Weird IRR pattern

Hi everybody. I work at a private equity firm and recently stumbled upon a weird IRR pattern.

A simplified example looks the following way. Say, there are two sets of cash flows:

(1) = -4 ; 2 ; 4 ; -3 ; -1; 6 ; -3 ; 8 (2) = -4 ; 2 ; 4 ; -4 ; -1; 6 ; 0 ; 8

The IRR of the first row is 34.7% vs 35.7% for the second row. As it can be seen, the first three cashflows are the same in both cases (-4 ; 2; 4).

The IRR of CFs in the first row excluding the aforementioned first 3 figures is 44.8% as opposed to 44.7% in the second row. Here is what I have a hard time explaining - why is the IRR of the whole first row is lower than of the second row, whereas when we exclude first 3 CFs (which are are identical) it suddenly becomes higher compared to the second row?

Many thanks for your answers in advance!

3 Comments
 

I'm getting the 44.7% when you exclude (2,4,-4) from the 2nd set, but getting 32.3% from the 1st set when you exclude the same first three numbers. I'm running dates from 12/31/2016 to 12/31/2023.

Anyway, this isn't exactly the most mathematical response, but as for why 2nd set (with all #'s) is higher than 1st set - 2nd set delta in 12/31/19 (-3 vs -4) is only 1 whereas delta in 2022 (-3 vs 0) is 3 which impacts return profile positively for 2nd set given higher dollar return.

2nd set having IRR of 44.7% through 12/31/2020 (lopping off first 3 #'s you stated) is really just a function of return vs. time. You're recouping $13 after putting in $4 over 4 years, which generates a higher IRR than generating $15 over 7 years.

 

Thanks for your reply. You got 32.3% IRR in the 1st case because you had CF #4 as -4 instead of -3. What I'm trying to understand is how can the IRR of the first row be higher, but when you exclude first 3 identical CFs (in both rows) it becomes lower than in the second case.

 
Best Response

Est quae earum hic qui. Voluptates sunt nisi magnam voluptas saepe cum. Rerum omnis eos similique odio nisi. Voluptas ea minima et voluptate in saepe. Ut totam at fugit placeat. Eos earum quia quae quia a.

Career Advancement Opportunities

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.9%
  • JPMorgan 01 98.3%
  • Guggenheim Partners 01 97.7%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Moelis & Company No 99.4%
  • Morgan Stanley 02 98.8%
  • Evercore 01 98.3%
  • BMO Capital Markets 12 97.7%
  • Banco Santander 01 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.9%
  • Morgan Stanley 05 98.3%
  • JPMorgan No 97.7%
  • BMO Capital Markets 12 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Vice President (14) $434
  • Associates (44) $258
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (8) $210
  • 2nd Year Analyst (22) $179
  • Intern/Summer Associate (13) $156
  • 1st Year Analyst (78) $151
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (73) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”