The Sad Man
10-18-2005, 03:29 PM
Ok, I'm totally baffled on the calculations concerning the unwinding of the discount by years in the US method for calculating the ambivalence point.
Let's assume for a minute that his 1999, 2000, and 2001 breakdown of 131,271, 86,837, and 51,897 is correct. The total of these 3 terms, 270,005 is discounted by taking the PV of the string of payments:
131,271*(1.05)^-.5 + 86,937*(1.05)^-1.5 + 51,896*(1.05)^-2.5 = 254,754. So far so good.
But now let's look at the acutal breakdowns of 1999-2001.
Supposedly you allocate the discount by:
Paid + (Change in reserves)*IRS tax factor
So let's try 1999:
500,000 + (500,000-1,000,000)*..................
I just realized what was going on. The sadist changed the IRS factor in 12/99. .722532 and .729995 look awfully similar when they're crammed into that footnote. What a terrible presenation. I hope we get a simplified version of this on the exam.
Let's assume for a minute that his 1999, 2000, and 2001 breakdown of 131,271, 86,837, and 51,897 is correct. The total of these 3 terms, 270,005 is discounted by taking the PV of the string of payments:
131,271*(1.05)^-.5 + 86,937*(1.05)^-1.5 + 51,896*(1.05)^-2.5 = 254,754. So far so good.
But now let's look at the acutal breakdowns of 1999-2001.
Supposedly you allocate the discount by:
Paid + (Change in reserves)*IRS tax factor
So let's try 1999:
500,000 + (500,000-1,000,000)*..................
I just realized what was going on. The sadist changed the IRS factor in 12/99. .722532 and .729995 look awfully similar when they're crammed into that footnote. What a terrible presenation. I hope we get a simplified version of this on the exam.