|
Finances / Finanzen » uk.finance » Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR
| Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383287] |
Di, 25 April 2006 15:00 |
|
someone pushed an A5 leaflet through my letterbox which is
printed front and back with photographs of low to medium
value electrical goods for offer with no credit check, weekly
collection typical APR 739.9%
it's certainly immoral but is that level of interest legal ?
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383308 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 16:02 |
|
> someone pushed an A5 leaflet through my letterbox which is
> printed front and back with photographs of low to medium
> value electrical goods for offer with no credit check, weekly
> collection typical APR 739.9%
>
> it's certainly immoral but is that level of interest legal ?
That's insane.
Badass.
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383324 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 17:40 |
|
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:02:14 +0100, "Badass Scotsman"
<badass [at] ismyname.com> wrote:
>> someone pushed an A5 leaflet through my letterbox which is
>> printed front and back with photographs of low to medium
>> value electrical goods for offer with no credit check, weekly
>> collection typical APR 739.9%
>>
>> it's certainly immoral but is that level of interest legal ?
>
>That's insane.
>
>Badass.
>
If you are on extremely low income, and someone lets you have a 20
quid gizmo for a pound a week for 25 weeks, it's probably the only way
you'll get it.
Legislation iwas discussed recently, dunno if anything came of it, but
the suggested limits were pretty high, but surely not to your
example's level.
Tiddy Ogg.
http://www.tiddyogg.co.uk
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383329 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 17:57 |
|
> If you are on extremely low income, and someone lets you have a 20
> quid gizmo for a pound a week for 25 weeks, it's probably the only way
> you'll get it.
> Legislation iwas discussed recently, dunno if anything came of it, but
> the suggested limits were pretty high, but surely not to your
> example's level.
>
> Tiddy Ogg.
> http://www.tiddyogg.co.uk
My maths is SUPER shit, but if the APR is as he suggests over 700%, will an
initial loan of say £20 not eventually be repayed around the £140 level? I
suspect he might have made a typo...or the original flyer designer made a
typo.
Badass.
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383331 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 18:06 |
|
> >> someone pushed an A5 leaflet through my letterbox
> >> which is printed front and back with photographs of
> >> low to medium value electrical goods for offer with
> >> no credit check, weekly collection typical APR 739.9%
> >>
> >> it's certainly immoral but is that level of interest legal ?
> >
> "Badass Scotsman" wrote:
> >That's insane.
> >
"Tiddy Ogg" wrote
> If you are on extremely low income, and someone
> lets you have a 20 quid gizmo for a pound a week
> for 25 weeks, it's probably the only way you'll get it.
I make that only(!) 153% APR.
To be 739.9% APR, you'd need to
continue paying the "pound-a-week" for
about another 19 weeks (44 weeks in total) ...
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383333 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 17:59 |
|
In message <84p3g.17920$E12.16451 [at] newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>, . <-- [at] -.com>
writes
>someone pushed an A5 leaflet through my letterbox which is
>printed front and back with photographs of low to medium
>value electrical goods for offer with no credit check, weekly
>collection typical APR 739.9%
>
>it's certainly immoral but is that level of interest legal ?
If it were a TV rental company it would be legal. The only difference is
the TV Rental company will always own the TV, but the loan scheme means
you end up owning it. The payments might be very similar, but because
the loan scheme is regulated it must quote an APR.
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383335 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 18:12 |
|
"Badass Scotsman" wrote
> My maths is SUPER shit, but if the APR is as he
> suggests over 700%, will an initial loan of say £20
> not eventually be repayed around the £140 level?
That would of course only happen if there were
no repayments made at all for a full year, then the
entire lot was paid off at the end of 12 months.
Per my other post, if it was paid off at the rate
of "a-pound-a-week", then it would cost £44.
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383342 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 18:22 |
|
"Tim" <me [at] home.uk> wrote in message news:wZ-dnQro6KM319PZRVnysw [at] bt.com...
