Line Of Credit Draw Request: Fill & Download for Free

Since your question does not state whether you want to know what a personal line of credit is or if you want the specifications of a credit line loan from a borrower, here is some information on both.What is a personal line of credit?A credit line loan is an amount sanctioned to the borrower, which is usually secured by a financial asset (stocks, mutual funds, fixed deposits, etc).Overdraft facility, Bajaj Finserv’s Insta EMI card, and Loan against securities are a few examples of a personal line of credit are:Interest Rate: You can use the limit fully or in parts. the credit company only charges interest on the amount that you withdraw instead of levying it on the full limit. The interest rates are usually low because the line is backed by an asset.Tenure: The maximum tenure for any amount drawn on a credit line is usually short, less than 24 months. As one keeps paying EMIs, the principal amount gets added back to the Line of Credit.Disbursal: To draw a certain amount, you need to make a formal request on the customer portal. This amount is transferred to your bank account or you are given a cheque.Note: A credit card is like a credit line, except that:It is not secured on any assetBorrowing a cash loan on a credit card attracts extremely high rates of interest and will need a formal application from the card holderIn order to purchase items on credit using a credit card, there is no need for a formal application - swiping the card on the merchant’s POS machine (or online transaction) is sufficient.How to find information about a personal line of credit from a lending institution?If a lender offers a credit line loan, the information about the application, interest rates and tenure will be available on their website.You can also get the information by calling their customer care center. You can find their number on their ‘contact us’ page or the footer on their website.

Please note that, He has extended a Line of credit. It is a type of a loan based on understanding between Nations.The interest,though i am unaware of,might be a minmum.Please suggest if anyone knows more about it.From article on ABP website:India extends USD 70 million dollars line of credit, doubles scholarships to FijiPrime Minister Narendra Modi on Wednesday offered several goodies to the island nation by extending USD 70 million dollars line of credit, besides doubling the scholarships and training slots in India for Fiji among others."India will remain a committed development partner for Fiji. I thanked him for his support on India's new assistance projects in Fiji. These include: a parliament library; a fund of five million US dollar to promote small business and village enterprises in Fiji. A line of credit of 70 million US dollars for a co-generation power plant.Line Of Credit in Financial term means:An arrangement between a financial institution, usually a bank, and a customer that establishes a maximum loan balance that the bank will permit the borrower to maintain. The borrower can draw down on the line of credit at any time, as long as he or she does not exceed the maximum set in the agreement.The advantage of a line of credit over a regular loan is that interest is not usually charged on the part of the line of credit that is unused, and the borrower can draw on the line of credit at any time that he or she needs to. Depending on the agreement with the financial institution, the line of credit may be classified as a demand loan, which means that any outstanding balance will have to be paid immediately at the financial institution's request.

