If the third argument of MATCH() is omitted, it is assumed to be 1. If
match_type is 1, MATCH finds the largest value that is less than or equal to
lookup_value and so to return the correct value the lookup values should be
in sorted order.....If match_type is 0 MATCH finds the first value that is
exactly equal to lookup_value and the array can be in any order.

If this post helps click Yes
---------------
Jacob Skaria


"Imladrian" wrote:

Softwa Excel 2007 SP1

I'm using the FV function to compare future returns on investments. The
results of the six scenarios in row 36 are as follows:

C:36 $606,174.11
D:36 $549,893.90
E:36 $606,776.86
F:36 $531,553.59
G:36 $129,076.61
H:36 $121,795.72

In J:36 I have the function "=MAX(C36:H36)" which correctly outputs
"$606,776.86" as the largest value.

In K:36 I have the function "=MATCH(J36,C36:H36)" which correctlyl outputs
"3" as the result.

Below are the results of the same scenarios in row 37 (one additional
payment/investment period):

C:37 $609,686.10
D:37 $551,850.46
E:37 $608,361.51
F:37 $532,382.33
G:37 $133,293.94
H:37 $125,276.10

The same functions were included in columns J and K. The MAX function in
J:37 outputted the correct result: $609,686.10 (column C). However, the
MATCH function in K:37 incorrectly outputted "6" as the result.

On all subsequent rows column "C" has the highest return, with the MAX
function giving me the correct result and the MATCH function returning "6" to
me. The same thing happens whether I use the FV function in columns C-H or
copy and paste just the values; the MATCH function gives me bad information.
I've included the results from rows 36 & 37 below for ease of 'copy and
paste'.

Row 36:
$608,524.17 $551,203.14 $607,837.23 $532,108.14 $131,877.65 $124,107.29

Row 37:
$609,686.10 $551,850.46 $608,361.51 $532,382.33 $133,293.94 $125,276.10

Any help would be greatly appreciated!