I'm reading a book that gives three formulas. In all of these formulas:
- $x$ is the amount of money to be received in the future
- $n$ is the number of years
- $r$ is the interest rate.
The first is the present value of a lump sum: $PV = x / (1 + r) ^n$. Pretty self explanatory. Suppose I wanted $100$ dollars in $20$ years and could invest money at a $5\%$ rate of return, what amount of money would I have to invest today to have $100$ dollars in $20$ years? $100 / (1.05) ^{20} = 37.69$. Alternatively, if I have $100$ dollars today and it depreciates at the rate of $5\%$ a year for $20$ years, it would be worth $37.69$ dollars in $20$ years.
The second formula is the formula for the present value of a perpetuity: $PV = x / r$ ($x$ is the amount of money to be received at the end of each year forever. So getting $100$ dollars at the end of each year forever would be the same as getting $2000$ dollars today, assuming I can invest that at the rate of $5\%$ per year.
The third formula appears to combine the two: the formula for the present value of an annuity: $PV = (x / r) - ((x / (1 + r) ^ n) / r)$ ($x$ is the amount of money received at the end of each year for $r$ years).
Notice that the left hand side is exactly the formula for the present value of a perpetuity. The right hand side is the present value of a lump sum divided by $r$.
I'm trying to understand the third formula. How would someone derive it? Why do we subtract the present value of a lump sum from the present value of a perpetuity? I understand intuitively that an annuity must have a lower present value than a perpetuity. If $r = 20$, there needs to be some way to indicate that payments stop after $20$ years. I'm just not sure how this is incorporated into this formula.