vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Having just purchased an upcoming Samsung phone using their 0% interest I can tell you that the justification is to give you credit. I have the same with Best Buy which is 0% for a specific initial purchase. The bank (in the Samsung case is TD Bank) establishes a rotating credit line for you. The APR after is well established at the very high side of 29.99%. Nobody in their right mind should want to pay that much interest on any purchase. My last car purchase was below 3% APR. Additionally the introductory rate will still calculate their 29.99% interest as if it existed since the first day of credit and will be applied to your balance should you ever be late on any single payment. At that time the interest is factored in as if it were always there and payments are adjusted accordingly. You see, the bank wants you to pay their high interest rate. So they entice you with the 0% and hope you either finance more on that credit line (exempt from the promotional rate) or miss a payment and they can hit you with a whammy. Specifically the question asks how this offer benefits Samsung. To answer that portion; it ensures a sale at full retail price of the phone. Samsung is just an agent between you and the bank. The bank takes on the risk for a potential high reward.
Bonds released at the same time have different interest rates because they have different levels of risks and liquidity associated. Risk will depend on the company / country / municipality that offers the bond: their financial position, and their resulting ability to make future payments & avoid default. Riskier organizations must offer higher interest rates to ensure that investors remain willing to loan them money. Liquidity depends on the terms of the loan - principal-only bonds give you minimal liquidity, as there are no ongoing interest payments, and nothing received until the bond's maturity date. All bonds provide lower liquidity if they have longer maturity dates. Bonds with lower liquidity must have higher returns to compensate for the fact that you will have to give up your cash for a longer period of time. Bonds released at different times will have different interest rates because of what the general 'market rate' for interest was in those periods. ie: if a bond is released in 2016 with interest rates approaching 0%, even a high risk bond would have a lower interest rate than a bond released in the 1980s, when market rates were approaching 20%. Some bonds offer variable interest tied to some market indicator - those will typically have higher interest at the time of issuance, because the bondholder bears some risk that the prevailing market rate will drop. Note regarding sale of bonds after market rates have changed: The value of your bonds will fluctuate with the market. If a bond was offered with 1% interest, and next year interest rates go up and a new identical bond is offered for 2% interest, when you sell your old bond you will take a loss, because the market won't want to pay full price for it anymore. Whether you should sell lower-interest rate bonds depends on how you feel about the factors above - do you want junk bonds that have stock-like levels of returns but high risks of default, maturing in 30 years? Or do you want AAA+ Bonds that have essentially 0% returns maturing in 30 days? If you are paying interest on debt, it is quite likely that you could achieve a net income benefit by selling the bonds, and paying off debt [assuming your debt has a higher interest rate than your low-rate bonds]. Paying off debt is sometimes referred to as a 'zero risk return', because essentially there is no real risk that your lender would otherwise go bankrupt.
No. There is no incentive for the card issuer to permanently loan you money for free (Even though they make a small amount of money with every transaction). Yes, there are many credit cards that offer introductory 0% APR, often lasting for a year, some even two years. In theory, you could keep applying for new cards with these terms, and continually transfer the balance to the new card (Though you would probably incur a fee for doing so).
Of course, this example works in a perfect world where you can get such an offer, there are no extra fees available, you aren't worrying about your debt-to-income ratio in preparation for a big purchase like a house, there isn't a higher insurance premium to consider, etc. In short, 0% financing, be it for a phone or a car, can be a nice perk for the informed consumer who is not using the financing as a way to purchase outside their financial means, but it is offered by companies as a way to make people buy things they normally would not and, hopefully, capitalize on people missing payments in order to reap the sweet 20%+ interest rates generally seen with these offers. In your specific situation with the phone, you should consider if you get a discount on your monthly plan for purchasing outright, or if you can get the phone subsidized if you sign a contract (and you know you like your provider enough to stay for its duration). If the monthly plan rate stays the same and you're looking at either $500 now or $500 over 24 months and you don't mind a hard inquiry, there's not much of compelling reason to pass on the financing and hold on to your $500.
"So with any debt, be it a loan or a bond or anything else, you have two parts, the principal and the interest. The interest payment is calculated by applying the interest % to the principal. Most bonds are ""bullet bonds"" which means that the principle remains completely outstanding for the life of the bond and thus your interest payments are constant throughout the life of the bond (usually paid semi-annually). Typically part of the purpose of these is to be indefinitely refinanced, so you never really pay the principal back, though it is theoretically due at expiration.  What you are thinking of when you say a loan from a bank is an amortizing loan. With these you pay an increasing amount of the principal each period calculated such that your payments are all exactly the same (including the final payment).  Bonds, just like bank loans, can be bullet, partially amortizing (you pay some of the principle but still have a smaller lump sum at the end) and fully amortizing. One really common bullet structure is ""5 non-call 3,"" which means you aren't allowed to pay the principle down for the first three years even if you want to! This is to protect investors who spend time and resources investing in you!"
