There is a proper process of selling all the loans in the market like repayment capacity and proper follow-ups etc. And if we do this and keep our focus on all the facts so different-2 kinds of forces never take place at the front side and we would never get nervous in our lives. Givers and receivers both have to perform at the same place to complete the whole process so we must do all the activities very gently.
The way of recovery loan is not good whereas sending goons for that. Whether India is concerned it is a country of poor people where majority of the people are poor and unemployed also so they depend upon any kind economic help for their daily life. If bank provide them loan then somewhere bank has to be polite with them because they know their responsibility towards country than rich people but the problem is starvation that's why they are unable to pay loan on time. So it is duty of bank to think about them.
Banks are giving loans very but not taking surety from rich people they using that and not paying it back but it comes to normal people they are taking surety this is not the correct way to banks.
Banks should not use force to recover the loans. Govt of India and rbi both trying hard for financial inclusion in rural India. In this scenario, if coercive repayment methods are applied people not only will stay away from organised banking sector but they will fall prey of money lenders. But then also there are big corporate giants and individuals who default willfully. And banks have no strict method to mitigate this pain. In that case name and shame is a good try but many a time such as Vijay Malaya case. He is not afraid of shame Moreover, he blatantly lives his life in a far away country and banks are tied hand. Most of the times big defaulters go unchecked and small borrowers bear the brunt of the banks. So in a sensitive country like India banks in tandem with govt should identify the defaulters judiciously and make no wrong decision to punish helpless poor borrowers. Using force is not the end of the solution but checking on accounts keep vigilant of the repayment capacities and taking care of routine follow ups is the best way to avoid defaults in future.
Day by day bank's Non-Performing Assets (NPA) are growing drastically. NPAs are the assets which cease income to the banks for a period of more than 90 days. This is mainly due to the ineffectiveness of management. Because, even though some people have the capacity to repay the loan amount they are not doing that, which we call it as willful default in these days.
Before banks giving loans to the customers, they have to check the creditworthiness of the borrower and his history of borrowing and history of repayment of his loan amount and even if the credit history of the borrower is good they have to take the possession or property of the borrower, which gives the same value of loan amount as a security and if borrower unable to pay the loan amount bank should take the rights over the property to recover their loan amount but some people are really unable to pay their loan amount, particularly farmers. They take loans for their crops, but these mainly dependent on monsoons and due to the insufficient rainfall their crops are failing. Due to this reason, they are unable to pay their loan amount causing to make suicides. For this reason, Government came forward to waive their loan amounts.
Banks should also recover their loans as early as possible before it goes to non-performing asset stage. So before it's going to NPA stage of more than 90 days, it has to categorise the persons who have to give the loan amount i.e. who are not paying either principal or interest there on both as stages such 30 days, 60 days and 90 days. If a person not giving amount up to 60 days then banks have to use force from 61st day to recover their loans. It would be simple and easy way.
Banks are the mediator between the people who are depositing money in order to gain interest and the people who take loans from the bank. If the banks loose their methods of recovering money from the debtors, then the whole process will be destructed as they will be causing high losses to themselves as well as the government.
The people who are taking a loan from the bank their's financial conditions should be first checked. We are living in a such a country where everyone is not eligible to take loans. So if banks are somewhere lagging in the process of confirming their threshold financial status for providing loan then banks should not have the right to use forces on them. But if required steps are taken then they should go with the legal process to recover the loan from the debtors.
One another thing that I would also like to add that banks should also work on the loopholes that they have in the process of recovering loan where rich and strong people like Vijay Mallya get benefitted and common people get unaware of that.
Our country is very much facing unemployment problems and a large section of educated unemployed youths are to set themselves with the help of bank's loans which could never be advanced except the collateral security either mortgage of property of his dwelling house in the name of aged parents only to his son for employed. But if the loans are default after couple of years for market crises and other various reason and the defaulter loaner always try establish himself for setting up but yet the unit is forced to close and bank tries to recover the money by sale procedure of the only dwelling house without offering any settlement procedure or if the bank agrees always breaks commitment and always harass the party without any offer and try to disclose open place of this security. This type of cases are occurring whereas the big amount dues in the big and rich persons with wilful defaulter are getting golden opportunity with halfe portion of dues amount. This is the scenario we are observing today. How can we judge it for better world in all concerns where most of the common people always threatening at present with various discrimination.
The changes that happen in today's market is unheard before a good business can become a nightmare in no time. No one worth his slat wants a negative CIBIL record in today's world. It is a pen secret that bank lends loan based on previous experience and market standings too. When something goes wrong it is not only the person who took it but also his entire family and staff too suffer. If the banks support in such a scenario, the defaulter can focus in getting back to track. Many times, goons & abusive elements who don't understand anything but their own welfare (By getting a cut out of the recovered money) harass forcing people to suffer in silence. Yes losing a property to the bank is fine, but losing one dignity can not be compensated. The question is "does the bank employee similar tactics to big business, say Vijaya Mallayya? or in that case a strong political - business entity. The answer is "NO". Big defaulters are respected where else small, society fearing individuals are threatened, abused & often insulted. Yes, banks money must be recovered under the law of the land and using strong-arm tactics should be stopped at any cost.
Usha Limited with an outstanding of Rs 8,619 core.
LLOYD STEELS Renamed as Uttam Value Steel with an outstanding of Rs 9,478 crore.
HINDUSTAN CABLES with an outstanding of Rs 3,929 crore.
ZOOM DEVELOPERS with an outstanding of Rs 3843 crore.
PRAKASH INDUSTRIES with an outstanding of Rs 3,665 crore.
CRANES SOFTWARE INTERNATIONAL with an outstanding of Rs 3580 crore.
KINGFISHER AIRLINES with an outstanding of Rs 3259 crore.
MALVIKA STEEL with an outstanding of Rs 3057 crore.
What are the banks doing for this? Why only use force on the poor?
Yes, bank can totally use force to recover loans as non-payment of timely interest leads to criminal offence. But only when they have provided money after going through repayment capacity of the borrower. A legal documentation and other paper work is done to sanction the loan. If a person has not met all these conditions then bank does not provide loan. And even if it has provided without going through the financial conditions then here bank has no right to claim their money forcefully because here bank is also at fault.
There is a provision of law in India for taking debt from the bank, if someone fails to deposit the debt then that person is liable for that, the bank should know why he is unable to pay their installment. Then the bank recovers it timely by the person as person problems, if he is avoiding and pretending deposit the money then the bank force it to deposit the money.
To recover the dues of Bank-In Govt Sponsored Scheme, the concerned Govt Dept, Who has forwarded the Loan Application to Bank should be Direct liable for Recovery And Monitoring the project and Target Should be abolished and in general Loan Schemes, security will be Mortgage And authority delivered to the Banker to sale the captioned Security in case of repayment default.
As I see everyone perspective towards the whether, harsh steps should be taken by bank to recover loans or not but for me the bank should definitely use the power to recover loans. And I am totally agree with my friend who gives a good example of vijay mallya who ran out of country after taking such a huge loan and I am like to ask those who was against this step of bank is it possible if bank just kept silent and wait for the person to return their loans. As India is democratic country each and everyone get a right to take the loan but with that they also signed a bond of returning it and that time is given according to the loan taken by that person. If the person failed in his duties he is surely treated as a criminal because its govt money, people's money, taxes given by the normal people this is that money and if bank use force to recover loans than it is not wrong.
No, they should not do as.
If there is a time limit and after that, they are not paying the loan they should make EMI accordingly.
