I’m trying to understand if “compound annual growth rate” is appropriate when applied to non-financial measurements. For example, when that term (and the appropriate calculation) is applied to money growth, it makes sense because the money we earned in the previous period is added to the principal and is contributing to the growth of our money in the current period – i.e., the compounding effect.
However, I feel as though the term (and the calculation) is inappropriately applied to many non-financial measurements. For example, let’s say we’re measuring “units sold” instead of money. Since the units we sold last period do not contribute to any growth in units sold in the current period, it doesn’t make sense to me that we could use the same term (and calculation) to interpret the results.
While there are lots of references across the ‘net that use CAGR in non-financial calculations, they all seem to reference sources that trace back to examples using only financial measurements. Calculating population growth would be one of few non-financial measurements where CAGR makes sense, so do most people get it wrong by using CAGR for non-financial calculations such as units sold or is there something I’m misunderstanding?
