Cali is actually cheap(er) to live in, and is comprised of many rural communities. If you didn't have deposits, then the growth rate is simply ((p1/p0)^(1/t))-1, where p0 is the initial balance, p1 is the current balance, and t is the number of periods. For example, suppose you started the account with $100,000 in 2000. It's now 2015 -- 15 years later -- and the balance is $240,000. So the growth is: If you're making regular deposits, especially if you're making deposits of unequal amounts, the problem becomes much more complex. The easiest thing to do is probably to create a spreadsheet. Make a column for principle, a column for deposit amount, and a column for percent growth that period. Assuming A is principle and B is deposit, then the formula for growth C is =((A2-A1-B1)/A1-1)*100. Copy this formula down the column and Excel should automatically adjust the row numbers. Assuming you put one row for each month you can see the growth (or loss) month by month. You can get a general idea of what your overall growth rate has been by taking the average of the monthly amounts, but this would not be a truly accurate measure of your total growth because presumably (hopefully) you have more money in the later months than the earlier months. But it would be a good measure of how your investments are doing. The problem is, everyone feels pressure to grow. M&amp;A is no longer just about cost synergies, but increasingly about revenue synergies and acquiring products or services that demonstrate growth with an ongoing runway.  I see too many issues where acquires impede on the growth of their new acquisition, thus resulting in a huge failure.  But today, it's a grow or die mindset (become an acquisition target or free full towards bankruptcy). Many are willing to overpay for growth so that they can continue on. "The other two folks here are right with the math and such, so I'll just throw some intuition out there for you.  The basis for this valuation model is really just tacking the Gordon growth model (which is really just a form of valuing a perpetuity) onto a couple of finite discounted cash flows. So that ending part is the Gordon growth model *at the future point* discounted back to the present.  The Gordon growth model uses a ""next period"" dividend for the very simple reason that it's the next one you'd get if you bought the stock.  Is that explanation clear enough, or were some of these points not adequately explained in your class? I'll help a bit more, if I can." 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. Essentially, yes, Peter Lynch is talking about the PEG Ratio. The Price/Earnings to Growth (PEG) Ratio is where you take the p/e ratio and then divide that by the growth rate (which should include any dividends).  A lower number indicates that the stock is undervalued, and could be a good buy. Lynch's metric is the inverse of that: Growth rate divided by the p/e ratio.  It is the same idea, but in this case, a higher number indicates a good value for buying. In either case, the idea behind this ratio is that a fairly priced stock will have the p/e ratio equal the growth rate.  When your growth rate is larger than your p/e ratio, you are theoretically looking at an undervalued stock.