REMEMBER, the goal of global 1% ----that .00014% of global people----is TRANSHUMANISM-----ONE WORLD ONE RELIGION will be TRANSHUMANISM -----killing all those Western religions. So, none of our US and new to US immigrants will be WINNING if they think these CANON LAW BANKING AND LEGAL structures are PROTECTING them.
BUT WE ARE 'US' NOT 'THEM' SAY PEOPLE ON THE NETWORK AND NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG THINK THEY ARE WORKING FOR 'US' NOT 'THEM'
The goal of making all US 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, or brown into GLOBAL EX-PATS is just this---what this STATELESS UK man is experiencing. Losing sovereign citizenship ends sovereign rights.
So, are PROTESTANTS and LOST TRIBES OF ISRAEL losing in MOVING FORWARD as OLD WORLD CATHOLIC KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH take over in what was UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
EVERYONE is losing no matter religious or non-religious affiliation----that .00014% of global 1% see TRANSHUMANS as those with RIGHTS AS CITIZENS.
3000BC HINDI-BRAHMIN does not fit with any of our Western religions or tenets.
Remember, UK was first to install MUSLIM BANKING----not helping these guys------it is for only global 1% and global corporations.
‘We have nowhere to go’: The stateless UK residents that no country wants to accept
‘I want to go back to Malaysia but I can’t. I’m stuck i can’t go anywhere. I’m just waiting here, wasting my life away’
Malaysia in 2011, he thought it must be a mistake. The 37-year-old had been in Britain for six years, and while he was stateless, he knew his home country would not grant him entry.
But as much as he tried to explain to the authorities that he was one of many stateless British overseas citizens (BOCs) in Britain whose cases were unresolved, border force was intent on removing him. Chaperoned by three escort officers, he was put onto a plane.
As he had anticipated, the Malaysian authorities blocked him from coming into the country. This was because he had renounced his citizenship in 2005 – a decision he says he took on the advice of both his solicitors and the Malaysian High Commission, and now regretted.
Within hours, Adam was flown back to the UK, which he describes as a “total waste of money”.
Remembering what happened, he says: “I was shocked and confused as they just said they going to deport me when I went to the Home Office for normal reporting schedule.
“They transferred me from the police station to several detention centres within a week before two long journey flights to Malaysia and back without rest, where three escorts were flying with me.
“I felt like I was being treated like a very bad criminal or maybe not even a human. I was so exhausted after the week of this unforgettably tragic journey.”
Adam is one of hundreds of former Malaysian citizens who were rendered stateless more than a decade ago when they were led to believe a BOC passport – a relic from the UK’s colonial past – would make them UK citizens.
Home Office staff have acknowledged that these individuals are “trapped” as Malaysia refuses to allow them back into the country but the UK government also refuses to grant them any form of status, leaving them unable to work and driving some into exploitation as a means of survival.
Others have been detained in immigration centres and later released because there was no prospect of removing them, while two people – one being Adam – are known to have been deported and then immediately “bounced back” from Malaysia.
Since he was released from detention, Adam has been doing poorly paid, cash-in-hand informal delivery work and is relying on friends to house him.
Describing his plight, Adam says: “It’s sad and tiring. You have to work informally and you have to survive by yourself, and when the Home Office asks you have to say you aren’t working. How do they expect us to survive?”
“I want to go back to Malaysia but I can’t. I’m stuck, I can’t go anywhere. I’m just waiting here, wasting my life away.”
Another person affected is Yan Kit, 42, who arrived to the UK in 2001 to study mechanical engineering. His problems began in 2005 when he, like Adam, was advised that he could obtain British nationality if he renounced him Malaysian citizenship.
He says he wishes to go back to Malaysia, where his wife lives, but he says the Malaysian authorities have told him directly that there is no route for him to be granted residency.
The 42-year-old, who lives with his uncle as he is unable to find a landlord who will rent to him without UK status, was arrested in 2015 by immigration officers during a raid on the garage where he was working.
“They tried to contact the Malaysian government to deport me, but they said they couldn’t deport me because I wasn’t a Malaysian citizen anymore. So in the end the Home Office let me out again. They did nothing to help me resolve the situation,” he says.
