How can I get a small business loan with bad credit ranking (no debts, just not enough credit history)?
Hi, I was wondering how easy it is to get a small business loan (app. 2000 pound) if you have a bad credit ranking? I haven’t been long enough in the UK to build up a good credit history…I have just recently got a debit card and I do have a credit card with a credit facility of 100 pound, hoping that this will help me to get a better ranking (I always pay the full amount on time). But I moved quite a lot, which doesn’t help…I do have a job but don’t earn as much as I used to 3 month ago…So I’m looking to start my own business…Not sure how I can persuade my bank?
Wow, you really got some rubbish answers there! Seriously though, it is extremely difficult to get money out of banks at the moment. I started my business early last year and haven’t had a penny from them and have had to do it all myself.
The first thing you need is a solid business plan. Try contacting your local business link who will be able to help with this. They will also be able to put you in touch with grant funding organisations who will be able to help but they will also want to see your business plan.
There is a lot of grant funding available for new start ups and I think this will be your best bet. The bank may offer you free banking for 6 months or something like that but I doubt they will lend you anything.
Why Singapore is ranked as the best country for doing business?
The World Bank has ranked the tiny independent island of Singapore as the #1 economy in the world for business. Do you agree?
5.China (Hong Kong)
19. Puerto Rico
see full list at: http://www.doingbusiness.org/EconomyRankings/Default.aspx?direction=asc&sort=1
Singapore has a very favorable business tax rate of 20% (the US corporate income tax rate is 45% on profits.)
Average inflation from the period 1995-2004 was only 1.18% – extremely low, and making investments more predictable.
They also are ranked at or near the the top for the world’s most educated population.
Crime is well under control and laws are strictly enforced. (Capital punishment is given for drug smuggling.)
Advise on UK MBA’s (Full Time)?
Have eliminated LBS and Manchester – don’t want 18mths. Also don’t want to be in London (so no Cass or Tanaka). Between Warwick, Cranfield, Cambridge, Lancaster, Henley.. Particularly between Warwick and Cranfield?? Please don’t suggest FT or Economist ranking, I have looked there but am looking for personal insight! Prefer Finance/Banking, and want something recognised globally / USA. Anyone have a London City employer’s perspective?
An MBA will be internationally recognised wherever adn if you can pass with distiction (gaining grade A’s) it will be even better. However, the U.S. Consider Oxford and Cambridge to be the best, especially Oxford. But the standard to achieve a distinction will be higher. Warwick is good and has an excellent reputation. Have you not considerd Derby? The reputation may not be as good, but it has spirit and you will achieve a distiction without fierce competition!
Do you think America actually gives money to poor people in other countries?
Americans are regularly told by politicians and the media, that America is the world’s most generous nation. This is one of the most conventional pieces of ‘knowledgeable ignorance’. According to the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the US gave between $6 and $15 billion in foreign aid in the period between 1995 and 1999. In absolute terms, Japan gives more than the US, between $9 and $15 billion in the same period. But the absolute figures are less significant than the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP, or national wealth) that a country devotes to foreign aid. On that league table, the US ranks twenty-second of the 22 most developed nations. As former President Jimmy Carter commented: ‘We are the stingiest nation of all’. Denmark is top of the table, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the US manages just 0.1%. The United Nations has long established the target of 0.7% GDP for development assistance, although only four countries actually achieve this: Denmark, 1.01%; Norway, 0.91%; the Netherlands, 0.79%; Sweden, 0.7%. Apart from being the least generous nation, the US is highly selective in who receives its aid. Over 50% of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share.
The purpose of 99% of foreign “aid” is to create foreign markets for US products, especially arms sales. Foreign aid aids the giver (America), not the recipient. The leaders get the money, not the people. Giving money to the people is both not useful to the US as well as rather impossible. There are no people driving up to villages with cash and handing townspeople money making sure to distribute it evenly. They give it to the government and or the rebel leadership to allot.
