
Originally Posted by
ronden
Thank you for your suggestion. I think I implemented your formula properly, but the result, -22.85., is not meaningful to me. Perhaps you can help illuminate further? My initial input is 4718, my aggregate output is 90,018. (The 20th year's output is 4290.) By my methods, I come up with a 0.449% decline / year. Thanks again.
Well as I stated in my second reply that I noticed your figures were declining by a constant RATE whereas the formula I listed in my first reply applies when figures decline by a constant AMOUNT.
And as I stated in my second reply that when figures are declining by a constant RATE a different equation is used which we are unable to solve using algebraic manipulation and we have to make use of iterative methods to find the growth or decline rate.
Here is the equation for this purpose
Initial Output = io
Aggregate Total = at
Decline rate = d
io (1-(1-d)^n) / (1-(1-d)) = at
or
-at + io (1-(1-d)^n) / (1-(1-d)) = 0
As it is clear looking at this equation that we are unable to solve for d using rules of algebra thus we have to use iterative methods
Here is a solution to your problem by using Newton Raphson method
As you noted it finds your decline rate of 0.499%
Now as I stated earlier that rather than inventing your own solutions to solve this problem, you may want to use this Excel GRADIENT function which uses a totally different equation and is a multi-purpose financial function that finds an arithmetic or geometric gradient.
And using tadGRADIENT I get a result of -0.499% the minus sign denoting a decline rate rather than an incline rate.
RATE |
0% |
TAXRATE |
0% |
NPER |
20 |
PMT |
-4718 |
PV |
0 |
FV |
90018 |
TYPE |
0 |
GTYPE |
0 |
COMPOUNDING |
1 |
PERIOD |
1 |
DISTRIBUTION |
1 |
GTYPE |
1 |
GRADIENT |
tadGRADIENT(0%,0%,20,-4718,0,90018,0,0,,1,1,1,1) |
GRADIENT |
-0.499% |
Bookmarks