If you calculate it out exactly, using the number of days / 365, rather than a monthly rate, I get exactly EUR 89,502.40Taking Brendan's figure of €89,431..... it's still €71 quid out?
159,430/(1+i)^15+100/(1+i)^15+1,500+180=70,000 => i = 5.81643% = 5.82% to 2 dec places.@SGWidow , it is monthly compounding working it's magic. The headline figure of 5.5% is charged at 0.4583% per month. This compounds 12 times in a year so the effective rate works out at 5.65%. The rest must be the fixed costs you mentioned
Google an effective interest rate formula/calculator if you want to see the equation
I'm on the case but I did allow for the 180.Thanks everyone,
So the Duke's basis - and far be it from me to contradict him - reconciles the APR
But
Still leaves a question mark over the stray €180 and is inconsistent with the total cost of credit declared.
RedOnion manages to reconcile the cost of credit on the dot. How does RedOnion's basis work in relation to the APR if the €180 is indeed inclusive?
[I am taking it that the total cost of credit is not the total cost of credit! but simply the interest on the loan amount. I am taking it that the APR does include the additional charges which presumably are €1,500 and €100.]
Problem is I can't reconcile RedOnion's figures either and I don't know how to do a screen dump of my excel!
My entry for the first of the 180 months are:
31, 5.5, 365, 70000, 326.99, 70326.99
which becomes in month 180
31, 5.5, 365, 158665.83, 741.17, 159406.99
**********************************
I know all this is now at the margins but I'd like to understand how RedOnion did his calcs!
The substantive point is that there is a need for this product and it's a pity that the charges are so high.
Amazingly, yes that does the trick. The difference is entirely due to those 3 leap years.If you calculate it out exactly, using the number of days / 365, rather than a monthly rate, I get exactly EUR 89,502.40
That was using 15 years from 1/1/2021, with monthly capitalisation on the last calendar day of each month. There are 3 leap years in that, so 3 years where there is an extra days interest.
It's fairly standard loan modelling, and available in most lending systems nowadays as the actual schedule has to be produced for the loan as part of the documentation. The APR is far more simplified.I am very surprised that this sort of detail was employed
I had to add it to get the answer. See attached Excel file.Thanks Duke,
My understanding/point is that you added the 180 to the 1500 when we both believe that the wording suggests that the 180 should be included in the 1500?
It's the only way I can get the figures to work - I have to count both the €180 and the €100 as being in addition to the €1,500. But reading the brochure this is not what it is saying, so I am not satisfied that I have bottomed out the calculation of APR.1. Are we agreed that the comment that the €180 is included in the €1,500 is incorrect?
The actual mechanism is to accrue interest daily and then consolidate it monthly so that compounding is monthly. But there is no reason why what you say could not be done though note that would mean that on a daily basis the interest would be cheaper in leap years. It reminds me of the opposite scenario - it always made me hopping mad that I got paid the same salary in leap years as in ordinary years.2. Why is the total rate in a leap year greater than an ordinary year?
Before screaming at the last question, here's what I think should happen!!
Non-leap year
Monthly interest rate = no of days in the month/no of days in the year/Interest rate
Leap year
Monthly interest rate = no of days in the month/no of days in the year/Interest rate
On this basis, the monthly rate in a leap-year, for every month except February, is less than its non-leap-year equivalent! The composite rate for all 12 months is then identical in both years!
No.1. Are we agreed that the comment that the €180 is included in the €1,500 is incorrect?
That's how interest works on all daily accrual balances.2. Why is the total rate in a leap year greater than an ordinary year?
Relative to the products available c. 2006, I agree, it's expensive. But there are a few things influencing that, such as:It seems very high to me, considering current ECB rate, mortgage rates, UK rates for same product and BoI rates in the noughties when ECB rate was much higher
1. Are we agreed that the comment that the €180 is included in the €1,500 is incorrect..........if we take it that the APR is correct?
That's how interest works on all daily accrual balances.
I guess it is conventional not to adjust the daily rate for leap years and since the APR gives the true picture there is no harm don.
Relative to the products available c. 2006, I agree, it's expensive. But there are a few things influencing that, such as.......
Sorry, I don't understand your comment?You're not a banker, are you?
There's absolutely nothing to stop you setting up a competitor business, and add value to the customer.All valid explanations but nonetheless of zero added value to the customer.
Slippery country where we will probably be talking at cross purposes. The APR calculation in the CCA appendix appears to ignore leap year complications though it does talk of proportions of years which may imply using a 366 day for leap years.Why do you say that bit about the APR? Per your spreadsheet, the APR was derived from the total interest applied plus the charges. Wouldn't this mean that if my version of the interest rate basis was to be applied (with the corresponding adjustment to the interest payable) that this would impact on the APR?! [The way that you have written it seems to suggest to me that the APR is more like an independent calculation when surely it's completely dependent on the basis used?]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?