Car finance, APR rates and per week in adverts; help understanding them
Easier to copy paste than type this out. Credit: www.financeformulas.net Note that the present value would be the initial loan amount, which is likely the sale price you noted minus a down payment.   The loan payment formula is used to calculate the payments on a loan.   The formula used to calculate loan payments is exactly the same as the   formula used to calculate payments on an ordinary annuity. A loan, by   definition, is an annuity, in that it consists of a series of future   periodic payments. The PV, or present value, portion of the loan payment formula uses the   original loan amount. The original loan amount is essentially the   present value of the future payments on the loan, much like the   present value of an annuity. It is important to keep the rate per period and number of periods   consistent with one another in the formula. If the loan payments are   made monthly, then the rate per period needs to be adjusted to the   monthly rate and the number of periods would be the number of months   on the loan. If payments are quarterly, the terms of the loan payment   formula would be adjusted accordingly. I like to let loan calculators do the heavy lifting for me. This particular calculator lets you choose a weekly pay back scheme. http://www.calculator.net/loan-calculator.html "Taking the last case first, this works out exactly. (Note the Bank of England interest rate has nothing to do with the calculation.) The standard loan formula for an ordinary annuity can be used (as described by BobbyScon), but the periodic interest rate has to be calculated from an effective APR, not a nominal rate.  For details, see APR in the EU and UK, where the definition is only valid for effective APR, as shown below. 2003 BMW 325i £7477 TYPICAL APR 12.9% 60 monthly payments £167.05 How does this work? See the section Calculating the Present Value of an Ordinary Annuity.  The payment formula is derived from the sum of the payments, each discounted to present value. I.e. The example relates to the EU APR definition like so.  Next, the second case doesn't make much sense (unless there is a downpayment). 2004 HONDA CIVIC 1.6 i-VTEC SE 5 door Hatchback £6,999 £113.15 per month ""At APR 9.9% [as quoted in advert], 58 monthly payments"" 58 monthly payments at 9.9% only amount to £5248.75 which is £1750.25 less than the price of the car. Finally, the first case is approximate. 2005 TOYOTA COROLLA 1.4 VVTi 5 door hatchback £7195 From £38 per week ""16.1% APR typical, a 60 month payment, 260 weekly payments"" A weekly payment of £38 would imply an APR of 14.3%."
"The system of comparison and calculation of insurance rates seems completely and utterly flawed to me. Why would you group cars from different manufacturers together by arbitrarily defined factors such as weight and size? It is perfectly possible to have a big, heavy car with very low claims, while a small car can have a lot more claims.   The response provided by Tesla seems similarly moronic. They claim that their car is being compared to the wrong types of car, but even if that were the case - *so what*? If the other cars you are being compared to are too cheap/slow/small, then you have obviously been assigned to the wrong group, and should be in another group with the bigger, more expensive cars, which I would gather are even more expensive to insure, and thus your car should be more expensive to insure.   If an insurance company is providing insurance to 1000 Volvo XC 90 drivers and 1000 Tesla Model S drivers and they get 100 claims from the Volvo drivers costing them a total of $ 200,000, while they get 150 claims from the Tesla drivers totaling $ 300,000 during the same time period, obviously the Tesla should be 50 % more expensive to insure. That is literally how car insurance works.   Here in Germany, every model of car is assigned a unique identifier (""Typschlüsselnummer"", roughly translates as ""type number"" or ""type identifier""). Insurance companies track which cars their clients own, and report condensed claims statistics for each model back to a central service provider, which then assigns an insurance group (Typklasse) to each car for each type of insurance (there are distinct, independent groups for liability, partial and comprehensive coverage) depending on the actual, measured per-car expenditures experienced by the insurance companies over the previous year. The insurance companies then feed that data back into their systems for their rate calculations." Money factor is a term coined by leasing companies to make car leasing that much more convoluted. It's basically a decimal value that you multiply by 2400 in order to arrive at your actual annual percentage rate or interest rate. Here's a really good article detailing how you can calculate your interest rate based on other criteria in your leasing contract, because most of the time you won't even be given money factor on your leasing contract So many answers here are missing the mark.  I have a $100k mortgage--because that isn't paid off, I can't buy a car?  That's really misguided logic. You have a reasonably large amount of college debt and didn't mention any other debt-- It's a really big deal what kind of debt this is.  