“I haven’t been able to work since then. Now I just sit at home. The worst thing is every month I have to go and report with the UK border agency, but it means nothing. They just write another date on the letter and let you go. If I ask questions, they can’t tell me what’s happening. They just give me the date for my next report time.”
Kit says that while he is able to visit his wife in Malaysia on visit visas, these only last up to one month, and the travel is expensive. He adds: “If I could get back my Malaysian citizenship, I would go back.”
Liew Teh, another person affected by the issue, says he was shocked when he was told by a job agency in 2009 that he could not be employed anywhere in Britain due to his immigration status.
‘I wanted to pursue my dream, my career, but everything turned into a mess’ (Liew Teh)
The Telford resident, 38, who completed his engineering master’s degree in the UK in 2006, had applied for British citizenship after renouncing his Malaysian passport on the advice of his solicitor.
“I was studying for my degree, and my life just stopped there, not moving forward. I haven’t been able to use my skills. I wanted to pursue my dream, my career, but everything turned into a mess,” he says.
“I’ve been very depressed. I can’t go back to see my parents, because I fear I won’t be able to come back. I can’t get into a relationship or anything, because everything is stuck.”
Teh says that, no longer able to afford a solicitor, he has been fighting to resolve the issue on his own, and that speaking out to the press was his last resort.
He adds: “Thankfully I have some friends supporting me, but I can’t rely on them forever. Something needs to be done so I can live my life.”
A Home Office spokesperson said: “The Home Office will work with Malaysian British Overseas Citizens who have concerns over their immigration status.”
This discussion on BANKING PUBLIC POLICY is looking at INTEREST RATE because this is one easy way to see how our governance is changing. The US was founded upon an EPISCOPALIAN/PROTESTANT----I AM MAN AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT removing OLD WORLD KINGS from economy and development. US PUBLIC BANKING did indeed limit access until the definition of CITIZENSHIP EXPANDED. Any US CITIZEN placing money in US banks were INSURED AND PROTECTED no matter religion, creed, sex.When REAGAN/CLINTON neo-liberalism hit we easily saw that transition----deregulating banks so they could be PREDATORY AND CRIMINAL is not EPISCOPALIAN/PROTESTANT----it is OLD WORLD KINGS CATHOLIC AND JEWISH.
This is when RELIGIOUS CANON LAW AND BANKING took hold. At this point one has to be CATHOLIC OR JEWISH CORPORATIONS not to be CREAMED by BANKING POLICY tied to USURY.
REMEMBER, CANON LAWS on banking only discussed banking and BUSINESS-----not lending to individuals. LOCAL BUSINESSES today are supported by GRANTING OR LENDING FROM CORPORATIONS----not banks.
OLD WORLD CANON LAWS ONLY PROTECT GLOBAL CORPORATIONS AND GLOBAL 1% ----
This is why US FED gave ZERO PERCENT LOANS TO CORPORATIONS AND BANKS GLOBALLY----WHILE US 99% WE THE PEOPLE FACED BANKING USURY.
'In a statement, Sanders described the revelations as "jaw-dropping", adding that "based on a four-hour examination" of the transactions, "we have learned that the $700bn Wall Street bailout signed into law under George W Bush turned out to be pocket change compared to the trillions and trillions of dollars in near-zero interest loans'
All of national FAKE NEWS media simply shouting THOSE MEAN BANKERS----never explained what CANON LAWS and OLD WORLD BANKING looks like.
So, OLD WORLD religious tenets saying ZERO INTEREST LOANS is working if you are owned by OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA---TRIBE OF JUDAH.
US Fed lent $3.3tn to multinationals, billionaires and foreign banks
This article is more than 8 years old
US central bank releases details of thousands of secret loans to global firms as well as foreign banks and American billionaires
The global credit crunch of 2008 ran deeper and wider than previously disclosed, forcing the US government to fund firms including General Electric and Toyota, along with banks and billionaire investors, according to documents released by the Federal Reserve.
Under pressure from politicians, the US central bank has released details of 21,000 transactions it made as the global economy faced meltdown.
As well as its well-publicised support of the banking system, the Fed's aid reached far beyond Wall Street, offering finance to the motorbike manufacturer Harley-Davidson, the industrial equipment maker Caterpillar, the telecoms company Verizon and even the computer billionaire Michael Dell as it struggled to keep the economy going. The lending reached $3.3tn (£2.1tn) at its peak.