"One is a choice the other is not. While they are both liabilities on the balance sheet, in the real world they are quite different.   We do not feel as much ownership over our money that goes to interest payments as we do over our tax payments.  Taxes pay for our government and the services it provides.  Interest, on the other hand, is what we pay in order to have a bank loan us money.  Similar to paying for a good or service obtained from some other business, we do not feel we have a say in what the bank does with that money.  If we disapprove of a business' practices, we stop doing business with them; assuming there are other choices.  We can not practically avoid dealing with our government.   We certainly feel that we should have a say in what is done with our tax money.  I doubt there is anyone in the world that completely approves of their government's spending.  It is very easy to feel marginalized with regard to our tax payments.  For example, some people feel resentment because their taxes fund the welfare rolls. All that said, I believe there is little overlap between the two groups.  It seems to me that you are referring to those with large amounts of high interest (e.g. credit card) debt.  I doubt that a large percentage of them are scouring the tax laws, looking for deductions and loopholes.  If they had that mindset, they would also be working hard to get out of the hole they are in.   In summary, we choose to pay a financial adviser, to take out a loan or to obtain a credit card.  We do not choose to pay taxes.  Since taxes are supposed to pay for our government and things which should benefit everyone, we want a say in what is done with it.  This is also the case because it is forced on us.  (""Fine son, I'll lend you some money, but I don't want you buying cigarettes with it."")  Since our say is limited and we likely will not approve of everything our government does, we want to exert what control we do have: reduce our payments as best we can."
"Whether or not the specific card in question is truly 0% interest rate for the first 12 months, such cards do exist. However, the bank does make money out of it on the average: Still, 12 months of not having to think about paying the bill. Nice. This is exactly what they want you to do. Then in 12 months, when you start thinking about it, you may find out that you don't have the cash immediately available and end up paying the (usually very large) interest. It is possible to game this system to keep the ""free"" money in investments for the 12 months, as long as you are very careful to always follow the terms and dates. Because even one mishap can take away the small profits you could get for a 12 month investment of a few thousand dollars, it is rarely worth the effort."
If you paid off that $1000 on January 10, say, then maybe there will be no further finance charges on the $2000 purchase on January 3 after January 10 but now we are getting into the real fine print of what your credit card agreement says. Ditto for the case when you pay off that $1000 on January 2 and made the $2000 charge on January 3. You most likely will not be charged interest on that $2000 charge but again it depends on the fine print. For example, it might say that you will be charged interest on the average of the daily balances for January, but will not be charged interest on purchases during the February cycle (unless you miss the February 25 payment and the whole cycle starts all over again). As a general rule, it takes two monthly cycles of payment in full by the due date before one gets into the state of no finance charges for new purchases and effectively an ""interest-free"" loan of $2000 from January 3 (date of purchase) till February 25 (due date of payment). Matters become more complicated when cash advances are taken from a credit card which are charged interest from the day they are taken but don't trigger finance charges on new purchases or the so-called ""zero percent balance transfer offers"" are accepted."
Most 0% interest loans have quite high interest rates that are deferred. If you are late on a payment you are hit with all the deferred interest. They're banking on a percentage of customers missing a payment.  Also, this is popular in furniture/car sales because it's a way to get people to buy who otherwise wouldn't, they made money on the item sale, so the loan doesn't have to earn them money (even though some will). Traditional banks/lenders do make money from interest and rely on that, they would have to rely on fees if interest were not permitted.
Yes, the distinction between how your funds are applied to principal vs interest is very important. The interest amount charged each period (probably monthly) is not just one fixed sum calculated at the origination, but rather is a dynamically calculated amount that changes each period relative to how much principal is remaining (amount you owe).  The picture you posted showing principal and interest assumes the payer always paid their minimum payment and never made any extra payments of principal. Take a look at the following graph and play around with the extra payment fields. You will see some pretty drastic differences in the Total Interest Paid (green lines) when extra payments are made.  http://mortgagevista.com/#m=2&a=240000&b=4.5&c=30y&e=200&f=1/2020&g=10000&h=1/2025&G&H&J&M&N&P&n&o&p&q&x
"Other answers didn't seem to cover it, but most ""0%"" bank loans (often offered to credit card holders in the form of balance transfer checks), aside from less-obvious fees like already-mentioned late fees, also charge an actual loan fee, typically 2-3% (or a minimum floor amount) - that was the deal with every single transfer 0% offer I ever saw from a bank. So, effectively, even if you pay off the loan perfectly, on time, and within 0% period, you STILL got a 3% loan and not 0% (assuming 0% period lasts 12 months which is often the case)."