In addition to other answers here—that slaves made up a necessary labor shortfall, that the plantation economy was labor intensive—there’s a factor that doesn't often get talked about: debt.The Southern plantation economy was practically driven by debt, especially once you got to the upper echelons. Social expectations among the big planters required a certain kind of lifestyle, generally modeled off of English country gentry.To achieve this often required imports, especially British imports. These planters engaged an agent in England—a “factor”—who would simultaneously manage product sales and also conduct purchases as demanded by their clients. These factors were especially useful because they had easy lines of credit available to them that would be made available to their clients. Planters used that line of credit for English luxuries on the promise that future crop sales would go to reducing that debt.Of course, they seldom did reduce that debt. Planters sent tobacco to England to pay off their debt—but, because that meant they got no income from that crop, they'd have to borrow more. In the end, you had a sort of “I owe my soul to the company store”-type vibe.George Washington, for instance, was hopelessly indebted to his English factor, Robert Cary. Just after his marriage, Washington was in debt to Cary to the tune of some $2,000, a significant amount. He continued, however, to direct Cary to make major purchases on credit and, as time went on, became increasingly in debt. A series of interesting letters would come out of this relationship where, for instance, Washington would alternately rage at Cary's requests for overdue payment, make excuses for his poor crops, and claim that Cary was cheating him.Jefferson, as well, was perpetually in debt—in fact, he died some $100,000 in debt, and was seldom debt-free his entire life. John Adams (who had a Puritan hatred of debt) was to remark on this from time to time, especially in view of Jefferson's lavish lifestyle and his spendthrift ways—in Philadelphia and later Paris, Jefferson had a habit of making what we might call impulse purchases for major items, including imported scientific instruments and clothing.All in all, prior to the Revolution, the major planters of Virginia's Tidewater alone were responsible for half of the personal debt of the entire Thirteen Colonies. Some suggestions have been made that part of the reason Virginia planters ended up supporting the Revolution had to do (consciously or unconsciously) with attempts to escape that debt. Remember: debtor prisons were a real thing, and Washington himself saw previously respected families collapse under the weight of their debt.This high debt load influenced their crop. A relatively debtless farmer can take the liberty to raise vast fields of grain or some other crop, but Virginia planters needed to maximize return per square acre. They turned, then, to tobacco production.Tobacco production was, and is, a fairly intensive thing. While it may take a few hours to harvest an acre of corn or wheat, tobacco is much higher—around 150 manhours per acre. Specialized buildings, and laborers, were also required to cure the tobacco leaves for consumption. Tobacco did, however, provide a suitable return per acre for these planters—so long as labor was free.There is, in fact, an interesting map you can draw out that correlates this dedication to slavery and labor-intensive cash crops. Regions that raised such crops—tobacco for Virginia, sugar in the Caribbean and Louisiana, later cotton in much of the Deep South—tended to be deeply supportive of slavery. Areas that majorly raised less labor-intensive crops—such as wheat—tended to be less supportive.Maryland is an example of this. Southern Maryland, which raised tobacco on plantations in a manner similar to Virginia planters, was deeply sympathetic to the Confederacy. Western Maryland, however, where farmers raised wheat (which wasn't very labor-intensive) and had few slaves, remained more loyal to the Union.Cash crop planters in the South—and no longer just Virginia—were still running on debt and required, like their forefathers, cheap labor inputs for their high-return crops to make their lifestyles in any way sustainable. And, like their forefathers, many of them relied on cheap British credit, especially after an economic crisis in 1845. Southern planters (or would-be planters) took advantage of this cheap credit by attempting to expand cotton operations in the Deep South, but this would eventually come back to bite them, and, by the late 1850s, the number of debt cases soared, both in number and cash value. The situation of these high-debt planters were probably worsened by a major recession in 1857 and then a smaller recession in 1860.And, again, to have a hope of surviving, much less escaping, this sort of debt load and credit crunch, Southern planters felt that they needed both cash crops and the slave labor to plant, tend, and harvest them. Their profit margins were slim enough that fully free labor wouldn't have been sustainable, in their mind.To go back, we can see this after the Revolution. Many of the major planter-politicians of the era, including Washington and Jefferson, were well aware of the contradiction in seeking liberty for all men while retaining slaves. Washington apparently gained a distate for calling his slaves slaves as early as the 1760s, preferring rather to call them servants or laborers in his letters. Nor was it a secret to others: Abigail Adams, for example, mentioned the hypocrisy several times in her letters, as I recall.On a practical level, however, they were also aware that slaves were the only way they could maintain their debt-laden, cash crop-driven lifestyle. As a compromise of sorts, they preferred to kick the can down the road—they supported some degree of gradual emancipation eventually (i.e., when they were gone), but not now (when it would have bankrupted them).In short, almost since its inception, the Southern planter economy—especially major planters—were heavily burdened by debt, driven by both social pressure to maintain conspicuous consumption, as well as personal ambition in expanding their holdings. This debt load made cash crops, such as tobacco, sugar, or cotton, the only real way to maintain their lifestyle. These, however, were labor-intensive and required cheap labor. Southern planters often felt that the cash crop plantation economy simply couldn't function without slave labor, due to relatively thin profit margins. Hence, they felt that slavery was necessary not only to their economy, but to their way of life.Of course, there were many other factors that went into this—social theories of white supremacy that became increasingly more intense as the 19th century went on, for example—but those are beyond the immediate scope of this answer, which was mostly meant to point out the debt-based incentives planters had for clinging to the slave-plantation economy.