|
Posted by nospam on September 24, 2007, 8:48 pm
Please log in for more thread options
"nomail1983@hotmail.com" elaborated his earlier query:
> [ Assume that the only information I have about
> a loan is that: ]
>
> . . . . the monthly interest rate was 1.25% [and] . . . .
>
> $ 70,600 balance 8/15/2001
> 630 unpaid late fees through 3/15/2002
> 6,808 unpaid interest through 3/15/2002
> 13,358 Foobar Company cure default
> 800 processing fee
> --------
> $ 92,196 balance 3/15/2001 (total)
>
> Does it make sense that those numbers are added to
> compute the new balance?
Bearing in mind the apparent date discrepancies as you state
them above, you do not fully explain and instead are
confusing about what you think you mean in this question by
"new balance" and why.
One might guess from your summary above that the date in the
last line ("3/15/2001"), which is not "new[er]" than the
others, is a typographical error and, speculating in light
of the other dates you state above, that you (or, if you do
quote accurately, the compilation you purport to reproduce)
meant that "3/15/2002" is the actually operative date for
the last line. However, one cannot reliably be sure solely
on the basis of the cursory schedule you provide because
there may be ways reasonably to interpret that entire
schedule as if the balance stated in the last line were a
correct one as of 8/15/2001 (notwithstanding and yet in ways
that might be consistent with the first line) or 3/15/2002.
Assuming, however, that 3/15/2002 is the correct/operative
date:
> If [during the period from 8/15/2001 through
> 3/15/2002, the borrower defaulted in paying
> all or parts of installments as/when required by
> the the note or other loan agreement at issue],
> does that mean that $13,358 should be the sum
> of the unpaid principal from 8/15/2001 through
> 3/15/2002 plus unpaid late fees, unpaid interest
> and perhaps the processing fee?
Not necessarily nor (inferring from the figures above) even
probably. One other reasonable interpretation of the above
summary is that $13,358 is the amount (solely) of principal
due but not paid during the here assumed seven month period
(and, indeed, it would be difficult to rationalize the full
balance as of 3/15/2002 as the $92,196 stated if one did not
make such an assumption). And even if one were to make some
version of such an assumption, it still would be difficult
reliably to determine what the underlying loan agreement
required to be the portion of monthly principal required to
be repaid because (among other potential reasons) one cannot
tell solely from the above schedule whether the borrower had
made partial payments of contractually due (repayment of)
principal during some portion(s) of that period.
> In other words, $13,358 minus $630 minus $6808
> and perhaps minus $800 should equal the principal
> that should have been paid down with the 7 missed
> payments. * * *
You have yet to explain why this "In other words, etc." is
even arguably needed to try to understand the above schedule
let alone why you appear to believe that the lender or
whoever else made the above summary did not decide (perhaps
quite simply), in substance, separately to list "$13,358" as
the portion of principal needed to cure the default(s) in
question regardless whether (for whatever reason or maybe
for no reason) s/he did not add the word "principal" after
that number and on which, in addition, the other sums stated
above shall be computed/added.
> If so, then the monthly payment would have
> been $1587 or $1697, and the "cured" ending
> balance would be $65,480 or $64,680 respectively,
> depending on whether $13,358 does or does not
> include the $800 in processing fees respectively.
Many (and so, as you apparently imply, not necessarily all)
loans which provide for some variant of late charges or
processing fees do not include these sorts of charges within
the otherwise applicable definitions of what sums the
borrower is required to pay in the agreed monthly
installments (or whatever is the other agreed installment
measuring period).
In any event, and as noted (and as your "If" in you "If so,
etc." seems also in effect to acknowledge), your here stated
conclusion would beg the question whether you are correct to
deduct the $630 and $6808 and ("perhaps") $800 sums from
$13,358 as you do.
