vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Loans do not carry an ""interest balance"". You can not pay off ""all the interest"". The only way to reduce the interest to zero is to pay off the loan. Otherwise, the interest due each month is some percentage of the outstanding principal. Think of it from the bank's perspective: they've invested some amount of money in you, and they expect a return on that investment in the form of interest. If you somehow paid in 16 years all the interest the bank expected to receive in 30 years, you've been scammed."
In short, the only way to avoid paying interest on the amount borrowed was to start with a card showing a $0 balance due on the previous month's statement, not make any charges on that card for a whole year, and pay off that 2% service charge within the grace period. It might also have required that one-twelfth of that interest-free loan be repaid each month, but I had stopped reading the offer at this point and filed it in the round circular file. In short, while @JoeTaxpayer's tale of how ""As a pay-in-full user, I've used the zero rate to throw $20K at the 5.25% mortgage"" is undoubtedly how things worked once, it is not at all clear that they still work that way. At least, they don't work that way for me. Heck, once upon a time, for a period of about 3 months, you could earn 1.5% interest per month from the credit card company by overpaying your credit card bill considerably. Their computers then just ""added on"" 1.5% interest by multiplying your credit balance -$X by 1.015 and so you got 1.5% per month interest from the credit card company. The credit card agreements (and the software!) got changed in a hurry, and nowdays all credit-card agreements state in the fine print that if you overpay your bill, you don't earn any interest on the overpayment."
"There are two issues here: arithmetic and psychology. Scenario 1: You are presently paying an extra $500 per month on your student loan, above the minimum payments. Your credit card company offers a $4000 cash advance at 0% for 8 months. So you take the cash advance, pay it toward the student loan, and then instead of paying the extra $500 per month toward the student loan you use that $500 for 8 months to repay the cash advance. Net result: You pay 0% interest on the loan, and save roughly 8 months times $4000 times the interest on the student loan divided by two. (I say ""divided by two"" because it's not the difference between $4000 and zero, but between $4000 and the $500 you would have been paying off each month.) Clearly you are better off. If you are NOT presently paying an extra $500 on the student loan -- or even if you are but it is a struggle to come up with the money -- then the question becomes, can you reasonably expect to be able to pay off the credit card before the grace period runs out? Interest rates on credit cards are normally much higher than interest rates on student loans. If you get the cash advance and then can't repay it, after 8 months you are paying a very steep interest rate, and anything you saved on the student loan will quickly be lost. What I mean by ""psychological"" is that you have to have the discipline to really repay the credit card within the grace period. If you're not very confidant that you can do that, this plan could go bad very quickly. Personally, I've thought about doing things like this many times -- cash advances against credit cards, home equity loans, etc, all give low-interest money that could be used to pay off a higher-interest debt. But it's easy to get into trouble doing things like this. It's easy to say to yourself, Well, I don't need to put ALL the money toward that other debt, I could keep a thousand or so to buy that big screen TV I really need. Or to fail to pay back the low-interest loan on schedule because other things keep coming up that you spend your money on instead, whether frivolous luxuries or true emergencies.
In the US, our standard fixed rate mortgages would show no difference. My payment is calculated to be due on the 1st of each month.  When I first got a mortgage, I was intrigued by this question, and experimented. I paid early, on the 15th, 2 weeks early, and looked at my next statement. It matched the amortization, exactly. Mortgages at the time were over 12%, so I'd imagine having seen the benefit of that 1/2% for the early payment.  Next I paid on the last day before penalty, in effect, 2 weeks late. I expected to see extra interest accrue, again, just a bit, but enough to see when compared to the amortization table. Again, no difference, the next statement showed the same value to the penny.
"It is true that all else being equal, you will pay a lower amount of total interest by paying down your highest interest rate debts first. However, all else is not always equal. I'm going to try to come up with some reasons why it might be better in some circumstances to pay your debts in a different order. And I'll try to use as much math as possible. :) Let's say that your goal is to eliminate all of your debt as fast as possible. The faster you do this, the lower the total interest that you will pay. Now, let's consider the different methods that you could take to get there: You could pay the highest interest first, you could pay the lowest interest first, or you could pay something in the middle first. No matter which path you choose, the quicker you pay everything off, the lower total interest you will pay. In addition to that, the quicker you pay everything off, the difference in total interest paid between the most optimal method and the least optimal method will be less. To put this in mathematical notation: limt→0 Δ Interest(t) = 0 Given that, anything we can do to speed up the time it takes to get to ""debt free"" is to our advantage. When paying large amounts of debt as fast as possible, sacrifice is needed. And this means that psychology comes into play. I don't know about you, but for me, gamifying the system makes everything easier. (After all, gamification is what gets us to write answers here on SE.) One way to do this is to eliminate individual debts as quickly as possible. For example, let's say that I've got 10 debts. 5 of them are for $1k each. 3 of them are for $5k each, 1 is a $20k car loan, and 1 is a $100k mortgage. Each one has a monthly payment. Let's say that I've got $3k sitting in the bank that I want to use to kickstart my debt reduction. I could pay all $3k toward one of my larger loans, or I could immediately pay off 3 of my 10 loans.
