How is the 130479.79 Value Calculated in this Retirement Calculator?

  • Thread starter Thread starter brian110872
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculator
brian110872
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
On this chart:
http://www.banksite.com/calc/retire?with=30000&lngt=5&lngt=5&pay2=0.0&intr=7.5&outt=HTML+Tables
how did they calculate 130479.79? I know how they got the "Interest" and "End Bal" just not the 130479.79. Anyone have any suggestions?
Here is the original form:
http://www.banksite.com/calc/retire

Thank You,
Brian
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
In this example, the objective is to be able to withdraw $30,000 per year from savings. It assumes 7.5% interest (it's obviously very old!). The "end balance" is, of course,0 by definition.

Suppose you had X dollars in the bank, drawing 7.5% simple interest.
After 1 year, before you withdraw anything, you would have the original X plus interest, (0.075)(30000) or a total of (1+ 0.075)X= 1.075X. Now, you withdraw 30000. You have 1.075X- 30000 left.

For the second year, repeat that with initial amount 1.075X-30000. Before withdrawing anything, but including interest, you would have
1.075(1.075X- 30000)= (1.075)2X- (1.075)(30000). After withdrawing your 30000 you will have (1.075)2X- (1.075)(30000)- 30000 left.

For the third year, you are starting with that amount so, before withdrawal you would have 1.075((1.075)2X- 1.075(30000)- 30000)= 1.0753X- 1.0752300000- 1.075(30000). Now withdraw 30000 from that: 1.0753X- 1.0752300000- (1.075)30000- 30000= 1.0753X- 30000(1+ 1.075+ 1.0752.

Do you see the pattern? After n years you will have 1.075nX- (30000)(1+ 1.075+ ...+ 1.075n-1. In particular, after 5 years you would have 1.0755X- (30000)(1+ 1.075+ 1.0752+ 1.0753+ 1.0754. Since in this example you are apparently only expecting to die 5 years after retirement, after 5 years, the "final balance" is to be 0. It's not that hard to calculate that 1+ 1.075+ 1.0752+ 1.0753+ 1.0754= 5.808 approximately. Solve the equation 1.0755X= 30000(5.808). I get slightly less than 130480. Try deducting the 30000 before adding the interest. That would be the same as replacing X by X-30000.
 
Thanks for the reply HallsofIvy. For 1.075^5(X)= 30000(5.808), I'm getting X=121368. How am I miscalculating?
 
brian110872 said:
Thanks for the reply HallsofIvy. For 1.075^5(X)= 30000(5.808), I'm getting X=121368. How am I miscalculating?
You're not, you've solved for x almost perfectly, actually your missing a few decimal places there, can I assume you are using mathematica?
 
Zurtex said:
You're not, you've solved for x almost perfectly, actually your missing a few decimal places there, can I assume you are using mathematica?
What is mathematica?
 
HallsofIvy,
I'm not sure how you got 130480 from 1.0755X= 30000(5.808).

Thank You,
Brian
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top