Home Loan Eligibility: Home Loan EMI, LIC Home Loan

by

pankaj1

Most of the financial institutions in India offer home loan or housing finance for prospective borrowers under respective eligibility criteria which are mandatory to follow by all the prospective borrowers. There are many set of norms formulated by such lenders which require customers follow them in lawful manner so that the end process of sanctioning loan procedures could be facilitated without any hassle. Apart from eligibility criteria, submission of crucial documents is very important in order to facilitate the progress of loan sanctioning procedures of a bank in India. In addition, there are also some hidden costs including processing fees involved with such procedures that are mandatory to comply with to acquire of housing finance in India. Processing fee is non-refundable regardless of whether or not your loan is sanctioned.

Home loan eligibility criteria involve some considerations regarding the repayment capacity, age, and income plus credit score of borrowers. Such considerations are crucial as they ensure banks about trustworthiness and credibility of potential loan applicants. There are many instances in which borrowers can’t repay the entire loan amount due to insolvency. This is the reason that most banks in India require deposit of collateral or security to get housing finance. In this context, you can pledge your new home or property as collateral but won’t get the right of ownership until the entire loan amount is paid within the stipulated time to your bank. As said before, different financial institutions in India have their respective terms and conditions over housing finance. In this context, LIC home loan also involves certain eligibility and documentation processes including processing fees. As per the security, you need to mortgage new property on which the finance is given and one guarantor who can testify your credibility as loan applicant. You can avail maximum of Rs 1 crore for housing purpose from LIC. You ca repay your loan through easy EMIs through monthly rest basis. Both salaried and self employed individuals need to follow documentation procedures properly. The housing finance of LIC can be availed for new home purchase, home construction, home extension and home renovation purposes. Moreover, borrowers can also maximize LIC’s home loan emi calculator to get a better idea over payable EMI. Using the emi calculator is quite easy and handy. Just enter the required data like loan amount, tenure and interest rate. The calculator will tell you exact detail of payable emi regarding your home finance.

Check

Home Loan Eligibility

for getting

LIC home loan

Article Source:

ArticleRich.com

By Ken Hunter

When it comes to structural building projects, I don’t have many pet peeves. Most conventional wood-frame structures feature tried and true building practices that will stand up well to most environmental stresses short of severe quakes and tsunamis. Good materials well braced and supported are generally sufficient, even when used by less experienced builders. If there is an area of neglect, it is that many builders, professional and amateur alike, often forget that a substrate – the ground – is also a building material.

So this is my pet peeve in a nutshell: why go to the trouble of installing rigid, durable materials like concrete and wood when these rest on a material that if neglected or untreated are incapable of supporting their own weight, let alone a building above them. It’s equivalent to piling bricks on a sponge.

Compacting the Soil

The solution to this problem is easily remedied in a word: compaction. That first of structural materials – the substrate – common to every building project from skyscraper to woodshed can be turned to a sound building material by compressing (also called “tamping”) it until it is so tightly packed that it will properly support almost any building load. In typical highrise construction, piles are used. You may have heard these being pounded into the earth, often from a great distance away. These piles are aiming for bedrock, the outer surface of the earth’s mantle. Due to settling and other compressive forces, bedrock is an ideal substrate for building.

Most buildings, however, do not rest on bedrock. Although this would be ideal, it is far too expensive to drive piles deep into the earth, and in the case of most buildings, unnecessary. This is because properly compacted substrates will easily bear the building loads above them.

Some substrates require no compaction at all. Some clays, for example, have been so tightly compressed over time that if dry, are said to have greater compression strength that concrete. The same can be said about some stone. We’ve often built directly on both of these materials, pinning building footings to the substrate by embedding steel pins that tie substrate to concrete footing. In some cases a clay substrate can be so dense that a sledgehammer will do no more than lightly dent its surface when struck. A similar test for compressive strength can be used for stone substrates. A hammer striking most sandstone and some granites will turn these materials to dust, but as for supporting buildings, few stone substrates will be exposed to the pound-per-inch striking force of a steel hammer.

Most buildings sites don’t offer such substrates as these. Instead, what a little digging reveals is a composite of sand and gravel ranging from fines to boulders, these just beneath a layer of organic material usually called topsoil. As topsoil usually contains a high percentage of compostable materials, it does not usually make a good building base and should be excavated until a so called “undisturbed” base is reached.

