- 32 -
rate based on growth within the consumer electronic products
industry and normal inflationary price increases, while Mr.
Kramer limited his growth rate to the rate of inflation. Neither
of these estimates finds support in the record. Mr. Sliwoski’s
6-percent growth rate is based on the consumer electronics
industry as a whole and is not tailored to Renier’s specific
product mix. Renier did not sell personal computers or cellular
telephones, both of which exhibited very high growth rates and
were included in Mr. Sliwoski’s growth-rate estimate. As our
findings indicate, the national annual compound growth rate for
the items in Renier’s product mix, weighted to reflect the
percentage of sales of each, was only 4.15 percent from 1989
through 1993. Although Renier’s actual sales increased at a
compound rate of 8.3 percent from July 1988 through June 1993,
the majority of that increase occurred in Renier’s fiscal year
ended June 30, 1993. Sales in that year, however, were
substantially boosted as a result of a major flood in the spring
of 1993.20 If Renier’s fiscal year ended June 30, 1993, is
excluded, Renier’s compound growth rate equals just 3.8 percent,
or slightly less than the national average for Renier’s product
mix. We are thus faced with the problem of how to account for
Renier’s bumper sales during 1993, only a portion of which should
20 Although the flood likely also boosted sales in the
fiscal year that began on July 1, 1993, Mr. Sliwoski did not
factor any of this period into his estimate of Renier’s growth
rate.
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011