3 ms·
> the data would look nearly flat with a 0-100% range — and for what reason? To show honestly that the change is barely noticeable. An even more useful chart
by dingaling 8y ago
> the data would look nearly flat with a 0-100% range — and for what reason?
To show honestly that the change is barely noticeable.
An even more useful chart would have a y-axis from -50% to 50%. Then readers could see clearly that revenues were still growing, just not quite as fast as last period and well above any risk of contraction.
- fauigerzigerk 8y ago>To show honestly that the change is barely noticeable. Any claim that the chart is misleading would have to show that it is disproportionate relative to the impact of these "barely noticable" changes on discounted future cash flows, which is the rational basis for stock valuation. These changes, if sustained, are potentially very significant. >Then readers could see clearly that revenues were still growing But the target audience already knows that because it's a simple headline number. The chart zooms in on a particular aspect that matters a great deal to that audience - for good reason.