: What is the equation for an inflation adjusted annuity held in perpetuity? What is the equation relating an initial investment, a fixed rate of return, an inflation rate, and a perpetual payment adjusted for that inflation

Vote Up Vote Down   0 Reactions

Login to give Reaction!

The question lacks specificity, i.e. when does the initial investment occur, now or one period from now? If now then it is a perpetuity due.

I will consider under 2 scenarios, A and B, relating to the size of the initial investment.

A.
Assuming that the initial investment (C_0) occurs now and each payment thereafter has the relationship (1+g) with this investment then the relevant base equation is that for the present value of a growing perpetuity due, expressed in terms of C_0, i.e.

PVGPD= [C_0*(1+g)*(1+i)]/(i-g).

Now, to suit the question asked, we can see that i=fixed rate of return (f) and g = expected inflation rate (e) such that we can rewrite the equation as

PVGPD = [C_0*(1+e)*(1+i)]/(i-e].

We know that f = is a fixed nominal rate and must be adjusted for e to calculate the real rate (r) according to the equation f=(1+r)*(1+e)-1. Therefore

PVGPD = [C_0*(1+e)(1+(1+r)(1+e)-1)]/((1+r)*(1+e)-1-e]

Tidying up

PVGPD = {C_0*(1+r)(1+e)^2}/[r(1+e)]

PVGPD = [C_0*(1+r)*(1+e)]/r

B.
Assuming that the initial investment (X) is not equal to each subsequent perpetual payment (C_1) then the relevant base equation is that for the the initial investment plus the present value of a growing perpetuity, i.e.

PVGP= X + [C_1/(i-g)]

Rewriting

PVGP = X + [C_1/(f-e)]

Substituting

PVGPD = X + {C_1/[(1+r)*(1+e)-1-e]}

Tidying up

PVGPD = X + C_1/[r*(1+e)]

Vote Up Vote Down   0 Reactions

Login to give Reaction!

Let P denote the amount of the investment, R the rate of return and I the rate of inflation. For simplicity, assume that the payment p is made annually right after the return has been earned. Thus, at the end if the year, the investment P has increased to P*(1+R) and p is returned as the annuity payment.

If I = 0, the entire return can be paid out as the payment, and thus p = P*R.
That is, at the end of the year, when the dust settles after the return P*R
has been collected and paid out as the annuity payment, P is again
available at the beginning of the next year to earn return at rate R.
We have

P*(1+R) - p = P

If I > 0, then at the end of the year, after the dust settles, we cannot
afford to have only P available as the investment for next
year. Next year's payment
must be p*(1+I) and so we need a larger investment since the rate of return
is fixed. How much larger? Well, if the investment at the beginning
of next year is P*(1+I), it will earn exactly enough additional money
to pay out the increased payment for next year, and have enough
left over to help towards future increases in payments. (Note
that we are assuming that R > I. If R < I, a perpetuity cannot be created.)
Thus, suppose that we choose p such that

P*(1+R) - p = P*(1+I)

Multiplying this equation by (1+I), we have

[P(1+I)]*(1+R) - [p*(1+I)] = P*(1+I)^2

In words, at the start of next year, the investment
is P*(1+I) and the return less the increased payout
of p*(1+I) leaves an investment of P*(1+I)^2 for the
following year. Each year, the payment and the
amount to be invested for the following year increase
by a factor of (1+I). Solving

P*(1+R) - p = P*(1+I)

for p, we get

p = P*(R-I)

as the initial perpetuity payment and the payment increases
by a factor (1+I) each year. The initial
investment is P and it also increases by a factor of (1+I) each year.
In later years, the investment is P*(1+I)^n at the start
of the year, the payment is p*(1+I)^n and the
amount invested for the next year is P*(1+I)^{n+1}.

This is the same result as obtained by the OP but written in
terms that I can understand, that is, without
the financial jargon about discount rates, gradients,
PV, FV and the like.

Vote Up Vote Down   0 Reactions

Login to give Reaction!

EDIT: After reading one of the comments on the original question, I realized that there is a much more intuitive way to think about this. If you look at it as a standard PV calculation and hold each of the cashflows constant. Really what's happening is that because of inflation the discount rate isn't the full value of the interest rate. Really the discount rate is only the portion of the interest rate above the inflation rate. Hence in the standard perpetuity PV equation PV = A / r r becomes the interest rate less the inflation rate which gives you PV = A / (i - g).

That seems like a much better way to get to the answer than all the machinations I was originally trying.

Original Answer:

I think I finally figured this out. The general term for this type of system in which the payments increase over time is a gradient series annuity. In this specific example since the payment is increasing by a percentage each period (not a constant rate) this would be considered a geometric gradient series.

According to this link the formula for the present value of a geometric gradient series of payments is:

P = A_1 [1 - (1 + g)^n(1 + i)^-n]/(i - g)

Where

P is the present value of this series of cashflows.
A_1 is the initial payment for period 1 (i.e. the amount you want to withdraw adjusted for inflation).
g is the gradient or growth rate of the periodic payment (in this case this is the inflation rate)
i is the interest rate
n is the number of payments

This is almost exactly what I was looking for in my original question. The only problem is this is for a fixed amount of time (i.e. n periods). In order to figure out the formula for a perpetuity we need to find the limit of the right side of this equation as the number of periods (n) approaches infinity.

Luckily in this equation n is already well isolated to a single term: (1 + g)^n/(1 + i)^-n}. And since we know that the interest rate, i, has to be greater than the inflation rate, g, the limit of that factor is 0.

So after replacing that term with 0 our equation simplifies to the following:

P = A_1 / (i - g)

Note: I don't do this stuff for a living and honestly don't have a fantastic finance IQ. It's been a while since I've done any calculus or even this much algebra so I may have made an error in the math.