"As others have said: unless you can find someone willing to make a zero-interest loan, the answer is no.  If you can figure out how to turn a ""0% for first N months"" credit card offer onto a leveraged investment or something of that sort -- seems unlikely -- maybe."
Debt creates risk.  The more debt you take on, the higher your risk.  What happens if you lose your job, miss a payment, or forget to write the final payment check for the exact amount needed, and are left with a balance of $1 (meaning the back-dated interest would be applied)?  There is too much risk for little reward?  If you paid monthly at 0% and put your money in your savings account like you mentioned, how much interest would you really accrue?  Probably not much, since savings account rates suck right now. If you can pay cash for it now, do it.  So pay cash now and own it outright.  Why prolong it?  Is there something looming in the future that you think will require your money?  If so, I would put off the purchase. No one can predict the future.  Why not pay cash for it now, and pay yourself what would have been the monthly payment?  In three years, you have your money back.  And there is no risk at all. Also, when making large purchases with cash, you can sometimes get better discounts if you ask.
That would have been a good idea.  They don't charge interest on a $0 balance, but if you payoff your account after the cycle date, there is a hidden balance and that balance will accrue interest. It is only a few cents a day.  I just don't think it is legal for them to refuse to provide you a payoff quote mid cycle. I'm almost certain. When I worked for Discover it was a key point in training to not give the wrong amount and to make sure to use the calculator in the system to quote a daily balance, how much it goes up per day, and how much they should send if they were mailing the payment, giving consideration for the time it takes to receive/process the payment.
Two cases: You take the credit and reinvest the cash equivalent (be it a savings account or otherwise), yielding you the x% at virtually zero risk. Unless of course you consider possibility of your own negligence a risk (in case of missed payments, etc.). You pay by cash and have the peace of mind at the cost of that x%. The ultimate decision depends on which you value more - the $ you get from x%, or the peace of mind.
First, I assume you understand that 'Cash Offer' doesn't mean you really show up with cash (in a duffel bag...), but is an expression that designates that you don't need a mortgage approval, but have the money in your accounts. The advantages for the seller are With both cases depending on the seller's situation, there can't be a generic answer, and the 'discount' will be all over the place between zero and several percent.
Different stakeholders receive cash flows at different times. The easiest way for me to remember is if you're a debt holder vs equity owner on an income statement. Interest payments are made before net income, so debt holders are repaid before any residual cash flows go to equity owners.
You owe $10k at 18% and borrow an additional $10k at 0. When you pay back $10k, they are likely to apply it to the zero rate money and you are out 2%. Your question has merit, but as others say, the devil is I'm the details. You should read the fine print.  My credit card checks forbid drawing a check payable to myself. I need to pay another account, in my case easy to 'pay' my HELOC, then draw the funds.
2% is a very low interest rate; you can do much better by investing your new found money on a 2 year CD, or short term bonds. You could pay the 0% card according to the terms as well. Therefore, considering the low rates of your cards, you should check into some safe investments with guaranteed return rates.
"There are other good answers to the general point that the essence of what you're describing exists already, but I'd like to point out a separate flaw in your logic: Why add more complications so that ""should I call this principal or interest"" actually makes a difference? Why's the point (incentive) for this? The incentive is that using excess payments to credit payments due in the future rather than applying it to outstanding principal is more lucrative for the lender. Since it's more lucrative and there's no law against it most (all) lenders use it as the default setting."
"The optimal down payment is 100%. The only way you would do anything else when you have the cash to buy it outright is to invest the remaining money to get a better return.  When you compare investments, you need to take risk into account as well.  When you make loan payments, you are getting a risk free return.  You can't find a risk-free investment that pays as much as your car loan will be.  If you think you can ""game the system"" by taking a 0% loan, then you will end up paying more for the car, since the financing is baked into the sales [price in those cases (there is no such thing as free money).  If you pay cash, you have much more bargaining power.   Buy the car outright (negotiating as hard as you can), start saving what you would have been making as a car payment as an emergency fund, and you'll be ahead of the game. For the inflation hedge - you need to find investments that act as an inflation hedge - taking a loan does not ""hedge"" against inflation since you'll still be paying interest regardless of the inflation rate.  The fact that you'll be paying slightly less interest (in ""real"" terms) does not make it a hedge. To answer the actual question, if your ""reinvestment rate"" (the return you can get from investing the ""borrowed"" cash) is less than the interest rate, then the more you put down, the greater your present value (PV). If your reinvestment rate is less than the interest rate, then the less you put down the better (not including risk).  When you incorporate risk, though, the additional return is probably not worth the risk. So there is no ""optimal"" down payment in between those mathematically - it will depend on how much liquid cash you need (knowing that every dollar that you borrow is costing you interest)."