There is a system for everything, & it should go according to that. Bank are working as a mediator to provide loan to the needy ones, that money which bank provide from their treasure is the money of their customers. Not receiving money on time would cause huge problem to the whole system, not recovering money on time ultimately affect the bank's credibility & banks have to bear the loss, which somehow does affect government's treasure.
For latest instance business tycoon Vijay Mallya has betrated banks by not returning borrowed money which is almost more than INR 10k crore, who will bear this huge lose?
So there is no doubt, bank should use force to recover loans in a defined systematic way.
Alright every one I read the thoughts of each and every one. Now I am giving you an example which all of you should give a thought. We all are having bank accounts in a bank. Suppose one day we went to the bank for withdrawing money and the banker refuses the payment by saying that the bank have financial crisis and will pay you only if they have money that too period is uncertain. Will you just leave them? Or restructure your account? Or you will give them time to repay?
No you will demand your money instantly and not only that may be you yourself will become goon and start fighting for your money then and there. Similarly its your public which banks lends to other people and maximum people are willful defaulter. They are not repaying money because they know that banks will not be able to do anything.
So my dear friends now tell me what bank should do? They have to take strict measures because they are also answerable for teenage money of depositors. Just to cover the loss arise because of bad loans bankers are forced to give more loans. But nobody supports them in repayment. Poor banker.
Hi all it seems that all here do not understand that in a Democracy, the money of the State/ Country is that of the Nation. A lot of people have mentioned in their response that the Banks give money or loans against the deposits they have. I am sorry but the RIB gives them the money and some banks have investors who are Black money Income group people who fund banks and Financial Institutes to give loans.
And why should banks need collateral security. If someone was poor or weak financially then why does the State not help him. Banks are just a medium for the financial distribution and accumulation/ deposits. Now big corporate are given Huge concessions in Tax Payments which are not known to the common public and these tax reliefs to Corporate are at times nearly the Budget of this Motherland so if there are people here who are discussing of what and how the banks should function are wasting their time.
And yes prior to Independence which people were rich, and after Independence the property of these people should have been the Property of India why is it yet with them. And why is there no economic freedom like that in some progressed Countries of this world. So stop this nonsense and try to raise your voice for Economic and Financial freedom and equality, where the Government has to strife either to give proper jobs to all or then they have to support people financially to get self employed and become entrepreneurs.
If these politicians who form the Government Cannot provide the masses with Food, Shelter and Clothing and an income source either a good job or a Financial support for business they should not govern and should resign.
Hello everyone I am Harsh.
In my view I support the banks to take loan recover by force fully but after giving full time to customer to return money. Because after taking loan many peoples are not able or they don't want to return money. So if bank not force then most of loan taker does not return money.
Financing is dharma of Banks. All banks, generally, do carry out proper pre-sanction appraisal in all cases. In retail loans, I admit that existing income level is assessed on the basis of income tax returns. But in case of business finance, banks depend on management's worth, expertise, market reports, future business projections etc.
All these parameters are properly appraised before according sanction to a proposal. Risk is assessed and accordingly pricing and litigants are proposed. Accounts go bad many a times. This is business. Banks give sufficient time, restructures too for assisting the borrowers. The problem of NPA, has become uncontrollable.
Stricter rules and regulations are the need of the day. Recovery atmosphere is polluted many times by the political interference. The recovery responsibility of Government sponsored schematic finances should be of government authorities.
It is not correct to say that simple and honest persons are troubled by banks, especially, nationalized banks. Subsidies should be linked with timely repayments. Banks, the spinal chord of the economy, of the country should enjoy autonomy in true sense.
Banks do go through a proper assessment of the borrower for his capacity to repay the loan on time. The conduct of the repayment history is very easy as long as the repayment is on time; In case of a sudden change the first thing would be to asses the reason; That is distinction should be made between a wilful & a genuine default.
The officials are competent enough to analyse any situation. Any decision for recovery of loan should be programmed accordingly and the BANKS should feel obliged to help the genuine defaulters by providing maximum sustained support to the needs in keeping with the gravity of the situation.
The intention of the borrower can should be scanned extensively and the genuine defaulters do need full support of the BANK to help them come out of the crisis in the best possible manner. It would be seen as a great service to the fellow country men.
Banks who will be using forcible method to recover a loan might create a very bad impression over other people who observes the whole scenario while some random guys are trying to recover debts forcefully. P=People who could be a prospect client in future of the same bank may change their mind watching and hearing about such demeaning act.
We all know that Generosity and Hospitality is making an entrance in the banks over the years and image rebuilding is kept on a priority. Hiring local mob and granting them to authority to use force will only result in atrocity. Banks should rather check the costumers credibility of repaying loan and take collateral to bear the losses if in case the costumer fails to pay it back.
In my point of view, Banks cannot recover the loans by force. Its because Bank does have many conditions and practices. They also simply cannot sale any property if the recovery is not made. By applying those conditions and practices bank can recover the loans by giving demand notices to the borrower.
What ever the loan is Bank's definitely take security, They do have the right to sell the mortgaged, hypothecated and pledged securities under the SARFAESI Act 2002. Of course if they do not have any security then it's completely on the bank to bear the monies if the borrower becomes Bankrupt.
According to my point of view bank has the right to take their money back. Just think that if you give money someone for some period and when the time goes you also want your money back so why not bank ? bank also has some rules and regulation they have to work according to their rules so yes bank can force to recover their loan.
Can one tell me when a loan is given in good faith without documentation & payment done by cheque how make that person to sign the documents and what is to be mentioned in it.
This is true that bank should verify all data before giving loan, and bank actually does it. But there are many people who provides wrong information and after giving loan, they not even think about to repay the loan. For these kinds of people, bank should surely take strict action.
But many of people who all are not in condition to repay the loan, as they are in crisis, not having money. So according to my view, before taking strict actions, bank should find out what is the reason behind not repaying the loan. Bank has power to take money back and has responsibility to provide loan to others also.
Why should someone opt for what he knows he has no capacity to do? monies kept in banks belong to other institutions and people. If for some reason Mr. A who needs financial help asked a bank to so do and the bank granted his request, has the bank done something out of the way? Don't forget that banks do assess their individual customers and the collateral they provided by the banks credit department. It is important to note that banks do not immediately seize a defaulting customer's property without thorough follow ups and warning.
The bank has no right to send goons to the customer's door. The banks take collateral which is more and less same as the amount they are lending to the customer. The collateral may be the insurance policy or deposits of the customer etc so the bank always has option to confiscate these assets and recover their money.
And if the banks fail to check their customer's credibility thoroughly at the time of sanction of loan then its the bank's fault it should not harass the customer for its own fault.
Hi in my view banks have every right to recover the loan by selling the mortgaged property and other assets of the wilful defaulter as banks money is of public money and if loans will go to be bad in higher scales banks will default in payment to its depositor and ultimately whole financial system will collapse.
Whenever bank provide loan to the borrower then bank get the assurance about that borrower that what the person do and what assets they have. Then a bank decide to give him a relevant money that he could return to the bank. If somehow the borrower fail to pay money then bank send there agent to know the problem. Then again the borrower will get some more time by bank to pay the money. If the same think is happening again and again then bank will take a strict action against the borrower.
Today banks are providing loan like it is an primary function of this. He has to understand this that this function is also an harmful function of it. Regarding to recovery of loans I use to say that if banks mortgagee property then why it don't go legal activity because if bank give service then it has right to go legal. For recovering its assets.
All discussions in my opinion bank before going to give a loan ask a security for that person or ask a surety. Maybe He does not have any property but he knows some person to sign as a surety.
That is very easy to both bank and customer. Because bank rule is same as to everyone.
