2 Comments

  1. A F "Bob" Blair Jr
    March 28, 2014 @ 8:45 pm

    Gee, what we have here is a failure for me to communicate. I have written so many times on the Internet, that the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) of 1968, still in force, does not use the mathematically-true method of expressing an Annual Percentage Rate. Even though the Dodd-Frank Act was seemingly thorough to treat all wounds, it does not address the fact that the original NOMINAL (multiplied) method of determining an APR is still used. It is not the mathematically-true compound APR (CAPR, which is used in the U.K. and Canada and in the USA in the Truth In Savings Act. The Officials in charge have stated that the word “nominal” cannot be use when stating an Annual Percentage Rate. I hold in my hand a letter from Robert Willard Johnson, who responded to a letter I sent in 1974 stating that the compound method is correct, but he helped choose the method and the Nominal (Simple Interest) method was chosen because of the “cost of computing.” What he meant was that compounding was on very few machines in the 1960’s. Also, at that time interest rates were low and payment periods longer. At those conditions the Nominal APR was close to the Compound Now, the CAPR should be used!

    Reply

  2. A F Bob Blair Jr
    April 10, 2015 @ 9:09 am

    You might wish to investigate the 2 doctrines, 1 Economic Duress and 2 Force Majeure.

    Reply

Leave a Reply