HomeMoneyMortgages
Money · Mortgages

Why does the same mortgage rate cost different amounts in different countries?

Because the quoted rate is not the whole instruction. How often it compounds, and what the year is divided by, both change the payment. Most calculators pick one convention and never tell you which. This one makes you choose, then shows the periodic rate it derived so you can check the arithmetic yourself.

The nominal rate on the loan contract, not the APR or comparison rate.
What this compares, and what it does not. This isolates one variable: the compounding convention. Everything else is held identical, which is exactly what makes the comparison readable and also what makes it artificial. Use this to understand why a gap exists, not to decide where to borrow.

What does the convention actually change?

A quoted rate of 5% is an annual headline. To turn it into a payment, a lender has to say how often that 5% is applied, and what it divides the year by to get one period's worth. Those two decisions are the convention, and they are usually buried in the loan contract rather than printed next to the rate.

Canada quotes rates compounded semi-annually. The US quotes a nominal annual rate compounded monthly. Australia, New Zealand, the UK and South Africa accrue interest daily on a 365-day year and charge it monthly. Commercial lending often uses actual/360, which divides by 360 while still counting real days.

The gaps are small per payment and large over a term. That is the shape of most compounding effects, and it is why the convention is worth knowing about even though it never appears in an advertisement.

Which convention is cheapest?

Semi-annual, and this surprises people. Compounding less often is cheaper for the borrower, because interest spends less time earning interest on itself. The word "semi-annual" sounds heavier than "monthly" and the arithmetic runs the other way.

At 5% quoted, semi-annual compounding gives an effective annual rate of 5.0625%. Monthly compounding gives 5.1162%. The Canadian convention is the cheaper one, by about half a tenth of a percentage point.

On $500,000 over 25 years that difference is $2,908.02 a month under the Canadian convention against $2,922.95 under the US one. Just under $15 a month. Across the full term it comes to roughly $4,478.

Stretch the same loan to 30 years and the monthly gap grows to about $15.65, totalling roughly $5,636. The gap widens with term, because a longer schedule gives the higher effective rate more room to work. It widens as rates rise, too.

Do daily and monthly accrual give different payments?

No, and this is worth stating plainly because it is the part most people expect to go the other way.

Daily accrual on a 365-day year, charged monthly, works out to the annual rate divided by 365 and multiplied by the average month of 30.4167 days. That is the annual rate divided by twelve. Identical to the US monthly nominal figure, not approximately equal to it.

So an Australian daily-accrual loan and an American monthly-compounded loan at the same quoted rate have the same scheduled repayment. What differs is what happens between payments. Under daily accrual an extra repayment starts saving interest the day it lands. Under monthly compounding it does nothing until the next period boundary, and this is precisely why offset accounts work in Australia and have no clean American equivalent.

Actual/360 is the one that genuinely costs more. Dividing by 360 while counting 365 real days multiplies the annual interest by 365/360, about 1.4% more interest than the quoted rate implies. It looks identical on a rate sheet, which is part of why it persists in commercial lending.

Is any of this actually the law?

Mostly not, and the distinction between law and convention gets muddled constantly.

Where the method is genuinely mandated

India is the clearest case. The Reserve Bank of India directs that interest be charged on all advances at monthly rests, with a carve-out for agricultural lending.5 That is a rule about the method itself.

Australia is a partial case, and the detail matters. The National Credit Code fixes a 365-day divisor, but only for the statutory cap on what a lender may charge.4 It does not dictate what a lender actually does charge. Those are separate things, and conflating them is a common error.

Where the law only mandates disclosure

Everywhere else, regulation governs what must be told to the borrower rather than how the interest is computed. The US Regulation Z governs the APR. The UK's FCA rules govern the APRC. Germany requires an effective annual rate, with the duty sitting in the Civil Code and the calculation method in the price disclosure regulation.6

The Canadian case, which nearly everyone gets wrong

Search for this and you will read that Canada mandates semi-annual compounding. It does not.

Section 6 of the Interest Act is a disclosure rule. It requires that a mortgage with blended payments state the principal and the rate "calculated yearly or half-yearly, not in advance", and the penalty for omitting that statement is severe: no interest at all becomes chargeable, payable or recoverable.1 Nothing in it requires semi-annual compounding. What it requires is that the rate be expressed on a yearly or half-yearly basis.

Semi-annual compounding is the market convention that grew up around the disclosure rule. Lenders converged on it because it is the safest way to satisfy the wording. The convention is real and near-universal for Canadian fixed-rate mortgages. It is simply not a mandate.