Good question. If a person has a choice, it is probably better to pay cash. But not always. If your large pile of cash can earn more being invested than cost of the interest to borrow a similar large pile of cash, it is beneficial to get a mortgage. Otherwise pay cash. EXAMPLE: A house costs $100,000. I have $100,000 in extra money. I can invest that at 5% per year, and I can borrow an additional $100,000 at 2% per year. Since I can make more on my pile of cash than it costs to borrow another pile of cash, borrowing is better. Compound interest is the most powerful force on the planet according to Albert Einstein (maybe). That isn't likely for most people though. Here is the results from some online financial calculators. http://www.calcxml.com/do/hom03 Borrowing $100,000 with 2% interest for 30 years will cost a total of $148.662. You get $100,000, but it cost you $48,662 to do it. http://www.calcxml.com/do/sav07 Saving $100,000 in a bank account with an interest rate of %5 will be worth $432,194 in 30 years. By not spending the money you will earn $332,194 over the course of 30 years. So if you can invest at 5% and borrow at 2% you will end up with $283,532 more than if you didn't. It is a pretty extreme example, and financial advisers make a lot of money figuring out the complex nature of money to make situations like that possible.
Read the terms and conditions very carefully. Many zero percent deals have a requirement that you pay back at a certain date, and if you don't, you'll have to pay some enormous percentage. Nobody will remind you of the date, because the lender has the secret hope that you will forget.
1) Yes, both of your scenarios would lead to earning $10 on the transaction, at the strike date. If you purchased both of them (call it Scenario 3), you would make $20. 2) As to why this transaction may not be possible, consider the following: The Call and Put pricing you describe may not be available. What you have actually created is called 'arbitrage' - 2 identical assets can be bought and sold at different prices, leading to a zero-risk gain for the investor. In the real marketplace, if an option to buy asset X in January cost $90, would an option to sell asset X in January provide $110? Without adding additional complexity about the features of asset x or the features of the options, buying a Call option is the same as selling a Put option [well, when selling a Put option you don't have the ability to choose whether the option is exercised, meaning buying options has value that selling options does not, but ignore that for a moment]. That means that you have arranged a marketplace where you would buy a Call option for only $90, but the seller of that same option would somehow receive $110. For added clarity, consider the following: What if, in your example, the future price ended up being $200? Then, you could exercise your call option, buying a share for $90, selling it for $200, making $110 profit. You would not exercise your put option, making your total profit $110. Now consider: What if, in your example, the future price ended up being $10? You would buy for $10, exercise your put option and sell for $110, making a profit of $100. You would not exercise your call option, making your total profit $100. This highlights that if your initial assumptions existed, you would earn money (at least $20, and at most, unlimited based on a skyrocketing price compared to your $90 put option) regardless of the future price. Therefore such a scenario would not exist in the initial pricing of the options. Now perhaps there is an initial fee involved with the options, where the buyer or seller pays extra money up-front, regardless of the future price.