This brings me directly to my pet peeve. In 20 plus years of building, I have watched as numerous builders simply scrape of the topsoil, then place their footing forms directly on an undisturbed base. I long ago gave up saying anything about it; the glassy stares alone demonstrate the futility of mentioning that they are simply, and returning to the analogy, placing a brick on a sponge. Let’s stop here for a moment to consider what will happen to a building so placed. Will it fall over? Not likely. As mentioned, conventional building practice is far too sound to allow this. Instead, what will happen is that the concrete footings will settle, usually irregularly, meaning the overall building may drop inches in one area and a fraction of that elsewhere. Builders (and even some inspectors) often over optimistically assume that at least the building will settle consistently, but the result will be those cracks or fissures visible in all improperly foundated concrete work from house foundations to sidewalks and driveways. Further, the building may have a disjointed, uneven look under extreme circumstances. This is not a doomsday scenario, of course, but again, why go to the trouble of using durable materials when these are so quickly and unnecessarily compromised?

How to Tamp

So now that we appreciate the importance of tamping, how is it done? The easiest method is a power compactor. These come in various sizes and models, and usually rely on vibrating substrate materials until they can settle no further. Weight is a factor here also, and compacters tend to be heavy. The beauty of this method is that it exposes the substrate to far more pounds-per-inch force that the building ever will. In the event a trench foundation is being used, a compactor often called a “jumping jack” can be dropped into a trench or pad hole and let to work its magic. Compactors will usually cause your hands to itch, and may even cause blistering, so use padded gloves when using them. When tamping a small area, I’ll attach handles to a six by six beam of wood and pound the earth with this low-tech device. It, too, subjects a substrate to powerful pounds-per-inches forces, but also subjects the body to a good deal of perhaps unwanted exercise.

How much compaction is required? I will usually use a length of 2″ x 4″ (5 cm x 10 cm) (or even a hammer depending on the substrate composite), pounding this against the substrate to test it. Like striking dense clay or stone with a hammer, there should not be much ‘give” in a properly tamped base. There are other ways to test for degree of compaction, but this simple method works well for most purposes.

Another important note on compaction is something a great many experienced builders do not know. Regardless of the type of compaction devise used, no compacters adequately compress more than a few inches of substrate at a time. This means that if you are adding fill to create a building base, it must be done successively. For example, if you’ve removed loose soil to the “undisturbed” level, then need to bring that level up (because you’re backfilling an excavation, perhaps), add a few inches of backfill, compact this, and repeat the process until the desired elevation of compacted substrate is reached. I once watched an excavator backfill a newly-formed swimming pool, adding approximately twelve feet (4 metres) of backfill to create a grade surrounding the finished pool, and all in one go. The crew then tamped this unstable mixture at grade, and placed a standard thickness concrete slab on it. Bearing in mind your know-how on prepping substrates for subsequent materials, you know the answer to the question of how well that newly-placed concrete slab held up.

Building on Bog

Sometimes there is no point in compacting a substrate at all. This scenario is encountered worldwide, usually in lowland areas where buildings are located on boggy soils. In such circumstances piles could be driven to bedrock, but because of the cost and other considerations, this is not usually done with smaller buildings. Theoretically, such efforts to compact here will continue until the tampers and their equipment reach bedrock far below days or weeks later. Typically, building in these cases anticipates a high degree of settling, and gives a building a correspondingly shorter lifespan. Sometimes under this less than desirable situation, a wood-frame foundation is constructed to ensure living areas are elevated above the grade and the building essentially floats on the bog. Occasionally, builders will “float” a concrete slab or some other similar building support, then build on this. Without exception though, gravity eventually has its way.

Recently on such a substrate, we constructed supports by driving many steel rods through the bog to bedrock six feet (2 metres) below. These steel rods were hand driven, and wrapped in concrete at and above grade, essentially becoming a piling. No settling has occurred, and the solution has worked well, although the complexity of this approach will certainly increase the further down a load-bearing base is found to soon become impractical. Any deeper, and we would have needed to resort to conventional pile driving as “floating” a base was not an option.

Except for those circumstances when a solid base is impractical such as on a bog, building is always better on the solid base that sound compaction practice creates. Buildings look better, work better, and last longer when builders take the time to tamp.

About the Author: Ken Hunter is chief structural designer, service director and owner of Hunterstruct Construction, a Vancouver based construction company offering design, building, structural repair and

home renovations

throughout Southwest British Columbia, including the BC interior and Sunshine Coast. This

deck builder

showcases its best sundecks on the Hunterstruct.com website. We love building, and it shows!

Source:

isnare.com

Permanent Link:

isnare.com/?aid=769778&ca=Home+Management

By Kalman Heller

This past year my wife and I celebrated our 25th anniversary. It is the second marriage for both of us and the relationship has only grown stronger over the years, teaching me more about love and trust and dependence then I ever imagined. Reaching this special ‘silver moment’ spurred me to look around and think about the number of friends we have who also have great second marriages and led me to question the alleged statistic that 60+% of second marriages end in divorce. I also thought about how many friends we have who are still in their original marriages and appear to be very happy. Thus, I decided it was time to do some research on divorce rates.