> "Badass Scotsman" wrote
>> My maths is SUPER shit, but if the APR is as he
>> suggests over 700%, will an initial loan of say £20
>> not eventually be repayed around the £140 level?
>
> That would of course only happen if there were
> no repayments made at all for a full year, then the
> entire lot was paid off at the end of 12 months.
>
> Per my other post, if it was paid off at the rate
> of "a-pound-a-week", then it would cost £44.
Just as well im not a financial advisor me thinks... :)
Fancy showing me your calculation so I can grasp what your saying? :)
Badass.
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383368 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 20:33 |
|
Badass Scotsman wrote:
>> If you are on extremely low income, and someone lets you have a 20
>> quid gizmo for a pound a week for 25 weeks, it's probably the only
>> way you'll get it.
>> Legislation iwas discussed recently, dunno if anything came of it,
>> but the suggested limits were pretty high, but surely not to your
>> example's level.
>>
>> Tiddy Ogg.
>> http://www.tiddyogg.co.uk
>
> My maths is SUPER shit, but if the APR is as he suggests over 700%,
> will an initial loan of say £20 not eventually be repayed around the
> £140 level? I suspect he might have made a typo...or the original
> flyer designer made a typo.
>
> Badass.
no typo, 739.9% e.g. "credit £150 15 weeks at £15 Credit £75.00 Total
payable £225" from EMDM Ltd - no trace a co house but there is a local
co. which seems to fit the bill (but I won't name here) the leaflet only has
an 0700 telephone number, no address on the leaflet and no consumer
credit warnings or disclaimers.
curiously, there's a couple of google references to EMDM credit and one
of them from 11 feb 2006 on a forum called this is money, a posting from
someone EMDM, seeking a finance house willing to loan the unemployed
up to £250 http://tinyurl.com/gmq4e and judging by the last post it would
seem that his quest was successful.
imo, this is usury as the APR is way high.
from the information supplied, has the company done anything illegal
which would be worth reporting them to trading standards / consumer
credit watchdogs ?
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383372 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 21:17 |
|
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:00:52 GMT, "." <-- [at] -.com> wrote:
>someone pushed an A5 leaflet through my letterbox which is
>printed front and back with photographs of low to medium
>value electrical goods for offer with no credit check, weekly
>collection typical APR 739.9%
>
>it's certainly immoral but is that level of interest legal ?
>
I'm sure it's perfectly legal if it clearly states the rate. Why on
earth wouldn't it be?
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383375 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 22:15 |
|
> I'm sure it's perfectly legal if it clearly states the rate. Why on
> earth wouldn't it be?
Aren`t lenders supposed to register somewhere, like the FSA ?
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383376 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 22:26 |
|
-- [at] -.com (.) wrote:
> APR 739.9%
The justification for this is that it allows small, short term (in
theory!) loans to be profitable. For example if someone needs a loan to
keep them ticking over until the next pay day, borrowing £100 and paying
back, say, £125 a fortnight later (%25 in 2 weeks, (very) roughly %650
in a year) might make a lot of sense: both sides of the deal get
something out of it. But the interest rate is *huge* when judged by
normal commercial standards.
It is, of course, a financial disaster if used in the medium or long term.
Andrew McP
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383378 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 22:48 |
|
Colin Wilson wrote:
>> I'm sure it's perfectly legal if it clearly states the rate. Why on
>> earth wouldn't it be?
>
> Aren`t lenders supposed to register somewhere, like the FSA ?
that's what I thought, I'll call TS tomorrow.
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383379 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 22:45 |
|
"Damot" <damot [at] alive.org> wrote in message
news:ccts421eukmb8c0bqsogtfm4nttjdol5tl [at] 4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:00:52 GMT, "." <-- [at] -.com> wrote:
>
>>someone pushed an A5 leaflet through my letterbox which is
>>printed front and back with photographs of low to medium
>>value electrical goods for offer with no credit check, weekly
>>collection typical APR 739.9%
>>
>>it's certainly immoral but is that level of interest legal ?