You also appear to be assuming (even if you have not
articulated this clearly to yourself) that what the above
schedule (which you now emphasize was not prepared by an
accountant or like professional) states was the balance as
of 8/15/2001 includes then due but not paid interest in
addition to principal and, correlatively, you do not make
clear whether the $6,808 sum for "unpaid interest through
3/15/2002" includes interest that may have been payable but
not paid for some part of the loan period before 8/15/2001
(if the "$70,600 balance" refers only to principal although
the schedule does not say one way or t'other) and whether or
not also in part for the period during 8/14/2001 to
3/15/2002) that schedule not having said (explicitly) that
the therein stated $6,808 sum represents interest only for
the seven month period from 8/15/2001 through 3/15/2002.
> [Since] I do not have a complete record of the terms
> of the loan . . . [and] only know that the monthly interest
> rate was 1.25% . . . I cannot confirm the amount of unpaid
> principal . . . . [and am in any event ] suspicious of my
> interpretation . . . .
A question raised by your first posted query which you have
not answered in/by your present follow-up is WHY -- for what
purpose -- you speculate and ask about these matters (not to
dwell on whether, if your queries are triggered by some sort
of not yet by you described pending or what you believe may
become a real-life dispute, whether it is cost-vs.-benefit
warranted to be concerned about any of this). This therefore
is ;only one of the reasons why a reader of your postings
might be puzzled why (perhaps especially but not necessarily
only if you pose your query from the viewpoint of a
creditor) you appear to acquiesce in the notion of a default
having been cured bearing in mind that you still do not
report whether the operative loan agreement provided for
acceleration of the full balance in case of default
(whatever that sum may have been at any particular time)
and, if so, why the lender seems to have acquiesced in or
otherwise agreed to a cure
> Can anyone offer any educated guesses that
> might get me closer to the truth, despite the
> lack of information?
Whether you pose the queries you do as in your opinion law-
or tax- related, what you refer to as the "the truth"
continues to depend on your being more factually informative
than you have been so far about that "Why?" question, i.e.,
about the actual/specific (full) context of whatever is the
underlying scenario (dispute? would-be lawsuit?) and for
what purposes you seek more information than the schedule
above (which, of course, does say that$92,196 was the
balance owed as of whichever applies of 3/15/2001 or
Organization: The Oracle at Ellicott City
Distribution: world
Precedence: first-class
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
Subject: Re: Reducing Juices for Wine
Distribution: world
>>> I've got around 10 gallons of prickly pear juice with
>>> a specific gravity of 1.38. I don't need 10 more gallons
>>> of wine, and 4% alcohol seems a little weak. Consequently,
>>> I've been thinking of boiling it to reduce it by 3 or 4
>>> gallons before I ferment. Do you guys think this will hurt
>>> my must?
>> According to my calculator an SG: 1.38 = Brix: 71.95.
>> To me that means 1.5 gals of your pear juice in a five
>> gallon batch shoud give you a wine of 14 to 16%.
>>
>> I'm just west of Baltimore and would be gald to take
>> the excess of your hands.
> I think what he means is that the OG is 1.038, which would
> yield approx 5% alc. Boiling the must will set the pectins,
> which will cause a haze in the wine. You can use pectic
> enzyme to counteract this, but in order to boil 3 -4 gallons
> away you would need a reaaaally long boil. This would change
> the flavor of the juice as well, like how you reduce a wine
> in a pan sauce. The sauce doesn't end up tasting the same as
> the wine it was made from. If you're looking to up the alcohol
> in your must, add dextrose (it dissolves easily without boiling)
> to your juice. If there is an issue with it turning out too
> thin, you can add glucose to the finished wine to suppliment the
> body. It's not the best of solutions, but its one way of going
> at it.
Mike, thank you for the clarification.
My experiences with adding sugar nave not been positive.
Think 3-gals of juice, 11 lbs of clover honey plus water.
use a yeast strain with an alcohol toxicity level of 14%.
You'll also need pectic enzyme and yeast nutrient.
Dick
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap