Credit Application: Fill & Download for Free

Yes.Not too long ago, a major credit card issuer, Synchrony Bank, was on a splurge closing credit card accounts because the bank was going through financial issues. One of the accounts that ended up being closed belonged to a relative of mine.Now, it’s certain someone will come along and start with the “we can close your account for any reason or for no reason” drivel. This is false. Every time a bank takes adverse action against you, federal law (FCRA & ECOA) mandates they tell you the reason why. Not simply a reason, but the reason. There are absolutely no exceptions whatsoever. Failure to do so is an FCRA violation and an ECOA violation.But Synchrony did give a reason. Their FCRA / ECOA letter stated, “Your credit reports give us reason to believe you will fail to make payments as required,” or words to that effect. That reason, however, was a lie. Just by examining my cousin’s credit report, it was clear there were absolutely no red flags. He has stellar credit, multiple 25+ year old accounts with never a late payment, his credit utilization was well under 1% and he had no new accounts or inquiries. When he brought this to Synchrony’s attention, they told him there was nothing further they had to say on the issue.So, since he is a lawyer, he sued them. He was actually hoping Synchrony would demand arbitration since that is a very expensive option for the bank, but, instead, they did not demand arbitration and the case went to court. In court, Synchrony saw how foolish their adverse action reason was and suddenly changed their story to “you have excessive credit lines with our bank.” They also stated the stupid idea that they can “close any account for any reason or for no reason whenever they wanted to.”The judge was not amused. First of all, their new excuse was too little, too late. Their adverse action notice obviously did not state the real reason. Second, a creditor cannot take adverse action for any reason. The law prohibits adverse action for a number of reasons such as age, marital status, sex, race, national origin and if an applicant / account holder obtains income from, for example, child support, Social Security or public assistance.The judge awarded a judgment for $50,000. I know that $10,000 was in punitive damages as per the ECOA and much, if not most, of the rest for attorney fees. Also, Synchrony re-opened his closed accounts and gave him the apology he demanded. Shorty after the accounts were re-opened, my cousin closed them.The attorney for Synchrony told my cousin afterwards that they were relieved that my cousin did not pursue a strategy of alleging one of the prohibited factors. This would have opened a Pandora’s box that could have dragged the case out years and cost Synchrony $100,000 or more in legal fees.Synchrony is still on an account closure surge. If they close your accounts and give you the same lame reason that they give others, sue them. Even if it stays in arbitration it will cost Synchrony a lot of money.