The disclosures show that UK banks were major beneficiaries of the Fed's extensive support for foreign banks. Barclays was the biggest borrower under one scheme, the term auction facility, taking loans totalling $232bn, which it has since repaid. Royal Bank of Scotland, Bank of Scotland (now part of Lloyds), Abbey National and HSBC also received billions in loans.
The release, strongly opposed by the Fed, was driven by the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, the Senate's only self-described socialist. Sanders insisted that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act signed this July included a provision that the Fed disclose how it allocated capital during the credit crisis.
In a statement, Sanders described the revelations as "jaw-dropping", adding that "based on a four-hour examination" of the transactions, "we have learned that the $700bn Wall Street bailout signed into law under George W Bush turned out to be pocket change compared to the trillions and trillions of dollars in near-zero interest loans and other financial arrangements the Federal Reserve doled out to every major financial institution in this country."
The documents detail short-term loans to Goldman Sachs of nearly $600bn; nearly $2tn to Morgan Stanley; $1.8tn to Citigroup; nearly $1tn to Bear Stearns; and some $1.5tn to Merrill Lynch.
Sanders said he found it "most surprising" that huge sums were used to bail out foreign banks and corporations. "Has the Federal Reserve of the United States become the central bank of the world?" he said.
"I intend to investigate whether these secret Fed loans, in some cases turned out to be direct corporate welfare to big banks that used these loans not to reinvest in the economy but rather to lend back to the federal government at a higher rate of interest by purchasing treasury securities," he said.
In a statement accompanying the disclosure, the Fed said it had fully protected taxpayers. "The Federal Reserve followed sound risk-management practices in administering all of these programmes, incurred no credit losses on programmes that have been wound down, and expects to incur no credit losses on the few remaining programmes," it said.
We often speak of US BANKING and corporate structure as being SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE-------that is the ethics of MORALS AND ETHICS REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE LIBERALISM tied to Western moral philosophy. To own a house one had to SAVE considerable amounts of money-----below we see 50% down and mortgage pay-off in 5 years.
'The American mortgage has its roots in the founding of the first legitimate commercial bank in 1781. Once established, a new system of banknotes exchange, governmental interplay, and lessened liability on the behalf of bankers caused the ripple effect in the United States mortgage market'.
When paying off mortgages in 5 years with 50% down is policy then the effects of INTEREST RATES is mitigated. We did not see USURY or PREDATORY LENDING in our early structures used by banks in mortgage lending.
The problems in banking and mortgages came in early 1900s when US FED was installed. US FED is OLD WORLD KINGS CATHOLIC AND JEWISH banking families. The rules around LENDING began to change---relaxing SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE LENDING LAWS.
'The birth of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation occurred in 1970 to help promote home ownership. Adjustable rate mortgages returned to the market during the 1980s under the discretion of the Federal Reserve. In 2003, government mortgage institutions accounted for nearly 43 percent of the total mortgage market'.
The above shows 1970s as the point of losing all of what was SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE banking tenets as MORTGAGES came under control of US FED policy------ergo, we saw interest-first mortgages -----interest first Federal students loans ------and ANYONE WITH A PULSE receiving these loans.
1970s saw the transition away from AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT I AM MAN EPISCOPAL/PROTESTANT banking principals based on SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY and brought through REAGAN/CLINTON----these OLD WORLD BANKING tenets where only the GLOBAL 1% and GLOBAL CORPORATIONS are protected under CANON LAWS.
Again, AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT was not only PROTESTANT---it brought Catholic and Jewish 99% of people protections and rights as citizens.
The History Of American Mortgage
Facts, Statistics & Information for Home Buyers, Economic Experts and Financial Historians
One of the factors underlining the American Dream consists of purchasing and officially owning a house. Only a slim margin of the middle class can outwardly afford to purchase a home without applying for a mortgage to achieve what many pursue to make a reality. The mortgage market has evolved with ever-changing face of real estate. The mortgage history in the United States has been fraught with booms and busts that have enriched and devastated families affected by recessions and depressions. Nevertheless, mortgages remain as the primary form of lending when it comes to property transactions. The mortgage process entails the granting of monies to obtain a home with good faith that the debtor will repay the loan with interest attached to life of it. Both the debtor and lender benefit if nothing goes awry.