>>
>
> I'm sure it's perfectly legal if it clearly states the rate. Why on
> earth wouldn't it be?
Because there is a law that makes excessive interest rates
illegal.
Whether or not such an interest rate is legal depends
on the other terms of the loan. So on the basis of the
information given it is impossible to tell.
tim
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383380 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 23:03 |
|
tim (back at home) wrote:
> "Damot" <damot [at] alive.org> wrote in message
> news:ccts421eukmb8c0bqsogtfm4nttjdol5tl [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:00:52 GMT, "." <-- [at] -.com> wrote:
>>
>>> someone pushed an A5 leaflet through my letterbox which is
>>> printed front and back with photographs of low to medium
>>> value electrical goods for offer with no credit check, weekly
>>> collection typical APR 739.9%
>>>
>>> it's certainly immoral but is that level of interest legal ?
>>>
>>
>> I'm sure it's perfectly legal if it clearly states the rate. Why on
>> earth wouldn't it be?
>
> Because there is a law that makes excessive interest rates
> illegal.
>
> Whether or not such an interest rate is legal depends
> on the other terms of the loan. So on the basis of the
> information given it is impossible to tell.
>
> tim
and that may put it even further in the 'red'.
http://www.oft.gov.uk/Business/licence/default.htm
no trace of licence number on leaflet. I think I'll be contacting
the OFT tomorrow, see if the company is licenced and if not
I'll report it to local TS and the OFT, FSA and anyone else
who'll listen.
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383384 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 23:07 |
|
.. wrote:
> no typo, 739.9% e.g. "credit £150 15 weeks at £15 Credit £75.00 Total
> payable £225" from EMDM Ltd
>
> from the information supplied, has the company done anything illegal
> which would be worth reporting them to trading standards / consumer
> credit watchdogs ?
The APR is wrong for a start.
If the weekly payments are a tenth of the amount borrowed,
and there are 15 weekly payments, this makes the weekly
interest rate 5.5565% and so the APR isn't 740%, it's 1577%.
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383386 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 23:12 |
|
Ronald Raygun wrote:
> . wrote:
>
>> no typo, 739.9% e.g. "credit £150 15 weeks at £15 Credit £75.00 Total
>> payable £225" from EMDM Ltd
>>
>> from the information supplied, has the company done anything illegal
>> which would be worth reporting them to trading standards / consumer
>> credit watchdogs ?
>
> The APR is wrong for a start.
>
> If the weekly payments are a tenth of the amount borrowed,
> and there are 15 weekly payments, this makes the weekly
> interest rate 5.5565% and so the APR isn't 740%, it's 1577%.
if you are sure of that figure I'll report that, too.
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383389 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 23:52 |
|
.. wrote:
> Ronald Raygun wrote:
>> . wrote:
>>
>>> no typo, 739.9% e.g. "credit £150 15 weeks at £15 Credit £75.00 Total
>>> payable £225" from EMDM Ltd
>>>
>>> from the information supplied, has the company done anything illegal
>>> which would be worth reporting them to trading standards / consumer
>>> credit watchdogs ?
>>
>> The APR is wrong for a start.
>>
>> If the weekly payments are a tenth of the amount borrowed,
>> and there are 15 weekly payments, this makes the weekly
>> interest rate 5.5565% and so the APR isn't 740%, it's 1577%.
>
> if you are sure of that figure I'll report that, too.
I'm sure Tim will be pleased to confirm it.
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383390 ] |
Mi, 26 April 2006 00:18 |
|
Ronald Raygun wrote:
> . wrote:
>
>
>>Ronald Raygun wrote:
>>
>>>. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>no typo, 739.9% e.g. "credit £150 15 weeks at £15 Credit £75.00 Total
>>>>payable £225" from EMDM Ltd
>>>>
>>>>from the information supplied, has the company done anything illegal
>>>>which would be worth reporting them to trading standards / consumer
>>>>credit watchdogs ?
