<span>If you use a credit card and don't know the ins and outs of the grace period, you risk taking an awkward financial pratfall.
Capitalizing on the grace period's break on interest charges can save the typical cardholder a couple hundred bucks a year. But the savings aren't automatic and, according to an October 2013 report by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, it's "unclear whether consumers understand" the grace period's wily ways.
"It's basically an interest-free period, but only if you pay your balance by the due date," said Nessa Feddis, general counsel at the American Bankers Association.
Learn to use grace period
What it is: The grace period is the window of time from the end of your billing cycle to the due date for that cycle. Paying your new balance in full by the due date triggers a break on interest on new purchases during the current billing cycle -- if you pay in full consistently. While the grace period is referred to as an interest free period, the break on interest extends to the dates that purchases are made and posted to your balance.
Wiping out your monthly balance sounds simple, but it can be tricky if you don't already make a habit of it. Regaining the benefits of the grace period after even one month of carrying a balance can be confusing. And there are exceptions and pitfalls to watch out for. Paying in full during the grace period doesn't give you a break on cash advances or convenience checks, which, unlike purchases, usually begin building up interest immediately. Some balance transfers may also be excluded from a grace period, depending on the terms of your card.
Grace period is a holdover
Credit cards aren't required to provide a grace period, but almost all of them do, with the typical period being at least 25 days -- the norm for major issuers. If your due date falls on a weekend, the deadline extends to the next business day. Cards that do provide a grace period are required to mail your bill at least 21 days before your payment due date, under the CARD Act.
"It's a holdover from the origins of credit cards," Feddis said. "People would make a purchase at the store (on credit), and stores would allow people to pay at the end of the month."
The local grocer probably didn't want to calculate interest with a pencil stub on a brown paper bag, any more than his customers wanted to pay it. These days, calculating a daily periodic rate is a breeze for computers, yet most card companies continue to offer a grace period "because people are accustomed to it," Feddis said.
If you currently struggle to make the minimum monthly payment on your cards, it will take some work on your budget to get to the point where you can pay in full and qualify for the grace period. About 18 percent of Americans pay the minimum due each month, according to an analysis by the credit bureau TransUnion. At the other end of the spectrum, 42 percent regularly pay their full balances, capturing the benefit of the grace period's "free" loan from their credit cards.
That leaves 40 percent in the middle who pay more than the minimum, but less than the full balance. Paying more than the minimum is never a bad idea -- it will always reduce your interest costs. But if your budget allows, paying enough to wipe out your monthly balance entirely will boost your savings quite a bit more</span>
Answer:
C : debit to Service Charge Expense of $20
Explanation:
The complete journal entry used to record this transaction would be:
March 17, 202x, sales revenue
Dr Cash 980 (assuming the transaction is processed automatically)
Dr Service charge (or Credit card) expense 20
Cr Sales revenue 1,000
Since the credit card company is charging you a 2% commission ($20), we must consider it an expense. Remember that all expenses must be debited.
Answer:
an indeterminate effect on equilibrium quantity and a fall in equilibrium price.
Explanation:
A normal good is a good whose demand increases when income increases and falls when income falls.
If income falls and the good is a normal good, demand would fall. This would lead to a fall in price and quantity.
If cost of input falls, the cost of production would fall and supply would increase. This would lead to an increase in quantity and a fall in price.
The combined effect would an indeterminate effect on equilibrium quantity and a fall in equilibrium price.
I hope my answer helps you
Entrepreneurial team is a group of experienced people from different areas of business who join together to form a managerial team with the skills needed to develop, make, and market a new product.
<h3>What is
Entrepreneurial team?</h3>
Entrepreneurial team serves as the team that come together to form a team of managers so that can carry out research to work on a new product.
They are usually from different areas of business with necessary skills for the work.
Learn more about Entrepreneurial team on:
brainly.com/question/16258491
#SPJ11
Answer:
Explanation:
The investors, board of directors and employees for Theranos are not likely to have been completely free of fault in the more than a decade long fraud. The press has called the firm 'secretive' as it struggled to find any pertinent information about the it due to their closely guarded secrets. The firm operated a website that didn't have much on it and seemed to gag its directors, investors and others from talking to the press. These alone should have been a red flag to the investors and board. The PR person also refused interviews, neglected to answer questions about the owners/founders and turned down multiple overtures by the press to try and find out what was going on behind closed doors at Theranos. This encouraged the general perception that the firm was trying to control and minimise risk and possibly to retain an air of mystery. All of which was actually designed to hide the true workings of the firm, and this should have been questioned by all the people involved in the firm.
(Leuty, 2013)
The board as illustrious as theirs would have asked for supporting documentation and reviews for all the key aspects of the company and these would have needed to be audited periodically to ensure that the board can choose the best people in key roles and to enable good decision-making.
Investors also would have done a background check on all material aspects such as legal, ethical etc. before handing over large sums of money.
Employees involved in the actual fraud - falsifying results, using other tools to get the results that their tools were supposed to generate etc. were also aware of the issues with the firm likely from the very beginning.
All three groups possibly knew some or all of the aspects of the fraud and yet they did not come forward to disclose the same to the authorities or their customers as they should have. This points to a serious moral lapse amongst all three groups. They each as a group and as individuals in that group needed to take moral responsibility for the fraudulent activities being perpetrated by the couple. As the law goes, the prime players only end up being held accountable however it would have been ethically right for all parties that knew of the fraud to come forward and expose it.
Leaving aside the monetary considerations such as fleecing investors and customers alike, the products were related to the medical field, which above all others has a responsibility to maintain a higher standard of ethics. This fraud caused countless incorrect results that would have been used in medical therapies and diagnoses leading to wrong medication allocations and patient treatments. This in turn would have led to pain and anguish of the physical kind for so many patients, all of whom are the silent sufferers in this fraud.
Legally, pain and suffering cannot be quantified (just estimated) while this is the primary damage that the couple should have actually been charged with. This extremity of damage cannot be adequately presented in a court of law however and that brings us to discussing the morality of the situation. For all of the reasons stated above, the couple and everyone involved in enabling them in the fraud - the board of directors, employees and investors, should definitely be held accountable, if not in a court of law, then at least in the court of public opinion so that fraudsters like them do not get away without paying a price for their actions. All actions have consequences and their actions or lack there of should be accounted for.
References :
Leuty, Ron (2013) Secretive Theranos emerging (partly) from shadows. San Francisco Business Times.
