Book Loan Contract Form: Fill & Download for Free

Lets learn this one by one.have had/has hadWe typically use has/have as a main verb with an object to talk about common actions. There are lots of things that we have in English, meaning that we enjoy or experience them. For instance, we can:have breakfast/lunch/dinner/supper/a bite to eat/a light mealhave a hot or cold drink/a glass of wine/a cup of coffee/some mineral waterhave a shower/a bath/a wash and shavehave a rest/a snooze/a siesta/a good sleep/a bad dreamhave a walk/a swim/a good time/a nice evening/a day off/a holiday/a good journey/a good triphave a word with someone/a chat/a conversation/a quarrel/an argumenthave a headache/a sore throat/hay fever/a bad back/a bad coldhave a (good) job/some work to do/money/an opportunity/a chanceWe use the present perfect tense when we want to connect the present with the (recent) past in some way and this will appear as has had (singular) or have had (plural) in full forms or as 's had or 've had in contracted forms:The above sentences can be turned to present perfect like the following respectively.Has he had his breakfast yet? ~They've had a glass of orange juice, but they haven't had anything to eat yet.He was in a foul mood when he got back, but now that he's had a shower and a snooze, he's calmed down a bit.I read the book, then have had a good sleep.We have had a good time together.Have you had a nice evening, Barbara? ~ I've had a rotten evening. I had an argument with Tom and I've had enough for one day.Have you always had hay fever? ~ I've had it every summer since I was 13.With my qualification I have had a good opportunity ahead.had hadHad had is the past perfect form of have when it is used as a main verb to describe our experiences and actions. We use the past perfect when we are talking about the past and want to refer back to an earlier past time, Madiini. In these examples, note the use of before, after, already and by the time as a trigger for the past perfect. Note also that the contracted form of had had is 'd had.She'd had a lot to drink and wasn't capable of walking home by herself.After he'd had a good night's sleep, he felt much better.She sacked him before he had had a chance to explain his behaviour.By the time he was twenty he'd already had four different jobs.I'd already had a word with Joan about re-locating to Manchester and now she's had time to think about it, she quite likes the idea.Note that past perfect forms are a feature of if-clauses in the third type of conditional sentence when we are explaining past actions or regretting past inaction. Thus, had had is likely to appear in this construction:If I hadn't had a good education, I would never have got this job.If she had had children later in life, she would have been a better mother.If I'd had another ten minutes, I would've finished the examination paper.Had they had any savings they didn't need, they would've re-paid their son's student loan.Hope this helps.

Philosopher George Santayana once said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Experience tells us that loan waivers have not been successful in solving the Indian farmers’ problems, so why should this time be any different? The root causes – lack of access to institutional credit, rising cost of inputs like seeds and pesticides required for farming, and the inability to receive remunerative prices – are not being addressed.What is the difference between a loan write-off and a loan waiver?Loan write-offs are not the same as loan waivers. A loan write-off is an accounting entry which banks make when they have determined it is unlikely a particular loan will be repaid. In this case, the loan is said to have become a non-performing asset (NPA) which no longer generates any income.For more accurate reporting of income from period to period, banks maintain a contra-asset account in the balance sheet known the loan loss reserve. The value of the loan loss reserve is based on the amount that is not expected to be recovered in the future, and is determined with reference to historical information on loan defaults. Loan loss provisions are recorded in the income statement as an expense to adjust the loan loss reserve so that it is sufficient to cover expected defaults. This reduces pre-tax income.When the loan is finally written off at the end of this process, only balance sheet accounts are affected, namely the loan loss reserve and outstanding loan. This is recorded as a debit to the to loan loss reserve and a credit to the outstanding loan. Consequently, the net portfolio on balance sheet is unchanged. From this, it can be seen that the primary purpose of a loan write-off is to remove NPAs from the books and keep things tidy.On the other hand, a loan waiver is a promise by the bank not to insist on its strict legal right to recover the loan according to the original terms of the loan contract. Therefore, once the bank has waived a loan, it cannot turn around and insist that the borrower should pay because it has already relinquished its right to do so and will be estopped by the court if it tries to do so. By contrast, a loan write-off does not amount to a waiver, and the bank can continue to pursue the borrower.Why are people upset about the loan waiver?Firstly, banks ostensibly benefited more than farmers from the 2008 Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme (“2008 waiver”). The Indian government provided banks with Rs 60,000 crore reimbursement over three years in the midst of the global financial crisis. This allowed them to recover otherwise unrecoverable non-performing agricultural loans, many of which had been given out to meet the priority sector lending requirement but had gone bad because of, inter alia, the risks inherent in agriculture.