Annuity vs PV vs Sinking Fund

Goji

New member
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Messages
5
Why is the denominator different between these three items? My teacher went over it briefly but it was mainly from a "memorize the formula" point of view. I'm trying to figure out why it is done like this.

For a sinking fund it is divided by: [(1 + r/n)^nt - 1]
- sinking fund is set aside to put money into (to pay off debt later on) (money in)

For an annuity it is divided by: r/n
- money that periodically flows out of to make payments (money out)

For the PV it is divided by: (1 + r/n)^nt
- calculating present value from a future value

r = interest rate
n = number of periods
t = number of years
 
Why is the denominator different between these three items? My teacher went over it briefly but it was mainly from a "memorize the formula" point of view. I'm trying to figure out why it is done like this.

For a sinking fund it is divided by: [(1 + r/n)^nt - 1]
- sinking fund is set aside to put money into (to pay off debt later on) (money in)

For an annuity it is divided by: r/n
- money that periodically flows out of to make payments (money out)

For the PV it is divided by: (1 + r/n)^nt
- calculating present value from a future value

r = interest rate
n = number of periods
t = number of years
You mentioned a denominator but failed to mention formulas for what? None of your formulas presented make sense for annuities or PV.
 
Last edited:
Is this what you're talking about?
1. PV of Annuity Immediate (i.e cash flows occur at the end of the period):
[math]PV_{annuity}=(1+i)^{-1}+(1+i)^{-2}+\dots +(1+i)^{-t}= \frac{(1+i)^{-1}-(1+i)^{-(t+1)}}{1-(1+i)^{-1}}= \frac{1-(1+i)^{-t}}{i}[/math]2. Accumulated Value of Annuity Immediate:
[math]AV_{annuity}=PV_{annuity}(1+i)^t=\frac{1-(1+i)^{-t}}{i}\cdot(1+i)^t=\frac{(1+i)^t-1}{i}[/math]3. Present Value of a single cash flow:
[math]PV=(1+i)^{-t}[/math]4.Future Value of a single cash flow:
[math]FV=(1+i)^{t}[/math]
 
Oh my, sorry!

PV Formula
P = A / (1 + r/n)^nt <-- So I understand we need to divide by interest rate because PV > than FV so we are making A smaller by dividing it by the denominator

A = amount in the future
P = principal (initial amount)
r = rate
n = number of times it compounds
t = number of years

Future Value of an Ordinary Annuity
A = m[((1 + r/n)^(nt)) -1] / r/n <-- But for an annuity we are looking for future value, why do we need to divide by r/n?
&
Future Value of an Annuity Due <-- I understand nt +1 because annuity due is made at beginning of period so there is 1 more period, but why divide by r/n?
A = m[((1 + r/n)^(nt+1)) -1] / r/n

A = amount in the future
m = periodic payment
r = rate
n = number of times it compounds
t = number of years

Sinking Fund
m = A(r/n) / [((1 + r/n)^nt) - 1] <-- here we are looking at periodic payment into a sinking fund given a future amount we need to be at. So for example, we need to pay 10,000 in 4 years, a bank can give us 3% interest compounded quarterly, how much do we need to pay each quarter to hit 10,000 in 4 years.

So it is similar to the PV formula above, but why is there a -1 at the end?

A = amount in the future
m = periodic payment
r = rate
n = number of times it compounds
t = number of years

I am trying to just understand the different components and understand the logic behind the formula. P = A / (1 + r/n)^nt makes sense since we are finding a smaller value today given a value in the future. But the other two I am having trouble understanding.
 
Last edited:
I think your teacher has failed you by telling you to memorize all of these formulas. All of it can derive from knowing a few fundamental concepts.


1. Time-value-Money:
It is the concept that a sum of money is worth more now than the same sum will be at a future date due to its earnings potential in the interim. So if you put $100 today (present value) in the bank and earn 5% of interest annually, then a year later you would get (future value) is
$100 + 5%*$100=$100(1+5%)=$105. So, in general, if interest compounds annually, then:
[math]A=P(1+r)^t \Lrarr \boxed{P=\frac{A}{(1+r)^t}}---(1)[/math]We extend this concept to multiple compound periods a year:
[math]A=P\left(1+\frac{r}{n}\right)^{nt} \Lrarr P=\frac{A}{\left(1+\frac{r}{n}\right)^{nt}}[/math]You only need to know equation (1), then adjust for compound periods and solve for P or A.


