THE Australia and New Zealand Bank in Fiji does not have specific loan packages for customers seeking financial help for education.
ANZ marketing manager Inoke Bainimarama said the bank offered standard personal loans on an unsecured and secured basis, dependent on the customer's purpose and financial needs.
Customers who take loans up to $3000 on an unsecured basis are charged an interest rate of 15 per cent per annum with an 11 per cent interest charge per annum for secured loans of more than $3000.
"Personal loan applications received from customers specifically to fund educational expenses average around three to four applications per month," he said.
"Whilst this number is minimal, the presumption is that many customers would opt for an ANZ small loan to finance educational expenses for example payment of school fees, purchase of school books and uniforms simply because of its unsecured nature and same day access to funds.
"At ANZ, we offer a range of savings and investment products which are available for customers."
He said customers are encouraged to save in order to get them closer to meeting their saving goals like debt consolidation, new household goods or further education.
He said ANZ offers an exclusive employee package of benefits made available to employees of ANZ's top corporate clients called anzwork.
"Although standard personal loan interest rates apply under the anzwork scheme, eligible customers enjoy a 30 per cent discount on the personal loan approval fee," he said.
Lending institutions were offering their customers affected by Cyclone Mick low interest rates on rehabilitation loan packages.
Source
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
Obama's financial reform falls short
The one thing everyone agrees on about the Massachusetts Senate election is that it showed voters are frustrated and furious at politicians. President Barack Obama is rapidly joining Congress as a primary target. And after his Thursday news conference on bank regulatory reform, Obama may deserve to be the focus of this anger.
Instead of bringing real change, Obama’s plans seem more likely to do the opposite of what he says he wants.
Obama said that large financial institutions almost ruined the U.S. economy because they took “huge, reckless risks in pursuit of quick profits and massive bonuses.” Unfortunately his latest solution, long on political rhetoric and short on substance, is likely to make the financial system more fragile and more susceptible to government bailouts.
Source
You do not have to be a financial genius to figure this out.
First, Obama proposes to limit the scope and size of large financial institutions. But he ignored suggestions to break up the existing financial behemoths, like Goldman, already in the “too big to fail” category. Instead, his proposed law would simply prevent other, smaller institutions from getting larger.
Of course, this only benefits existing companies, by shielding them from competition. And, of course, these existing companies would still be too big to fail.
So, when Obama says: “I'm also proposing that we prevent the further consolidation of our financial system,” he should not be surprised when people notice the word “further.” The problem isn’t further consolidation of the banking industry. The problem is the consolidation we already have. This is one big reason for the public’s anger.
Obama also wants to prevent financial institutions from operating “hedge funds and private equity funds while running a bank backed by the American people.” This sounds good - but only for a second. It doesn’t take much longer to realize that some of the biggest bailout recipients - like Bear Stearns and AIG - weren't taking deposits. And they got bailouts anyway.
We are long past the point at which anybody could believe that the government safety net extends only to federally insured banks. Well, maybe long past the point at which anybody outside of the administration believes that.
In other words, it solves nothing to restore the old wall between investment banking and commercial banking if the federal government is going to continue to bail out both sides of the wall.
This scheme gives us all of the inefficiencies of the old, balkanized financial system and none of the advantages of limiting the government’s exposure.
Source
Instead of bringing real change, Obama’s plans seem more likely to do the opposite of what he says he wants.
Obama said that large financial institutions almost ruined the U.S. economy because they took “huge, reckless risks in pursuit of quick profits and massive bonuses.” Unfortunately his latest solution, long on political rhetoric and short on substance, is likely to make the financial system more fragile and more susceptible to government bailouts.
Source
You do not have to be a financial genius to figure this out.
First, Obama proposes to limit the scope and size of large financial institutions. But he ignored suggestions to break up the existing financial behemoths, like Goldman, already in the “too big to fail” category. Instead, his proposed law would simply prevent other, smaller institutions from getting larger.
Of course, this only benefits existing companies, by shielding them from competition. And, of course, these existing companies would still be too big to fail.
So, when Obama says: “I'm also proposing that we prevent the further consolidation of our financial system,” he should not be surprised when people notice the word “further.” The problem isn’t further consolidation of the banking industry. The problem is the consolidation we already have. This is one big reason for the public’s anger.
Obama also wants to prevent financial institutions from operating “hedge funds and private equity funds while running a bank backed by the American people.” This sounds good - but only for a second. It doesn’t take much longer to realize that some of the biggest bailout recipients - like Bear Stearns and AIG - weren't taking deposits. And they got bailouts anyway.
We are long past the point at which anybody could believe that the government safety net extends only to federally insured banks. Well, maybe long past the point at which anybody outside of the administration believes that.
In other words, it solves nothing to restore the old wall between investment banking and commercial banking if the federal government is going to continue to bail out both sides of the wall.
This scheme gives us all of the inefficiencies of the old, balkanized financial system and none of the advantages of limiting the government’s exposure.
Source
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)