[1]Yet, the 2008 waiver did not benefit small and marginal farmers greatly, as they relied more on informal sources of credit like moneylenders, landlords or relatives. A 2005 report by the NSSO on farmer indebtedness based on 2003 data showed that only 23% of farmers with ownership holdings of land less than 0.01 hectares had access to formal credit, and this figure rose to 58% for farmers with ownership holdings of land between 1-2 hectares.[2]More recently, the 2017 NABARD All India Rural Financial Inclusion Survey reported that 40% of loans continue to be taken from. Respondents cited ease of availability, no stringent timelines for repayment, no documentation formalities required, lower or no interest expected, and faith in families and friends as reasons why they preferred to take loans from non-institutional sources.[3]Secondly, the criteria used to limit the beneficiaries of 2008 waiver did not adequately consider the socioeconomic reality of farmers. Under the 2008 waiver, 100% of the overdues owed to small and marginal farmers in “ownership” of “up to 2 hectares of land”, and 25% of the overdues of larger farmers were waived.[4]Banks generally require land title as a guarantee, which meant that sharecroppers, tenant farmers and labourers who did not own land were excluded. On a related note, critics have pointed out that the land ownership requirement means that landlords are more well positioned to benefit from a loan waiver than the sharecroppers who actually cultivate the land.[5] Sharecropping agreements involve the landlord permitting the sharecropper to farm on a parcel of land in exchange for a portion of the crop.[6]Consequently, sharecroppers often have to borrow money from moneylenders to invest in their crop so that they give their dues to the landlord. However, as they do not own the land, they fall outside the purview of loan waivers. To tackle this issue, the Indian government responded by rolling out another scheme, “Bhoomi Heen Kisan” in 2014 to provide Rs. 8 lakh crores credit support ( basically, more loans!) to 5 lakh joint farming groups.[7]Agricultural land in rural India is often jointly held[8]by family members and more likely to exceed 2 hectares. Similarly, some farmers may have larger holdings, not because they are richer but because their land is less productive. For example, an opinion piece published in The Hindu[9] shed light on how in Vidharba, the average landholding size is 3.03 hectares, and up to 50 per cent of Vidharba’s farmers were above the two-hectare criterion for the 100% waiver. This was not because they were big landlords but because their land was less productive. By contrast, the farmers of Western Maharashtra with smaller, well-irrigated and more productive holdings who were better off in most regards, were more likely to meet the two-hectare criterion and therefore stood to gain more from the waiver.If that weren’t bad enough, it is not inconceivable that corrupt bank officials will ensure that only a fraction of the allocated money reaches the already limited pool of loan waiver beneficiaries. In a survey on the IRDP loan program implemented in 1980, 67% of the beneficiary respondents reported that they had paid a bribe for the loan to be sanctioned.[10]Thirdly, loan waivers encourage a bad credit culture that hurts both banks and farmers. Honest farmers are penalized for repaying their loans on time when defaulters get their loans waived. Some of them who realize this may decide to go rogue and willingly default so that they can avail themselves of the waiver and save money. This “borrower moral hazard” was documented in working paper by the World Bank on the 2008 waiver, which noted that borrowers in high-bailout districts started defaulting in large numbers after all the non-performing loans in these districts had been written off.[11] Not long ago, announcements of farm loan waivers in 2017 by some states led HDFC Bank’s NPA ratio to rise to 1.24% for the June quarter from 1.05% in the previous quarter. More than half of the increase in bad loans was from its agriculture portfolio.[12]Finally, loan waivers worsen the fiscal positions of the state and leave less money for investments in infrastructure like roads, electricity and irrigation systems which could help farmers more in the long-run. According to a recent article published in December 2018 by the Hindustan Times, the newly formed Congress governments in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh may not have adequate fiscal space or funds left to implement other poll promises in the current financial year after announcing farm loan waivers.