2. Ordinary Annuity aka Annuity Immediate (annually):
[math]P=m[(1+r)^{-1}+(1+r)^{-2}+\dots +(1+r)^{-t}]= m\cdot\frac{(1+r)^{-1}-(1+r)^{-(t+1)}}{1-(1+r)^{-1}}= \boxed{m\cdot\frac{1-(1+r)^{-t}}{r}}---(2)[/math]Again, extend equation (2) to n-compound periods, by adjusting your interest r.
[math]m\cdot\frac{1-(1+\frac{r}{n})^{-nt}}{r\div n}[/math]

3. Annuity Due: If you know the ordinary annuity, we can find the annuity due by discounting the ordinary annuity by 1 period. You don't need to memorize the annuity due formula.
[math]P^*=\frac{P}{1+r}[/math]Extend to multiple compound periods:
[math]P^*=\frac{P}{(1+\frac{r}{n})^{nt}}[/math]

4. Sinking Fund aka Accumulated value. Again, we need to know the ordinary annuity formula and adjust it by accumulating it in the future—no need to memorize the formula.
Assume compound annually,
[math]A=P(1+r)^t[/math]Extend it to multiply n-compounding periods
[math]A=P\left(1+\frac{r}{n}\right)^{nt}[/math]

5. Your example,
A=10,000, r=3%, n=4, t=4. Find m
First, find ordinary annuity (the only equation you need to know).
[math]P=m\cdot\frac{1-(1+\frac{r}{n})^{-nt}}{r\div n}= m\cdot\frac{1-(1+\frac{.03}{4})^{-4\cdot 4}}{.03\div 4}=m\cdot 15.02[/math]We want 10,000 in the future, so we accumulate the present value for 4 years (16 periods) and solve for m.
[math]\overbrace{\underbrace{10,000}_{\text{future value}}= \underbrace{m\cdot15.02}_{\text{present value}}\cdot\underbrace{\left(1+\frac{r}{n}\right)^{nt}}_{\text{adjust for interest}}}^{Equation 1} = m\cdot15.02\cdot\left(1+\frac{0.03}{4}\right)^{4\cdot 4} \implies m=590.59[/math]The main thing I hope you can take away is just by knowing the ordinary annuity formula you can answer all of the other ones by adjusting the interest. No need to memorize all of them! That's how all of the other formulas are derived. Lastly, there really isn't an interpretation for why we divide certain things. They are just results of the sum of geometric series and adjusting interest.
 
Last edited:
Oh, so there isn't really an interpretation as to why we divide by certain things. I kept thinking "well if PV is divided by (1 + r)^t then there must be a reason why Annuity is divided by only r (or r/n)."

So sinking fund makes sense to me, P (1 + r)^t <-- this is the future value I understand, a sinking fund is an amount we set aside (p) to pay off future debt so we have to multiply by the rate P can grow by.

Is it because annuity is payments we receive in the future? That is why to get future value we need to divide by r? Because money we receive in the future still needs to be discounted back to the present to get that "future value"? <-- I think this is how I logically see it in my head, not sure if it is right.

So now I am trying to wrap my head around the PV of annuity payments.

PV annuity = cash flow per period * ((1 - (1 + r)^-n) / r) <-- so this is the money we need to set aside now to produce a series of payments later

So a negative n means .. I'm lost again. Why is it negative periods of time? So negative exponent means we divide (1+r) by n times.. how does (1 - (1 + r)^-n) break down into a business sense. 1 - the int rate divided by itself n times = what meaning?

1.05^5 means you receive 5% compounded for the next 5 periods

1 - (1/(1.05)^5) <-- what does this mean in business/logical terms, does this some how translate to you pay 5% for 5 periods instead of you receive 5% for 5 periods? I guess that makes sense, we multiply when we receive, we divide when we pay? But why 1 - (divided rate)? Sorry scratching my head trying to make the connection between the business side and the math side.
 
Oh, so there isn't really an interpretation as to why we divide by certain things. I kept thinking "well if PV is divided by (1 + r)^t then there must be a reason why Annuity is divided by only r (or r/n)."

So sinking fund makes sense to me, P (1 + r)^t <-- this is the future value I understand, a sinking fund is an amount we set aside (p) to pay off future debt so we have to multiply by the rate P can grow by.

Is it because annuity is payments we receive in the future? That is why to get future value we need to divide by r? Because money we receive in the future still needs to be discounted back to the present to get that "future value"? <-- I think this is how I logically see it in my head, not sure if it is right.

So now I am trying to wrap my head around the PV of annuity payments.

PV annuity = cash flow per period * ((1 - (1 + r)^-n) / r) <-- so this is the money we need to set aside now to produce a series of payments later

So a negative n means .. I'm lost again. Why is it negative periods of time? So negative exponent means we divide (1+r) by n times.. how does (1 - (1 + r)^-n) break down into a business sense. 1 - the int rate divided by itself n times = what meaning?

1.05^5 means you receive 5% compounded for the next 5 periods

1 - (1/(1.05)^5) <-- what does this mean in business/logical terms, does this some how translate to you pay 5% for 5 periods instead of you receive 5% for 5 periods? I guess that makes sense, we multiply when we receive, we divide when we pay? But why 1 - (divided rate)? Sorry scratching my head trying to make the connection between the business side and the math side.
All those equations, as stated in response #5, can be derived EXACTLY. These are generally taught in high school (Algebra 2) along with manipulation of Arithmetic and Geometric progression (series). If you really want to know the derivation of those equations, you have to start with AP & GP series. Start with the following sum:

S = a + a*r + a*r^2 + .... + a*r^n = ??
 
