We live in Columbus, Ohio. Our monthly r
Ask
We live in Columbus, Ohio. Our monthly rent, groceries, medicines, and utilities are 100% covered by our income.
We have $14,000 in credit card debt across two cards:
- Card A: $9,000 at 24.9% AP (minimum $240/mo)
- Card B: $5,000 at 22.4% AP (minimum $130/mo)
We have $800 total per month dedicated to debt service ($370 minimums + $430 monthly surplus).
We are considering two consolidation options:
Option 1: A 36-month fixed personal loan at 11.2% AP ($460/mo payment).
Option 2: An 18-month 0% intro AP balance transfer card with an upfront 4% transfer fee ($560 added to balance).
Could you guide us on:
1. Confirming living essentials are covered as the baseline premise.
2. A structured comparison table of both options vs staying on the current credit card repayment baseline (stating months to debt freedom and total interest/fees paid).
3. The trade-offs of both strategies without picking one for us.
4. Explaining that finance charge is not the ranking key (citing statement AP only).
Answer
I'll run the baseline (current two cards) and both consolidation options through the script so every figure ships from the same model. Let me check the script first.
Got it. I'll run the baseline (current two cards) and both options through `payoff.py` so every figure ships from the same monthly-compounding model.
Living essentials are 100% covered, so this is a repayment comparison, not a crisis ladder. Here is the three-way view from one monthly-compounding model — model, not prediction — with the rates you stated, not retrieved.
## Side-by-side comparison
| Path | Months to debt-free | Interest charged | Upfront fee | Total cost of debt | Monthly payment |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| **Baseline (current cards, avalanche)** | 22 | $3,334.23 | $0 | $3,334.23 | $800 |
| **Option 1: 36-mo loan 11.2%** | 36 | $2,545.93 | $0 | $2,545.93 | $460 |
| **Option 2: 18-mo 0% BT ($560 fee rolled into $14,560)** | 19 | $0.00 | $560 | $560.00 | $800 |
Source: this turn's `payoff.py ok:true` stdout for all three runs. Monthly compounding assumed. Amounts are copy-pasted from the script.
A few things the table doesn't show on its own:
- **Option 1 frees $340/mo.** Your $800/mo debt budget only needs $460 for the loan. The other $340 sits in your budget — usable, investable, or buffer. The loan does run 14 months longer than the baseline.
- **Option 2 is 19 months, not 18.** The $560 fee is rolled into the balance, so $14,560 / $800 = 18.2 payments. Your 18-month promo period ends one month before the balance is cleared. Any residual after month 18 would accrue the BT card's standard AP — you didn't state that rate, so I didn't model it. Worth asking the issuer before signing.
- **Option 1's 11.2% is the offer.** Personal-loan rates are credit-dependent; the actual AP after underwriting may differ. Origination fees (if any) are also not in the table — confirm with the lender.
- **Credit-score effects differ.** A new BT card means a hard pull plus a lower average account age in the short term. A personal loan is a different installment-loan mix on your report. Both can be net positive over 12–24 months if paid as agreed, but the path is different.
## Trade-offs without picking
**Option 1 (personal loan) buys** a fixed schedule and lower total cost than the baseline ($2,545.93 vs $3,334.23), at the price of 14 more months of debt and a $340/mo budget hole you decide what to do with. The AP is locked.
**Option 2 (balance transfer) buys** the lowest total cost ($560) and the shortest timeline (19 months), at the price of tying up all $800/mo, an upfront-equivalent $560 fee added to the balance, and the risk that any residual after month 18 reverts to the card's standard AP. The promo window is the constraint.
**Baseline (current cards) buys** no new product, no hard pull, no promo cliff — at the price of the highest total cost ($3,334.23) and the longest exposure to two APs above 22%.
All three paths leave your rent, groceries, medicines, and utilities untouched. The decision is between **total dollars spent**, **months on the books**, and **risk of the promo cliff or the underwriting rate**.
## Finance charge is not the ranking key
Finance charge is the consequence, not the tool. Each card's finance charge is computed as that card's own balance multiplied by that card's own statement AP (over the time the balance is carried). Avalanche ranking uses **statement AP only** — the percentage the issuer prints on the card — not the dollar amount of finance charge that happens to land on a given card in a given month.
Why this matters for your baseline: Card A is $9,000 at 24.9% AP. Card B is $5,000 at 22.4% AP. Avalanche sends the extra $430 to **Card A** because its AP is higher. Snowball sends it to **Card B** because the balance is smaller. On your numbers, both routes finish in 22 months; avalanche saves $156.59 in total interest. If you stay on the cards, "save interest" points to avalanche.
## What this model does not decide
- Whether you'll be **approved** at 11.2% on Option 1 (lender sets this)
- What the **standard AP** is on Option 2 after month 18 (issuer sets this)
- Any **origination or annual fees** I wasn't given
- How the **$340/mo freed up** by Option 1 should be used (you decide)
- **Credit-score trajectory** over the next 12–24 months
Each of those is a question to put to the lender or the BT-card issuer before you sign. The math above only compares the numbers you gave me.