: Time-Weighted Rate of Return & Money-Weighted Rate of Return Background I am trying to figure out the computational difference between Time-Weighted Rate of Return (TWRR) and Money-Weighted Rate of Return (MWRR). Let's

The TWRR calculation will work even with negative values:

TWRR = (1 + 0.10) x (1 + (-0.191) ) x (1 + 0.29) ^ (1/3) = 1.047 which is a 4.7% return.

Your second question concerns the -19% return calculated for the second quarter. You seem to think this return is "way-off". Not really. The TWRR calculates a return by accounting for cash that was added or deducted to/from the account. So if I started with 0,000, added ,000 to the account, and ended up with 0,000, what should be the return on my investment? My answer would be 0% since the only reason my account balance went up was due to me adding cash to it. Therefore, if I started with 0,000, added ,000 in cash to the account, and ended up with 0,000 in my account, then my return would be a negative value since I lost the ,000 that I deposited in the account.

In the second quarter you started with ,000, deposited ,000, and ended with ,750. You essentially lost almost all of the ,000 you deposited. That is a significant loss.

---

The MWRR that you showed in your post is calculated incorrectly.
The formula that you use...
(,750 - ,000 - ,000) / (,000 + 0.5 x ,000)
Translates into a form of the DIETZ formula of
(EMV-BMV-C)/(BMV + .5 x C)
The BMV is the STARTING balance. And as a matter of fact, the starting balance was NOT 15,000. It was IN FACT 11,000. See, the starting value for a month MUST BE the ending value of the prior month. So the BMV of 11,000 would give you the correct answer. Because if you added 4,000 at the start of the month (on day 1), it would have to have been ADDED to the 11,000 of the PRIOR month's ENDING value. Make sense? That would also mean that the addition of 4000 to the 11000 would imply that you started day 1 with 11,000. Make sense?

Summary: When doing the calculations, you may use the ending value on the last day of the month to get your EMV. BUT YOU MAY NOT take the ending value on day 1 to get the BMV. That simply can not make sense since you already added a bunch of money during the day.

Think about it.
Davie

---

You seem to be using a strange formula for money-weighted rate of return.

If you mean the internal rate of return, then the quarterly rate of return which would make the net present value of these cash flows to be zero is 8.0535% (found by goal seek in Excel), or an equivalent compound annual rate of 36.3186% p.a.

The net present value of the cash flows is:

10,000 + 4,000/(1+r) - 2,000/(1+r)^2 - 15,125/(1+r)^3,

where r is the quarterly rate.

If instead you mean Modified Dietz return, then the net gain over the period is:

End value - start value - net flow = 15,125 - 10,000 - (4,000 - 2,000) = 3,125

The weighted average capital invested over the period is:

1 x 10,000 + 2/3 x 4,000 - 1/3 x 2,000 = 12,000

so the Modified Dietz return is 3,125 / 12,000 = 26.0417%, or 1.260417^(1/3)-1 = 8.0201% per quarter, or an equivalent compound annual rate of 1.260417^(4/3)-1 = 36.1504%.

You seem to be calculating the quarterly time-weighted rate of return.

You are using an inappropriate formula, because we know for a fact that the flows take place at the beginning/end of the period. Instead, you should be combining the returns for the quarters (which have in fact been provided in the question).

To calculate this, first calculate the growth factor over each quarter, then link them geometrically to get the overall growth factor. Subtracting 1 gives you the overall return for the 3-quarter period. Then convert the result to a quarterly rate of return.

Growth factor in 2012 Q4 is 11,000/10,000 = 1.1
Growth factor in 2013 Q1 is 15,750/15,000 = 1.05
Growth factor in 2013 Q2 is 15,125/13,750 = 1.1

Overall growth factor is 1.1 x 1.05 x 1.1 = 1.2705

Return for the whole period is 27.05%

Quarterly rate of return is 1.2705^(1/3)-1 = 8.3074%

Equivalent annual rate of return is 1.2705^(4/3)-1 = 37.6046%

=========

I'd recommend you to refer to Wikipedia.

---

Your example isn't consistent: Q1 end market value (EMV) is ,750, then you take out ,000 and say your Q2 BMV is ,750? For the following demo calculations I'll assume you mean your Q2 BMV is ,750, with quarterly returns as stated: 10%, 5%, 10%. The Q2 EMV is therefore ,125.

True time-weighted return :- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_time-weighted_rate_of_return

The following methods have the advantage of not requiring interim valuations.

Money-weighted return :- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Internal_rate_of_return

Logarithmic return :- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Logarithmic_or_continuously_compounded_return

Modified Dietz return :- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Dietz_method

Backcalculating the final value (v3) using the calculated returns show the advantage of the money-weighted return over the true time-weighted return.

---

TWRR = (2012Q4 x 2013Q1 x 2013Q2) ^ (1/3) = ??

(1.1 * .809 * 1.29) ^ (1/3) = 1.047 or 4.7% return. No imaginary numbers needed.

But. Your second line there is wrong ,750 - ,000 - ,000 ? The K already contains the k, why did you subtract it again?

This a homework problem?

---