Bank give a loan from customers money so bank have a need to repay the customers money back and bank can't say the reason of loanly people late to give the customers money. For that bank have a permission to repay the loan by violent activities when at a critical condition.
According to me banks really should not use forcible things to recover the loan. Banks should assess the condition of the borrower, why he was failed to pay the loan. On this basis banks should decide what to do to take back amount, whether he should be given second chance or some relaxation in terms, and if loan was not being paid intentionally then bank can use whatever it thinks like seize the property, etc.
Most of the population don't consider terms and condition regarding loans that's why they have to face problem while repaying the loan.
And agents sell the loan with making fool the bunches of people knowing the facts that if they will not repay the loan there are lots of way can be used to recover the loan.
If customer could not pay the loan and now many years passed and would like to make settlement whatever the money has as per the his capacity. Is is possible?
Banks requiring to use force to recover loans is an indicator that its credit appraisal process is faulty. It is not continuously monitoring the lender if the funds are being used for the specified purpose. So, it is better to improve their credit appraisal process than to resort to violent activities to recover loan, which is also prohibited by law.
Even if one defaults they can always approach the court and go by the legal route.
I am not agree with that banks are offering loan like selling vegetables, because every banker has responsible to describe their bank status to their superiors. In which, they have maintain some amount of scale to providing loans to their customers. In this case not every customers are eligible to obtain the loan as per terms and conditions and their repaying capacity. It is very important to maintain their financial scale status.
The bank are very clean to offer the loan to the selective customers due to the below poverty line customers. They only offer loans based on their repaying range. They can study their customers well with their documents but document should be check well and problems are started from here only if it is clean documents the cheaters can control we can also legally use force to control the cheaters documents and their source for paying back to the bank.
According to my view the bank are generally give the loans to the people who all are having the good salary in the sense of as per bank limited salary and her property. So there is no need to force to recover loans. But some situation people are not pay the loans so they supposed to force to recover loans the conclusion is they have rights to force to recover loans.
Someone take the loan only if he need the money and he has not other resource to get money.
But we have to give back that money to the bank. That is the rule of this business.
And according to me the rule is rule and it is same for everyone. So, if some one can't give the money back, then bank can use the force to get the money back.
But also, sometimes there may be some valid reasons not to give money back. For example, a farmer had taken a loan and now, he is not able to pay back because of the loss.
In this case, the bank should not use the force.
But if someone wants to cheat the bank and intentionally don't want to pay back, that the bank need to use the force.
So in my point of view, if someone is not paying the loan back, then first, the bank should find out why the person is not paying back, after that it should be decided whether to use the force to get the money back or should extend the time.
Hi frnds, I think that we can not say it wrong as before giving loans to it's customers bank goes through the process of knowing their capability to repay it. As instructions given by rbi in KYC norms. And if after that customers are not paying back it to banks the bank can go by force to recover it. Because it is the need of business. And if bank will not do it then everyone will try to absorb the loan without repaying it.
In my opinion it is not good to use force to recover the loan because its not necessary that every person who is not paying his installment is cheating with bank there may some serious problem with that or maybe he or she is suffering from a big loss in their business in which they invest their loan amount. I am not saying that bank always should not use the force but first bank should come to the reason why he or she is not paying his or her installment after that if reason is not acceptable then it can use force to recover the loan.
I'm not agree with this. Because in that situation person need money from bank to start any business and they have the plan to get profit and return back the loan money to bank, but in bad situation they got loss in their business and not able to return back the money. So, bankers should give time to them. This is my thought. Because now a days many students doing their studies with bank loans. So please put trust on them and help everyone, then they will be truth to bankers.
I accept the fact that there is some amount of fault with the bank but people ? are they very correct in what they are doing ? If you know that you will not be able to pay the amount why do you have to get the loan. In cases where something backfires unexpectedly I can understand but there are people who deliberately get loans and avoid paying them back and the bank has to take some step as money is in stake. So the fault lies with both I'll say. The bank should act responsibly while giving loans and so should citizens applying for loans.
Banks these days are selling loans like vegetables to feed the profit hungry shareholders and then using all kind of tactics like sending goons to recover the money. This is not acceptable to any society. India is a country where nearly 40% are living in extreme poverty and other 25% are just above this poverty line. They will accept any kind of loan without even considering its terms and conditions. My point is the banks must ensure the repayment capacity without exception before approving loans. This is also critical to the reputation of not just Banks but the whole financial system.
The use of force by the banks to recover debts from the defaulting debtors is nothing but collecting money through violence. And, any resort to violence is a crime prohibited by the laws of the land. Do the Banking Regulation Act and the allied legislation provide for such course of action to protect the banking industry? If not, the banks resorting to this kind of practice are certainly doing illegal acts that must not be allowed to go without impunity.
The logic behind such course of action cannot be endured even on economic grounds why the banks should move ahead recklessly with the depositor's moneys to dump them into unworthy hands? Why would they not arrange for adequate security against the loans they extend to risky ventures? They must remember that they stand in a fiduciary relationship with their depositors and thus stand as trustees of the properties of the latter. And no rational depositor expects that his or her banker applies violence to guard his or deposits.
The present picture reminds one of the facts and legends of the moneylenders who used to ravage the lives of the masses in the countryside during the earlier days although many instances are sometimes reported even these days. How one can forget in this context the unforgettable Shylock of the drama The Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare, the Great who made usury an art by resorting to cruelty. One may even be amazed at the sobriety of the kabuliwallas i.e. the Afhgan moneylenders vis-a-vis the rowdiness of the so-called 'modern' bankers.
All of you who are criticizing banks for their stringent action towards defaulters. Can you please imagine going to a bank for breaking your fixed deposit or withdrawing from your savings account, and the banker says that we don't have money to repay you, since your money which we lent to a borrower, is not in a position to repay.
How you will feel? Rightly said by someone amongst you that bank is just an intermediary, which accepts deposits for the purpose of lending. And unless the borrower repays the loan back, how a bank is supposed to repay its depositors? Almost all the borrowers, who claim that they don't have the money to repay their loan, when someone in their family has to get married or someone falls sick, how they arrange money for those things?only because they find those things important.
And since they don't consider repaying their loans important, they are not able to arrange money for it. Are banks supposed to keep running from door to door for recovering their loans? someone suggested that there are legal courses of action available. And of course that takes time. So are you ready to get money of your matured deposit after five or ten years of its maturity, since the amount is stuck somewhere else? Its very easy to talk about system and procedure, but when we are at the receiving end, we ourselves don't remember that any such thing actually exists.
I completely disagree the statement. Banks are giving loans to people after verifying the certificates related to their income, property and for what purpose they are taking the loan, if the bank was satisfied with those documents then only the bank ll give the loan. So if the person who took the loan unable to return the money to the bank, the bank had right to sell the property of the person and fill their loan money, but they are not having the right to force the person to return the loan. Force on the person to pay the loan is violation of bank rules. So use of force by bankers is wrong statement.
Your point of views are very nice. I learned a lot. In my view, the bank is having trust on public and lending the money, not only they are believing the trust they asked for proofs, if they are sufficient with collateral security. As my friends said it is not a charity right, if the loan is paid back then only again money will get circulated.
So the people who roaming like anything to get the money they should take initiative to repay the loan at the same time. It cannot be forced but people should itself think otherwise they will lose their security simple. So if is paid properly they only they will get it again. If bank it utilized in a proper way everything will be fruitful.
Banks does not have its own money to give loans they accept money from public as deposit and then lend that money to the borrower. And the deposit money is payable on demand of the customer. And at the sanctioning time of the loan bank should told every condition to the borrower. After the bank can be strict on the loan recovery. But physical force should not be applied to any borrower.
