Am I doing compound interest wrong?
April 23, 2015 10:07 AM
I'm hoping Metafilter can help me with a stupid math question, but one that's bothering me about how I was taught to compound interest versus some numbers I'm reading/hearing online about a Supreme Court case.
Here's the gist. I got lost in the Wikipedia mindhole this afternoon and ended up at United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians where I saw this:
Can someone here help me? This is either an "I don't understand math" or "I can't read the court opinion" answer.
Here's the gist. I got lost in the Wikipedia mindhole this afternoon and ended up at United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians where I saw this:
Finally, under its new authorizing statute, the Claims Court held the Sioux had suffered a taking cognizable under the Fifth Amendment, and were entitled to the value of the land as of the 1877 taking which was $17.1 million, the value of gold prospectors illegally took out of the land computed at $450,000, and 100 years' worth of interest at 5% per year which would be an additional $88 million.[18]In my head, though, that number seemed...wrong. I was taught annual interest compounded with a formula of B_n = P*(1+i)^n. The balance at year n is the principal times 1+i to the n. So, I plugged into my calculator and I got that 100 years of 5% annual interest on ~$17.5 million is ~$2.3 billion including the principal. The only way I could get to ~$88 million of interest is ~37 years of compounding.
Can someone here help me? This is either an "I don't understand math" or "I can't read the court opinion" answer.
It looks to me as if the interest was not compounded. $17.55 million x 0.05 x 100 = $87.75 million.
posted by brianogilvie at 10:12 AM on April 23, 2015
posted by brianogilvie at 10:12 AM on April 23, 2015
Ahh. Okay. I guess I forgot about ol' simple interest. Thanks!
posted by Fortran at 10:19 AM on April 23, 2015
posted by Fortran at 10:19 AM on April 23, 2015
I dug up the Indian Claims Commission decision, which was later appealed to the Supreme Court (see the bottom of 220-222, or pages 70-72 in the PDF). It explains how the amount was calculated (simple interest). It also cites another case for the 5% interest rate; looking up that decision might tell you where 5% simple interest came from if you want to go down that rabbit hole.
Note that Wikipedia says the money has been earning compound interest post-judgement, as the Sioux refuse to accept the funds and give up their claims for the land.
posted by zachlipton at 10:25 AM on April 23, 2015
Note that Wikipedia says the money has been earning compound interest post-judgement, as the Sioux refuse to accept the funds and give up their claims for the land.
posted by zachlipton at 10:25 AM on April 23, 2015
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by The Bellman at 10:12 AM on April 23, 2015