Re: Refund Calculation
LOL Peter - I feel honoured that I have kept you up all night. I'm really not that good-looking, you know !!!
Yeah, you have clearly investigated this aspect of APR calculation, and indeed the whole idea of the APR is to encompass ALL the 'relevant' costs involved in borrowing a particular sum of money for a year. So, for example, the old £2 cash advance fee affected the APR applicable to cash advances, etc - even though the interest charged on the advance was (usually) the same as for purchases. So therefore, indeed, it was not correct to 'reverse-engineer' the APR formula in such cases.
I guess that we must remember the 'raison d'étre' for the APR, and that to reverse the calculation is NOT always correct. It would have been nice if the FSA had explained this, though, wouldn't it ?
For me, though, the bottom line is that you seem to have found what the FSA MIGHT have used as their explanation as to why they use the 'simple' method of divide by 12 - and that is good enough for me. So - I'm happy to accept that their methodology is NOT flawed, in the light of your above words and thoughts, and that it is an effort to make the best of a bad job.
It thus seems acceptable to me, and I would happily commend it to the house !!!
LOL Peter - I feel honoured that I have kept you up all night. I'm really not that good-looking, you know !!!
Yeah, you have clearly investigated this aspect of APR calculation, and indeed the whole idea of the APR is to encompass ALL the 'relevant' costs involved in borrowing a particular sum of money for a year. So, for example, the old £2 cash advance fee affected the APR applicable to cash advances, etc - even though the interest charged on the advance was (usually) the same as for purchases. So therefore, indeed, it was not correct to 'reverse-engineer' the APR formula in such cases.
I guess that we must remember the 'raison d'étre' for the APR, and that to reverse the calculation is NOT always correct. It would have been nice if the FSA had explained this, though, wouldn't it ?
For me, though, the bottom line is that you seem to have found what the FSA MIGHT have used as their explanation as to why they use the 'simple' method of divide by 12 - and that is good enough for me. So - I'm happy to accept that their methodology is NOT flawed, in the light of your above words and thoughts, and that it is an effort to make the best of a bad job.
It thus seems acceptable to me, and I would happily commend it to the house !!!
Comment