"Your use of the term ""loan"" is confusing, what you're proposing is to open a new card and take advantage of the 0% APR by carrying a balance.  The effects to your credit history / score will be the following:"
The issuer is effectively paying interest on interest over the lifetime of the bond. Instead, many issuers choose to issue ""coupon bonds"", which have a ""coupon rate"" determining the amount of a ""coupon payment"". This can be equated pretty closely with you making interest-only payments on a credit card balance; each period in which interest is compounded, you pay the amount of interest that has accrued, to avoid this compounding effect. From an accounting standpoint, the coupon rate lowers the amount of real monies paid; the same $1m in bonds, maturing in 10 years with a 5% expected rate of return, but with a 5% coupon rate, now only requires payments totalling $1.5m, and that half-million in interest is paid $50k at a time annually (or $25k semi-annually). But, from a finance standpoint, because the payments made in the first few years are worth more than the payments made closer to and at maturity, the present value of all these coupon payments (plus the maturity payout) is higher than if the full payout happened at maturity, and so the future value of the total investment is higher. Coupon rates on bonds thus allow a bond issuer to plan a bond package in less complicated terms. If you as a small business need $1m for a project, which you will repay in 10 years, and during that time you are willing to tolerate a 5% interest rate on the outstanding money, then that's exactly how you issue the bonds; $1 million worth, to mature in 10 years and a 5% coupon rate. Now, whether the market is willing to accept that rate is up to the market. Right now, they'd be over the moon with that rate, and would be willing to buy the bonds for more than their face value, because the present value would then match the yield they're willing to accept (as in any market system, you as the seller will sell to the highest bidder to get the best price available). If however, they think you are a bad bet, they'll want an even higher rate of return, and so the present value of all coupon and maturity payments will be less than the par value, and so will the purchase price."
The calculation can be made on the basis that the loan is equal to the sum of the repayments discounted to present value.  (For more information see Calculating the Present Value of an Ordinary Annuity.) With Deriving the loan formula from the simple discount summation.  As you can see, this is the same as the loan formula given here. In the UK and Europe APR is usually quoted as the effective interest rate while in the US it is quoted as a nominal rate.  (Also, in the US the effective APR is usually called the annual percentage yield, APY, not APR.) Using the effective interest rate finds the expected answer. The total repayment is £30.78 * n = £1108.08 Using a nominal interest rate does not give the expected answer.
If you pay your statement balance in full before the due date you will never pay a cent in interest no matter what your interest rate is.*  In fact, I don't even know what my interest rates are. Credit card companies offer this sort of thing in the hopes you will spend more than you can afford to pay completely in those first 15 months.  * Unless you use a cash advance, with those you will accrue interest immediately upon receiving the cash sometimes with an additional fee on top.
When you pay off a loan early, you pay the remaining principal, and you save all of the remaining interest. So you do save on interest, but it's the interest you would have paid in the future, not the interest you have paid in the past. (Your remaining balance when you pay off the loan only includes the principal, not the projected interest.) Interest is a factor of the amount borrowed, the interest rate and the amount of time you borrow the money. The sooner you repay the money, the less interest you pay. Imagine if you had taken a 30 year loan at 4% interest but were allowed to make no payments until the loan term ended. If you waited 15 years to make your first payment, you wouldn't owe the same money as if you'd made payments every month. No, instead of owing ~$64k, you'd owe ~$182k, because you had borrowed $100k for 15 years (plus the interest due) rather than borrowing a declining sum. So that's why you don't get a refund on interest for previous months. If you had started with a 16 year loan, then you would have been paying more principal every month, and your monthly amount due would have been higher to reflect that. As you paid the principal off faster, the interest each month would drop faster. Paying a huge portion of the principal at the end of the loan is not the same as steadily paying it down in the same time frame. You will pay a lot more interest in the former case, and rightfully so. It might help to consider a credit card payment in comparison. If you run up a balance and pay only the minimum each month, you pay a lot of interest over time, because your principal goes down slowly. If you suddenly pay off your credit card, you don't have to pay any more interest, but you also don't get any interest back for previous months. That's because the interest accrued each month is based on your current balance, just like your mortgage. The minimum payments are calculated differently, but the interest accrued each month uses essentially the same mechanism.
"If you find a credit card with 0% interest, let us know!  I guess I'll just be the one to tell you that this belongs in /r/personalfinance  No, a new credit card balance won't affect your existing mortgage. However opening that mortgage so recently definitely dinged your credit substantially and it almost definitely hasn't recovered yet so your credit score isn't as good as you think it is from the home purchase.  If you can magically finance $4k for 0% APR then obviously you should do that since you're house poor but be absolutely sure you're right about the terms of financing. I normally make purchases like that on a rewards credit card (airline miles) then pay it off immediately but that's just me.  Using the word ""adulting"" answers that question immediately."
"If I pay off 70 percent of the loan amount, will I be charged less interest? Yes, because when there's less debt (aka ""the balance"") to charge interest on, just as when you pay it off ""normally"", there's less interest charged. Note that the loan contract might stipulate: That's quite rare in the US (except for some student loans), but I don't know about India."