Is it unsecured debt through a private lender? Is it a federal loan from the Department of Education? Let's assume the worst possible (reasonable) situation.  You lose your job and spend the next year plus looking for work.  This is the boat numerous people out of college are in (far far far FAR more than the unemployment rates indicate).  Federal loans have somewhat reasonable (indentured servitude, but I digress) repayment strategies; you can base the payment on your current income through income-based and income-continent repayment plans.  If you're through a private lender, they still expect payment.  In both cases--because the US hit students with ridiculous lending practices, your interest rates are likely 5-10% or even higher. Given your take-home income is quite large and I don't know exactly the cost of living where you live--you have to make some reasonable decisions.  You can afford a car note for basically any car you want.  What's the worst that happens if you can't afford the car?  They take it back. If you can afford to feed yourself, house yourself, pay your other monthly bills...you make so much more than the median income in the US that I really don't see any issues. What you should do is write out all your monthly costs and figure out how much unallocated money you have, but I'd imagine you have enough money coming in to finance any reasonable new or used car.  Keep in mind new will have much higher insurance and costs, but if you pick a good car your headaches besides that will be minimal. From personal experience (I financed a new car from the dealer/manufacturer within weeks of graduating, still on an F1-OPT): Question is, what is this number 0.01140924 13.69/12=0.01140924 In addition, how does one come out with the EIR as 13.69% pa? When calculating payments, PV = 9800, N=36 (months), PMT=333.47, results in a rate of 1.140924% per period, and rate of 13.69%/yr. No idea how they claim 7.5% In Excel, type =RATE(36,333.47,-9800,0,0) And you will get 1.141% as the result.  36 = #payments, 333.47 = payment per period, -9800 is the principal (negative, remember this) And the zeros are to say the payments are month end, second zero is the guess.  Edit - I saw the loan is from a Singapore bank. It appears they have different rules on the rates they quote. As quid's answer showed the math, here's the bank's offer page -  The EIR is the rate that we, not just US, but most board members, are used to. I thought I'd offer an example using a 30 year mortgage.   Yo can see above, a 6% fixed rate somehow morphs into a 3.86% AR. No offense to the Singapore bankers, but I see little value in this number. What surprises me most, is that I've not seen this before.  What's baffling is when I change a 15yr term the AP drops to less than half. It's still a 6% loan and there's nothing about it that's 2 percent-ish, in my opinion.  Now we know. I've read online that 20% is a reasonable amount to pay for a car each month - Don't believe everything you read on the internet.  But, let me ask, does your current car have zero expense? No fuel, no oil change, no repairs, no insurance? If the 20% is true, you are already spending a good chunk of it each month. My car just celebrated her 8th birthday. And at 125,000 miles, needed $3000 worth of maintenance repairs.  The issue isn't with buying the expensive car, you can buy whatever you can afford, that's a personal preference. It's how you propose to budget for it that seems to be bad math. Other members here have already pointed out that this financial decision might not be so wise. "Now, to buy in full (and essentially have zero savings), buy in part (£10000 deposit, followed by a loan of £4000) or PCP/HP more of the value? So, you are assessing if the car is worth having with either none or only 4,000 in savings. This is the most critical information you have provided.   My outright opinion is to always buy a mildly used car as I hate the idea of loans and interest. With the amount of money that you currently possess, I believe the ""Buy-in-part"" option is best as it reduces your interest liability; but, I don't believe you should do it currently. 4,000 is a rather small cash fund for if something were to go boom in the night.   As for your question of interest: This is completely dependent on the amount you are able to pay per period and the total interest you are willing to spend, rows four and seven respectively. This is your money, and no one can tell you what's best to do with it than yourself. Keep looking for good leasing deals or if you think you can survive financial strife with 4,000 then follow your heart. ""Depreciation"" fluctuates to the buyer, so never assume what the car may lose in the next 2-3 years. Hope it all goes well my friend." "Yikes! Not always is this the case... For example, you purchased a new car with an interest rate of 5-6%or even higher... Why pay that much interest throughout the loan. Sometimes trading in the vehicle at a lower rate will get you a lower or sometimes the same payment even with an upgraded (newer/safer technology) design. The trade off? When going from New to New, the car may depreciate faster than what you would save from the interest savings on a new loan. Sometimes the tactics used to get you back to the dealership could be a little