Of course banks should not use force to recover Bank's lent money. Bank has various other legal recourse to recover Banks fund. First Before sanction of the loan Bank should have assessed the repayment capacity of the borrower. Have done Due Diligence? Find out the reasons why the borrower is unable to pay. Whether he will be in a position to repay the loan or not. If not give the chance for settlement rather than using force for recovery of Bank Loan. People have trust in Banks and deposit their hard earned money. On the other side they take help from the Bank by getting loan for their needs. There are a very few borrowers who have capacity to pay but unwilling to pay a stringent action be initiated against them but within legal framework by not using the force.
First of all the financing should be prudent. There is no scope for the banks to use force, but for willful defaulters the Legal remedies should be enforced strictly and timely to recover the public money.
There are people enjoying the bank loans without repaying, despite having means to repay, there the tools available to the banks should be used "efficiently" and professionally.
Hi Friends, According to me in India three types of people exist. First who are poor, 2nd who are middle class and 3rd who are rich. Loan are those people who are needy. Banker always try their force on poor and middle class people who sometimes unable to pay loan due to some strong reasons. But bankers not say anything to rich people. Bank should try to understand the problem of needy people. Instead of using force Bank try to give them some more time to pay back loan.
Myself completely disagree with the statement. Use of force to recover loan is false statement. Because banker can apply force to main on farmers and small business owners.
1. For above category are always willing to pay the all loan amount regularly if no unforeseen things happen.
2. But for the case of big business man and millionairess never pay loans. So many examples are there.
I conclude that only bank can take documentation perfect that payout period completed then recover by law should be clear.
Banks are acting as a trustees and not as a owner of the funds. The loans are given from the deposits made by the public in general. Moreover, in present scenario the banks are also answerable to its shareholders. The bank finance is not a charity. It is given to the needy person only after the request of a person.
However, before sanctioning the loan to any person/institute, the bank should thoroughly examine about the project and its viability. If it fails to do so, there are more chances of getting it bad. There are number of elements, which effect the recovery of the loan. If a person/institute is financially sound and yet not repaying the loan they are willful defaulters and bank should take strict actions against them. For the reasons above control, if the project fails, bank should take lenient actions and try to rehabilitate them.
Hence, only after considering the reasons for failure of loan, bank should take proper action to recover the money.
Use of physical force as a means of recovering loans by banks should be strictly dealt with as it is unconstitutional and literally a case of white collared hooliganism.
Instead a bank should do a thorough background check of the borrower so that the risk of default is minimized.
Also the government should encourage PSU banks to offer loans on cheaper interest rates and flexible EMIs so that it is easier for an individual to repay any loans.
Stringent laws should be enacted against people who default deliberately so that banks can have a upper hand when dealing with such people.
As per my opinion bank should try to know that why customer are not able to pay and what are the reason. If customer have some financial problem than they should make EMI accordingly to recover lone amount because they have given lone on interest and its is very high.
In My Opinion. This is a Wrong way to use Force by Bank to recover Loans.
Because There Are Different types of Peoples in India According their Profession.
Some Peoples Are Good Business Man, Some Are Employee, Some are Farmer & Other Are Poor & unemployment.
First of All. If a Person Do not Repaying their Loans Payment, a Bank Should Know About Why He/She is not Repaying their Loan Payment. If His Condition is Critically So A Bank Should Create A Settlement letter to recover their Loans. If After the Settlement Letter, Person do not repay their Bank Loan Payment. Then A Bank Should Send a NOTICE to a Person Who take the Loan as Legally.
If After that He/She is not able to Pay Their Loans Payment. Then A Bank Should Create A Legal Notice That If A Person Have Son/Daughter, if He/She is above Age Or Under Age of 18, Then He/She Would Fulfill His Father/Mother Loans Payments Time To Time. If His Son/Daughter Will Not Repay Their Payment then Company Will Take A Strict Action Against Him/Her.
& A Bank Will be Liable To Seize His/Her Whole & any type of Property Legally.
Hi Friends, According to me three types of people are exist in India. One who are able pay their loan and they are even paying on time 2nd thosse who want to pay loan but they are not able to do because of some financial problem And Last one are those who never want to repay their loan. So I Think Bank should be careful when they are giving Loan to people. And bank should give much more time to 2nd type of people to pay their loan before taking any strong action But immediate take strong action against 3rd type of people.
Right now in Bangladesh there are a lot of banks and financial institution are playing in the same fields. Every banks or financial institutions has set high target in terms of disbursement or profit maximization. The high target set is the main problem from the banks or FIs side. To maintain this, the officials of the these institutions make unhealthy competition in the market. For example- "X" Bank disbursed a certain amount of loan to a particular good customer with high creditworthiness. But the "Y" bank approach to the same customer I will be you loan just double of the "X" bank and You need not to liquidate the loan of bank "X" loan.
In that case, the borrower cannot properly use the fund or somehow get the scope to divert the fund because his/her business doesn't require excess fund. In that case he/she can not maintain or repay both the bank loan installments properly because the business is not generating the expected cash flow.
So I will emphasized on the relationship banking (Customer-bank) activities besides high credit worthiness of the customer. Relationship banking can prevent default of the loan.
First of all we should bifurcate the people into two. 1) will full defaulters and another genuine. Now a days willfull defaulters have turned out a lot. Hence in order to arrest the same a slight negatativity has to spread to create awareness as well to inculcate the habit of repaying the installments on time. 2) genuine - banks have do certain provisions to cut down the rate of interest or to delay the period of repaying the loan. Finally banks are for the devolopment of the country which has great impact on the economy of the country.
Some banks behave like local financiers to recover their loan amount from the borrower. They harass over the phone, they send their staff home and threaten to humiliate the borrower even after knowing that he or she has a genuine problem. Hence you read about suicides by people who are unable to deal with this kind of harassment. Does the reserve bank of India not have any laws to help the borrowers in times of crisis.
Banks provide loans to help people in their bad financial conditions but if people will not pay back than banks need to hold a bid to get back their money. This is only option but using force is not good option because India is a developing country and anything like using force make a bad impression on people and threat others to stay away from taking loans.
As a for profit organisation, banks should be responsible for the defaulted loans they issue, as an investor is responsible for a bad investment. If one purchases stock and loses money, one has no right to assault, through either legal or physical means, the institution from which they purchased the stock in order to gain financial restitution. When a loan is issued, the bank accepts a degree of risk. If their customer defaults on a loan and cannot supply the required funds, for whatever reason, the bank has accepted the risk and must therefore also accept the financial loss. The defaulter will have to suffer legal ramifications for dishonoring the arrangement (i.e. Bad credit). There is absolutely no justification for the physical or verbal harassment of a person because they are UNABLE to pay their debts.
According to RBI (RESERVE BANK OF INDIA) guide lines use of force to recover loan is not legal. All the banks will survive on people trust, so if the trust is ruins then how banks can do their business and that will create black mark on banks and people trust, after all banks depends on trust, Before the disbursement of loan to any person doing KYC (Know Your Customers) is mandatory by RBI.
Secondly proper verification should be there, the person who has applied for the loan, banks officials should check eligibility criteria and potential and meet the person directly for certain clarification. Banks also do need to send a intimation to the concern person before the premium.
The bank on about customer give loan the return of the bank doing loan recovered.
And if the banks fail to check their customer's credibility thoroughly at the time of sanction of loan then its the bank's fault it should not harass the customer for its own fault. But people should know that banks not meant for charity rather they are a well established financial institutions and work for profit motive.
