| For a particular stakeholder group, at the end of Year 1 the count is 100 and at the end of Year 2 the count is 110. There are 10 new entrants in Year 2, so Cohort 1 is 100 and Cohort 2 is 10. | | For a particular stakeholder group, at the end of Year 1 the count is 100 and at the end of Year 2 the count is 110. There are 10 new entrants in Year 2, so Cohort 1 is 100 and Cohort 2 is 10. |
− | Imagine that the count drops to 99 at the end of Year 3. This would be a 10% reduction compared to the count at the end of the previous year (99/110 - 1). There are no new entrants in Year 3, so Cohort 3 = 0. Cohorts 1 and 2 are both multiplied by 0.9 (1 - 0.1), so Cohort 1 shrinks from 100 to 90 (100*0.9) and Cohort 2 shrinks from 10 to 9 (10*0.9). Combined, the sum of the reductions in Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 is 11 (10 + 1), which equals the reduction from 110 to 99 in the stakeholder count. More stakeholders left Cohort 1 than Cohort 2 because Cohort 1 is bigger. In Year 4, if the stakeholder count drops again, the new reduction would be applied to the remaining counts from Cohorts 1 and 2 (not their initial counts). In other words the reductions are applied cumulatively (i.e., they "stack"). | + | Imagine that the count drops to 99 at the end of Year 3. This would be a 10% reduction compared to the count at the end of the previous year (99/110 - 1). There are no new entrants in Year 3, so Cohort 3 = 0. Cohorts 1 and 2 are both multiplied by 0.9 (1 - 0.1), so Cohort 1 shrinks from 100 to 90 (100*0.9) and Cohort 2 shrinks from 10 to 9 (10*0.9). Combined, the sum of the reductions in Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 is 11 (10 + 1), which equals the reduction from 110 to 99 in the stakeholder count. More stakeholders left Cohort 1 than Cohort 2 because Cohort 1 is bigger. In Year 4, if the stakeholder count drops again, the new reduction would be applied to the ''remaining'' counts from Cohorts 1 and 2. In other words the reductions are applied cumulatively (i.e., they "stack"). |