Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2306.17467

On the Behavior of the Payoff Amounts in Simple Interest Loans in Arbitrage-Free Markets

Abstract

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau defines the notion of payoff amount as the amount that has to be payed at a particular time in order to completely pay off the debt, in case the lender intends to pay off the loan early, way before the last installment is due (CFPB 2020). This amount is well-understood for loans at compound interest, but much less so when simple interest is used. Recently, Aretusi and Mari (2018) have proposed a formula for the payoff amount for loans at simple interest. We assume that the payoff amounts are established contractually at time zero, whence the requirement that no arbitrage may arise this way The first goal of this paper is to study this new formula and derive it within a model of a loan market in which loans are bought and sold at simple interest, interest rates change over time, and no arbitrage opportunities exist. The second goal is to show that this formula exhibits a behaviour rather different from the one which occurs when compound interest is used. Indeed, we show that, if the installments are constant and if the interest rate is greater than a critical value (which depends on the number of installments), then the sequence of the payoff amounts is increasing before a certain critical time, and will start decreasing only thereafter. We also show that the critical value is decreasing as a function of the number of installments. For two installments, the critical value is equal to the golden section. The third goal is to introduce a more efficient polynomial notation, which encodes a basic tenet of the subject: Each amount of money is embedded in a time position (to wit: The time when it is due). The model of a loan market we propose is naturally linked to this new notation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Fausto Di Biase, Stefano Di Rocco, Alessandra Ortolano, Maurizio Parton. 2023-06-30. On the Behavior of the Payoff Amounts in Simple Interest Loans in Arbitrage-Free Markets. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.17467

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Asset price bubbles under model uncertainty and short-sale constraints: A discrete-time analysis

In this study, we investigate asset price bubbles in a discrete-time, discrete-state market under model uncertainty and short-sale constraints. Using a super-hedging valuation benchmark, we study the difference between the asset's market price and its fundamental value in this constrained market. We examine how assumptions on the liquidation time affect the conditional expectation bounds satisfied by the resulting bubble process. For assets with bounded maturity and no dividend payments, the G-supermartingale property of prices provides a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of bubbles. In contrast, when maturity is unbounded, the infi-supermartingale property yields a necessary condition, while the G-supermartingale property remains sufficient. We also show that no dominance rules out bubbles when the liquidation time is bounded. For finite-horizon contingent claims, we distinguish upper-valuation relations from no-dominance benchmarks. Fundamental prices satisfy put-call bounds, whereas market prices satisfy put-call parity under no dominance. In the dividend-free setting, the same assumptions imply equality between American and European call fundamental values and, under the stated trading conditions, between their market prices.

q-fin.MF↗

Optimal investment under capital gains taxes

We generalize classical existence results for expected utility maximization in discrete time frictionless market models to models with capital gains taxes. We consider the realistic but mathematically challenging rule that losses do not trigger negative taxes but can only be offset against potential gains in the future. Central to the analysis is a well-known phenomenon from arbitrage-free markets with proportional transaction costs that does not exist in arbitrage-free frictionless markets: an investment in specific quantities of stocks that is completely riskless but may provide an advantage over holding money in the bank account. As a result of this phenomenon, on an infinite probability space, no-arbitrage does not imply that the set of attainable terminal wealth is closed in probability. We provide simple sufficient conditions for closedness. Then, we characterize the closure of the set of attainable terminal wealth, thereby identifying precisely the source of non-closedness. As a by-product, we obtain a new construction for an integrable majorant that dominates the utilities of all nonnegative terminal wealth attainable from a given initial capital in a frictionless market and that works directly in multiperiod models.

q-fin.MF↗

Proof of Stake economy under centralized exchanges--a mean field model

We consider the interaction between centralized trading and decentralized Proof of Stake (PoS) blockchain ecosystems. Motivated by the increasing dominance of centralized exchanges and the institutionalization of crypto markets, we study how trading activities on centralized exchanges affect staking behavior, token allocation, and decentralization within a PoS blockchain. We formulate a continuous-time mean field model, where the miners simultaneously act as validators in the PoS protocol and traders in a centralized market with price impact. Under suitable assumptions, we establish the local well-posedness of the mean field system, and derive a semi-explicit characterization of the equilibrium trading strategy. Numerical results suggest that centralized trading activities may enhance staking participation, and promote decentralization of the staking distribution through market incentives. We also study the effects of transaction costs and token supply mechanisms on the equilibrium staking ratio and concentration profile. These results illustrate how market microstructure and centralized liquidity provision can exert significant influence on decentralized blockchain protocols.

q-fin.MF↗