Well people search such a bank that can give them loan and then leave them alone; unfortunately they are unable to find it. Using force by banks to recover loans is not a healthy deed. But people should know that banks not meant for charity rather they are a well established financial institutions and work for profit motive.
RBI has declared the use of force for loan recovery as illegal. But, RBI should make its rules of loan recovering flexible so that both the interest of the bank and its customers is judged and protected.
Acording to RBI (RESERVE BANK OF INDIA) guide lines use of force to recover loan is not legal. All the banks will survive on people trust, so if the trust is ruins then how banks can do thier business and that will create black mark on banks and people trust, after all banks depends on trust, Before the disbursement of loan to any person doing KYC (Know Your Customers) is mandatory by RBI.
Secondly proper verification should be there, the person who has applied for the loan, banks officials should check eligibility criteria and potential and meet the person direcrly for certain clarification. Banks also do need to send a intimation to the concern person before the premium.
Use of force by banks to recover money is not only illegal but also unethical, and no body can take law into their hands.
Bank lends money collected from depositors to loanees and any default in repayment affects the money available for further lending. Hence bank need to recover the money lend and the borrowers have an obligation to repay. But sometimes there are instances beyond the control of borrowers due to which they are unable to repay and in such cases banks have to give time or reschedule the loan or can resort to lawful means.
Again banks resort to such force only in respect of small farmers but in respect of big borrowers the same banks give compromise and negotiated settlements etc. Banks should adopt a uniform approach with regard to recovery.
Banks can avoid this kind of a situation if banks at the time of granting the advance exercise more cautious approach. Many a times sanction after protracted visits by prospective customers is one of the reason for the borrower not paying in time.
Banks have got a a duty to educate its customers on the benefits of availing loans only to that extent which they can comfortably repay.
Banks have to comply with the banking codes.
If banks use force repeatedly,0ver a period of time the good borrowers may not be willing to avail loans which will ultimately affect the business of banking itself.
Banks these days provide loans to its customer just without any tight information of the borrower. Thus, it creates a situation of inconvenience for them to recover it. In such situation the institute is left with with no other option other than to use some malice means. As such the money the borrower borrowed is the money of other individual in rotation basics. Therefore it has to be endowed with such power to recover it by any means.
The role of a bank in lending is likened to that of a BRIDGE across a river; the bank takes money from the surplus unit and give to the deficit side, this role is based on trust as the fund belongs to the public. Therefore, failure on the part of a borrower to repay a loan is a breach of public trust.
It is noteworthy to mention that the release of funds to any borrower at any point in time is a privilege as there are many others who also require the same fund and as such this should not be abused by borrowers. For purposes of sustainable trust and integrity and for economic growth, banks must ensure that every fund given out as loan must be recovered, if need be, some level of force may be applied, depending on a given situation.
No I don, t think that banks should take such a cheap measure to extract their money out. Banks first of all should carefully go through the purpose for which the customer is taking loan and if feels satisfied than only loan should be granted and moreover after granting loan if bank feels that instalments are not properly or timely coming than bank should start taking actions like timely notice or reminder to the customer, timely visit at the customer, s and gradually warning him for legal action rather than directly sending the force because it ultimately affects the reputation of the bank and hence nation's.
Yes, I agree with this statement, because if banks has a right to give loans then they have a right to recover in the best possible manner in which they can. If the person is not able to repay the loan, then he has no right to take a loan. Banks are here to lend money to help people for a particular problem, why people not understand that they are not doing a charity.
Hi Friends, according to my view bank have no right to send goons to the customer's door. Bank first check the credit of the person who is coming for loan. Only on the bases of person annual income and its others property, bank should give the loan. On the same time bank should tell all its condition regarding the loan to the costumer. Before last date bank should call the costumer and recall him about his/her loan and said to him to pay loan at the time. If any one is fail than banks should first give a legal notice to the costumer after that bank should make a case against him in court. FORCE is not the solution of such these condition.
Though there are many options, using force is more viable that too for cheaters who has gone abscond. Proper customer evaluation mechanism should be in use to prevent this case at the beginning stage. Risk profiles should be created and should be cautious with customers placed under high risk category. Wat if the person with high credibility becomes bankrupt? there's no other way than to own the security pledged by the defaulter. But if it's an unsecured loan which is given on the will of the manager judging the customer's credit worthiness? The only way is to recall by force but it may have negative impacts which may make the customer to take hasty decision like ending his life. So it's up to the management to make the advance after looking at various security concerns.
Banking is also a business and no one wants to loose their money so definitely bank also never want that.Before granting loan to customer they should study its background .rather than doing it banks are advertising that they can give loans in just 5 minutes,this is where the problem starts customer feels it good and takes it without thinking how to return it.Force is not best way for recovery .They can recover it by legal ways like auction of property etc.
I think bank should not use recovery agent, which can be avoided by carefully examine the history or the capacity of the repayment og the customer. If he seems to be unable to re pay bank should not grant any loan if granted also bank must try to recover by way of legal means and if not possible by any legal action then as a very last option he can try to recover his loan by force, but this can be avoided if bank creats a seperate cell which will examin the payment capacity of the customer before grantion the loan.
The solution is very simple ...banks must do their homework nicely before giving loans. Forcing customers to repay the loans show that bank failed to judge the customer at the time of granting the loan. and if the customer is not repaying even if he is capable then the bank should take legal action or may get the money back forcefully.
It is in the financial institutions' hands, whether to give loan or not to a particular persons. If it undergoes a wide analysis of the persons ability to repay the loan within a particular time then the banks can give loan with confidence. My point is to the banker's side that they should perform a feasibility study before offering loan to a particular person.
As far as my views on force to be used to recover the loan from the borrower is not justified as at the time so payment of loan bank should follows the rules in vogue and fulfills the term and conditions of loan and it should also be ensured that the person who taking loans is capable to return the same within the stipulated period. At the last since the loan is the govt money property of the person who is unable to return the loan be auctioned and amount recovered be liquidated the loan.
I think there is no matter of using force because one who is taking loan is committed to return the same but due to some unavoidable circumstances some time he may not be able to return the same within the stipulated time, but as and when he is capable to return he returns, in case he cannot return then the guaranteeing person can be asked to deposit the same.
I think it is a way to recovery the loan money, but there are other way. The bank first try to motivate the person to get a best way to earn money and also if possible the bank should help the customer again but in another way. It may difficult to implement.
According to my opinion, a bank should recover the loan amount early as possible. Because that is public's money. The term banking means accepting the deposits from the public for the purpose of lending them in a profitable manner. So the bank act as a mediator for the public. They should have the authority to recover or collect the loan amount. But it would not be in a forcible manner. There is no need to use the force. Because the customer or the public that he have already given their asset as collateral security. They can use these for sale. The bank should have the responsibility to check the credible worthiness of the customer or check whether the customer is able to repay or not.
I accept the fact that there is some amount of fault with the bank but people ? are they very correct in what they are doing ? If you know that you will not be able to pay the amount why do you have to get the loan. In cases where something backfires unexpectedly I can understand but there are people who deliberately get loans and avoid paying them back and the bank has to take some step as money is in stake. So the fault lies with both I'll say. The bank should act responsibly while giving loans and so should citizens applyinng for loans.
If there is some problem in recovery of loan such that a person doesn't want to return the loan amount then bank has no other option than recover the loan forcefully from that person. But it must be according to rule and regulation. Means it should be done legally with help of layers and police etc.
It may help to recover the loan amount and at same time the faith of other customers will remains with the bank.
Bank has right to recover money in better manner. If they using forcible techniques it will deteriorate image of bank and people will loss confident on bank.
