0
$\begingroup$

I was able to prove that, for positive Cash Flows $f_i$ and any value of $f_0$, the $NPV$ function is decreasing in $r$, hence, for $r_m<r_p=IRR$, then $NPV(r_m)>NPV(r_p)=0$.

$$ NPV(r,f_i)=\sum_{i=0}^n{1\over(1+r)^i}f_i $$

But I cannot prove or disprove with a proof or a simple counterexample that for any positive or negative Cash Flows $f_i$, $r_m<r_p$ implies or not implies $NPV(r_m)>NPV(r_p)$.

In most cases, I have $f_0<0$ (for funding the project) and $f_n>0$ (for the final return), and the rest of cash flows reasonably less than the funding amount $|f_i|<f_0$. Perhaps I am missing some financial condition for a balanced Statement which allows this to be true always?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ No it is not always true. It depends on the number of changes of signs in the cash flows $f_i$ , doesn't it? Try cash flows with 2 changes of sign, positive, negative, positive again. There can be a hump in the NPV curve, and 2 rates where NPV = 0. $\endgroup$
    – noob2
    Apr 4 at 0:23
  • $\begingroup$ Sounds correct, though for some reason I have been unable to pass from the $NPV(IIR)=0$ case into a $NPV(r_m)>0$ case for $r_m<r_p$, $f_0<0$ and $f_n>0$ $\endgroup$
    – Brethlosze
    Apr 4 at 2:12
2
$\begingroup$

Try $f_0=-0.9975, f_1=2.9975, f_2=-3, f_3=1$. This should have 3i IRRs, namely -5%, 0 and 5% with the desired behavior between about -3% and +3%.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ But in this we do not have $|f_i|<|f_0|$, which is what we are looking for, for a initial funding greater than the cashflows. $\endgroup$
    – Brethlosze
    Apr 6 at 3:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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