harsh, but if you do your research long before you inquire, you may come out on the winning end. Look at what you're paying in interest and consider it a ""re-finance"" of your car but taking advantage of the manufacturer's low apr special to off-set the costs." It's my understand that leasing is never the better overall deal, with the possible exception of a person who would otherwise buy a brand new car every 2 or 3 years, and does not drive a lot of miles. Note: in the case of a company car, Canadian taxes let you deduct the entire lease payment (which clearly has some principal in it) if you lease, while if you buy you can only deduct the interest, and must depreciate the car according to their schedule. This can make leasing more attractive to those buying a car through a corporation. I don't know if this applies in the US. The numbers you ran through in class presumably involved calculating the interest paid over the term of the loan. Can you not just redo the calculation using actual interest and lease numbers from a randomly chosen current car ad? I suspect if you do, you will discover leasing is still not the right choice. That interest rate (13%) is steep, and the balloon payment will have him paying more interest longer. Investing the difference is a risky proposition because past performance of an investment is no guarantee of future performance. Is taking that risk worth netting 2%? Not for me, but you must answer that last question for yourself. To your edit: How disruptive would losing the car and/or getting negative marks on your credit be? If you can quantify that in dollars then you have your answer. Some proportion of the costs of a policy have little to no relationship to miles driven.  Think of costs of underwriting, and more especially sales/marketing/client acquisition costs (auto insurance isn't in the same league as non-term life insurance (where the commissions and other selling expenses typically exceed the first year's worth of premiums), but the funny TV ads and/or agent commissions aren't free), as well as general business overhead. Also, as noted by quid, some proportion of claim risk isn't correlated to distance covered (think theft, flood, fire, etc.). There are also differences in the miles that are likely to be driven by a non-commercial/vehicle-for-hire driver who puts 25k miles a year vs. one who puts 7k per year.  The former is generally going to be doing more driving at higher speeds on less-congested freeways while the latter will be doing more of their driving on crowded urban roads.  The former pattern generally has a lower expected value of claims both due to having fewer cars per road-mile, fewer intersections and driveways, and also having any given collision be more likely to result in a fatality (paralysis or other lifetime disability claims are generally going to exceed what the insurer would pay out on a fatality). The car company loans you money at 1 or 2% because it is part of the incentive to get you to buy the car.  Car company transactions are complex involving the manufacturer, the dealership, and the financing part of the car company. Not to mention Rebates, the used car transaction, and the leasing department. If they don't offer you a loan then the profit from that part of transaction is lost to an outside company. The better loan rates from the manufacturer are only with shorter term loans and without the rebate. That is why some suggest that you get the rebate, and then go to a credit union for the loan for lowest overall cost and greatest flexibility. The advertised rates are also only for the customers with great credit scores and the room in their clash flow to pay off the loan in a year or two. If you don't fit in that category, the rates will be higher. I haven't heard of these before!  (And I'm on the board of a Credit Union.) The 0.99% on loans is great.  It's especially great on a used car: the steep part of the depreciation curve was paid by the first owner. The network probably have a business relationship with the credit union.  Credit unions do indirect lending -- approval of loans that happens at the point of sale, which then the credit union gets as assets. Depending on the cost of that program, it probably won't hurt.  Your credit union wants to keep your business, because they know that you have a lot of options for where you bank and where you get loans. I looked at this a little more closely but the answer Victor provided is essentially correct.  The key to look at in the google finance graph is the red labled SMA(###d) would indicate the period units are d=days.  If you change the time axis of the graph it will shift to SMA(###m) for period in minutes or SMA(###w) for period in weeks.  Hope this clears things up! "30 minutes of driving times 5 days is 2.5 hours of driving. Average 40mph is 100 miles per week. Guess of 25mpg on your car is 4 gallons of gas. 4 times 3 bucks a gallon is 12 dollars. Say 3 hours per week of your time, times 9/10 dollars per hour is 27/30 dollars per week. 12 plus 27 is 39. So I'd say around 40 dollars per week seems fair. You could do 50 but it is playing with a doggy for a couple hours. Unless it's a giant (or tiny) pain in the ass, it's hardly ""work"" but that's just me. $40/week sounds fair. Hope you work it out pal."