Hi Joe(?)!

Thank you very much for your detailed answer! and I knwo patience is a
virtue, though sometimes it is difficult

i posted this question for a friend and many thanks from her - and me - for
these answers once again!

tom

" wrote:

tom ossieur wrote:
I add an example, hoping that it will stimulate replies:)

Patience is a virtue that you should learn. In any case, the example
does not help to understand whatever it is you are trying to do.

A B C D E F
year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
- - -9,024,420 -580,864 -85,079
Equity IRR 9.60% 9.60% 9.60%

In a later thread, you replace the first term (-9,024,420) with zero.
I will assume that is your intention, which forestalls some other
criticisms of this example.

(actually the table goes to 2029)

The example is not useful to me.

First, it is difficult to see how the IRR values should align with the
cash flows. That is not your fault: my newsreader does not do a good
job of presenting columnarized data.

Second, it might be helpful to see the formulas that you use to compute
the IRR. They should not all be the same, unless they align with the
zero (and "-") cash flows. If they are indeed all the same through the
year 2029, I suspect that you made one of several possible mistakes.
Some human errors that come to mind a (1) perhaps you used an
absolute cell reference (e.g. $B$3) for the starting cash flow; or (2)
perhaps you copied the IRR formula while you had manual calculation
enabled; or (3) perhaps the numbers are such that the IRR __appears__
to be the same (but it is not) up to the 4th fractional digit; or (4)
perhaps the IRR formula is completely wrong altogether; or ....

Third, in order to check your results, we need to see __all__ cash
flows all the way through 2029. Obviously that would be tedious to
show in a row. I suggest that you present the data in a column.

Shouldn't IRR starting from different years - assuming that the cashflow in
the starting year (2006 or 2007) are both zero -, both ending in 2029 give
different results?

I hope I answered that question in my response to the first article
that you posted in the thread. If not, please write back with more
questions.