>>>
>>>The APR is wrong for a start.
>>>
>>>If the weekly payments are a tenth of the amount borrowed,
>>>and there are 15 weekly payments, this makes the weekly
>>>interest rate 5.5565% and so the APR isn't 740%, it's 1577%.
>>
>>if you are sure of that figure I'll report that, too.
>
>
> I'm sure Tim will be pleased to confirm it.
>
(1.055565^(52.17)-1)/100 = 1533%
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383407 ] |
Mi, 26 April 2006 09:48 |
|
> >> . wrote:
> >>> no typo, 739.9% e.g. "credit £150 15 weeks at £15
> >>> Credit £75.00 Total payable £225" from EMDM Ltd
> >>>
> >>> from the information supplied, has the company done
> >>> anything illegal which would be worth reporting them
> >>> to trading standards / consumer credit watchdogs ?
> >>
> > "Ronald Raygun" wrote:
> >> The APR is wrong for a start.
> >>
> >> If the weekly payments are a tenth of the amount borrowed,
> >> and there are 15 weekly payments, this makes the weekly
> >> interest rate 5.5565% and so the APR isn't 740%, it's 1577%.
> >
> . wrote:
> > if you are sure of that figure I'll report that, too.
> >
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> I'm sure Tim will be pleased to confirm it.
The weekly rate is indeed 5.5565%pw.
In a year with 365 days, that does make 1577%pa.
In a (leap) year with 366 days, it would be 1590% !!
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383408 ] |
Mi, 26 April 2006 09:48 |
|
"B J Foster" wrote
> (1.055565^52.17-1)/100 = 1533%
Would you like to try that one again?
It is wrong on soooooo many counts...
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383409 ] |
Mi, 26 April 2006 09:48 |
|
"Andrew MacPherson" wrote
> ... For example if someone needs a loan to keep
> them ticking over until the next pay day, borrowing
> £100 and paying back, say, £125 a fortnight later
> (%25 in 2 weeks, (very) roughly %650 in a year)...
That's not just rough, it's waaaaay out!
More like 33,650% !!
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383429 ] |
Mi, 26 April 2006 11:39 |
|
Tim wrote:
> "Andrew MacPherson" wrote
>> ... For example if someone needs a loan to keep
>> them ticking over until the next pay day, borrowing
>> £100 and paying back, say, £125 a fortnight later
>> (%25 in 2 weeks, (very) roughly %650 in a year)...
>
> That's not just rough, it's waaaaay out!
> More like 33,650% !!
Don't you mean 33649%?
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383435 ] |
Mi, 26 April 2006 12:42 |
|
"Tim" <me [at] home.uk> wrote in message news:auKdnU2PZe9DuNLZRVnyqQ [at] bt.com...
> > >> . wrote:
> > >>> no typo, 739.9% e.g. "credit £150 15 weeks at £15
> > >>> Credit £75.00 Total payable £225" from EMDM Ltd
> > >>>
> > >>> from the information supplied, has the company done
> > >>> anything illegal which would be worth reporting them
> > >>> to trading standards / consumer credit watchdogs ?
> > >>
> > > "Ronald Raygun" wrote:
> > >> The APR is wrong for a start.
> > >>
> > >> If the weekly payments are a tenth of the amount borrowed,
> > >> and there are 15 weekly payments, this makes the weekly
> > >> interest rate 5.5565% and so the APR isn't 740%, it's 1577%.
> > >
> > . wrote:
> > > if you are sure of that figure I'll report that, too.
> > >
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
> > I'm sure Tim will be pleased to confirm it.
>
> The weekly rate is indeed 5.5565%pw.
>
> In a year with 365 days, that does make 1577%pa.
> In a (leap) year with 366 days, it would be 1590% !!
You're assuming payments start immediately. If the first payment is due about 16 days
after the loan was made, then the APR looks correct.
APR of 739.9% is a weekly rate of 4.1657% (assuming not a leap year).