The Perspective of the Mortgage Process Throughout History
Mortgage history has its roots in ancient civilization. Many scholars hypothesize that debtors swore a pledge to obtain property before the advent of the mortgage. During these times, the “mortgagor' would make an agreement with a “mortgagee' to exchange property for repayment over time. The pledge became “dead' when the borrowing party could or could not meet the agreement. One of the earliest accounts of mortgage law stems from ancient India in the form of the Code of Manu, an ancient Hindu script that rejects deceptive and fraudulent mortgage practices. Critics of mortgaging lambasted the gaping holes of those who took advantage of the lending process by charging too much interest. Usurers had a special place in the seventh circle of hell, according to Dante's Inferno. Indeed, God condemns money lending in Jewish law. According to the American Law Register , the origin of mortgage history lies in the sacred Talmudic scriptures. The Ancient Greeks and Roman civilizations simply borrowed these concepts from Judaic sources. The Romans adopted the concept of debt security by assigning the possession of property to the creditor while the debtor remains in control of it until the debt is repaid. These historical influence continued to have impact for societies who adopted money-lending practices, including the English common law that took advantage of all forms of the money-lending business.
Early maritime law also issued allowance for loans on merchant ships. Borrowers would repay the loan with interest once the ship arrived at their destinations. The United States adopted this ancient maritime mortgaging idea during the Second World War to safeguard the immense surplus on merchant ships. Private owners also mortgaged their ships to advance a loan to acquire their boats. Clearly, the modern mortgaging process has its roots in ancient money-lending policy.
The Rise of the American Mortgage Market
The rise of the United States mortgage market occurred between 1949 and the turn of the 21 st century. In fact, the mortgage debt to income ratio rose from 20 to 73 percent during this time. In addition, mortgage debt to household assets ratio rose from 15 to 41 percent. The American federal government's intervention in mortgage-based lending caused this rapid growth, thus setting it apart from the rest of the world. The American mortgage has its roots in the founding of the first legitimate commercial bank in 1781. Once established, a new system of banknotes exchange, governmental interplay, and lessened liability on the behalf of bankers caused the ripple effect in the United States mortgage market.
Commercial, mutual savings, and property banks expanded into the early 19 th century. These lending institutions catered to the unique characteristics of each region they infiltrated. For instance, banks in rural regions issued mortgages to farmers. The number of banks increased between 1820 and 1860, which also led to an uptick in the volume of loans. During this period, money-lending institutions issued between 55 and 700 million dollars in mortgage loans. The National Bank Act of 1864 established national bank charters and created greater security for the federal treasury. It also led to the development of a nationalized currency to help finance the Civil War. The nationalized currency replaced state and bank bonds The charters allowed for the banking system to expand; however, national banks faced restrictions from directly investing in mortgages and the long-term investment market. In 1893, small state banks started to issue bonds as acknowledgments of debts based on the credit and trust of the debtor alone. The United States favored these types of mortgages; however, they vastly differed from the loans of today. In fact, the average life of these mortgages only lasted six years and account for less than half of the property's value.
The United States mortgage market faced disruption during the end of the 19 th century. It became a disorganized network of uneven allocated mortgage loans that impacted western farmers negatively. The segmentation of the mortgage market favored the Northeast while charging growing areas in the West with higher rates. The majority of lending institutions desired to urbanize the Northeast by injecting investment funds for city projects and expansion. Lending institutions provided nearly 40 percent of all loans for residential construction. Population numbers doubled in the Western cities, despite higher interest rates than their eastern counterparts. Scholars suspect that the uneven allocation of mortgage funds may have slightly stunted growth in new cities between 1880 and 1890. Western mortgage companies sold their loans to Eastern investors. However, the unsuspecting drought that caused farm foreclosures hurt Eastern investors and caused them to doubt the mortgage investment market. Investors regained their confidence when the West began its recovery and interest rates began to level. This occurred when life insurance companies became successful and funds moved across regional borders.
