MihirBathia
I do not generally do a lot of Pre-thinking, but here I just thought either the answer could explain a relation between the sales and the stock appreciation, or there has to be another monetary aide. C and D are clearly not strengthening, B seems okay but does not necessarily translate to sales, and E speaks about the industry as a whole but would that help the argument massively? Whereas A also seems to fit my initial stint of Pre-thinking.
Please correct my reasoning if there seems to be any flaw in it.
MihirBathia Your pre-thinking correctly identified the core issue - we need either a direct relationship between sales and stock appreciation OR another monetary factor. I am just expanding on your thought process here:
Why Answer A Works Perfectly:If sales grow at \(8\%\) annually while expenses
decline, profit growth will be
much higher than \(8\%\). Here's a simple example:
- Year 1: Sales \(100\), Expenses \(80\), Profit \(20\)
- Year 2: Sales \(108\) (\(+8\%\)), Expenses \(75\) (declining), Profit \(33\)
- Profit growth: \(65\%\)!
This "profit amplification" effect directly explains how stock can appreciate at \(35\%\) while sales only grow \(8\%\).
Why B and E Fall Short:-
Choice B: A patent is great, but it would affect
sales growth - which the analyst already factored in at \(8\%\). It doesn't explain the gap.
-
Choice E: Industry comparison provides context but doesn't
explain how Company A achieves \(35\%\). It's like saying "everyone else is doing well" without addressing the specific sales-stock gap.