For 15 weeks at £15 at that rate the loan value at the start of repayments would have
to be:
15 * (1-1.041657^-15)/0.041657 = 164.86
So if w is the number of weeks before repayments start, then 1.041657^w = 164.86/150
w= log(1.099067) / log(1.041657)
so w = 2.3145, or a bit over 16 days.
--
Andy
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383436 ] |
Mi, 26 April 2006 12:43 |
|
> > "Andrew MacPherson" wrote
> >> ... For example if someone needs a loan to keep
> >> them ticking over until the next pay day, borrowing
> >> £100 and paying back, say, £125 a fortnight later
> >> (%25 in 2 weeks, (very) roughly %650 in a year)...
> >
> "Tim" wrote:
> > That's not just rough, it's waaaaay out!
> > More like 33,650% !!
>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> Don't you mean 33649%?
I deliberately used an approximation,
because it changes so much with the
exact number of days you use each year.
Yes, it is 33649% using 365.2425
days per year (a good average).
Using 365.25 days, it is 33,653%.
For a 365-day year, it is 33,519%.
For a 366-day year, it is 34,059%.
But mainly, I just added the nice round figure of
33,000% to Andrew's, ahem, "estimate" of 650%!
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383441 ] |
Mi, 26 April 2006 13:04 |
|
"Andy Pandy" wrote
> If the first payment is due about 16 days after
> the loan was made, then the APR looks correct.
Good idea, but it would have to be more like 23.3 days after...
"Andy Pandy" wrote
> APR of 739.9% is a weekly rate of 4.1657% (assuming not a leap year).
Agreed.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
> For 15 weeks at £15 at that rate the loan value
> at the start of repayments would have to be:
>
> 15 * (1-1.041657^-15)/0.041657 = 164.86
This is where you went wrong - that is the value
**one week before** the first repayment.
The value *immediately* before the first
payment would be more like 171.73...
.... giving w = 3.3 weeks, or 23.2 days.
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383445 ] |
Mi, 26 April 2006 13:14 |
|
"Tim" <me [at] home.uk> wrote in message news:AaadnSsPndhBztLZRVny2w [at] bt.com...
> This is where you went wrong - that is the value
> **one week before** the first repayment.
>
> The value *immediately* before the first
> payment would be more like 171.73...
>
> ... giving w = 3.3 weeks, or 23.2 days.
Yes, I forgot the repayment formula assumes the first payment is due at the end of
the first period...
--
Andy
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383449 ] |
Mi, 26 April 2006 13:39 |
|
Tim wrote:
> "B J Foster" wrote
>
>>(1.055565^52.17-1)/100 = 1533%
>
>
> Would you like to try that one again?
> It is wrong on soooooo many counts...
>
>
>
52.17
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383451 ] |
Mi, 26 April 2006 14:01 |
|
> > "B J Foster" wrote
> >>(1.055565^52.17-1)/100 = 1533%
> >
> "Tim" wrote:
> > Would you like to try that one again?
> > It is wrong on soooooo many counts...
> >
"B J Foster" wrote
> 52.17
Eh?
(1) Why use 52.17 when the there are 52.14
weeks in any 365-day year, 52.29 weeks in any
366-day year, 52.18 weeks per year on average in
any group of 4 years, or in any group of 400 years ?
[Using the modern calendar.]
(2) Does "(1.055565^52.17-1)/100" *really* equal 1533%?
(3) Why are you dividing by 100 anyway??
....
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383458 ] |
Mi, 26 April 2006 14:48 |
|
My god, this post has turned into a mathematical debate of epic proportions,
I lost count a loooooooooooooooooooooooong time ago :)
Badass.
"." <-- [at] -.com> wrote in message
news:84p3g.17920$E12.16451 [at] newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> someone pushed an A5 leaflet through my letterbox which is
> printed front and back with photographs of low to medium
> value electrical goods for offer with no credit check, weekly
> collection typical APR 739.9%
>
> it's certainly immoral but is that level of interest legal ?