The American Mortgage Market During the 20th Century
Mortgages featured variable interest rates, short maturities, and high down payments by the early 1990s. Before the Great Depression, homeowners renegotiated their mortgages every year. The modern mortgage market began to take shape after the federal government intervened during the Great Depression. This intervention resulted in the formation of the Federal Housing Administration, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and the Home Owner's Loan Corporation. The Great Depression caused property values to plummet, which destabilized the mortgage market. Homeowners defaulted on their loans when holders refused to refinance their mortgage. Roughly 1/10th of all homes faced foreclosure, leading to the constant pressure for holders to resell repossessed property. Lending institutions survived by providing government-sponsored bonds to reinstate mortgages in default. It enabled the extension of terms and fixed rates to create self-amortizing loans. Other efforts were made to increase investing confidence in order to stabilize mortgages in poorer areas.
The Second World War introduced provisions written in the G.I. bill for veterans, including the formation of the VA mortgage insurance program. It provided excellent rates and became part of the compensation package of service members. Lending institutions intended for this to stimulating the housing market. The loan to value ratio increased 95 percent. In addition, the maximum mortgage term extended to thirty years. In 1968, the Government National Mortgage Association emerged to bring uniformity to the American mortgage market by bringing financial instruments to keep it afloat. The birth of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation occurred in 1970 to help promote home ownership. Adjustable rate mortgages returned to the market during the 1980s under the discretion of the Federal Reserve. In 2003, government mortgage institutions accounted for nearly 43 percent of the total mortgage market.
The Mortgage Market: Post-2008
The mortgage market consists of unique and specially trained investors who understand its complex structure. It consists of many professionals, including mortgage brokers, bankers, and correspondents. Regulatory practices must also be considered to avoid predatory lending, which resulted in the sub-prime mortgage crisis that country is recovering from slowly. Buyers need to understand the depth of the mortgage information available to them in order to obtain a loan for their home, including the implications of adjustable-rate and hybrid mortgages to avoid pitfalls when fixed-rates expire. Recent lawsuits against Bank of America and Wells Fargo for allegedly engaging in mortgage fraud stands as a testament and need for stricter regulation. Educating the buyer on important mortgage information and regulating the lender will ensure the stability of the mortgage market over the coming years.
This is what we say to our US 99% of WE THE MUSLIM citizens whether US or immigrant------these WALL STREET MUSLIM BANKS are NOT RELIGIOUS----they are global neo-liberal banking which will KILL 99% of people NOT global 1% MUSLIM.
These WALL STREET MUSLIM BANKS are opening in US because US is no longer a sovereign nation---it is a global FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE and as such brings FOREIGN GLOBAL CORPORATIONS to operate in these US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES. Because a FOREIGN ARABIC CORPORATION needs to do BANKING in US -----they need MUSLIM BANKING structures. These structures are ONLY for GLOBAL MUSLIM CORPORATIONS and global 1% ----they are not being opened to serve the 99% of Muslims.
MUSLIM SHARIA LAWS do not allow LENDING to NON-MUSLIMS-----that is CRIMINAL. Below we see these US MUSLIM banks are marketing to NON-MUSLIMS. What these banks will do to NON-MUSLIMS is the same as JEWISH banking----they will TAKE NON-MUSLIMS for all they have. That is what CATHOLIC BANKING is doing as well to anyone not CATHOLIC.
THIS IS KILLING OUR MUSLIM RELIGION AND ITS KORANIC TENETS JUST AS OUR CHRISTIAN RELIGION WAS KILLED WITH ========1000BC BANKING POLICIES.
'Afifi says anyone that doesn’t believe in interest can use this financing structure. “We’ve had non-Muslims reach out to us. Native Americans have called us, Sikhs, and members of other faiths.”'
OH, YOU MEAN JEWISH KABBALAH?
ACTUALLY NO. JEWISH KABBALAH IS KILLED IN MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE 3000BC HINDI-BRAHMIN---TRANSHUMANISM.
Mortgages that don’t break Islamic laws on paying interest
There are a few financing options that can make an apartment or townhouse purchase Sharia-compliant.
September 12, 2019 - 9:00am
By Emily Myers
Buying an apartment when you aren’t allowed to pay or receive interest complicates the already fraught process of apartment hunting in New York City. The Koran’s stipulation on this has many Muslims looking for Sharia-compliant alternatives to traditional financing.
Paying all cash is the obvious way to avoid paying interest (riba) on an apartment purchase but the prices in New York City make that extremely difficult.