Richer nations receive the most aid. 1 third of all American aid goes to Israel and Egypt. After that it goes to places like Columbia, Pakistan, Jordan etc… not Rwanda or Burundi or Botswana.
When looking at how it’s allotted by the US, it’s clear that strategic considerations, political alignment and drug policy are the biggest considerations while the poorest nations receive the least if any aid. The U.N. Voting Record doesn’t even count, if you can’t do anything for the US.
Sweden spends the majority of it’s aid on places like Sierra Leone, Gaza & the West Bank and Liberia and the rest of Africa.
When will Americans come out of their government / media induced coma and realize the propaganda that is fed them? Of course America doesn’t give money to poor people. They don’t even give any to poor dying Americans, why would they give it to a Botswanian?
I’m sorry but you are incorrect. Sounds like you listen and read too much anti american propeganda.
Just look at your local church. Multiply that by the millions.
Was the purpose of the Taxpayer Bailout to Encourage Credit or a Transfer of Wealth to Wall Street Executives?
The Guardian newspaper in London analyzed corporate pay plans that were recently drawn up by Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, and Lehman Brothers. The highest-ranking executives of these banks are to split a total of $70 billion in salaries and bonuses this year.
Bonuses? The stock prices of the firms have plummeted in the past year, Lehman Brothers has collapsed completely, the bungling executives have caused a global financial crisis, and the five remaining banks are down now down in Washington loading up their share of a $700 billion taxpayer bailout. They get bonuses for that?
The math is infuriatingly easy here: This $70 billion executive payout means that honchos in these firms will siphon off 10 percent of the bailout funds that were supposed to shore up our economy – not reward executive failure.
“Why is there no requirement in the bailout plan that banks must actually make loans as a condition of getting the money? Have you heard about this? America’s nine largest banks – including Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Wells Fargo – are being handed 125 billion of our tax dollars with no strings attached. The Bushites say they “hope” the bankers will use this largess to help the American economy… but that it’s up to them. Indeed, Bush’s chief bank regulator says he will not even monitor how the recipients use our money.
For their part, the Big Nine say they feel no urgency to move the funds into the credit system. After all, they sniff, we have lost a ton of profit in the past few months, so we’ll need the bulk of the handout to beef-up our own balance sheets.”
As we agreed, DAR included to his credit, throughout the two party charade concerning the Bailout it was a transfer of wealth to Wall Street executives.
All of the claims that were made to justify the bank bailout have been exposed as lies. President Bush, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Paulson were joined by the Democratic congressional leadership and Barack Obama in warning that the bailout had to be passed, and passed immediately, despite massive popular opposition. Those who opposed the plan were denounced for jeopardizing the well being of the American people.
In a nationally televised speech delivered September 24, in advance of the congressional vote on the bailout plan, Bush said it would “help American consumers and businessmen get credit to meet their daily needs and create jobs.” If the bailout was not passed, he warned, “More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account…. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs … Ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession.”
One month later, the bailout has been enacted, and all of the dire developments–banks and businesses disappearing, the stock market plunging, unemployment skyrocketing–which the American people were told it would prevent are unfolding with accelerating speed.
While Obama talks about the need for all Americans to “come together” in a spirit of “shared sacrifice”–meaning drastic cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other social programs–and the cost of the bailout is cited to justify fiscal austerity, the bankers proceed to ruthlessly prosecute their class interests.
The “economic rescue” plan has been revealed to be a scheme to plunder society for the benefit of the financial aristocracy. The American ruling elite, utilizing its domination of the state and the two-party political system, is exploiting a crisis of its own making to carry through an economic agenda, long in preparation, that could not be imposed under normal conditions.
The result will be greater economic hardship for ordinary Americans. The big banks will have even greater market power to set interest rates and control access to credit for workers, students and small businesses.
While no serious measures are being proposed, either by the Bush administration, the Republican presidential candidate or his Democratic opponent, to prevent a social catastrophe from overtaking working people, the government is organizing a restructuring of the financial system that will enable a handful of mega-banks to increase their power over society.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers