US APR vs EU APR, and the Substitute Tax on Loan Effects on These Formulas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Italy, especially these days, we have been dealing with the common “mortgage constant”, technically built under the principles of the compounded interest methods. This worldwide well-known financial technique clearly shows that every single rate is constant and composed by the sum of the principal part + the accrued interest. The rates of this kind of amortization plan result in an inversely proportional scheme: higher interest reimbursed at the beginning of the amortization plan, increasing rate by rate. If this is unquestionable everywhere, the Italian Courts and many Italian banks officially deny that this amortization plan technique incorporates compound interest and anatocism, although the mortgage constant is on the compounded interest structure, as per the anatocism effect in it. In order to defend this thesis about the absence of anatocism in compounded interest on constant rate, basically, all the other Senior Expert Witnesses of the Italian Courts recall EU APR formula, constantly declaring that it is equal to IRR formula, without any differences, without any exceptions. Their statement, confirmed by many Italian Courts, is that EU APR formula is exactly corresponding to the IRR formula, determined using the IRR Excel function (XIRR). My study states that this is very incorrect, that the IRR formula (and function) is equal to the US APR, which assume as an APY, and different from EU APR, better to define as EAR.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".