>that's not really an "interest rate" anymore, is it?
If a grace period is ok now, why would it not be ok?
But if there has to be one rate per customer, sure, fine, why can't it be adjusted based on their minimum balance over time?
>Tell me what interest rate could replace "2% fee, 1 billing cycle grace period, 16% interest afterwards"
Option 1 would be to add (for the sake of an example) 24%, keep a sort of grace period, classify people in two groups.
People who were eligible for 2% cash back now pay 0% during the grace period, 16% after.
People who were not eligible for cash back now pay 24% during the grace period, 40% after.
Not exact numbers, just an outline.
Option 2, if they want to get rid of grace periods, they just separate people who usually pay off their balance monthly and those who usually don't and charge them the different rates.
> If a grace period is ok now, why would it not be ok?
Grace periods are fine! But you said get rid of them, and I was pointing out that you can't simplify the math that much. It ends up being a mess with a hidden grace period inside a bunch of confusing math, rather than an understandable and relatively stable interest rate.
If you're happy to keep grace periods, great, let's do that. And I'll skip the rest of the post because it's not worth fussing over in that case.
If a grace period is ok now, why would it not be ok?
But if there has to be one rate per customer, sure, fine, why can't it be adjusted based on their minimum balance over time?
>Tell me what interest rate could replace "2% fee, 1 billing cycle grace period, 16% interest afterwards"
Option 1 would be to add (for the sake of an example) 24%, keep a sort of grace period, classify people in two groups.
Not exact numbers, just an outline.Option 2, if they want to get rid of grace periods, they just separate people who usually pay off their balance monthly and those who usually don't and charge them the different rates.