According to Douglas Elliman’s market report for the last quarter, the median sales price for apartments in Queens was $572,000; in Brooklyn, $815,000; and in Manhattan it continues to hover around the million-dollar mark. That means it can be difficult to raise the funds even if you are chipping in with friends and family to meet the asking price.
Renting indefinitely is clearly another solution, but there are also several lending programs—usually facilitated by a third party—that offer Sharia-compliant financing if you want to buy.
[Editor's note: An earlier version of this post was published in May 2017. We are presenting it again with updated information for September 2019.]
How it works
There are three main models of financing that can make an apartment or townhouse purchase Sharia-compliant. The first is a rent-to-own structure (ljara) where the property is purchased by a trust and the borrower is listed as grantor, trustee, and beneficiary. The second is a cost-plus model (murabahah) where a bank buys the apartment at a price above asking and a buyer pays back the cost over time. Another option is a co-financing option (musharaka) where a buyer and an investment partner jointly own the apartment.
You’ll likely need a third party to structure the financing
Once you decide how you want to proceed you will probably need a facilitator to structure the financing between yourself and an investor or lender. Gemala Afifi leads the marketing at Ijara CDC, a non-profit providing this type of consulting to buyers in New York City. Ijara CDC offers the rent-to-own model and has helped buyers in Brooklyn and Queens. Afifi says the payments are comparable to a mortgage payment—part of it going towards ownership and part of it paying the rent.
Guidance Residential is a similar company providing support to New York City buyers.
Problem-solving if there are issues with repayments
The impact of defaulting on payments will vary depending on your lender and facilitator. Afifi says, Ijara CDC will work with the investor and the client to find a solution where the investor and borrower are comfortable. “Investors don’t want to be maintaining properties so whatever needs to be done so that they can still get a return on their investment, they’ll be willing to do,” says Afifi.
Discover off-market properties in your dream neighborhood that perfectly suit your needs and budget. Meet and deal with sellers before their apartment hits the market.
Let Triplemint's off-market team give you exclusive access to apartments in your price range and desired neighborhood that no one else has seen. More options, less competition, no bidding wars.
Discrimination at closing
Due to the nature of the financing structure, there will be additional paperwork at closing. Afifi says there can sometimes be issues with title companies who are put off by Islamic documents and they won’t want to be involved. “If that happens we have ways of getting them signed, at a different attorney’s office, or by using a different title company,” she says.
Pros and cons
Islamic banking models probably won’t give you the most competitive price but they do allow you to be compliant to your faith. It will depend on how strictly you observe the Islamic rules.
“If you want the lowest rate, and don’t care about the religious part of it, then this is not the right avenue. It’s comparable but it’s not the cheapest,” says Afifi. She points out, it is not free money which is sometimes the misconception, there is still a profit earned but it is earned through payment for using property rather than payment for using money. You should also be aware that buying into a co-op has a complexity that isn’t usually compatible with the Islamic loan system although Afifi says her company can work with lenders that offer co-op financing and help structure the transaction to be Islamically compliant.
One change in the past few years is an increase in the range of products that can be structured in Sharia-compliant ways, like construction and renovation loans as well as cash-out refinancing options.
Afifi says anyone that doesn’t believe in interest can use this financing structure. “We’ve had non-Muslims reach out to us. Native Americans have called us, Sikhs, and members of other faiths.”
After the 2008 economic crash the national FAKE NEWS media created the myth-making around BANK LENDING public policy. Seems those now FAT ON MASSIVE US FRAUD GLOBAL BANKS no longer want to lend to the US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE black, white, or brown citizens OR the SMALL BUSINESSES they want to start. We discussed the elimination of FEDERAL SMALL BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS AND BANKING-----replaced by 'ANGEL GRANTS' by global corporations/investment firms.
What we see is the elimination of INTEREST WITH BANK LOANS------where GRANTS are FREE MONEY given by any institution other than A BANK.
Global banking has no intention of continuing these GRANTS for PAY-TO-PLAY SMALL BUSINESS STARTUPS. This policy simply hides the fact that a US 99% of people used to accessing BANKS are no longer able to access banks or LOANS with INTEREST.
Global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS banking sucked up $100 trillion from our US economy and people's pockets---they have plenty of money to lend----there is simply no intention of lending money to any entity other than GLOBAL CORPORATIONS AND GLOBAL 1% of people.
'Why Are Banks No Longer Lending To Small Businesses?
