Emergency cash can come from a variety of places. Ideally, you’ve got an emergency fund built up. If not, you may need an emergency cash loan. This page covers emergency cash loans, and the best places to find them.
A Little Help From Your Friends
Before going into debt for an emergency cash loan, consider talking with your network of friends and family. If you’ve suffered a hardship, they may be willing to help. Of course, don’t be offended if you don’t get any money from them – giving you a loan may be more risk than they can afford to take. Remember, they could end up with their own emergencies any day.
* How Peer to Peer Lending Works
Emergency Cash Loans From the Bank
Depending on how fast you need cash, you can get emergency cash from the bank. This is probably your best bet if you have no other resources. You can get emergency cash loans from the bank in a variety of ways:
* A charge on your credit card
* A home equity loan
* A home equity line of credit
* An unsecured loan (or “signature” loan)
When looking for an emergency cash loan, don’t forget to look at credit unions. These institutions may be more willing to work with you.
Payday Loans – Dangerous Emergency Cash Loans
Perhaps you’re looking for an emergency cash loan but you’ve got no credit. In that case, traditional borrowing may not be an option. You may be considering payday loans to get you through the hard times. If so, be very careful.
You really need to be careful about using payday loans. The problem with them is that they most likely will make your situation worse. A payday loan for emergency cash is like a band-aid – it won’t heal you, and it’ll fall off sooner or later. In addition, it won’t keep you from scraping yourself up in the future. Remember that payday loans can easily cost you several hundred percent APR.
Title loans are a similar type of high cost loan. You can get a little bit of cash, but you risk losing important assets such as your automobile.
* How Car Title Loans Work
Emergency Cash Loan Alternatives
Ultimately, you need to have an emergency fund. If you don’t have one today, build one for next time.
Next, consider your assets. Can you sell something (or several somethings) to cover the costs of this emergency? That’s going to be a much better option than taking on debt. Consider the possibilities: you might have a nice TV, auto, or couch that you enjoy. You could either sell the item and get out of the emergency unscathed, or you could end up paying for an emergency cash loan for many years to come. Which choice sounds better?
Sabtu, 19 Maret 2011
Kamis, 04 Maret 2010
Rabu, 09 April 2008
Ex-manpower officials could face up to 6 years for graft
Ex-manpower officials could face up to 6 years for graft
source : thejakartapost.com
The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
Prosecutors demanded up to six years in prison for two former officials of the ministry of manpower and transmigration charged with the embezzlement of foreign migrant workforce audit funds.
Former director general for education and inspections, Marudin Saur Marulita Simanihuruk, could face six years in prison if convicted, while the former head of the ministry's evaluation and report subdivision, Suseno Tjipto Mantora, could face four years.
Prosecutors have charged the two men with embezzling Rp 6.199 billion (US$673,804) of the Rp 7.817 billion allocated to audit the foreign migrant workforce through 46 of the ministry's regional offices and a unit at the ministry in 2004 and 2005.
Prosecutor Moch. Rum said Tuesday that Marudin and Suseno were being charged under articles of the 1999 law on corruption, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and fines of between Rp 200 million and Rp 1 billion for the misappropriation of state funds.
He demanded the Anti-Corruption Court fine Marudin Rp 350 million and Suseno Rp 200 million.
"Marudin must also return Rp 5.8 billion to the state," Rum said, adding that Marudin's assets could be confiscated to cover the losses.
He said the two men were also guilty of failing to hold a tender, as required by law, instead directly appointing the Johan Barus audit agency to carry out the project.
"They should have organized a tender to choose a more competent agency," Rum said.
Marudi said after the court session that the sentence demand was too harsh.
He then reiterated his claim of innocence.
"The appointment letter (for Johan Barus) was officially approved by then minister Fahmi Idris. I did not formulate it myself," he said.
"I only carried out what was written in the letter about appointing Johan Barus' audit agency.
"So, how can they declare me guilty of corruption?"
Fahmi Idris testified two weeks ago to the effect that he did not know about the embezzled money or its distribution among state officials.
Fahmi, who is now the minister of industry, defended the decision to directly appoint Johan Barus, saying there had not been enough time to conduct a tender for the audit project ordered by the President.
The court will reconvene next Tuesday to hear the defense statements of the two defendants. (ewdsource : thejakartapost.com
Kamis, 03 April 2008
Bear deal goes under the microscope
Regulators and top execs defend extraordinary deal, but lawmakers questioned whether Bear Stearns had to fail.
| Nearly 3 months after becoming CEO, Bear Stearns' Alan Schwartz watched his 85-year-old firm almost collapse. |
 |
| JPMorgan Chase Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon told lawmakers if a Bear Stearns rescue had failed, the results could have been 'disastrous.' |
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Senate took a long, hard look at JPMorgan Chase's planned purchase of Bear Stearns on Thursday, grilling both executives and federal regulators who helped shepherd the controversial deal.
