rwk, I can see how it seems that way,
but, there are no straight lines in any of the numbers I am using (with the exception of the hypothetical flat expenses (in which case the product of X*1.0 will of course return X).
All of the numbers generated are rates applied iteratively to base values. A simple click on any of the columns or the chart I'm looking at graphs as curves.
What I posted is the values dropping out at the end, to the extent they appear to be the result of straight lines is a consequence of the size of the base and magnitude of the rate. The only other "straight line" component is simply applying a fixed constant for the size of a "deal" e.g. "BASF-like deal"
Folks in these parts frequently refer to my numbers as straight lines, which is entirely false. It seems folks require much higher growth rates and more obvious rockets to see that there is nothing straight about the line.
Finally, a requirement for a tautological argument would be that the "straight lines" to which you refer were also parallel or at least that the slope of revenue was = or less than the slope of expenses. There are bazillions of straight revenue lines (a set that does not include the lines I produce) that when summed against straight expense lines (which I also don't produce less the one stated case of "keeping expenses flat") that transit quite easily from a "losing earnings position" to an extrapolated gain.
The above content is my opinion.
AI
