Options for Poor Credit Student Loans

If you’re looking for a student loan, lenders consider all aspects of your financial history, and you might consider poor credit student loans. Your credit history determines your ability to get student loans, so be aware of your credit and how it affects your college financing. Before you apply for a poor credit student loan, be aware of your other options, and start thinking about improving your credit.

How Poor Credit Affects Student Loans
As with any other type of loan, student loans suffer a number of negative consequences when you’ve got bad credit. A poor credit student loan may mean you’ve got a much higher interest rate, you can’t borrow as much money, or you might not be eligible for a student loan at all. When you need a poor credit student loan, you owe it to yourself to shop around. Don’t be driven by desperation; you might have to look harder to find a decent poor credit student loan, but don’t grab the first offer that comes along because you worry about getting any loan with bad credit.

Apply First for a Federal Student Loan
Most federal student loans don’t require a credit check at all, so exhaust your federal financial aid options before looking around for a private poor credit student loan. Complete the FAFSA and apply for grants or a Stafford Loan. If your parents have bad credit and are ineligible for a PLUS Loan, you may be eligible to receive more financial aid in the form of Stafford Loans. Make sure you leverage all of your federal financial aid options before looking for private lenders when you’ve got bad credit.

Consider a Co-Signer for a Poor Credit Student Loan
Many financial institutions are willing to offer better rates or extend loans to people who otherwise wouldn’t qualify if they can get a co-signer with good credit. If you need a poor credit student loan, ask a parent or other family member if they’re willing to co-sign on a loan. They assume some risk by doing so, as they can be held responsible for repaying the student loan if you default, but, if you can find a co-signer, you’ll find doors opening for student loans. Don’t be surprised if you hear the word no, as many people are understandably wary of taking on this kind of risk.

Apply for a Poor Credit Student Loan, but Consider Refinancing
Many private institutions are willing to defer student loan payments until you graduate from college. If you can find a private lender willing to defer payments on a poor credit student loan, use the time to help rebuild your credit. Establish credit cards in your name, and pay on time. Consider taking out a small personal loan, and repay it as planned. Many financial institutions extend credit to college students, even those with bad credit.

You can use a number of strategies to rebuild your credit, and then you can refinance your student loan at a better interest rate when you graduate college. If you can’t get a completely deferred poor credit student loan, look for a student loan with interest-only payments so you can focus on improving your finances and eventually refinance your student loan.

Woody Allen: 1, American Apparel: 0

After American Apparel -- maker of gold lamé leggings, terrycloth booty shorts and other items that might be better branded as The Boogie Nights Collection -- put Woody Allen's image on a billboard, sans the director's permission, Allen sued for a cool $10 mil. So via lawyer Stuart Slotnick, American Apparel demanded the director prove he had a reputation worth damaging: "We believe that Mr. Allen's popularity has decreased significantly, especially in light of the scandals he's been associated with. We believe that he greatly overvalues the worth of his endorsement -- if he can get one." Yeeeow!

Now, a court has upheld Allen's right to retain fan mail and other documentation that he's popular. Per the judge, "There is no reason to require Allen to produce documents regarding each of his personal appearances and performances during his lengthy career. This information would not provide meaningful evidence of the value of defendant’s endorsement."

Hard to believe that a Dov Charney enterprise wanted to duke it out over reputation, given the CEO's multiple sexual harassment suits and pervy quote-machine tendencies -- in his words, "I'll frequently drop my pants to show people my new product." Right.

Canadian Chrysler plants shut down as parts not delivered

Chrysler Canada stopped production at its assembly plants here today after some suppliers did not deliver parts.

The move by suppliers came because of concerns about payments in view of the parent company filing for bankruptcy court protection in the U.S. yesterday

A Chrysler Canada spokesperson emphasized that the company has not filed for protection from creditors here and has no intention of doing so.

Spokesperson Mary Gauthier could not comment on when the company expects to resume output at the Canadian plants, which produce thousands of minivans and cars weekly.

"A number of suppliers have stopped shipment of parts to our manufacturing facilities," Gauthier said. "This has halted operations in our Canadian assembly plants. We will continue to monitor operations and provide updates as available."

Chrysler employs about 8,000 workers at assembly plants in Windsor and Brampton.

When Chrysler said yesterday it would cease operation at its U.S. plants while it restructures over the next 30 to 60 days, many of the company's parts suppliers stopped production.

This resulted in a parts shortage that affects Chrysler's Canadian operations too, although Chrysler Canada is not directly covered by its parent company's filing for protection from creditors.

Canadian Auto Workers president Ken Lewenza says the North American auto industry is so integrated that Chrysler's Canadian plants couldn't continue to operate on their own.

Detroit-based Chrysler LLC has indicated it could be in bankruptcy court for a couple of months, which has resulted in a shutdown of U.S. operations south of the border until it emerges from court.