Members of the Senate Banking Committee, digging into the terms of the extraordinary tie-up at a five-hour hearing, pulled back the curtain on a merger that many critics have argued amounts to a bailout of Wall Street.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, making his second straight appearance before lawmakers this week, was among those who defended the 11th-hour deal. Bernanke argued that preventing the collapse of Bear Stearns, the nation's fifth largest investment bank, staved off a run on other investment banks, damage to the broader American financial system and the U.S. economy.
"The truth is that the benefactors of our actions were not Bear Stearns or principally Wall Street - it is Main Street," said the central bank chief.
Those remarks were echoed by other witnesses, including Timothy Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, one of the chief architects of the deal, and JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500) Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon and Bear Stearns (BSC, Fortune 500) CEO Alan Schwartz.
"One thing I can say with confidence: if the private and public parties before you today had not acted in a remarkable collaboration to prevent the fall of Bear Stearns, we would all be facing a far more dire set of challenges," JPMorgan's Dimon said.
Thursday's hearing marked the first time the two Wall Street execs have spoken publicly on the merger since the deal was announced on March 16.
At the time, JPMorgan agreed to buy Bear Stearns for $236 million, or only $2 a share. A little over a week later, JPMorgan raised its bid for the investment bank to $10 a share amid anger from both shareholders and employees over the deal.
To pull off the purchase, however, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York agreed to take control of $30 billion of Bear Stearns' assets. As a result, JPMorgan will now bear the risk of the first $1 billion in losses were Bear Stearns assets to go bad. The New York Fed would cover the remaining $29 billion.
The Fed's unusual maneuver drew the scrutiny of lawmakers, who questioned the central bank's decision to put public funds at risk by essentially agreeing to back Bear Stearns' portfolio, which included those same mortgage-backed securities that have plummeted in value since the housing market took a nosedive.
"We've heard other financial institutions say that they, in fact, can't truly verify the full value of their securities," said Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J. "So, if we don't have a valuation of these securities, how are we so confident?"
$2 a share and the discount window
Thursday's hearing provided a glimpse into how the deal came about after Bear Stearns revealed to the SEC, the Fed and JPMorgan that it was facing severe liquidity issues.
At the time, Bear Stearns' Schwartz was facing an exodus of both customers and business partners following rampant speculation that its underlying health was in jeopardy.
Schwartz suggested to lawmakers that the speculation could have been an organized effort to manipulate the market.
"I would just say as an observer of the market, it looked like more than fears - there were people that wanted to induce a panic," Schwartz said.
Despite securing a short-term loan from JPMorgan on Friday, March 14, the company's liquidity position continued to weaken. By the end of the day, Schwartz said the company faced two choices: finding a buyer or face the possibility of filing for bankruptcy the following Monday.
Even though Bear Stearns attempted to court other partners, only JPMorgan was willing to commit, according to Schwartz.
One question that occupied lawmakers' attention was how the initial $2 asking price for Bear Stearns was reached and if regulators were involved in determining that price.
"We did not set or negotiate the price," said New York Fed President Geithner.
Geithner said the agreement was guided by twin principles: averting default by Bear Stearns but at the same time not sending the message that the government would bail out other firms when their business goes bad.
JPMorgan's Dimon added that the price also took into account the risk that it was taking by purchasing Bear Stearns on such short notice.
"We literally had 48 hours to do what normally takes a month," said Dimon.
Still, lawmakers wondered whether Bear Stearns could have been saved. After JPMorgan announced plans to acquire Bear Stearns, the Federal Reserve took the drastic move of opening its discount window to investment banks and brokerages to calm jittery markets about liquidity.
Some experts have suggested that the Fed could have opened the discount window when fears first emerged about the health of Bear Stearns.
"It was not at all obvious to me it would have been sufficient to prevent their bankruptcy," said Fed chief Bernanke.
Bear Stearns' Schwartz disagreed.
"It is highly, highly unlikely we'd be in situation we found ourselves in today," he said.
Congress wants answers
The unorthodox rescue of Bear Stearns by the Fed has been a hot topic on Capitol Hill.
On Wednesday, members of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress grilled Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke about the Fed's role in engineering a deal between the two firms.
At the same time, the top two lawmakers on the Senate Finance Committee - Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Max Baucus, D-Mont. - have also been pushing for further details on the controversial deal.
On Wednesday, the pair sent a letter to Schwartz and Dimon requesting details about any compensation or severance arrangements as part of the merger. In addition, the two lawmakers asked the Securities and Exchange Commission Thursday why the regulator sought no enforcement action against Bear Stearns for improperly valuing its mortgage-related investments.
There has been plenty of talk this week that the U.S. financial system requires a drastic overhaul to prevent such a crisis from happening again.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson outlined a blueprint for changes on Monday that would combine a handful of federal regulators and provide greater power to the Federal Reserve.
