Talk:Internal rate of return

message: The paper states that "A method called marginal IRR can be used to adapt the IRR methodology to this case." However, the method known as "Return Duration", developed in 2004 is more widely used and appropriate. More information can be found through the article: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3621/is_200401/ai_n9364326 or by a simple Google search. 
"interest rate" should be replaced with "discount rate"
Perhaps "Return Duration" deserves its own page. Jonathan G. G. Lewis 02:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative method to IRR and NPV

message: I see 193.30.236.72 has removed my statement that this is also known as dollar-weighted return. I wonder why, as this is a common term. See, for example, "Investments" (1999) by Sharpe, Alexander, and Bailey, page 827. If your objection to this is the US centrism of "dollar", then I propose "money-weighted return". This is to be contrasted with time-weighted return, which is just another name for the geometric mean rate of return. What do others think? Btyner 03:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  dollar-weighted return 

message: I'd suggest adding information regarding the cross over point method. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.70.183 (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross over point method 

message: The results of the example IRR calculation given in this article are incorrect! The stated result for the IRR of 14.3% is way off. The correct IRR from the data presented is 153.69%. In fact, it should be obvious from the input data that the IRR will be much greater than 14.3%.
71.229.207.177 (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Someone put some random numbers in there a few days ago.  I've restored the previous example which checks to 14.3. Kuru (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in IRR example 

message: Studying the Global Investment Performance Standards, I notice that Since Inception Internal Rate of Return (SI-IRR) for a period of less than a year is not annualized, but is a holding period return. 
Do we need a fuller explanation of SI-IRR? Jonathan G. G. Lewis 11:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: New section: Unannualized Internal Rate of Return

message: This section would appear to be the promotion of the author's FREQ methodology, with links to a commercial site. I would suggest this section be removed. (As an aside, the problem that this technique appears to try to be solving is better addressed with MIRR where interest and reinvestment rates can be specified.)Robertmryan (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The internal rate of return in personal finance 

message: in order to select a discount rate for an NPV calculation, you need to choose a discount rate that applies to projects of comparable risk. The NPV calculation confronts you with this question directly, and to compensate for lack of knowledge you might look at a few discount rates spanning a range to see what effect they have on your calculation. IRR does not confront you with this problem and therefore may lead you to confuse a higher IRR with higher quality when in fact it may simply indicate substantially higher risk with a lower NPV. IRR only works as a tool in a straightforward way when comparing similar projects with similar known risks; many businesses are like this, say oil drilling or home building; but never use IRR to compare two different businesses, it simply can't do that; or, if you understand enough about risk (and don't read the wikipedia page about it, that will get you nowhere) to make the right compensation, you will already understand that NPV is the only way to go. 68.175.11.48 (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true, IRR says nothing about risk, but without tweaking the NPV method to apply a risk-adjusted discount rate, neither does NPV. Explaining the discount rate adjustment for risk, using CAPM or whatever, does not belong in the IRR article, it belongs in the NPV or CAPM articles.  --Jonathan G. G. Lewis 06:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRR does not account for risk, therefore it is of little value 

message: standard label XIRR used to define  "internal rate of return for irregular cash flows", so IRR with non-regular dates.  See Basic-XIRR database-XIRR  --Krauss (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that the term IRR is in any way limited to regular cash flows. --Jonathan G. G. Lewis 05:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I have just added a section headed "exact dates of cash flows" to the mathematics section. --Jonathan G. G. Lewis 05:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Correction - I added it to the calculation section. --Jonathan G. G. Lewis 05:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Initial value seems off - it gives numbers that are very large, leading to a high probability of not converging; I'm currently using simple annualized ROI over tN-t0 without accounting for timing of investments as a start value, which works better, but also better ideas would be interesting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D2:3F24:0:465C:8F70:73C7:290 (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  article need explain also XIRR 

message: I found a lot of the article rambling and unstructured, so I have rewritten quite a bit. --Jonathan G. G. Lewis 05:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the RefImprove template back in place. The Definition and Uses sections contain lots of text but no citations  - none at all. Other sections are not quite so bad, but still could be greatly improved with further references. This seems to be a common problem with articles on financial mathematics. Readers who come to this article seeking knowledge need some way to verify that what they are reading is accurate and accepted by experts in the field. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Internal rate of return. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041028124340/http://hspm.sph.sc.edu/Courses/Econ/irr/irr.html to http://hspm.sph.sc.edu/courses/Econ/irr/irr.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Greetings Wikipedians! I commend all the contributors for their efforts. But this article lacks inline citations to reliable, verifiable sources. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, which states: "Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it....The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The policy is set forth here: Wikipedia policy on verifiability.
I hope someone will step forward to remedy this problem. There are no citations in the following sections, so we might start there: 
* Definition
* Uses (until the private equity subsection_
* Calculation - the heart of the article, yet no authority is given for any of the equations, formulas, etc
Unsourced material is subject to being removed. My qualifications for this subject are set forth in my user profile. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Following up on my 7 April 2021 comment (above), I am removing the Calculation and Mathematics sections because after more than two years, they still lack inline citations to reliable sources. I'm not saying those sections are incorrect. But they violate the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. It is my hope that someone will rebuild those sections with text and citations that comply with that policy. If that doesn't happen soon, I'll work on it myself as I have time. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have attempted to improve the article, adding multiple citations to reliable sources. My work here is finished, for the time being at least.BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Violates policy on verifiability

message: I have a concern about using the so-called NPV Calculator as an inline citation in the Calculation section. NPV Calculator is an app that you download from the Apple Store. It does display a formula like the one in the article. The only info as to the author is a link to a website: www.finlightened.com. Before we cite NPV Calculator in this article, I'd like to get some comfort that www.finlightened.com satisfies at least some of the Wikipedia guidelines, such as "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and  "editorial oversight." Let's keep in mind the guideline: "articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources." I'm going to be bold and delete the citation. But I'm willing to consider other points of view. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This was pretty obviously just somebody trying to spam their external link, there's no reason to be so concerned about reliability. Removing it was obviously correct. MrOllie (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPV Calculator: Reliable Source?