1.05^5 means you receive 5% compounded for the next 5 periods

1 - (1/(1.05)^5) <-- what does this mean in business/logical terms, does this some how translate to you pay 5% for 5 periods instead of you receive 5% for 5 periods? I guess that makes sense, we multiply when we receive, we divide when we pay?
To find PV we divide (negative exponent) and to find FV we multiply.
[math]A=P(1+r)^t⇔P=\frac{A}{(1+r)^t}[/math]
Screen Shot 2022-01-26 at 6.39.26 AM.png

Screen Shot 2022-01-26 at 6.46.21 AM.png
But why 1 - (divided rate)? Sorry scratching my head trying to make the connection between the business side and the math side.
Do you know the sum of geometric series?
 
Last edited:
I did, but I don't remember so I googled.


While I try to wrap my head around this can I ask please.

PV annuity = C (cash flow per period) * ((1 - (1 + r/n)^(-n*r)) / r/n) <-- we can split this 1 / r/n and (1+r/n)^(-nr)

1. C / r/n <-- this equivalent to the entire amount at PV without adjustments

2. And we reduce that entire amount in 1. by (1- (1+r) ^-nr)) <-- I still don't quite get how ^-nr translates to business, we take (1+r)^nr = to compound and make things bigger, what does ^-nr mean? the opposite of compounding? and why is it 1 - (int rate)? So if we have (1+r)^nr -1 this I understand means we can see isolate the effective rate because we remove 1 at the end.

I think I'm having trouble understanding in this scenario when it is moving in the opposite direction (1 - rate) and rate^neg power. Moving forward (1 + r)^nr -1, I understand because we are subtracting by 1 we isolate the effective interest rate.
 
Last edited:
PV annuity = C (cash flow per period) * ((1 - (1 + r/n)^(-n*r)) / r/n)
Do you know how this formula was derived - mathematically? Study:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can follow the steps and I can mimic the derivation for . But I still don't understand why mathematically.

But I think I'm just looking for some intuition. For example PV * (1 + r)^t <- this makes sense to me because we are growing the present value of our money by int rate r over time t. We can do this step by step by multiplying each period by the int rate and taking that new value and multiplying it again until we reach the end of time t.

Ok for an FVOA can we try to break it down into pieces:
A = m[(1+r)^(nt) -1] / (r/n)

So to get future value A we take monthly payments multiply it by compound interest? Its like compound interest except without the 1, so its like an adjusted interest rate and we divide that by.. r/n which is.. int rate per period?

But to me if I follow some intuition, we are getting the interest payment ( monthly * some kind of compounded int rate) and we divide that int payment by a periodic interest rate.

So int payment / int rate (which is a decimal meaning the numerator gets much larger), this gives us the total future value? It's like I have 5% of a company, and my 5% is worth 100 dollars. What is the total value of the company. 100/.05 = total value right? So if I look at it with the same logic, monthly interest payment / int rate = total of all int payment?

I'm not necessarily looking for the mathematical derivation. I'm just trying to understand it logically same as how I understood PV + (PV* int rate) ^ (many times) = FV

And one of the formulas that I am having a really hard time putting some logic to is the PVOA.
P = monthly payments * (1 - (1+periodic int rate)^-nt ) / (r/n)

What in the world does this signify? So if I try to break it down we have the 1+r <- int rate but its negative which means its divided by 1. so 1 / (1+r)^nt <-- what does that mean?

Example: to compound forward 2 periods 1.05 * 1.05 = 1.1025 <-- so in 2 periods we make more than 10%
But to go backwards 2 periods its like 1.05 / 1.05 / 1.05 / 1.05 = .907 <-- I think I'm missing something, why are we dividing 4 times when it is 1.05^-2 <-- a -2 in the exponent

But why are we going backwards 2 periods? and then we subtract that by 1? That's so weird.

If:
int rate = 5
n = 1
t = 2

1.05^-2 = .907 <-- what is .907? so compared to now, 2 periods ago is 90.7% of now?
1 - .907 = .093 <-- what is .093? 9.3% of monthly interest payments?
 
I have not been following this thread closely, but it seems to me that you are asking for an intuitive understanding of certain formulas.

Personally, I think that [imath]FV = P * (1 + r)^n[/imath] is the easiest to understand IF you take a banker’s perspective on future investment opportunities and assume that the yield curve fully reflects the most likely pattern of future interest rate. My point here is that the calculation makes assumptions about reinvestment opportunities that are reasonable only for very restricted groups of economic actors.

In those situation where the future value formula makes sense, then obviously

[math]\text {present value} = \text {principal} \implies PV = \dfrac{FV}{(1+r)^n}.[/math]
When we get to the annuity formulas, the same contextual qualifications apply. And the logic is identical, but is applied to a series of payments at different times rather than a single payment at one time. And that series is of a mathematical type known as geometric. There is a general formula that is a shortcut for calculating the sum of such a series.

However, the mathematical formula on how to compute the sum of such a series does not depend on anything financial or commercial. It is simply a fact of advanced arithmetic. The only way to make it intuitive is to take enough geometric series, work out their sums the long way, and compare those sums to the results of the shortcut.

The formulas for the present and future values of an annuity mix economic logic and a non-obvious mathematical fact.
 
Top