Largely, this is due to banks being bought out by large corporations and no longer having a personal relationship with their customers.
So, why are banks no longer lending to small businesses? Economic times are driving banks reluctance to lend to small businesses.
The recession hit even the largest businesses hard'.
Here is what has replaced our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE access to US BANKING------forget having PROTECTIONS against PREDATORY LENDING------we can access money by ANGEL EQUITY INVESTMENT where global corporations OWN what you build as a BUSINESS.
Financing a Small
Business: Loans vs. Equity Investment
Equity sales are advantageous because they don't require any repayment, and most businesses don't turn a profit for a significant time period, which makes paying back loans extremely difficult. If you are an established business and have ongoing financing needs, then loans may make a lot more sense.
So, is this OLD WORLD CATHOLIC AND JEWISH BANKING policies? Well, in the sense that only the richest are able to HAVE BUSINESSES and access lending of money----YES, but the CATHOLIC CHURCH is taken by OLD WORLD PRE-CHRISTIAN CATO/SENECA/NERO-------NOT RELIGIOUS.
We have to go back to KABBALAH AND NUMEROLOGICAL MYSTICISM to find where today's OLD WORLD KINGS operate.
SmallBusiness.com Guide to Alternative Funding
January 12, 2015 by Rex Hammock in Money
Answering the Riddle:
Are Banks Not Lending to Small Businesses, or Are Small Businesses Not Borrowing from Banks? | 2015
Small businesses are reporting their lending needs are being met, yet banks are lending to small businesses less than before 2008. Why?
Two reports last week regarding the availability of bank loans to small businesses seem to contradict one-another. On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal reported on research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland that indicates U.S. small business lending by banks has not regained ground lost during 2008 financial meltdown and subsequent recession and slow recovery. The report’s conclusion was based on data that shows loans to small businesses are a smaller percentage of total bank lending.
Banks held roughly $590 billion of small-business loans in the third quarter, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 17% below 2008 highs. “The data show that the volume of small loans, those under $1 million, dropped significantly between 2008 and 2012, and has barely recovered,” Ann Marie Wiersch, author of the report.
Without an explanation of why a growing percentage of bank business loans are going to big businesses rather than small, the report appears to fall in line with a general narrative that suggests banks are rejecting small business loans in order to make that money available for loans to large businesses.
We’ve even joined in this narrative. Last August, we reported on a study by Harvard Business School professor (and former SBA administrator) Karen Mills claiming that banks, even community banks, have been subject to regulatory and structural changes that continue to cast doubt on whether or not traditional bank credit will ever recover for small loans.
The “banks don’t want to lend to small businesses” narrative is also central to the investor pitch of various “peer-to-peer” lending companies and “alternative banks.”
But according to a second report issued last week, the December report of the long-running monthly surveys conducted by the NFIB Research Foundation, “Only 3 percent (of small business owners) reported that financing was their top business problem.” What’s more, the percentage of small business owners reporting that “all their credit needs were not met” is only 4%, an historic low in the survey. Twenty-nine percent of owners reported all credit needs met, and 54% explicitly said they did not want a loan. The survey reported that 33% percent of all small business owners reported borrowing on a regular basis, up 5 points and high compared to recent experience.
So what is going on?
Again, the research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland is focused on reporting the what of small business bank lending: that loans to small businesses are a smaller percentage of total bank loans to business. The research from NFIB, while seemingly contradictory, may reveal a part of why bank loans to small businesses are down: they aren’t seeking such loans.
The why likely has additional “all of the above” reasons. Banks are likely more risk averse and subjected to more regulations. Small businesses are likely choosing not to borrow money. Perhaps small businesses that present the most risk to traditional banks are being encouraged by banks to use alternative sources–indeed, such companies have affiliate and distribution partnerships with banks that provide the bank finder’s fees for such loan leads.
Bottomline: Access to credit is always critical to small businesses, but small business credit is currently not a crisis.
Any small business owner who has been in business through the ups and downs of economic cycles knows that banks want to lend you money when you don’t need it, and don’t want to lend you money when you do. Or so it seems.
EQUITY VS LOANs is that transition away from accessing BANKING AND LOANS complete with all that INTEREST. Global investment firms having moved $100 trillion of US wealth and people's assets to global banks are now weening our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE off the idea they can access BANKING at all. This is the only reason ANGEL GRANTS/EQUITY structures exist.