Checking for credit worthiness is not enough at all times. What if I earn enough now but fall into difficult financial times during the time I am paying off a loan/due? Medical bills run into lakhs, so can a loss in business or even a job cut. I am NOT talking of INTENTIONAL defaults here. What can "good credit worthy" customers do when they fall into bad times? Credit cards etc only spiral the total dues. If a cstomer cannot pay, there are late fees, finance charges, overlimit charges, service charge etc. That is not all. There is even a service charge for adding late fee to the a/c. What can a person do in such a situation? There are no facilities where a customer can request for a period of relief from paying back loans/credit dues. I have not come across a single bank in India which has such a relief period.
Yes Banks provide loans as per their obligations and targets defined. But at the same time they should check the credit worthiness of the customer before sanctioning a loan. After the loan is dispersed, the Bank's duty is to maintain communication with the customer and follow up every repayments. Still if the customer fails to repay, then the Bank should initiate proper action as per the Banks Guidelines.
I do agree that,use of force to recover loans is not desirable banking practice.The term banking means accepting deposits from public for the purpose of lending in a profitable manner.When banks asset becomes NPA banks fails to recover it by soft skill like public notices, legal notice ,it may be permitted to use trained,skilled recovery agents with the prior permission of higher banks officials . After all its public money ,bank has every right to recover its assets. But, rampet use of recovery agents should be banned,it is not desirable in any financilal system and also crital to the brand image of the Banks.Before sanctioning of any loan Banks should analyse its creditwotiness to avoid auch type of situation.
The bank has no right to send goons to the customer's door. The banks take collateral which is more or less same as the amount they are lending to the customer. The collateral may be the insurance policy or deposits of the customer etc so the bank always has option to confiscate these assets and recover their money.
Giving loans is an essential part of banking and recovering the dues is also very important aspect, and for the matter of fact bank do check all the documents and assess the credit worthiness of the Customer, but if still people refuse to repay with an intention to default, using a recovery agent becomes necessary. As the money that bank gives as loan is public money.
Well when we all aply for a loan Bank always check Customer Credit History,so some of my friends giving suggesion for CIBIL, But banks perform their duty in a proper way.I have been worked in Bank Collection & i saw many person who takes loan just for default.i dont know what is the problem with cust, when they need Finance they walk up to bank and when bank need their return they simply SKIP. i don't know why they walk up to their RELATIVES when they require finance.why only bank. some cust says your sales executive keep on calling for taking loan so we took ,but have u ever travel in Train , Buses, there are lots of small seller they do lot of activity to convince us to purchase their product, but we only purchase if we need it ,otherwise we ignore it.
SO now the conclusion is this if banks are proiding loan to customer when they really need then what is the problem with the customer to pay back ??????
No doubt bank always help to customer in every circumstances. But customer wil be customer his mindset is to default, customer has money to pay mob bills, electric bill,school fee, vehicle fuel, then why not for BANK ?????
The all discussion which given are good, but whatever discussed, it already implemented by mfi companies, they give divide the customer according to their income, according to their activity, and according to their paying capacity, so by this customer not get burden of the loan, customer fill easy to pay, this kind of amount are sufficient to invest in their activity and earn more money by invest loan in right way, it all monitor by mfi companies that's why mfi sector are so successful in India.
I agree with statement first of all bank gives the temptaion of loan to the customer, when customer trapped the loan mania, then bank send their goons to collect the rest of amount, bank sell the loan like vegetable they don't check crdit worthiness of the customer, bank should reform their policy regarding loan.
Sandeep, I agree with your point, that bank should check the credit worthiness of an loan seeker before granting them the advances. There is a agency called Credit Information Bureau India Limited (CIBIL) which provides credit history of an individual (if he is not applying for the loan or any type of credit for the first time) bank check their credit report and also ask individual for some colletral securities so that the risk of credit default could be minimized.
Arun, I appreciate your words but think of the situation when people needs money. They are not just taking it for the comfort of their life, they are taking because they are in need. Firstly the bank should take note of the property available with the customer. If the customer don't have enough property they should not be given loan. But this is also not a solution, the bank should impose different loan interest to different customer depending on the annual income. This might solve the problem.
I accept the fact that there is some amount of fault with the bank but people ??? are they very correct in what they are doing ?? If you know that you will not be able to pay the amount why do you have to get the loan . In cases where something backfires unexpectedly I can understand but there are people who deliberately get loans and avoid paying them back and the bank has to take some step as money is in stake . So the fault lies with both I'll say . The bank should act responsibly while giving loans and so should citizens applyinng for loans.
This a very unethical practice which is being practiced by Banks nowadays to recover the loans which they have given to less credit worthy people of the society...banks should not follow this practice as it will lead to crime and it also brings inefficiencies in our financial system...so,banks should follow fair credit practices and follow the norms and guidelines give by the Apex bank regarding in giving advances and loans.
Banks these days are selling loans like vegetables to feed the profit hungry shareholders and then using all kind of tactics like sending goons to recover the money. This is not acceptable to any society. India is a country where nearly 40% are living in extreme poverty and other 25% are just above this poverty line...They will accept any kind of loan without even considering its terms and conditions. My point is the banks must ensure the repayment capacity without exception before approving loans. This is also critical to the reputation of not just Banks but the whole financial system.


text:
Note from an MD/Patient
New CFSAC chair
CFS - Life Sentence
Elton John's letter to Ryan White, 20 years after ...
More proof it's not just attention-seeking
Q&A on XMRV
Pharmaceutical Law FAQ
Virologists on XMRV
Taking Back the CFSAC
Hillary on Fauci
Journalist needed -- BREAKING NEWS
Readers: pass this along to anyone you know who works for a newspaper, magazine, TV or radio station. Even if they're just the receptionist, they know who to give it to.
We need someone who can handle Breaking News on the medical front. Here are the smoking guns; contact the Institute for more details. We've got the facts, you've got the connections.
FYI, Canada has banned CFS patients from giving blood to avoid contamination of the blood supply, but the US has not. How many Americans have (or will) become infected when they get a transfusion? (This is something else the Institute is studying. Like the "Congratulations, you *had* hemophilia, now you also have AIDS" phenomenon in the 1980s.)
Item #1
http://www.wpinstitute.org/news/docs/DearDrMcClureaw4.pdf
Item #1A
English Translation for Ortho web post by Toine de Graaf
1. This is not approved by the author, but was translated by Monique Drost and edited by Heidi Bauer. All effort has been made to stay true to the intention of the author while making sentences grammatically correct in English.
2. Ms. Drost changed the name of the place Nijmegen into UMC St. Radboud (the hospital that facilitated this research), because she would have to use Dutch conjugations like Nijmeegs, Nijmeegse and Nijmegen, and she felt that would be a bit confusing for readers.
- Orthomolecular magazine
Ortho no. 2, sent today to subscribers, contains once again an article on the retrovirus XMRV and the relationship to ME/CFS. However, recent developments couldn't be included in the article, hence this web publication.
By Toine de Graaf
Latest news – 'UMC St. Radboud's' blood XMRV-positive after all
Gendringen, the Netherlands – April 16th, 2010. Researchers from the UMC St. Radboud announced in February that they didn't find the XMRV virus in the blood of Dutch Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) patients. However, they left out that American researchers did find the XMRV virus in blood samples, taken from the same patients.
This is concluded from a letter that Annette Whittemore, director from the Whittemore-Peterson Institute (WPI) in Reno, sent on Monday, April 12, to Dr. Myra McClure (1). Dr. McClure is a professor in retrovirology at the Imperial College, London, and one of the authors of the first negative "replication study" for XMRV contamination with ME/CFS (2). In her letter, Whittemore invited McClure to co-operate with the WPI to research XMRV. She also reveals some information on the other two negative replication studies that have been produced so far, including the UMC St. Radboud study.
