0
$\begingroup$

The question

The IRR of two sets of cashflow is not (necessarily) the weighted average of each set of cashflows. E.g. if

A = (-100,110)
B = (-80,100)
C = (-180,210)

then

IRR(A) = 10%
IRR(B) = 25%
IRR(C) = 16.666%
unweighted average IRR = 17.5%
weighted average IRR = 20%

However, is there a mathematical proof that the IRR of the sum must be within the range of the two IRRs, i.e. that

IRR(A) <= IRR(A+B) <= IRR(B) ?

Intuitively, I get the concept, but is there a generic mathematical proof, that holds regardless of the items in the cashflow, i.e. regardless of the degree of the polynomials?

There was a discussion here, but I am not sure it fully answers the question (or, if it does, I'm not sure I fully understood it), especially for a general case regardless of the degree of the polynomial.

The background

Note: the rest below is just for colour.

Why do I need this? Because I need to prove that the IRR of one project + the same project starting a few periods laters is the same as the IRR of the single project, e.g.:

IRR(-100,0,121) = IRR(-100,0,121,-100,0,121)

We see that

IRR(-100,0,121) = 10%

If the cashflows start some periods later, it can be proven that the IRR is still the same:

IRR(0,0,0,-100,0,121) = 10%

The IRR of the sum is still the same in this example,

IRR(-100,0,121,-100,0,121)= 10%

but is there a mathematical proof for this? Proving that

IRR(A) <= IRR(A+B) <= IRR(B)

would prove it, because delaying cashflows doesn't affect the IRRs. Proving this is quite simple. Say the cashflow is over 3 periods, and the IRR is the i which solves:

$a + \frac{b}{(1+i)} + \frac{c}{(1+i)^2} = 0$

Delaying it by one period simply means dividing each item by $(1+i)$:

$0 + \frac{a}{(1+i)} + \frac{b}{(1+i)^2} + \frac{c}{(1+i)^3} = 0$

which can of course be simplified away.

So, to recap, we know that

IRR(A) = x
IRR(0,0,A) = x

if we can prove that IRR(A) <= IRR(A+B) <= IRR(B) then it follows that

IRR(A,0,A) = x , too
Improve this question
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ The statement that IRR(A) <= IRR(A+B) <= IRR(B) is not true in general, so you cannot use it to prove what you are trying to prove. $\endgroup$
    – Alex C
    Apr 28, 2019 at 14:40
  • $\begingroup$ @alex-c , can you show me a counter-example where IRR(A) <= IRR(A+B) <= IRR(B) doesn't hold? I must say I couldn't think of one. Also, do you maybe have any suggestions on how I could prove that IRR(A)=IRR([0,0,0,A])? Thanks! $\endgroup$
    – Pythonista anonymous
    Apr 28, 2019 at 14:56

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2
$\begingroup$

Another way to write:

IRR(A) = x and IRR(0,0,A) = x is:

PV(A;x)=0 and PV(0,0,A;x)=0

where PV=present value, and x is the discount rate. Since we are using the same discount rate x, we can just add these up:

PV(A,0,A;x)=0 which means that IRR(A,0,A) = x

Is it clear?

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, thanks! In fact, I now realise my question was actually rather banal :( As for the point raised by Alex-C, can you think of a counter-example where IRR(A) <= IRR(A+B) <= IRR(B) does not hold? $\endgroup$
    – Pythonista anonymous
    Apr 28, 2019 at 16:15
  • $\begingroup$ A=(-100,110) and B=(101,-101) is a counterexample. If you restrict A, B to have the sign always negative on first cashflow and positive on subsequent cashflows, the statement is true. $\endgroup$
    – dm63
    Apr 28, 2019 at 16:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For a proof: let IRR(A)=a, IRR(B)=b, and assume b>a. PV(A;x) and PV(B;x) are both decreasing functions of x , with PV(A;a)=0 and PV(B;b)=0. We have PV(A+B;a)=PV(A;a)+PV(B;a)=PV(B;a)>0. Also PV(A+B;b)=PV(A;b)+PV(B;b)=PV(A;b)<0. Then By the intermediate value theorem the function PV(A+B;x) has a root between a and b. $\endgroup$
    – dm63
    Apr 28, 2019 at 16:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.