I think is an excellent idea. Use free money or almost free to do a lump sump payment. My recommendation is to have a reminder to pay credit card before, almost finishing, the 0% APR period.
Between now and October, your $3,000 will earn $30 in your savings account. If you are late on a payment for your 0% loan, your interest rate will skyrocket.  In my opinion, the risk is just not worth the tiny gain you are trying to achieve in the savings account. If it was me, I would pay off the loan today. A few more thoughts: There is a reason that businesses offer 0% consumer loans.  They are designed to trick you into thinking that you are getting a better deal than you are.  Businesses don't lose money on these loans.  The price of the loan is built into the cost of the purchase, whether you are buying expensive furniture, or a car.  Typically with a car, you forfeit a rebate by taking the 0% loan, essentially paying all the interest up-front.  Now that you have the loan, you might be ahead a few dollars by waiting to pay it off, but only because you've already paid the interest.  Don't make the mistake of thinking that you can come out ahead by buying things at 0%.  It's really not free money. In the comments, @JoeTaxpayer mentioned that fear of mistakes can lead to missed rewards.  I understand that; however, these 0% loans are full of small print designed to trip you up.  A single mistake can negate years and years of these small gains.  You don't want to be penny wise and pound foolish.
I could be mistaken, but since card #1 and card #2 have the same interest rate, it doesn't matter which one you pay more towards, both in terms of time it will take you to pay it down and how much interest you pay. Basically you'll be paying $1105 each month towards a total debt of $27,459 at 2%, irrespective of how you divide the payments up over the cards (just make sure you observe minimum payment requirements).  The situation would be different if they had different interest rates or if the low rate on one of them would expire quicker than on the other one.
For simplicity, assume a bond with a 'face value' (the amount to be repaid to the investor on maturity) of $1,000 has these 3 defining characteristics: (1) The price [What the investor pays to acquire it]; (2) Interest payments [how much, if any, the corporation will pay to the investor before maturity, and when those payments will be made]; and (3) a bond rating [which is a third party assessment of how risky the bond is, based on the 'health' of the corporation]. Now if the bond rating agency is perfect in its risk assessment, and if the price of all bond's is fair, then why does it matter who you loan your money to? It matters because different people want different things out of their investments. If you are waiting to make a down payment on a house next year, then you don't want risk - you want to be certain that you will get your cash back, even if it means lower returns. So, even though a high-risk bond may be perfectly priced, it should only be bought by someone willing to bear that risk. If you are retired, and you need your bonds to pay you interest regularly as your sole source of income, then of course a zero-coupon bond [one that pays no interest] is not helpful to you. If you are young, and have a long time to invest, then you may want risk, because you have time to overcome losses and you want to get the most return possible. In addition, taxes are not universal between all investors. Some people benefit from things that would be tax-heavy to their neighbors. For example in Canada, there is a 'dividend tax credit' which reduces the taxes owing on dividends received by a corporation. This credit exists to prevent 'double-taxation', because otherwise the corporation would pay its ~30% of tax, and then a wealthy investor would pay another ~45% of tax. Due to the mechanics of how the credit is calculated, however, someone who makes less money, gets an even lower tax bill than they normally would. This means that someone making under the top tax bracket in Canada, has a tax benefit by receiving dividends.
"It has been reported in consumer media (for example Clark Howard's radio program) that the ""no interest for 12 months"" contracts could trick you with the terms and the dates on the contract. Just as an example: You borrow $1000 on 12/1/2013, same as cash for 12 months.  The contract will state the due date very clearly as 12/1/2014.  BUT they statements you get will take payment on the 15th of each month. So you will dutifully pay your statements as they come in, but when you pay the final statement on 12/15/2014, you are actually 14 days late, have violated the terms, and you now owe all the interest that accumulated (and it wasn't a favorable rate). That doesn't happen all the time.  Not all contracts are written that way.  But you better read your agreement. Some companies use the same as cash deal because they want to move product. Some do it because they want to trick you with financing.  Bottom line is, you better read the contract."
I'll have to think it through, but at the very least unless your debt is a pure discount instrument and  you are using cash flows, some if that money IS getting paid during those 5 years. As in if you are using earnings, they pay p&amp;i. Or if earnings and pure discount instruments, then amortized interest (I think, been a while).  You see the actual numbers and know what you are trying to do, but I'm a little lost. Are you building a discount model with a multiple terminal and using ev as the multiple? Are you using free cash flow to firm for the discounting? I'm guessing that's the case.