There is a further wrinkle. In 1967 the Supreme Court of Canada held that "blended" means mixed so as to be inseparable, and that quarterly instalments with a clearly stated rate were not blended because a simple arithmetic calculation could separate interest from principal.2 Read that way, section 6 may not apply to ordinary amortised mortgages at all. Lenders comply regardless, because the consequence of being wrong is losing all interest on the loan. The Uniform Law Conference of Canada recommended repealing the section in 2008.3 It is still on the books.

One practical note for Canadian readers: the semi-annual convention applies to fixed-rate mortgages. Variable-rate mortgages there are commonly compounded monthly, so a variable loan behaves like the US column in the table above.

The full story behind these numbers → Why the gap runs from $1,449 to $12,904 depending on the rate, and why Canada does not actually mandate semi-annual compounding. Model a whole loan → Repayments, total interest, and an amortisation schedule. Check the interest on your statement → Whether the figure your lender charged matches the daily-accrual arithmetic.

Common questions

Which convention applies to my loan?
Your loan contract says, though it may take some reading. The rate disclosure will normally name the compounding basis, and Canadian mortgage documents state it explicitly because the Interest Act requires the rate to be expressed that way. If you cannot find it, your lender has to tell you.
Why is semi-annual compounding cheaper than monthly?
Because interest compounds less often, so less of it earns interest on itself. At 5% quoted, semi-annual gives an effective annual rate of 5.0625% and monthly gives 5.1162%. The intuition that less frequent compounding sounds heavier is backwards.
Does Canadian law require semi-annual compounding?
No. Section 6 of the Interest Act requires disclosure of a rate calculated yearly or half-yearly, not in advance, and imposes a heavy penalty for omitting that statement. Semi-annual compounding is the market convention that formed around the rule rather than the rule itself. Plenty of otherwise reliable sources state this incorrectly.
Why does an offset account work in Australia but not the United States?
Daily accrual is the mechanical reason. When interest is calculated on each day’s balance, money sitting in a linked account reduces the balance that day and saves interest immediately. Under monthly compounding there is no daily balance to reduce. Tax treatment is usually cited as the other reason offsets never took hold in the US.
What is actual/360 and why would a lender use it?
It divides the annual rate by 360 to get a daily rate, then charges for the actual number of days elapsed. Since a year has 365 days, this collects about 1.4% more interest than the quoted rate suggests. It is common in commercial lending and rare in residential.
Does the leap year change anything?
It can, and lenders differ. Some divide by 365 every year regardless. Others use 366 in a leap year. Australian lenders are split on this, and the figure is set by your contract rather than by regulation.
Is this financial advice?
No. It is general arithmetic on figures you enter, and it does not take account of your circumstances. Your lender’s calculation is authoritative for your loan. For advice about your situation, speak to a licensed professional in your country.

References

Primary legal sources unless noted. Verified August 2026. Payment figures on this page were recomputed from the amortisation formula rather than carried over from secondary sources.

  1. Interest Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. I-15), s. 6, Justice Laws Website. Primary source. Still in force.
  2. Kilgoran Hotels Ltd v Samek [1968] SCR 3. Supreme Court of Canada, on the meaning of "blended" payments.
  3. Uniform Law Conference of Canada, Interest Act report, 2008. Recommended repeal of s. 6. Not implemented as at August 2026.
  4. National Credit Code, Schedule 1 to the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth), ss. 27–28. Primary source. s. 27 defines the daily percentage rate as the annual rate divided by 365; s. 28 sets the cap on interest charges.
  5. Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks, Interest Rates on Advances) Directions, 2025, Chapter II, para 6(7). Primary source. Issued 28 November 2025, in effect on issuance, repealing the 2016 Master Direction which carried the same monthly-rests rule.
  6. Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch §§ 491a and 492(2), with Art. 247 EGBGB (disclosure duty), and § 16 Preisangabenverordnung (calculation method, 2022 recast). Primary sources. Secondary commentary frequently still cites the superseded § 6 PAngV.

Written and maintained by a Fellow of CPA Australia and CIMA (UK), with 15 years in financial modelling and valuation across banking, financial analytics, utilities and manufacturing. Every figure here is checked against a primary source before it ships.

For general information and education only. This tool shows an illustration based on the figures you enter - it does not know your circumstances, tax position, or appetite for risk, and nothing here is financial, investment, tax, or legal advice. It is not intended to be relied on when making a decision about any particular financial product. Before acting, check the figures against your own documents and consider advice from a licensed financial professional in your country.