While Thursday's hearing provided few answers about what actions should be taken, both witnesses and lawmakers urged change.
"If we continue to react to situation after they happen, where are we going to be?" asked Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., the ranking GOP member of the committee
Source:
Rabu, 02 April 2008
Selasa, 01 April 2008
Bye-Laws Committee Members noticed need to effectively improve communications
Bye-Laws Committee Members noticed need to effectively improve communications
“We continuously support efforts made by the Bye-Laws and Regulations Committee in formulating regulations and providing mutual guidance in order for banks to be well-run and efficient” commented Budi Rochadi, Deputy Governor of the Payment System during his opening remarks at the evening get-together for the Bye-Laws and Regulations Committee.
The event was held at the Sheraton Hotel in Bandung on 10th May 2007. It represents one of the routine activities undertaken to establish cooperation among all Bye-Law officials. It is hoped that such occasions facilitate communications between members to therefore reach consensus at every meeting or discussion more effectively.
Bank Indonesia is fully aware that operationally the payment system does not completely adhere to Bank Indonesia’s regulations. As a result, the combined ideas and perceptions of each committee member are considered in the institution of mutual regulations to help facilitate the payment system.
Closer cooperation between all stakeholders should create more effective informal communications. In addition, this is hoped will support a higher quality, more effective and efficient payment system to meet market needs and raise industry efficiency. Closing his remarks, Budi Rochadi expressed hope that all stakeholders and committee members can maintain and improve their motivation and strengthen their cooperation.
http://www.bi.go.id/web/en/SP001/Info01/DASP01/Info_SP14.htm
“We continuously support efforts made by the Bye-Laws and Regulations Committee in formulating regulations and providing mutual guidance in order for banks to be well-run and efficient” commented Budi Rochadi, Deputy Governor of the Payment System during his opening remarks at the evening get-together for the Bye-Laws and Regulations Committee.
The event was held at the Sheraton Hotel in Bandung on 10th May 2007. It represents one of the routine activities undertaken to establish cooperation among all Bye-Law officials. It is hoped that such occasions facilitate communications between members to therefore reach consensus at every meeting or discussion more effectively.
Bank Indonesia is fully aware that operationally the payment system does not completely adhere to Bank Indonesia’s regulations. As a result, the combined ideas and perceptions of each committee member are considered in the institution of mutual regulations to help facilitate the payment system.
Closer cooperation between all stakeholders should create more effective informal communications. In addition, this is hoped will support a higher quality, more effective and efficient payment system to meet market needs and raise industry efficiency. Closing his remarks, Budi Rochadi expressed hope that all stakeholders and committee members can maintain and improve their motivation and strengthen their cooperation.
http://www.bi.go.id/web/en/SP001/Info01/DASP01/Info_SP14.htm
BI Publishhe E-money
BI Publishes E-Money Development Study
The soaring popularity of non-cash payment instruments such as prepaid cards, commonly referred to as electronic money (e-money), has led Bank Indonesia (BI), the national payment system operator, to take various actions in anticipation of this trend. One move has been to launch the 2006 initiative on the less cash society, which resulted in the production of several working papers.
The goal of this initiative is to promote the creation of a secure, efficient and reliable e-money instrument for the public. A further objective is the building of a more efficient national economy. E-money is envisaged as filling an important gap in the existing array of non-cash payment instruments, ranging from low value/retail instruments such as cheques, bilyet giro, credit cards and so on to high value instruments such as transactions generated by the interbank money market and processed through the BI-Real Time Gross Settlement system (BI-RTGS).
BI sees e-money as a highly suitable instrument for micropayments involving small, but very frequent transactions. In publishing the study of this initiative, BI also invites responses and suggestions for improvements to a paper on the issue and/or amendment of regulations governing e-money.
Public comment is also invited for other working papers produced during the “less cash society" initiative of 2006.
The soaring popularity of non-cash payment instruments such as prepaid cards, commonly referred to as electronic money (e-money), has led Bank Indonesia (BI), the national payment system operator, to take various actions in anticipation of this trend. One move has been to launch the 2006 initiative on the less cash society, which resulted in the production of several working papers.
The goal of this initiative is to promote the creation of a secure, efficient and reliable e-money instrument for the public. A further objective is the building of a more efficient national economy. E-money is envisaged as filling an important gap in the existing array of non-cash payment instruments, ranging from low value/retail instruments such as cheques, bilyet giro, credit cards and so on to high value instruments such as transactions generated by the interbank money market and processed through the BI-Real Time Gross Settlement system (BI-RTGS).
BI sees e-money as a highly suitable instrument for micropayments involving small, but very frequent transactions. In publishing the study of this initiative, BI also invites responses and suggestions for improvements to a paper on the issue and/or amendment of regulations governing e-money.
Public comment is also invited for other working papers produced during the “less cash society" initiative of 2006.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)