Lawyers for Chrysler LLC are expected to ask a federal bankruptcy judge Monday to let the ailing automaker start using a new infusion of $4.5 billion in loans from the U.S. Treasury Department so it can operate under bankruptcy protection.

At a hearing Friday in Manhattan bankruptcy court, Chrysler attorney Corinne Ball said the company will also file its motion to sell substantially all of its assets to Italian automaker Fiat Group SpA before Saturday morning.

The moves, along with typical first motions approved at today's hearing, set in motion a chain of events designed to ensure that the bankruptcy process is the quick and "surgical" one that Chrysler and the U.S. government have promised.

"We have to move at a good speed throughout this proceeding,'' Ball told Judge Arthur Gonzalez.

She noted that the company's restructuring efforts have the support of its dealers, suppliers and most of its lenders.

"I don't think that any American can doubt that these are extraordinary times," Ball said. "And we are quite mindful of the view of many experts that no car company can survive in Chapter 11. To that we say, 'yes we can.'''

Attorneys packed the courtroom for Chrysler's first hearing since it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Thursday with an ambitious plan to emerge in as little as 30 days as a leaner company aligned with Fiat.

In the early morning hours before the hearing began, attorneys lined up outside the bankruptcy court for the Southern District of New York under overcast skies with coffee and rain gear in tow of hopes of securing a spot.

The large, windowless courtroom filed up quickly and two overflow rooms with video and audio feeds were opened up to accommodate the crowds.

Gonzalez approved Chrysler's motion to allow the automaker to pay $48.8 million in employee and contract worker pre-bankruptcy wages, benefits and businesses expenses. The motion also references an estimated $86 million in employee vacation benefits that it may not ultimately have to pay.

Gonzalez also approved Chrysler's motions that will let it continue to honour its warranties and continue its current banking practices.

The hearing was briefly halted after a woman standing in the warm and stuffy courtroom apparently fainted.

Eventually, Gonzalez will have to reach a decision on creditors that hold $6.9 billion of Chrysler's debt.

Four banks holding 70 per cent of the debt agreed to a deal that would give the creditors $2 billion. But a collection of hedge funds refused to budge, saying the deal was unfair and would only return a small fraction of their holdings.

President Barack Obama on Thursday chastised the funds for seeking an "unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout" after Chrysler and his auto task force cleared the company's other hurdles. Along with the Fiat deal, Chrysler adopted a cost-cutting pact with the UAW this week.

The White House said Chrysler could come out of bankruptcy in 30 to 60 days. Under normal circumstances, it would be difficult to complete such a large bankruptcy so quickly.

But John Pottow, a University of Michigan professor who specializes in bankruptcy, said the government's level of involvement is much greater than in a typical corporate bankruptcy.

"If you have the president of the United States who wants something to happen, I think anything's possible in bankruptcy protection," he said.

Chrysler's bankruptcy filing is the latest step in a drastic reordering of the American auto industry, which has been crushed by higher fuel prices, the recession and customer tastes that are moving away from the gas-guzzling SUVs that were once big money makers.

The government has sunk about $25 billion in aid into Chrysler and rival General Motors Corp.

GM faces its own day of reckoning on June 1, a date the administration has set for it to come up with its own restructuring plan. GM has announced thousands of job cuts, plans to idle factories for weeks this summer and has even offered the federal government a majority stake in the company as it races to meet the deadline.

Like at Chrysler, debt may be the stumbling block. GM has asked its unsecured bondholders to exchange $27 billion of debt for a 10 per cent stake in the automaker. The creditors balked, saying that would leave them with just pennies on the dollar and that they deserve a majority stake if they give up their claims.

When Chrysler emerges from bankruptcy, the United Auto Workers union will own 55 per cent of the automaker and the U.S. government will own 8 per cent. The Canadian and Ontario governments, which are also contributing financing, would share a 2 per cent stake.

Under the deal, Chrysler would gain access to Fiat's expertise in small, fuel-efficient vehicles. The U.S. automaker eventually wants to build cars that could get up to 40 miles per U.S. gallon (5.8 L/100 km), far more economical than its current fleet focused on minivans, Jeep SUVs and the Dodge Ram pickup.

In exchange, Fiat would initially get 20 per cent of the company, but its share could rise to 35 per cent if certain benchmarks are met, and Fiat said Thursday it could get an additional 16 per cent by 2016 if Chrysler's U.S. government loans are fully repaid. Fiat would also gain access to the North American market through Chrysler factories and dealerships.

Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne said he was preparing for Chrysler to ``re-emerge quickly as a reliable and competitive automaker.''

The Fiat deal and bankruptcy cap a disastrous time for Chrysler.

Chrysler lost $8 billion last year and its sales through March were down 46 per cent compared with the year-earlier period, leading some auto industry analysts to question whether Chrysler can survive even in bankruptcy.

