-1

I'm not sure that there is a universally accepted "proper etiquette" when it comes to repaying a loan from a friend, but I feel it necessary to be absolutely fair in respect of the time value of money; and so, feeling this way, I see it fit to pay the principal and a fair interest amount. What is the standard approach among polite society for such a thing?

closed as primarily opinion-based by littleadv, Victor, ChrisInEdmonton, user32479, JoeTaxpayer Mar 2 '16 at 20:05

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • ... "fair interest amount" ... this depends. Some countries by regulation would have a minimum defined. Generally the practise would be to see the best rates in the market and agree upon the rate. If the duration is longer, then how you adjust the market rate ... further if you are your friend are no more, what would happen to the loan etc. – Dheer Mar 2 '16 at 7:39
  • This really isn't entirely opinion based. I know in CA there's a statutory maximum rate the state will enforce in a personal loan, and you can only use simple interest. I'm sure around the country there are other local laws that one should be mindful of when loaning money and charging interest. – quid Mar 2 '16 at 22:57
  • Neither a borrower nor a lender be; For loan oft loses both itself and friend, – edocetirwi Mar 2 '16 at 23:13
5

The standard approach is to reach an agreement and put it in writing. What you agree upon is up to you, but in the US if you want to avoid gift taxes larger loans need to be properly documented and must charge at least a certain minimal interest rate. (Or at least you must declare and be taxed upon that minimal income even if you don't actually charge it. Last I looked, the federal requirement was somewhere under 0.3%, so this isn't usually an issue. There may also be state rules.)

When doing business with friends, treat it as business first, friendship second. Otherwise you risk losing both money and friendship.

Regarding what rate to charge: That is something you two have to negotiate, based on how much the borrower needs the money, how much lending the money puts the lender at risk, how generous each is feeling, etc.

  • One starting point for a fair rate would be to charge/pay a rate comparable to other investments with a similar degree of risk, since the lender will be giving up the gains this money would otherwise produce. One broker currently estimates long-term average return on bonds to be about 3.3%, so that's one possible definition of fair.
  • Or you could use the rate of whatever mix of investments the lender will have to "break" to fund the loan. This may be higher than retail loan rates, but is still a reasonable definition of fair.
  • Or you could argue that anything less than retail rates is by definition a bargain; that too is "fair" if the two of you agree it's fair.
  • Or the lender may want to artificially reduce the rate, gifting the borrower with part or all of the interest; that too could be "fair" if it's what everyone is comfortable with.

Sorry, but there is no one-size-fits-all answer here. What I charge (or insist on paying to) my brother might be different from what I charge my cousin, or a co-worker, or best friend, or... If both parties think it's fair, it's fair.

If you can't reach an agreement, of course, the loan doesn't happen.

  • What's a fair rate to levy? – Tandem93 Mar 2 '16 at 19:20
  • Edited to address that, @tandem93; tnx for reminder. – keshlam Mar 3 '16 at 15:26
  • Thånk you, your exposition is appreciated. My aim with this question initially was to make a repayment figure such that it restores the current value of the loaned amount vis-à-vis inflation. "Fairness," as I see it amongst friends, means to restore the value of the loan to the creditor. – Tandem93 Mar 3 '16 at 17:58
  • Well, if that's your definition I'd argue for the second option, paying whatever they would have expected had they left the money invested as usual. – keshlam Mar 3 '16 at 18:33
  • @keshlam there should also be a clause stating the consequences of OP not repaying the loan. – RonJohn Mar 14 at 18:45

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.