All the negative numbers together don't add up to 19% so the explanation of 119% is still confusing. It seems to me the table says one thing then the author of the article says another. I don't have any reason to believe the table was manipulated but I'm also having trouble understanding how the author misread the numbers. ps. It's entirely possible that I'm misreading the table but the article certainly doesn't help me understand how to arrive at 87.4%.
2/12/14 at 3:23pm