[13] Pressure to provide loan waivers is mounting in other states as well – In Odisha, Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik criticized the opposition political parties who demanded a waiver, saying that it would make the State Government bankrupt.[14]To conclude, the farm loan waiver looks like a negative-sum game for everyone involved and does little to meaningfully improve the lives of farmers – why should anyone (except the leaders scoring brownie points during the elections) be happy about it?Footnotes[1] The economic effects of India’s farm loan bailout: business as usual?[2] India’s Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme, 2008[3] https://www.nabard.org/auth/writereaddata/tender/1608180417NABARD-Repo-16_Web_P.pdf [4] Page on thehindubusinessline.com[5] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/cursor/farmers-need-remunerative-prices-not-debt-waiver-to-end-rural-distress/ [6] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.378.8225&rep=rep1&type=pdf [7] Finance to 5 Lakh Joint Farming Groups of “Bhoomi Heen Kisan” through Nabard in the Current Financial Year[8] https://www.indiaagronet.com/indiaagronet/agri_economics/CONTENTS/Land%20Tenure.htm [9] https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/Oh-What-a-lovely-waiver/article15181680.ece [10] http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/187194/14/14_chapter%208.pdf [11] The economic effects of India’s farm loan bailout: business as usual?[12] https://www.livemint.com/Money/8oTRtiFqkk1pMdHhnZ6wNI/HDFC-Banks-impeccable-asset-quality-gets-a-farm-loan-waiver.html [13] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/after-waivers-fund-crunch-for-3-states/story-GdRlDNbVxo6aAVLPkFMHzO.html [14] http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/odisha/2018/dec/22/loan-waiver-will-make-state-bankrupt-cm-1915059.html

Many of his businesses are structured as pass-through entities, or as sets of owner / operator / manager / holding company LLCs with interlocking ownership structures.In both cases the intent is the same. Money passes through to Donald Trump, in the form of profits, but also in the form of royalties, licensing fees, salaries, dividends, and expense payments. But losses and liabilities don’t.So let’s say Trump comes to you to pitch a casino deal. You are going to loan “Trump Castle LLC” two hundred million dollars to acquire a casino, and get paid back with interest over ten years. Seems like a good deal - casinos always make money, right?So you make the loan and “Trump Castle LLC” buys the old Lucky Horseshoe casino - for about $190 million. Plus five million dollars direct to Mr Trump to license the Trump name for the job, plus a million each to him, Ivanka and Don Junior for their development consulting fees, and two million dollars for legal fees, most of which Mike Cohen collects, and some of which he kicks back to Donald.“Trump Castle LLC” does an equity transfer with “Trump Holdings LLC” - now the latter owns the building, and the former owns the latter.Well, the former Lucky Horseshoe needs a bit of sprucing up to be gaudy enough to be a Trump property. So “Trump Holdings LLC” gets a loan of a hundred million to renovate the place. What’s that you say? The place is already 100% encumbered by your loan? Nope. Your loan is to “Trump Castle LLC” - “Trump Holdings LLC” has no liabilities on its books. So, a hundred million loan - from which Donald, Ivanka, and Don Junior each take another million or so for their consulting on branding and design, and Mike Cohen collects another two million in legal fees.Now we set up “Trump Management LLC” to actually hire the people and run the place - It has no liabilities either, but no assets. Still, it can take out a higher-interest small business loan to get the ball rolling with hiring. Its first hires are Donald Trump, Ivanka, and Don Junior as managing partners, for a million bucks a year each. And a two million dollar retainer to Mike Cohen for legal fees.So far, the Trumps are up about $20,000,000, and the doors haven’t even opened, and we haven’t found out how much of that $95,000,000 renovation contract money Trump will keep in his pocket by screwing the subcontractors.And when things finally go belly up, “Trump Management LLC” still has no assets, so its lenders are totally out of luck, and you and the guy who in total loaned $300 million to the acquisition and renovation of the building are going to have to fight it out over how much you manage to recover from an asset that was never worth more than about $200 million in the first place. But that twenty million the Trump Family pocketed? Out of your reach, sucker.Now, repeat these shenanigans across the more than five hundred business entities under the Trump Organization umbrella.Original question:How did Trump continue his lavish and extravagant lifestyle while losing a billion dollars in his businesses?