Details

      Description

      I believe that the denominator in the Pduration formula should be log(1+rate), not log(rate)

      Actual:
      PDURATION=(log⁡(desiredValue)-log⁡(currentValue))/log⁡(rate)

      Expected:
      PDURATION=(log⁡(desiredValue)-log⁡(currentValue))/log⁡(1+rate)

      From wolfram the formula for interest calculations is
      FV = PV(1 + r/f)^(nf)
      where
      FV = future value
      PV = present value
      r = interest rate
      f = compounding frequency
      n = number of periods

      Given that pduration makes no mention of any compounding frequency it should be assumed to be 1. so the formula becomes
      FV = PV(1 + r)^n

      In the case of PDURATION we want to solve for n given FV, PV, and r

      FV / PV = (1 + r)^n
      n = log_(1+r)(FV/PV) where log_(1+r) is log base 1+ r
      through change of base formula
      n = log_(1+r)(FV/PV) = log(FV/PV) / log(1+r) = (log(FV) - log(PV))/log(1+r) where the base of log is irrelevant so long as it is consistent.

      Below is a less rigorous justification for the (1+r) in the original equation:
      The (1+r) is originally present in the compound interest formula as r is simply the rate of interest, not the growth factor. An investment that grows as 6% would have r = 0.06. Over 1 term r*PV evaluates to only the growth of the investment. We must add to the growth the value of the original investment. so FV = PV + r*PV = PV*(1+r). Hence the original growth factor in the formula must be (1+r) and the derivation from that to the PDURATION formula has already been shown.

        Attachments

          Activity

            People

            • Assignee:
              rcweir Robert Weir (Inactive)
              Reporter:
              ericpa Eric Patterson
            • Watchers:
              0 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: