Since we have banks that are paying less than $2 annually on $10,000 in savings accounts I don't see any quibble with values chosen to demonstrate code.
You're justifying an pretty obvious typo (a misplaced decimal place, 0.75 instead of .075) with a flawed logic. Zero interest rate is pretty common in many in many banks around world right now and through out history, eg. Japanese banks have been paying 0 interest rate or near since the 80s and so do many consumer related loan are interest free etc. You're justifying a very unrealistic large number because there is 0 rate exists?
Technically there is nothing wrong with 75% interest rate to demonstrate the code with 75% interest but it's pretty obvious a typo because
1. there author do NOT put 0 in front a decimal, he/she would write .1 not 0.1
2. The interest rate .075 is used in multiple places in that chapter, 0.75 only once.
3. As a someone who pass CFA level 2 and with a finance degree, I have NEVER EVER ever seen a 75% interest rate or anywhere near that high in any finance books I have read that is used to demonstrate a time value of money (TVM) concept. So it was extremely confusing when I look at the numbers in this example.
Because if you present this result to anyone with finance background, or reasonable person, they will think 0.0625 is the Annual Rate at 6.25% which is a reasonable annual rate and they will try to calculate the interest with Future Value formula, FV = PV (1 + r/m), and in this case it would be $5.21 interest earned. And when I say 62.50 in the earned, I was like how he got 62.50? Maybe that is the annual interest rate etc I was going back and forth between the code and the result before I realised that the author used a 75% interest rate.
... View more