Why can't you have both? If you do have both credit and an emergency fund, and an emergency occurs, you can draw from the line of credit first. Having debt + cash is a much more stable situation than having neither, because then you have the option to use the cash to pay off the debt, or use the cash to pay other expenses. If you just have cash, when you spend it it's gone and there's no guarantee anyone is going to lend you any money at that point.
Mostly to play devil's advocate, I will recommend something different than everybody else. If you can pay off the entire $3,000 balance and are torn between saving that money somewhere that will earn a return and paying it off now to be debt-free, why not a little of both? What if you pay half now and then save the other half and make a big payment at the end. Essentially that becomes two $1,500 payments: one now, one right before the 0% due date. To me, the half up-front significantly reduces the risk, but leaves some cash available to grow.
Hope you figure it out.  There wouldn't be a different RFR / discount rate because you're assuming a return on parked cash - that's what it's for.  Since both situations would theoretically happen simultaneously you use the same rate unless you would do something different with cash in each instance.
Now, is there any clever way to combine FOREX transactions so that you receive the US interest on $100K instead of the $2K you deposited as margin?  Yes, absolutely. But think about it -- why would the interest rates be different? Imagine you're making two loans, one for 10,000 USD and one for 10,000 CHF, and you're going to charge a different interest rate on the two loans. Why would you do that? There is really only one reason -- you would charge more interest for the currency that you think is less likely to hold its value such that the expected value of the money you are repaid is the same. In other words, currencies pay a higher interest when their value is expected to go down and currencies pay a lower interest when their value is expected to go up. So yes, you could do this. But the profits you make in interest would have to equal the expected loss you would take in the devaluation of the currency. People will only offer you these interest rates if they think the loss will exceed the profit. Unless you know better than them, you will take a loss.
The interest rate depends on the performance of a market index or a set of market indices. The insurance company states a maximum interest rate (or cap) you can earn up to and a guaranteed minimum floor on your cash value interest that will be credited (typically 0% floor and 12% cap). It is purely a method to credit you interest rate. It takes the market risk out of the equation but still retains some of the growth potential of the market. Term policy is designed for temporary coverage. There is no cash value accumulation. Permanent policies such as whole life, universal life, variable universal life and indexed universal life have a cash value accumulation component that was originally designed to help pay for the cost of insurance in the later stages of the policy when the insured is at an advanced age, so it can cover the entire lifespan of the insured. People do take advantage of that cash value component and its tax advantages for retirement income supplement and maximize the premium contribution. Always remember that life insurance is a life insurance product, and not an investment vehicle. There is a cost of insurance that you are paying for. But if you have life insurance needs, you might as well take advantage of the cash value accumulation, deferred tax growth, and tax-free access that these permanent policies offer."
"It really depends on the exact wording of that zero rate offer.  Some specifically state they are to be used for paying other debt. Others will have wording such as ""pay other debt or write yourself a check to pay for that next vacation, or new furniture.""  Sorry, it's back on you to check this out in advance."
The details of how you can convert your 5% equity share to cash or stocks will be detailed in writing in the legal agreement you have already signed. If you do not have any signed written agreement, there is no 5%. Since 0% of anything is zero, you can expect to get $0 some time within the next few years. Lastly, if the person running the business, tells you that there is 5% equity for you, even though it is not in writing, that is extremely unlikely to be the case. This is because the Seller of the equity has no obligation whatsoever to pay you. In fact, they are obligated by their other agreements with actual shareholders not to dilute their equity without good cause. So, odds are, if your agreement is not in writing, not only will it not be honored, but it probably can't be honored.
"At first blush, this seems like it makes sense - assuming, like you say in your question, that you are perfectly confident in your ability to repay (even if you need to pay the balance in full if you lose your job), then this seems like a guaranteed 4% return, and a reasonable part of your retirement portfolio. Where it falls apart, though, is that you're paying yourself. You're just taking the money out of one pocket and putting it in another. So really you're getting a guaranteed 0% return. You're losing the compounding growth of the loan amount while it's out of your accounts, and the fact that you can afford the 4% interest means you could have been putting that into a requirement account as well aside from the loan - so it doesn't really count as ""interest"" in the sense that your money is passively making money for you. So ultimately: no, it shouldn't count as part of your bond allocation."