Friday, October 22, 2010

Which version of Modified Dietz is better?

This week I'm reviewing a software vendor client's system and saw that they used a version of Modified Dietz which we typically don't see. Here's the normal form:
and here's what they use:


In reality they will provide the same result so it really shouldn't matter which we use, right? In fact, I was first introduced to the second formula way back in the 1980s. I prefer the first version because I think it's more intuitive. What are we doing in the second? Does it make sense? Can you explain it?

I have reflected on the first form quite a bit and think its meaning is clear:

To me you can rationalize what is being done; not so easy with the first version. I think the first is a bit more challenging to implement, too, so I vote for #1! How about you?

2 comments:

  1. I work for public fund. Custodian bank BNY Mellon uses the 2nd version. It shows the cash flow adjusted BMV and EMV.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yun, thanks for the note. I'm aware that some firms use this approach, but as noted earlier find it less intuitive and less commonly employed.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.