EQUITY INVESTMENT IS SIMPLY A GLOBAL CORPORATION OWNING A STARTUP WITH SOMEONE GIVING FREE LABOR TO BUILD IT.
This is aimed at those global banking 5% freemason/Greek players who acted in ROBBER BARON sacking and looting of US civil society. It makes them feel like WINNERS when MOVING FORWARD will have them under the bus with everyone else.
These funds are coming from a third party-----NO INTEREST-----and will disappear very quickly as a money-lending structure.
When the above article suggests that the DE-BANKING of small businesses is simply a business cycle giving all kinds of STATS saying this percentage of business owners are getting what they need----that would be EQUITY FUNDING----not banking loans.
NO INTEREST GRANTS---------
Supposedly, we are to think those getting EQUITY INVESTMENTS which are simply PAY-TO-PLAY money are WINNERS----when in fact these players are soon to be LOSERS.
Financing a Small Business: Loans vs. Equity Investment
By submitting this form, you agree to Findlaw.com's terms.
We respect your privacy.
Created by FindLaw's team of legal writers and editors.You are ready to start your own business, but don't know where to look for financing. You are curious about loans and heard something concerning equity, but this isn't your area of expertise. You are not alone. One of the hardest decisions facing small business owners is how to obtain financing for their business.
Most business owners really have two options: take out a loan or sell a piece of their business for start-up cash. Follow along as FindLaw helps you explore the different options that may be available to you.
Choosing between Loans and Equity
While there are no hard and fast rules, if you are in the formation stage of setting up your business, it makes sense to strongly consider selling an equity stake in your business in order to secure financing to get it off the ground. Equity sales are advantageous because they don't require any repayment, and most businesses don't turn a profit for a significant time period, which makes paying back loans extremely difficult.
If you are an established business and have ongoing financing needs, then loans may make a lot more sense. Loans are easier to deal with when a company has enough cash flow to make repayment realistic, and an established company likely has more collateral to offer to secure the loans. Finally, it's worth noting that loans and equity are treated differently for tax purposes, so consult with a business tax advisor to see if one course of action makes more sense than the other.
Whether you should choose loans or not depends largely on the maturity of your business, cash flow and whether you're simply unwilling to give up any more control in your company.
- Advantages: The biggest advantage for choosing loans is that you maintain control over your business. Unlike equity investors, lenders have no say in your business and are not entitled to your business profits. The only obligation you owe to your lender is to repay the loan as agreed upon. Finally, one last advantage that can be very helpful is that loan payments that go towards paying off the interest on the loan can be deducted as a business expense for tax purposes.
- Disadvantages: The biggest disadvantage of loans is that you have to pay back a steady amount on a consistent schedule, and, as anyone who runs a business knows, profits can be anything but steady. You may have to make a large loan payment precisely when you need the cash for your business the most. Another disadvantage is that many small business owners have to use personal property as collateral to secure the loan, which puts them personally at risk if business goes bad. Finally, if you are unable to pay the loan back, you may be personally sued by the bank, regardless of whether the loan is secured or unsecured.
Equity is a mixed bag of benefit and cost, and the factors that influence whether you choose to use equity sales to fund your business include whether your business is still young or expanding and your willingness to give control over the business to people other than yourself.
- Advantages: Although many may see giving other people an interest in their business as losing control, this doesn't have to be the case. If you choose the right investors, they can be extremely helpful in terms of running the business, establishing business connections and offering valuable advice and assistance. Another advantage of equity investments over loans is that they tend to be far more creative and flexible, which many businesses may prefer. The single biggest advantage of selling equity stakes to investors is that if your business loses money or goes broke, you likely won't have to pay investors a dime.
- Disadvantages: The loss of control in your business is probably the biggest disadvantage involved in selling equity stakes to fund your business. There are many instances where the founders of a business, who put years of their life into the company, are voted out of the company by investors. Be very careful to really consider whether the financing gain is worth the loss of control. The other main disadvantage is that equity investors will want to receive a portion of the business profits, taking away valuable company profits that could otherwise be reinvested into the company. Finally, because equity investors are now co-owners, you have a duty to inform them of all significant business events, and they can now sue you if they feel their rights are being infringed upon.