But company executives told reporters Thursday that Chrysler vehicles with Fiat's fuel-efficient technology should reach showrooms in 18 months.

Tim Geithner, CNBC, and the Second Coming of Known Unknowns

(from Huffington Post)

A formerly famous and now mostly forgotten poet of nonsense verse once said: "There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns....there are also unknown unknowns."

That was, of course, Donald Rumsfeld, but it doesn't sound too different from your average briefing/Congressional testimony/interview by Timothy Geithner. Besides being awash in toxic paper, credit default swaps, and collateralized debt obligations, we seem to be drowning in unknowns. Only, I get the sense that there are fewer unknowns than we're being told.

While we're rewarding the risk-taking shareholders of various zombie banks -- not to mention the mysterious, unconfirmed counterparties to AIG's serial recklessness -- how about rewarding the taxpayers, if not with an actual return on our bailout investment then at least with information about what exactly is being done with our money? It's time to call in all the unknowns.

Instead, we're greeted with a wall of manufactured complexity by the people whose job it is to make known unknowns into known knowns. There is nothing complex about the way CEOs like John Thain, Ed Liddy, Lloyd Blankfein, John Mack, Vikram Pandit, and Ken Lewis turned bailout billions into Wall Street bonus money -- and no justification for keeping taxpayers in the dark about the giveaways (Vanity Fair's Michael Shnayerson breaks down the jaw-dropping and blood-boiling numbers).

Which brings us to the holy temple of unknown unknowns -- CNBC. The financial channel's Erin Burnett (Street Signs, Squawk on the Street) was on Real Time with Bill Maher on Friday night, suddenly seeing all kinds of complexity, nuance, and ambiguity in what can be known and not known about the economic crisis. Does the government know more than they're telling us, asked Bill.

"I don't think they know," said Burnett. "I don't think anybody knows."

And: "I don't even know that the CEOs themselves know."

And: "Tim Geithner may know more than most, but no, he doesn't know."

And as for whether the financial geniuses at CNBC should have known something:

"It's easy to say [there's] a bubble, but you don't know when it's gonna burst. And I think that the question of timing and magnitude, nobody got. That wasn't just a CNBC pundit thing, that was any expert out there." I guess she missed experts like Roubini and Taleb.

And I certainly don't remember that kind of circumspection in the run up to the meltdown. For a look at what the CNBC sages thought they knew, and how wrong they were, there is, of course, Jon Stewart's already legendary evisceration.

As Stewart shows, the essential truth of what went on is really quite simple. Using complexity as a cover for accountability has a long historical track record of ending in disaster.

"The most dangerous thing in any economic crisis is denial," writes MIT professor Simon Johnson, a former official at the IMF, where he specialized in dealing with banking crises around the world. He's become one of the leaders of the camp arguing that the administration needs to admit the scope of the banking problem and deal with it sooner (wildly expensive) rather than later (insanely and unsustainably expensive). While "the degree of denial in the United States has fallen dramatically," Johnson writes, "there is one major aspect of denial still remaining: the scale and nature of our banking difficulties."

(Johnson, by the way, is doing his part to get rid of unknowns at his blog Baseline Scenario, which includes a terrific primer on the financial crisis.)

Johnson's insights mirror those of Paul Krugman, who writes that "officials still aren't willing to face the facts. They don't want to face up to the dire state of major financial institutions because it's very hard to rescue an essentially insolvent bank without, at least temporarily, taking it over." Not coming clean and doing what needs to be done, adds Krugman, "could result in an economy that sputters along, not for months or years, but for a decade or more."

Speaking of nationalization, CNBC's Burnett told Maher, "Nobody wants it on the left, nobody wants it on the right" -- even as calls for it continue to come from both the left and the right, demonstrating once again how obsolete that way of looking at the world is becoming. America's Business Channel, indeed.

The list of knowable knowns that we still don't know about includes the final destination of the taxpayer money the government keeps funneling to AIG. The Wall Street Journal reports that around $50 billion of the $173 billion in bailout funds given to the insurance behemoth has gone to pay off financial institutions that had insured their wildly irresponsible credit default swaps with AIG.

So who, exactly, has our money -- and why don't we know? AIG CEO Ed Liddy prefers not to say. Same with the Fed, which refused a congressional request for the names of AIG's derivative counterparties. According to unnamed sources, the list includes Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch/Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, and Deutsche Bank.

It's worth noting that, thanks to the industry-written 2005 Bankruptcy Bill, derivatives claims are not stayed in bankruptcy -- so the financial institutions that gambled and lost would nevertheless be the first ones paid off. Isn't gaming the system fun?

The stimulus package -- and the media's coverage of it -- has also been a hotbed of known unknowns. Or, if you prefer, unreported knowns.

