# Exploring Net Annual Cost of Investments: A Comparison

• IntegrateMe
In summary: A/P, 0.12, 11)" means! I'm not even sure what "A/P" , means. It clearly does not have to do with "investment A" because you use it in the calculation for B also.
IntegrateMe
I've been searching everywhere for an answer to this question but haven't been able to get one.

Let's say we're coming two things at 12% compounded annually.

A's investment, salvage, life, and expense/year are given as:

$50,000 ;$10,000 ; 11 ; $5000 While B's are:$40,000 ; $0 ; 10 ;$2000

If I do 50000(A/P, 0.12, 11) - 10000(A/F, 0.12, 11) + 5000 for A and 40000(A/P, 0.12, 10) + 2000 for B, can someone explain why this comparison "works?" For this problem in particular, we end up with the values $12000.94/year for A and$9000.08/year for B, so obviously B is better, but exactly what method is being used? I've tried researching "net annual cost" for a similar method, but haven't been able to find anything useful.

Any help?

Not if you don't tell us what "50000(A/P, 0.12, 11)" means! I'm not even sure what "A/P" , means. It clearly does not have to do with "investment A" because you use it in the calculation for B also.

What I would do is this- A has a total cost of $50000, but we can recover$10000 so it really costs $40000, and lasts 11 years so we can prorate it at 40000/11=$3636.36 per year. It also has a "cost per year" of 5000 so it costs us $8636.36 per year. B has a total cost of$40000 and we can recover nothing and lasts 10 years so we can prorate it at 40000/10= $4000 per year. It also has a "cost per year" of$2000 per year so it costs $6000 per year. It may be that you are doing a projected cost of not banking the money but that would require an assumed interest rate which is not given. HallsofIvy said: Not if you don't tell us what "50000(A/P, 0.12, 11)" means! I'm not even sure what "A/P" , means. It clearly does not have to do with "investment A" because you use it in the calculation for B also. What I would do is this- A has a total cost of$50000, but we can recover $10000 so it really costs$40000, and lasts 11 years so we can prorate it at 40000/11= $3636.36 per year. It also has a "cost per year" of 5000 so it costs us$8636.36 per year.

B has a total cost of $40000 and we can recover nothing and lasts 10 years so we can prorate it at 40000/10=$4000 per year. It also has a "cost per year" of $2000 per year so it costs$6000 per year. It may be that you are doing a projected cost of not banking the money but that would require an assumed interest rate which is not given.

He is using conversion factors that convert certain types of money to other types. The A/P converts a present value of money (i.e. $200 dollars today) to an equivalent annual rate at 12% per unit time over 11 units of time. The A/F does the same thing, except it does the conversion, using a future sum of money (you salvage the product at$10,000 in the future. Since there is an interest rate of 12%, you are effectively losing money by salvaging it then as opposed to now).

IntegrateMe said:
I've been searching everywhere for an answer to this question but haven't been able to get one.

Let's say we're coming two things at 12% compounded annually.

A's investment, salvage, life, and expense/year are given as:

$50,000 ;$10,000 ; 11 ; $5000 While B's are:$40,000 ; $0 ; 10 ;$2000

If I do 50000(A/P, 0.12, 11) - 10000(A/F, 0.12, 11) + 5000 for A and 40000(A/P, 0.12, 10) + 2000 for B, can someone explain why this comparison "works?" For this problem in particular, we end up with the values $12000.94/year for A and$9000.08/year for B, so obviously B is better, but exactly what method is being used? I've tried researching "net annual cost" for a similar method, but haven't been able to find anything useful.

Any help?

Why do you add and subtract the way you do? Measuring in $000s, the cash outflow stream for A is (50,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10-5) [we invest 50, then also spend 10 per year for 11 years, but get back 5 at the end of year 11]. The cash outflow stream for B is (40,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0-2). You can compute the net present value (NPV) of each stream and compare them (assuming that in A the first payment, 50, occurs at time t = 0, the next payment, 10, at t = 1 year, etc.) I get NPVs of $$\text{NPV}(A) = 50 + \sum_{n=1}^{11} \frac{10}{1.12^n} - \frac{5}{1.12^{11}} = 107.940\; (\000),$$ and $$\text{NPV}(B) = 40 - \frac{2}{1.12^{10}} = 39.356 \; (\000).$$ You could, of course, convert these to equivalent annual amounts, but why bother? RGV IntegrateMe said: I've been searching everywhere for an answer to this question but haven't been able to get one. Let's say we're coming two things at 12% compounded annually. A's investment, salvage, life, and expense/year are given as:$50,000 ; $10,000 ; 11 ;$5000

While B's are:

$40,000 ;$0 ; 10 ; $2000 If I do 50000(A/P, 0.12, 11) - 10000(A/F, 0.12, 11) + 5000 for A and 40000(A/P, 0.12, 10) + 2000 for B, can someone explain why this comparison "works?" For this problem in particular, we end up with the values$12000.94/year for A and \$9000.08/year for B, so obviously B is better, but exactly what method is being used? I've tried researching "net annual cost" for a similar method, but haven't been able to find anything useful.

Any help?

It works by converting the present money and future money into an equivalent annual rate, given i = 12% per term and there are 11 terms. You then sum up all of the annuities to find the total annual loss (which is positive here) for each option.

## 1. What is the net annual cost of investments?

The net annual cost of investments refers to the total expenses associated with owning and maintaining an investment over the course of one year. This includes any fees, taxes, and other costs associated with buying, holding, and selling the investment.

## 2. How is the net annual cost of investments calculated?

The net annual cost of investments is calculated by subtracting the total income earned from the investment (such as dividends or interest) from the total expenses associated with the investment (such as fees and taxes) over the course of one year.

## 3. Why is it important to consider the net annual cost of investments?

Considering the net annual cost of investments is important because it gives a more accurate representation of the true returns of an investment. An investment with a high return may also have high expenses, resulting in a lower net annual return.

## 4. What are some common expenses included in the net annual cost of investments?

Common expenses included in the net annual cost of investments include management fees, trading fees, custodial fees, and taxes on investment income.

## 5. How can investors use the net annual cost of investments to make informed decisions?

Investors can use the net annual cost of investments to compare different investment options and make informed decisions. By considering the net annual cost, investors can determine which investments may be more cost-effective and potentially have a higher net return.

• General Math
Replies
1
Views
2K
• General Math
Replies
9
Views
2K
• Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
5K
• Chemistry
Replies
5
Views
1K
• General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
3K
• Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
8K
• Cosmology
Replies
1
Views
1K
• General Engineering
Replies
16
Views
6K
• STEM Career Guidance
Replies
2
Views
2K
• Programming and Computer Science
Replies
29
Views
3K