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383463 ] |
Mi, 26 April 2006 15:14 |
|
Tim wrote:
>>>"B J Foster" wrote
>>>
>>>>(1.055565^52.17-1)/100 = 1533%
>>>
>>"Tim" wrote:
>>
>>>Would you like to try that one again?
>>>It is wrong on soooooo many counts...
>>>
>
> "B J Foster" wrote
>
>>52.17
>
>
> Eh?
>
> (1) Why use 52.17 when the there are 52.14
> weeks in any 365-day year, 52.29 weeks in any
> 366-day year, 52.18 weeks per year on average in
> any group of 4 years, or in any group of 400 years ?
> [Using the modern calendar.]
>
> (2) Does "(1.055565^52.17-1)/100" *really* equal 1533%?
>
> (3) Why are you dividing by 100 anyway??
>
> ...
>
>
>
Okay, since we're going to indulge in hair-splitting:
(1) 365.25/7 = 52.17857143
(2) (1.055565^(52.17)-1) = 1579.62%
(3) This is an error
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383469 ] |
Mi, 26 April 2006 17:08 |
|
> >>>"B J Foster" wrote
> >>>>(1.055565^52.17-1)/100 = 1533%
> >>>
> >>"Tim" wrote:
> >>>Would you like to try that one again?
> >>>It is wrong on soooooo many counts...
> >>>
> > "B J Foster" wrote
> >>52.17
> >
> "Tim" wrote:
> > Eh?
> >
> > (1) Why use 52.17 when the there are 52.14
> > weeks in any 365-day year, 52.29 weeks in any
> > 366-day year, 52.18 weeks per year on average in
> > any group of 4 years, or in any group of 400 years ?
> > [Using the modern calendar.]
> >
> > (2) Does "(1.055565^52.17-1)/100" *really* equal 1533%?
> >
> > (3) Why are you dividing by 100 anyway??
> >
"B J Foster" wrote
> Okay, since we're going to indulge in hair-splitting:
I wouldn't call (2) and (3) "hairsplitting".
(1) above is just out of interest...
"B J Foster" wrote
> (1) 365.25/7 = 52.17857143
> (2) (1.055565^(52.17)-1) = 1579.62%
> (3) This is an error
I'm still interested in why you are (still) only allowing
for 365.19 days in a year (52.17 weeks per year)?
Surely (1.055565^(52.17857143)-1) is 1580.4% ?
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383488 ] |
Mi, 26 April 2006 19:19 |
|
"." <-- [at] -.com> wrote in message
news:k8w3g.1288$pL4.810 [at] newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
> tim (back at home) wrote:
>> "Damot" <damot [at] alive.org> wrote in message
>> news:ccts421eukmb8c0bqsogtfm4nttjdol5tl [at] 4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:00:52 GMT, "." <-- [at] -.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> someone pushed an A5 leaflet through my letterbox which is
>>>> printed front and back with photographs of low to medium
>>>> value electrical goods for offer with no credit check, weekly
>>>> collection typical APR 739.9%
>>>>
>>>> it's certainly immoral but is that level of interest legal ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sure it's perfectly legal if it clearly states the rate. Why on
>>> earth wouldn't it be?
>>
>> Because there is a law that makes excessive interest rates
>> illegal.
>>
>> Whether or not such an interest rate is legal depends
>> on the other terms of the loan. So on the basis of the
>> information given it is impossible to tell.
>>
>> tim
>
> and that may put it even further in the 'red'.
>
> http://www.oft.gov.uk/Business/licence/default.htm
>
> no trace of licence number on leaflet.
As there isn't on any of the ads for Mortgage brokers
in "Thompson" (none of which are likely to be dodgy).