According to a Media Matters study of 59 network news broadcasts about the stimulus in the three weeks prior to the vote, only three mentioned concerns that the package was inadequate -- even though many economists believed it was not big enough to do the job. Another known known treated like an unknown when we most needed to know. And now, of course, we're already getting reports that the bill was, indeed, too small.

I'm not saying that everything about this crisis is knowable -- far from it. But there are a number of very simple truths that are being hidden behind a smokescreen of complexity and unknowability.

It doesn't take a Ph.D. in economics to know that you can't have CEOs whose companies have received billions in bailout funds going to court and threatening to sue employees to keep the public from knowing which executives pocketed millions in bonuses -- and you can't have them pretending that no bailout money was used to pay said bonuses.

You can't have insolvent banks pretending that the problem is one of liquidity, and then using taxpayer money to protect their balance sheets instead of lending money to credit-worthy businesses and consumers.

And, ultimately, you can't allow the same people who were part of the problem to be part of the solution. There is absolutely no way on earth that the same flawed thinking that got us into this mess will ever get us out of it. We need to clean house, taking the steering wheel away from the executives and the compliant boards that steered us over the economic cliff. They didn't get it then; they still don't get it now (see handing out bonuses, hosting spa retreats, redecorating, and throwing lavish parties while America teeters on the verge of economic collapse).

That is something we all know that we know -- even Tim Geithner and the experts at CNBC.

Is Obama-Love Holding the Economic Pitchforks & Torches at Bay?

(from Huffington Post)

Barack Obama may or may not turn out to be the great uniter, but with a performance approval nearing the 70s, he's definitely maintaining as the great common denominator.

He's also got a pretty good job, if you measure the success of a company and its chief by the amount of money it's taking in. He's the CEO of the U.S. government, after all, where business is definitely booming, despite Tim Geithner's inability to find a passable job applicant to help him out distributing that wad of bail-out dough. You'd think lots of people would want to do that, including at least a few who actually pay their taxes.

It may not feel this way when his teleprompter breaks down, but Mr. Obama's success as a measure of money in his hands is probably right up there during this horrifying, worldwide economic wedgie, with safe makers and high seas pirates.

But there's something else the president is doing effectively, charged rhetoric and gauntlet-throwing policies notwithstanding: he's doing a hell of a job keeping the lid on things.

How could that be? Mr. Obama gets slapped for hyperbolic scammery when he says something optimistic, then slammed as a giant albatross on the consciousness and confidence of the country every time he tells us how bad it is. The Chronicle ran a story last week that should have been headlined: Just Shut Up. Every time he says or does anything related to the economy, the story said, the market tanks.

Then there's the panic underneath the now fabled Obama calm as the Treasury Department tries to shovel out the door as fast as it can the TARP money designed to titillate the economy back to life, and the clashes with the overworked enforcers and trackers of all this activity. For instance, there's apparently a bounty for loan brokers of $1,000 for every loan modification applicant they turn up with. Friends of mine in the government business tell me that enforcement agencies tried to warn Treasury: hey, wait ten seconds. Can we just see if the applicants make a few payments before greasing the palms of the middle men(women)? Nope, says Treasury.

As Mr. Geithner said last week, "It is imperative that we continue to move with speed..." Yeah, but how about just enough prudence and checks to make sure we're not simply shoveling moolah down the mouths of the same kind of con artists who got us here? Even with new money in the budget for oversight, I hear law enforcement agencies are already eyeball deep in work and not ready to sniff out all the fabulous new ways the public and its funds will get fleeced.

We should hire Bernie Madoff to steal the money back. Or some of those derivative and subprime lending geniuses who at least understand how to untie the hangman's knot we're in because they're the ones who tied it to begin with. It worked for Willie Sutton, and that real-life guy played by Leonard DiCaprio in "Catch Me If You Can."

The government pays informants and criminals get deals for snitching every day. Why would this be any different?

I always have my kid clean up his own messes after a heavy Friday evening of Nerf war and sleepover madness and he's a solid citizen. Why shouldn't adults have to do the same?

In the meantime, however, people are furious with Madoff and his elves. Taxi drivers are spitting mad that Mr. Madoff is under house arrest in his "luxury penthouse." And they're frustrated, desperate, helpless and feeling heavily victimized however confident the president sounds. In some countries I've worked in, that kind of brew is a prescription for street action.

Money man Barton Biggs was quoted in the NYTimes Sunday as warning about the possibility of "social unrest" over all this stuff. "Very substantial social unrest." That means the modern equivalent of pitchforks and torches.

But that's the thing, you see. The one in charge of everything right now is Barack Obama. And people like him. The big majority wants him to succeed. So how can they possibly riot against someone they're rooting for?

I don't know how long that line will hold, but it's an important one to hold while we see if any of this stuff actually works.

We all need each other. Last year's lockup is today's locksmith. Common denominators.