No.You can't just import Hamiltonianism into the 21st century. It's a complete anachronism.Alexander Hamilton's program was developed in and for a country that was weak internationally, lagging behind in industrial development, and where the relative power of the federal government vis-à-vis the states had not yet been defined.In diplomatic terms, Hamiltonianism consisted in seeking rapprochement with Britain, even at the cost of alienating France, especially after the French Revolution. France had not helped the US out of kindness; it had done so out of enmity for England. The US needed to have a foreign policy that was based more on realism than on fanciful notions of gratitude. For Hamilton, the pro-French attitude of Madison and Jefferson smacked of a “womanly attachment.”The biggest goal was to transform the US from a largely agrarian country into an industrial powerhouse that could rival Britain. In order to do this, Hamilton proposed to have a large tariff, a tax on imports that would have the effect of making them more expensive here, so people would opt to buy American-manufactured goods. He also encouraged industrial espionage, where people who had manufacturing know-how from England were encouraged to move here and share their knowledge.But a modern nation can't just rely on being industrialized; it also needs a modern financial system. The main reason France lost almost all its Wars against England during the 18th century was that England had a better way of financing its wars. France relied primarily on taxation, while England had a funded debt and a sinking fund. These allowed her to borrow in virtually limitless amounts.A funded debt is one consisting of long-term securities. This is still how we borrow money. A sinking fund is a group of assets set aside in order to allow a government or corporation to meet its monthly or yearly obligations. This gives creditors more confidence that the money they lend would be repaid. It makes the borrower more creditworthy. Hamilton wanted the US to have these instruments at its disposal. He also wanted a national bank.Furthermore, the Hamiltonian financial program included the establishment of a mint, the assumption of the debts of the state by the Federal government, and the repayment of loans incurred by the Continental Congress. The mint would allow the government to coin money. The national bank would serve as a central bank, which could expand the supply of money. Some people argue that the loans incurred by the Continental Congress did not have to be repaid, since they had been bought up by speculators. Common people who had been paid in continental IOUs had by then sold them off at less than face value, as the value of the bonds had depreciated. Hamilton argued that repaying current holders of the bonds at face value was essential to maintaining the credit of the United States. This was seen by some as a giveaway to monied interests, who would be the main beneficiaries of this measure. He also supported a strong national government, and assuming the debts incurred by the states was a way to establish Federal ascendency. Some states, who had already repaid most of what they owed, naturally opposed this.Opponents of this program pointed out that nowhere in the Constitution was the Federal Government granted the power to do any of this. Within Washington’s own cabinet, both Thomas Jefferson, but also less famously Attorney General Edmund Randolph opposed the constitutionality of the bank.Hamilton is famously hard to read. His prose is dense, and the language feels stiff and formal. It is no surprise that there aren’t many Hamiltonian quotes circulating. Reading Hamilton always requires straining the brain. Nevertheless, I do think it worthwhile to read through some passages in the long letter he wrote to Washington arguing for the constitutionality of the Bank. It is the foundational document for those who take an expansive view of Federal power.…every power vested in a government is in its nature sovereign, and includes, by force of the term, a right to employ all the means requisite and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power, and which are not precluded by restrictions and exceptions specified in the Constitution, or not immoral, or not contrary to the essential ends of political society.This is the key idea. If government is granted a certain power, the means of carrying out that power is an implied power, unless specifically prohibited or injurious to the polity.Some become libertarians because they fall in love with the Prose of Ayn Rand in their adolescence. At age 17, it is passages like these that solidified my support for an energetic rather than a paralytic government.Let’s go through another set of passages:…the Secretary of State maintains, that no means are to be considered as necessary but those without which the grant of the power would be nugatory.…To understand the word as the Secretary of State does, would be to depart from its obvious and popular sense, and to give it a restrictive operation, an idea never before entertained. It would be to give it the same force as if the word absolutely or indispensably had been prefixed to it.Such a construction would beget endless uncertainty and embarrassment. The cases must be palpable and extreme, in which it could be pronounced, with certainty, that a measure was absolutely necessary, or one, without which, the exercise of a given power would be nugatory.…The practice of the government is against the rule of construction advocated by the Secretary of State. Of this, the Act concerning lighthouses, beacons, buoys, and public piers, is a decisive example. This, doubtless, must be referred to the powers of regulating trade, and is fairly relative to it. But it cannot be affirmed that the exercise of that power in this instance was strictly necessity or that the power itself would be nugatory, without that of regulating establishments of this nature.Here, Hamilton is arguing that:Jefferson states that the Necessary and Proper Clause should be interpreted to grant only powers indispensable to carrying out an enumerated power.This would be impractical, since almost nothing is truly indispensable to carrying out a governmental power.The government had already used its powers implied in the power to regulate trade to pass a law about lighthouses, beacons, buoys, and piers, even though such a law was not indispensable to the regulation of trade.Allow me to bore you with one last passage, a long one, which touches on the notion of original intent:Another argument made use of by the Secretary of State is, the rejection of a proposition by the Convention to empower Congress to make corporations, either generally, or for some special purpose.What was the precise nature or extent of this proposition, or what the reasons for refusing it, is not ascertained by any authentic document, or even by accurate recollection. As far as any such document exists, it specifies only canals. If this was the amount of it, it would, at most, only prove that it was thought inexpedient to give a power to incorporate for the purpose of opening canals, for which purpose a special power would have been necessary, except with regard to the western territory, there being nothing in any part of the Constitution respecting the regulation of canals. It must be confessed, however, that very different accounts are given of the import of the proposition, and of the motives for rejecting it. Some affirm, that it was confined to the opening of canals and obstructions in rivers, others, that it embraced banks; and others, that it extended to the power of incorporating generally. Some, again, allege, that it was disagreed to because it was thought improper to vest in Congress a power of erecting corporations. Others, because it was thought unnecessary to specify the power, and inexpedient to furnish an additional topic of objection to the Constitution. In this state of the matter, no inference whatever can be drawn from it.But whatever may have been the nature of the proposition, or the reasons for rejecting it, nothing is included by it, that is the proposition, in respect to the real merits of the question. The Secretary of State will not deny, that, whatever may have been the intention of the framers of a constitution, or of a law, that intention is to be sought for in the instrument itself, according to the usual and established rules of construction. Nothing is more common than for laws to express and elect more or less than was intended. If, then, a power to erect a corporation in any case be deducible, by fair inference, from the whole or any part of the numerous provisions of the Constitution of the United States arguments drawn from extrinsic circumstances regarding the in tension of the Convention must be rejected.Jefferson is making the argument that a proposal to enable Congress to make corporations was considered and rejected by the Constitutional Convention.No authentic documentation of that proposal or what it entailed survives. The only thing that comes close was a proposal pertaining to forming corporations for the regulation of canals.But people are disputing why exactly it is that the proposal was rejected.It doesn’t matter what the framers intended to do. All that matters is what they actually wrote. It’s possible for a law as written to differ from what people meant to write. This is why you have to rely on what’s actually written.There is more to the Hamiltonian letter. It’s worthy of a reading. But let me return to the matter of our 45th president. Is he Hamiltonian in any sense?As I’ve outlined, Hamiltonian policy consisted in:Taking an expansive view of Federal power.Protectionism for domestic manufactures, which could not compete with English ones.Diplomatic rapprochement with Britain.Furnishing the government with modern instruments of finance.Donald Trump has not demonstrated that he has the capacity for such complex thoughts. But let’s go through these in turn:Does Trump take an expansive view of Federal power? Not if you look at the appointment of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The only way in which it may be said that Trump wants to expand Federal power is that he has dictatorial impulses. But that is not what Hamilton was going for, whatever the Jeffersonian press would have you believe.Protectionism. Hamilton’s object was to give the US time and space to develop its industrial sector, without having to be flooded with English goods. Trump’s stated goal is to increase domestic employment. But he hasn’t actually made any policy changes. He’s merely done publicity stunts and patted himself on the back for being great and awesome and great.The diplomatic picture of the 1790s is completely irrelevant to today’s.The government already has modern instruments of finance at its disposal. And abolishing the Federal Reserve is a fringe idea, even on the Right.All in all, I don’t think it can fairly be said that Trump’s proposed policies have anything to do with Alexander Hamilton.

A CIBIL Score of 665 is quite an acceptable score, which isn’t really in the danger zone. It indicates that you have been fairly consistent with your repayments and are financially trustworthy. Hence, getting a loan is not an issue here; however, you need to pick the right loan option from the right lender to take your credit score even higher (above 750).Nationalized banks are known to have a higher minimum benchmark for the credit score for their loan applicants than NBFCs. So, applying to an NBFC will be better in your case as risks of loan rejection are comparatively lower.You need to be wary of loan rejection at this stage as it is a cause of low credit scores apart from repayment defaults.Apply for a secured loan like a loan against property from an NBFC. Doing so has two benefits:You will get a loan whose interest rate is low. Hence, repayment will be easier on your pocketsA secured loan is a better means to build credit score than an unsecured one