|
|
|
date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 17:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
group: microsoft.public.excel
back
PV, Annuity, Lump Sum
I am looking at John Walkenbach's Excel 2007 Formulas. On page 302, he
has the result of a formula that I think is an error. I am not
confident enough to be sure. In fact, my answer doesn't look right.
The formula is based on the following scenario:
Your brother-in-law wants you to invest in his carpet cleaning
business. If you'll invest $50,000 now, he will pay you $200 per month
for five years and also pay you $60,000 at the end of the five years.
Are you making a good investment?
Here are the arguments:
Rate: 0.8%
Period: 60
Payment: $200
FV: $60,000
Type: 1
Walkenbach's answer: $45,958.83 based on this formula: =PV(0.8%, 60,
200, 60000, 1)
My answer: $69,309.80 based on this formula: =PV(0.8%/12, 60, 200,
60000, 1)
The difference between the two answers is in the first argument. I
can't understand why you do not divide the rate by 12 since we are
dealing with monthly payments.
Thanks
date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 17:18:33 -0700 (PDT)
author: unknown
Re: PV, Annuity, Lump Sum
On Jul 4, 5:18 pm, ibvalent...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I am looking at John Walkenbach's Excel 2007 Formulas. On page 302, he
> has the result of a formula that I think is an error. I am not
> confident enough to be sure. In fact, my answer doesn't look right.
> The formula is based on the following scenario:
>
> Your brother-in-law wants you to invest in his carpet cleaning
> business. If you'll invest $50,000 now, he will pay you $200 per month
> for five years and also pay you $60,000 at the end of the five years.
> Are you making a good investment?
>
> Here are the arguments:
>
> Rate: 0.8%
> Period: 60
> Payment: $200
> FV: $60,000
> Type: 1
>
> Walkenbach's answer: $45,958.83 based on this formula: =PV(0.8%, 60,
> 200, 60000, 1)
>
> My answer: $69,309.80 based on this formula: =PV(0.8%/12, 60, 200,
> 60000, 1)
>
> The difference between the two answers is in the first argument. I
> can't understand why you do not divide the rate by 12 since we are
> dealing with monthly payments.
>
> Thanks
I just found the answer to my own question. What I just discovered is
the Walkenbach already converted the first argument to a monthly rate.
Sorry, if I wasted anybody's time.
date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 17:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
author: unknown
|
|