Email correspondence
The experimental virologist Dr. Frank van Kuppeveld from UMC St. Radboud and internist doctor Jos van der Meer didn't find a trace of XMRV in the frozen blood of 32 Dutch CFS patients, taken in 1991 and 1992. Also, in the blood of 43 healthy control subjects they didn't find the retrovirus. They published their findings online in the British Medical Journal (3), late January.
However, in her letter, Whittemore points out that the WPI, at the request of van Kuppeveld, has tested some blood samples from the Dutch research cohort before the study at UMC St. Radboud was completed. The WPI found traces of XMRV in those blood samples. Whittemore claims she possesses over email correspondence, which proves that van Kuppeveld was informed about these WPI research results before he published his negative study. However, in his scientific publication, no word is spoken about the co-operation with WPI (3). The redaction at Ortho has requested a copy of the email correspondence with UMC St. Radboud from Annette Whittemore, but this request has not (yet) been honoured.
Furthermore, Whittemore writes in her letter that van Kuppeveld has asked WPI for the reagents and a positive blood sample to determine if his test procedure was able to detect XMRV in positive blood. The WPI met that request. In her letter, Annette Whittemore questions why he didn't use these materials in his research.
Annette Whittemore's letter raises a lot of questions concerning the UMC St. Radboud XMRV study. The most pressing question is whether Van Kuppeveld can confirm WPI's findings. And if so, how many blood samples were sent from the Dutch research cohort to Reno, and how many positive samples did WPI find? And last, but not least, why did the UMC St. Radboud researchers keep silent about all of this in and around their research publication in the British Medical Journal?
Last Wednesday, the redaction of Ortho called virologist van Kuppeveld after emailing him Annette Whittemore's letter. During the call, he declared he had never seen that letter before. Van Kuppeveld also said he wasn't able to respond on such short notice. "I will first have to study the letter, and at least discuss this with my colleagues, who might be out of the country right now," he said.
However, after some urging, van Kuppeveld confirmed Whittemore's findings. He says that the case is slightly more complicated then the letter assumes. According to him, one or more of the 43 healthy control subjects from the UMC St. Radboud cohort has been positively tested on XMRV by the WPI. In conjunction with the findings of van Kuppeveld, this has raised some questions concerning the reliability of the WPI methods. Besides this, he has also stated that he had requested more samples from WPI, but has never received more than one XMRV positive sample.
Seven blood samples
Searching for answers, we contacted Dr. Judy Mikovits yesterday. She is the research director for WPI and leader of the XMRV research. She gave us several answers during a telephone interview. "Frank Van Kuppeveld has sent us seven samples", Mikovits said. "They were numbered 1 to 7. It was about cDNA, that he had made out of RNA".
WPI tested these seven samples with advanced PCR techniques in a closed system, so that contamination was impossible. Three samples appeared to be positive. After they reported the positive numbers to UMC St. Radboud, a message was returned, saying it concerned 2 patients and one control subject. For Mikovits, this result was expected. "We never were informed how many control persons there were on those seven samples, but two positives in seven is approximately what I expected. I didn't count on a 100% score, especially not with PCR.
That one control subject has been found positive by WPI was no surprise to Mikovits. "It totally depends on where you get the blood." At BMJ the UMC St. Radboud researchers have declared that the control samples were taken from people from the same environment as the patients. "The positive control subject is no surprise if it concerns family or a care taker. Control subjects that come with the patients to give blood we call contact-controls. Some of these people might be infected."
It is a fact that XMRV has been discovered with healthy persons. With WPI's own Science Research, in a group of 218 healthy control persons, showed that 8 people had a positive XMRV test (3.7%) (4).
No replication
Judy Mikovits and her colleagues are disappointed that the UMC St. Radboud research group has stated nothing about the co-operation with WPI in the BMJ publication. "During a month, we contacted each other at least every 3 or 4 days,' she said. "Material went back and forth, including co-operation agreements, signatures." She felt van Kuppeveld was keeping her on her toes. "He was very strenuous and kept asking whether I had received, tested or looked at stuff."
About a week before the BMJ published the UMC St. Radboud online, the communication fell silent. "That was after I had sent the positive results," said Mikovits. "I considered it to be good news. You've got something to work with. But Van Kuppeveld didn't consider it good news, because they didn't find anything. His message was, on your side, there must have been contamination. Even though I got his material, I was speechless. That was the end of our contact. A week later their publication followed."
Mikovits finds it unbelievable that the UMC St. Radboud researchers haven't used the material they got from WPI in any way. They did claim to have done a replication study. "We sent them antibodies, positive serum and positive DNA," said Mikovits. "Van Kuppeveld could have cultivated his samples, just like we did in our Science study. They could have tested their plasma for antibodies and they could have used our reagents to search for proteins and that kind of stuff. But they didn't, and have also mentioned nothing about the possibilities to do it. We would have wanted Van Kuppeveld to report all the data. If there is a difference in opinion or a misinterpretation, you can look at it together. They could have adjourned the samples, and worked together with us. But you can't just create the appearance to the outside world that nothing happened."
In retrospect, van Kuppeveld and his colleagues only were interested in the PCR technique, while Mikovits assumed that at the UMC St. Radboud the entire Science study would be replicated. "I had no idea he didn't want to do the rest of the research. That totally surprised me."
The WPI kept silent until the beginning of this week. Mikovits suspects that Annette Whittemore was triggered by the statements Dr. Myra McClure recently made on television, where the British retrovirologist disregarded the meaning of XMRV with ME/CFS. After this, Whittemore decided to enter the arena with this letter. "For a long time we thought the best way to deal with this was to continue with the research and forget about the lies. What else can you do? We got seven samples, we did our jobs and reported honestly what we found."
Mikovits confirmed that van Kuppeveld requested more samples. "I wanted to send him more, but what would he have done with it? Find out they were negative and say bad things about it? Mikovits is determined to walk the XMRV-route further, and she sounds more motivated than ever. "We've isolated a virus, and we displayed from a hundred people how their immune system is reacting. Did you know that there is no immune response to a contaminant? The patients obviously are infected with a virus."
Mikovits isn't the only one that takes XMRV seriously. Previously this month it was announced that in Canada people with ME/CFS aren't allowed to donate blood. Canada is the first country in the world that has taken this precaution.
1. Whittemore A, Dear Dr. McClure, April 12th 2010 (www.wpinstitute.org)
2. Erlwein ), Kaye S, [..], Cleare A. Failure to detect the novel retrovirus XMRV in chronic fatigue syndrome. PLoS ONE 2010; 1e8519
3. Van Kuppeveld FJ, de Jong AS, [..] van der Meer JWM. Prevalence of xenotropic murine leukaemia virus-related virus in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome in the Netherlands: retrospective analysis of samples from an established cohort. BMJ 2010 340:c1018
Lombardi VC, Ruscetti FW, [..]. Mikovits JA. Detection of an infectious retrovirus, XMRV, in blood cells of patients with
Lee Lee said...
Actually I believe that Australia recommended that people with CFS/ME do not donate blood many many years ago ......
If you still need a journalist, I'd love to help you out, although I do have CFS/ME and fibromyalgia, and am on disability because of it. I don't know that I could be available 24/7 because of my symptoms, but I do have a B.A. in journalism, worked at newspapers and magazines and won some writing awards.
CFS Facts said...
Go for it, Kat! Take this news, and use whatever contacts you have to get it out there to the world.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: Hadoop for JSON files Would you have any hints on what would be the best way to deal with files containing JSON entries and Hadoop?

