Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Cyberchat > Non-Actuarial Topics
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

D.W. Simpson & Company International Actuary Jobs
  Canada  Asia  Australia  Life  Pension  Casualty
Bermuda, United Kingdom, Europe, Asia, Worldwide


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-27-2007, 05:34 PM
zeroEthix zeroEthix is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,786
Default Geometric Mean

I've been using the CAGR/IRR formula to figure return data...I understand the difference between arithmetic mean and geometric mean: simply (a+b)/2 and (a*b)^.5 respectively. What I can't figure out why the following example uses 1.60 and 1.20 for the second and third year returns. Using CAGR it gives me a return of 28.966% ((ending/beginning)^1/n) - 1...Little help please

For example, suppose you have an investment which earns 10% the first year, 50% the second year, and 30% the third year. What is its average rate of return? It is not the arithmetic mean, because what these numbers mean is that on the first year your investment was multiplied (not added to) by 1.10, on the second year it was multiplied by 1.60, and the third year it was multiplied by 1.20. The relevant quantity is the geometric mean of these three numbers.

The question about finding the average rate of return can be rephrased as: "by what constant factor would your investment need to be multiplied by each year in order to achieve the same effect as multiplying by 1.10 one year, 1.60 the next, and 1.20 the third?" The answer is the geometric mean . If you calculate this geometric mean you get approximately 1.283, so the average rate of return is about 28% (not 30% which is what the arithmetic mean of 10%, 60%, and 20% would give you).
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-27-2007, 05:57 PM
Baron Von Raschke's Avatar
Baron Von Raschke Baron Von Raschke is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Amerika, via East Berlin
Favorite beer: Schlitz
Posts: 8,467
Default

My guess is it is either a typo or the example was originally supposed to prove that returns with the same arithmetic mean would not yield the same geometric mean. The author must have got distracted or something.

If it was supposed to be the latter, a more educational example for investment purposes is to compare the aritmetic and geometric means for yearly returns of something like 100%, 100%, -100%. People often read about much higher arithmetic means of more volatile investments like small cap stocks and are mislead to believe that they also translate into much higher geometric means.
__________________
46 72 69 6E 6B 20 72 75 6C 65 73 21
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-27-2007, 06:02 PM
atomic's Avatar
atomic atomic is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,081
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeroEthix View Post
I've been using the CAGR/IRR formula to figure return data...I understand the difference between arithmetic mean and geometric mean: simply (a+b)/2 and (a*b)^.5 respectively. What I can't figure out why the following example uses 1.60 and 1.20 for the second and third year returns. Using CAGR it gives me a return of 28.966% ((ending/beginning)^1/n) - 1...Little help please

For example, suppose you have an investment which earns 10% the first year, 50% the second year, and 30% the third year. What is its average rate of return? It is not the arithmetic mean, because what these numbers mean is that on the first year your investment was multiplied (not added to) by 1.10, on the second year it was multiplied by 1.60, and the third year it was multiplied by 1.20. The relevant quantity is the geometric mean of these three numbers.

The question about finding the average rate of return can be rephrased as: "by what constant factor would your investment need to be multiplied by each year in order to achieve the same effect as multiplying by 1.10 one year, 1.60 the next, and 1.20 the third?" The answer is the geometric mean . If you calculate this geometric mean you get approximately 1.283, so the average rate of return is about 28% (not 30% which is what the arithmetic mean of 10%, 60%, and 20% would give you).
I compute , just as you mentioned.
__________________
Spoiler:
"No, Moslems don't believe Jesus was the messiah.

Think of it like a movie. The Torah is the first one, and the New Testament is the sequel. Then the Qu'ran comes out, and it retcons the last one like it never happened. There's still Jesus, but he's not the main character anymore, and the messiah hasn't shown up yet.

Jews like the first movie but ignored the sequels, Christians think you need to watch the first two, but the third movie doesn't count, Moslems think the third one was the best, and Mormons liked the second one so much they started writing fanfiction that doesn't fit with ANY of the series canon."

-RandomFerret
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-27-2007, 11:59 PM
4sigma's Avatar
4sigma 4sigma is offline
95% confidence man
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Somewhere near the mean
Studying for Group Health DP
Favorite beer: root
Posts: 13,213
Default

1.283 is the correct answer if the annual returns are 10%, 60%, and 20%. It looks like someone changed their mind mid writing the problem to use 10/50/30 instead of 10/60/20.
__________________
I am 95% confident.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.43737 seconds with 8 queries