I can't believe that there's a requirement to state your
number in advertising material.
tim
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383492 ] |
Mi, 26 April 2006 19:56 |
|
tim (back at home) wrote:
> "." <-- [at] -.com> wrote in message
> news:k8w3g.1288$pL4.810 [at] newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
>> tim (back at home) wrote:
>>> "Damot" <damot [at] alive.org> wrote in message
>>> news:ccts421eukmb8c0bqsogtfm4nttjdol5tl [at] 4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:00:52 GMT, "." <-- [at] -.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> someone pushed an A5 leaflet through my letterbox which is
>>>>> printed front and back with photographs of low to medium
>>>>> value electrical goods for offer with no credit check, weekly
>>>>> collection typical APR 739.9%
>>>>>
>>>>> it's certainly immoral but is that level of interest legal ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure it's perfectly legal if it clearly states the rate. Why on
>>>> earth wouldn't it be?
>>>
>>> Because there is a law that makes excessive interest rates
>>> illegal.
>>>
>>> Whether or not such an interest rate is legal depends
>>> on the other terms of the loan. So on the basis of the
>>> information given it is impossible to tell.
>>>
>>> tim
>>
>> and that may put it even further in the 'red'.
>>
>> http://www.oft.gov.uk/Business/licence/default.htm
>>
>> no trace of licence number on leaflet.
>
> As there isn't on any of the ads for Mortgage brokers
> in "Thompson" (none of which are likely to be dodgy).
>
> I can't believe that there's a requirement to state your
> number in advertising material.
>
> tim
apparently, there's a difference between advertising material
and direct offers. also, there's no address on the leaflet and
the phone number is an 0700. I /know/ the company is shady
because they are operating without a consumer credit licence.
TS are on their case, anyway.
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383509 ] |
Mi, 26 April 2006 22:34 |
|
Andrew MacPherson wrote:
> bang-on-your-door type money lenders are entitled
> to make a living, no matter how objectionable we might find it in
> principle and how bad it looks on paper.
I strongly disagree.
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383515 ] |
Mi, 26 April 2006 23:06 |
|
Tim wrote:
>>>>>"B J Foster" wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>(1.055565^52.17-1)/100 = 1533%
>>>>>
>>>>"Tim" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Would you like to try that one again?
>>>>>It is wrong on soooooo many counts...
>>>>>
>>>
>>>"B J Foster" wrote
>>>
>>>>52.17
>>>
>>"Tim" wrote:
>>
>>>Eh?
>>>
>>>(1) Why use 52.17 when the there are 52.14
>>>weeks in any 365-day year, 52.29 weeks in any
>>>366-day year, 52.18 weeks per year on average in
>>>any group of 4 years, or in any group of 400 years ?
>>>[Using the modern calendar.]
>>>
>>>(2) Does "(1.055565^52.17-1)/100" *really* equal 1533%?
>>>
>>>(3) Why are you dividing by 100 anyway??
>>>
>
> "B J Foster" wrote
>
>>Okay, since we're going to indulge in hair-splitting:
>
>
> I wouldn't call (2) and (3) "hairsplitting".
> (1) above is just out of interest...
>
> "B J Foster" wrote
>
>>(1) 365.25/7 = 52.17857143
>>(2) (1.055565^(52.17)-1) = 1579.62%
>>(3) This is an error
>
>
> I'm still interested in why you are (still) only allowing
> for 365.19 days in a year (52.17 weeks per year)?
>
> Surely (1.055565^(52.17857143)-1) is 1580.4% ?
>
>
>
The difference between 1580.4% and 1579.62% is 0.8%
Oops, that should be 0.78%
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383559 ] |
Do, 27 April 2006 10:40 |
|
> >>>>>"B J Foster" wrote
> >>>>>>(1.055565^52.17-1)/100 = 1533%
> >>>>>
> >>>>"Tim" wrote:
> >>>>>Would you like to try that one again?
> >>>>>It is wrong on soooooo many counts...
> >>>>>
> >>>"B J Foster" wrote
> >>>>52.17
> >>>
> >>"Tim" wrote:
> >>>Eh?
> >>>
> >>>(1) Why use 52.17 when the there are 52.14
> >>>weeks in any 365-day year, 52.29 weeks in any
> >>>366-day year, 52.18 weeks per year on average in
> >>>any group of 4 years, or in any group of 400 years ?