A: There's a nice article on this from the Hadoop in Practice book:

*

*http://java.dzone.com/articles/hadoop-practice

A: Twitter's elephant-bird library has a JsonStringToMap class which you can use with Pig.

A: Try this
You can also use JAQL. Its the easiest way to deal with JSON in Map Reduce. Bad thing is that you will have to learn JAQL (unless you know it already) !!

A: MongoDB is a good option when you are dealing with JSON. MongoDB and Hadoop are a powerful combination and can be used together to deliver complex analytics and data processing for data stored in MongoDB.   http://www.mongodb.org/

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
TNK-BP reported behind Itera move
Posted byRussian_Village	 August 10, 2011 Leave a comment on TNK-BP reported behind Itera move
TNK-BP has filed a request with the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) to buy 50% of gas producer and trader Itera, according to Interfax.
According to analysts from Rye, Man Gor Securities, this deal would correspond to TNK – BP's game plan to develop its gas business.
"The deal is in line with TNK-BP's earlier announced strategy aimed at monetizing its gas assets and developing gas client base by 2020. The possible purchase is value-accretive if the price is fair because addition of Itera's gas extraction volumes may double those of TNK-BP, making it No.1 among Russian oilgas VINCs in this segment."
The representatives of the company officially refused to comment on the deal, but Vedomosti newspaper refers to the source in TNK-BP saying 50% stake in Itera could be valued at approximately $2billion.
"If such, the whole Itera is valued at EV/EBITDA=13 which implies almost 40% discount to Novatek, but almost 2.6 times above EM oilgas peers. There remains a great deal of uncertainty about the exact parameters of the deal now and we view the news as neutral for TNK-BP stocks," analysts at Rye, Man Gor Securities calculate.
Oleg Maximov, Alex Fak, Valery Nesterov, analysts from Troika Dialog, also say there are certain assets in the two companies that can efficiently join their operations.
"We believe that TNK-BP may be interested in combining its Rospan gas producing business with Itera's distribution network in Sverdlovsk Region. Rospan, which produced just under 3 bcm of TNK-BP's total 16.5 bcm last year, is held by TNK-BP Holding, the traded entity that could logically be the one to buy the stake in Itera and possibly use Rospan for part of the payment.
Besides its trading and distribution asset Uralsevergas, Itera also holds a 49% stake in Sibneftegaz (whose total output was 10 bcm last year) and a 49% stake in Purgas (15 bcm total production in 2010), as well as stakes in exploration assets in offshore Turkmenistan."
Medvedev commends paratroopers for repelling Georgian attack in S Ossetia
"US rating must be far lower than set by S&P"


text:
A road map for 2016: Restoring Optimism to the GOP
Post-2008 Wealth Creation Guide
Wealth, Intellectualism, and Individualism
Why Grey Enlightenment?
greyenlightenment.com
Enlightenment Through Understanding
Liberal Denial of Genetic Determinism
On sites like iSteve there recently seems to be a dearth of subjects pertaining to HBD matters. Chateau Heartiste writes:
Drum deserves credit for at least broaching the subject of genetic predilection, which still gives the majority of liberals the high holy hives. Try dropping a "genes n' IQ" bomb on a Jon Stewart audience member and you will witness a shrill sanctimony unmatched by the most religious fundamentalists. Drum is right about one thing: plain and simple, genetic dumb luck accounts for a lot of who we are and how successful our lives are. And it goes beyond just IQ and nose shape, too. There is evidence that genes influence everything from political leanings to conscientiousness to ambition to impulsiveness.
Agree. Genetic determinism makes liberals uncomfortable because it renders their paternalist ideology moot. If some people are inherently superior to others at cognitive tasks, no amount of costly social or redistribution programs will level the playing the field. Also agree with this comment:
It's not taboo to profess that genetics play a role in the variance of athletic ability but not intelligence, probably because the later is superseding the former in terms of important things like employment, income, reverence, etc. There are increasingly few jobs where physical ability plays a role in the hiring process, and the jobs that do typically don't pay well. In the smartist era, people are looking up to scientists and other intellectual professions more than athletes or actors. Educated young adults on sites like Reddit are renouncing the propaganda of false hope and inflated self-esteem driven in by their liberal baby boomer politicians, parents, and teachers that was intended to mollify the harsh realities of the real world. Scientists and economists, on the other hand, are untethered by political correctness and freely speak their minds on a wide variety of issues, proposing solutions and theories that many on the left take umbrage to, but inquisitive young minds consume voraciously. A recent 'ask me anything' (AMA) by astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson got a staggering 4,000 comments in just a single hour. The typical AMA by an actor or athlete seldom exceeds this number. Economist Bryan Caplan got over 1,100 comments and I didn't even know who he was until I came across this thread, by accident. The highest rated TV show has a Cal Tech string theorist as the main protagonist.
Bryan Caplan has propossed that parenting style has very little impact on the adult outcomes of children. That would mean genetics plays an important role. From cracked.com:
Just as with money, there is evidence that genes have an effect on grades. In 2013, British researchers studied the academic performance of more than 11,000 identical and non-identical 16-year-old twins. They found that genes contributed more to students' grades than teachers, schools, or family environments. These findings have been repeated in other studies, as well as on the 1980s television program Diff'rent Strokes, where Willis sometimes struggled with his grades even though he and his brother Arnold had been adopted by a wealthy Manhattan industrialist.
An analysis of Korean-American adoptees found that being raised by a college-educated mother increased an adoptee's probability of graduating from college by 7 percent. By comparison, a child with a college-educated biological mother had a 26 percent increase in the probability of graduating from college. It didn't matter if the adoptive parents were rich or educated.
Shhh…don't tell Wendy Davis lol
Pseudo/junk science like the 10,000 hour rule gives the masses hope that they too can covet enviable skills that are otherwise intellectually out of reach -if only one deliberately practices enough on an unrealistically level playing field. There many exceptions to the 10,000 hour rule, as well as other liberal aphorisms intended to have a leveling effect on individual exceptionalism.
Irrational Investors Don't Exist
A Solution in Need of a Problem
An extensive archive of hundreds of posts and thousands of comments dating back to 2011 procured for your amusement . Content is sorted from newest to oldest.
Disqus Comment Archive
Old Site Page 1
Seeking Alpha Page 1
3x Leveraged ETF Strategy Guide, Part 2b
3x Leveraged ETF Strategy Guide, Updated for 2020, Part 2
Is a post-scarcity economy possible? It's already happening
Incentives matter
Is there a case for the humanities?
http://nationalreview.com
http://takimag.com
http://theatlantic.com
http://businessweek.com
http://news.ycombinator.com
http://townhall.com
http://bloombergview.com
http://businessinsider.com
http://theamericanconservative.com
http://wired.com
http://theverge.com
http://techcrunch.com/
http://quora.com/James-Altucher
http://jamesaltucher.com
http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com
http://marginalrevolution.com
http://thereformedbroker.com
http://isteve.blogspot.com
http://thezman.com/wordpress
http://lionoftheblogosphere.wordpress.com
Frog Twitter
Internet Libertarianism
The HBD Bible
The alt-right 'flower' logo:
Going My Own Way
NRx NeoReaction and Dark Enlightenment
Eugenics Today For a Better Tomorrow
Silicon Valley Techno-Libertarianism
Related Ideologies and Philosophies
Consequentialism
Pragmatism (realpolitik)
Techno-Libertarianism
Reactionary Modernism
Radical Centrism
Propertarianism
Anti-Egalitarianism
Built with WordPress | Theme: Eighties by Kopepasah.