So, sums. I can, broadly speaking, do sums. I have a degree in maths.
However, interest rate calculations have always baffled me. Sure, if you ask me to calculate 3 months compound interest at a monthly rate of x% I know what to do. However, when it comes to real examples of mortgages and credit cards, I can't work out what the sum I need to do is. I'm still slightly baffled about the interest charged me when I was a day late paying my credit card off in full in March.
Today, the BBC carried a story about a loanshark. It includes the following statement about someone who borrowed £1000:
"...to pay £49 a week over 60 weeks, making the total amount he had to
repay £2,940 at 917% APR."
Now, if we approximate 60 weeks to a year, then surely that's an annual interest rate of no more than 294%. The quoted APR isn't even in vaguely the right ballpark.
So... have I completely failed to understand APR ? (Wikipedia's page on the subject didn't really help with the definition.) Or is the BBC publishing unmitigated wank in the name of investigative journalism ?
Edit It turns out I'd failed to understand APR, and the BBC is cleared in this instance.
However, interest rate calculations have always baffled me. Sure, if you ask me to calculate 3 months compound interest at a monthly rate of x% I know what to do. However, when it comes to real examples of mortgages and credit cards, I can't work out what the sum I need to do is. I'm still slightly baffled about the interest charged me when I was a day late paying my credit card off in full in March.
Today, the BBC carried a story about a loanshark. It includes the following statement about someone who borrowed £1000:
"...to pay £49 a week over 60 weeks, making the total amount he had to
repay £2,940 at 917% APR."
Now, if we approximate 60 weeks to a year, then surely that's an annual interest rate of no more than 294%. The quoted APR isn't even in vaguely the right ballpark.
So... have I completely failed to understand APR ? (Wikipedia's page on the subject didn't really help with the definition.) Or is the BBC publishing unmitigated wank in the name of investigative journalism ?
Edit It turns out I'd failed to understand APR, and the BBC is cleared in this instance.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-29 04:06 pm (UTC)#include "stdlib.h" #include "stdio.h" int main(int argc, char **argv) { if (argc < 2) { printf("oops\n"); exit(1); } long long tofactor; sscanf(argv[1], "%lld", &tofactor); printf ("factor %lld\n", tofactor); while ((tofactor % 2) == 0) { tofactor = tofactor / 2; printf("2\n"); } long long i = 3; while (i*i <= tofactor) { if ((tofactor % i) == 0) { tofactor = tofactor / i; printf("%lld\n", i); continue; } i+=2; } printf("%lld\n", tofactor); exit(0); }pm215 will almost certainly now point out a bug in it. Like the fact that it loops infinitely if you input 0.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-29 04:09 pm (UTC)chris@the:~$ factor 07775771223
7775771223: 3 11 19 37 571 587
no subject
Date: 2008-07-29 04:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-29 04:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-29 04:16 pm (UTC)I'vev just seen it here - ie with the formatting correct - and it's easily readable.
I've never met a more convincing argument for nice, tidy indenting :)
no subject
Date: 2008-07-29 04:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-29 04:36 pm (UTC)... or "the right way", as it should more commonly be known ;)
no subject
Date: 2008-07-29 04:39 pm (UTC)* giving it the argument 0 makes it loop forever printing out '2's
* for powers of 2 it prints a spurious '1' factor
* non-numeric arguments are silently accepted and treated as 0
* it accepts negative arguments, which it probably shouldn't
:-)
no subject
Date: 2008-07-29 04:46 pm (UTC)I do count the spurious 1 as a bug, actually.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-30 12:35 am (UTC)I think actually they're silently accepted and an uninitialised value is factored. sscanf doesn't do the same thing as atoi when it can't find the format it's looking for.