> >>>[Using the modern calendar.]
> >>>...
> >
> "Tim" wrote:
> > (1) above is just out of interest...
> >
> > "B J Foster" wrote
> >>(1) 365.25/7 = 52.17857143
> >>(2) (1.055565^(52.17)-1) = 1579.62%
> >
> "Tim" wrote:
> > I'm still interested in why you are (still) only allowing
> > for 365.19 days in a year (52.17 weeks per year)?
> >
> > Surely (1.055565^(52.17857143)-1) is 1580.4% ?
> >
"B J Foster" wrote
> The difference between 1580.4% and 1579.62% is 0.8%
>
> Oops, that should be 0.78%
Yes, of course, but you must think that 52.17 is a
"better" number of weeks to use, considering that you
quoted the answer using that to 6 significant figures.
[Rather than just saying, say, "1580%".]
Can you explain why you think 52.17
is better than using, say, 52.18?
[Which is actually closer to 52.17857143.]
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383579 ] |
Do, 27 April 2006 13:37 |
|
Tim wrote:
>>>>>>>"B J Foster" wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>(1.055565^52.17-1)/100 = 1533%
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Would you like to try that one again?
>>>>>>>It is wrong on soooooo many counts...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"B J Foster" wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>52.17
>>>>>
>>>>"Tim" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Eh?
>>>>>
>>>>>(1) Why use 52.17 when the there are 52.14
>>>>>weeks in any 365-day year, 52.29 weeks in any
>>>>>366-day year, 52.18 weeks per year on average in
>>>>>any group of 4 years, or in any group of 400 years ?
>>>>>[Using the modern calendar.]
>>>>>...
>>>
>>"Tim" wrote:
>>
>>>(1) above is just out of interest...
>>>
>>>"B J Foster" wrote
>>>
>>>>(1) 365.25/7 = 52.17857143
>>>>(2) (1.055565^(52.17)-1) = 1579.62%
>>>
>>"Tim" wrote:
>>
>>>I'm still interested in why you are (still) only allowing
>>>for 365.19 days in a year (52.17 weeks per year)?
>>>
>>>Surely (1.055565^(52.17857143)-1) is 1580.4% ?
>>>
>
> "B J Foster" wrote
>
>>The difference between 1580.4% and 1579.62% is 0.8%
>>
>>Oops, that should be 0.78%
>
>
> Yes, of course, but you must think that 52.17 is a
> "better" number of weeks to use, considering that you
> quoted the answer using that to 6 significant figures.
> [Rather than just saying, say, "1580%".]
>
> Can you explain why you think 52.17
> is better than using, say, 52.18?
> [Which is actually closer to 52.17857143.]
>
>
>
Certainly. There might be some people who'd consider 1579% to be
reasonable and 1580% to be a rip-off, but I imagine that such obsessive
retentive types would be quite rare.
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383584 ] |
Do, 27 April 2006 14:45 |
|
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:00:52 GMT, "." <-- [at] -.com> wrote:
>someone pushed an A5 leaflet through my letterbox which is
>printed front and back with photographs of low to medium
>value electrical goods for offer with no credit check, weekly
>collection typical APR 739.9%
>
>it's certainly immoral but is that level of interest legal ?
>
I've seen one recently... can't think what the exact apr was but it
was insane...
this was a £5 charge for £95 loan for a month...
--
Get money off vouchers for everything
http://www.moneyoffvouchers.co.uk
|
|
|
| Re: Leaflet through the letterbox - 739.9% APR [message #383644 ] |
Fr, 28 April 2006 11:38 |
|
no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain (Ronald Raygun) wrote:
> I think you'll find Tim *is* compounding continuously.
Everybody step *away* from the keyboard and drop the interest rate (to
0%, then the maths are a bit simpler ;-)
Andrew McP
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Do Feb 9 00:14:34 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,20017 Sekunden |