In the process of preparing for this article, I learned what I had long suspected. The commonly quoted numbers are overstated myths, the more accurate numbers reflect complex factors, and that our society really has two very separate divorce rates, a lower rate (by half) for college-educated women who marry after the age of 25 and a much higher rate for poor, primarily minority women who marry before the age of 25 and do not have a college degree (most of the research focused on women; the little I read about men suggested similar outcomes).

The Statistics:

A false conclusion in the 1970s that half of all first marriages ended in divorce was based on the simple but completely wrong analysis of the marriage and divorce rates per 1000 people in the U.S. A similar abuse of statistical analysis led to the conclusion that 60% of all second marriages ended in divorce. These errors have had a profound impact on attitudes about marriage in our society and it is a terrible injustice that there wasn’t more of an effort to get accurate data (essentially only obtainable by following a significant number of couples over time and measure the outcomes) or that newer, more accurate and optimistic data isn’t being heavily reported in the media.

It is now clear that the divorce rate in first marriages probably peaked at about 40% for first marriages around 1980 and has been declining since to about 30% in the early 2000s. This is a dramatic difference. Rather than view marriage as a 50-50 shot in the dark it can be viewed as a having 70% likelihood of succeeding. But even to use that kind of generalization, i.e., one simple statistic for all marriages, grossly distorts what is actually going on.

The key is that the research shows that starting in the 1980s education, specifically a college degree for women, began to create a substantial divergence in marital outcomes, with the divorce rate for college-educated women dropping to about 20%, half the rate for non-college-educated women. Even this is more complex, since the non-college educated women marry younger and are poorer than their college grad peers. These two factors, age at marriage and income level, have strong relationships to divorce rates; the older the partners and the higher the income, the more likely the couple stays married. Obviously, getting a college degree is reflected in both these factors.

Thus, we reach an even more dramatic conclusion: That for college educated women who marry after the age of 25 and have established an independent source of income, the divorce rate is only 20%!

Of course, this has its flip side, that the women who marry younger and divorce more frequently are predominately Black and Hispanic women from poorer environments. The highest divorce rate, exceeding 50%, is for Black women in high poverty areas. These women clearly face extraordinary challenges and society would do well to find ways to reduce not just teen pregnancies but early marriages among the poor and develop programs that train and educate the poor, which will not only delay marriage but provide the educational and financial foundation that is required to increase the probability of a marriage being successful. Early marriage, early pregnancy, early divorce is a cycle of broken families that contributes significantly to maintaining poverty. The cost to our society is enormous.

Here is some additional data about divorce in first marriages before moving on to the limited data available about second marriages. Divorce rates are cumulative statistics, i.e., they don’t occur at a single moment in time but add up over the years of marriage and do so at different rates. After reviewing numerous sources, it appears that about 10% of all marriages end in divorce during the first five years and another 10% by the tenth year. Thus, half of all divorces are within the first ten years. (Keep in mind this is mixing the disparate college-non-college group rates.) The 30% divorce rate is not reached until the 18th year of marriage and the 40% rate is not reached until the 50th year of marriage! Thus, not only is the rate of divorce much lower than previously thought but at least half of all divorces occur within the first ten years and then the rate of divorce slows dramatically. Since the divorce rate for women married by 18 is 48% in the first ten years and that group, once again, is primarily poor, minority women, the rate for educated couples is much less during those first ten years.

No wonder the divorce rate in Massachusetts is the lowest in the country. We have the highest percentage of college graduates. That explains why I have so many first marriage friends!

Finding meaningful data about the divorce rates for second marriages was difficult. But knowing that the rate for first marriages has been grossly overstated and poorly understood for decades suggested a likely similar outcome for the data on second marriages. One report indicated that the divorce rate for remarried, white women is 15% after three years and 25% after five years. This ongoing study indicated a definite slowing of the rate over time but did not have enough years measured to draw more long-term conclusions. However, it did indicate that the same factors with first divorces were at play here. Age, education, and income levels were also highly correlated with the outcomes of second marriages. For example, women who remarried before the age of 25 had a very high divorce rate of 47%, while women who remarried over the age of 25 only had a divorce rate of 34%. The latter is actually about the same for first marriages and likely also would prove to be an average of different rates based socioeconomic factors. Thus, my take on this limited amount of data is that divorce rates for second marriages may not be very different than those for first marriages. So my small sample of friends, who remarried older, had college degrees, and joint incomes, is probably not a distorted view of the success rate of second marriages.

Cohabitation:

In the course of gathering information about divorce rates, I came across a few articles describing the growing frequency of couples choosing cohabitation over marriage. I don’t have any figures that I consider accurate enough to report on the percentage of cohabitating couples but a July 24, 2007 Boston Globe article on cohabitating parents sheds some light and raises some serious concerns about this trend.

I must admit a bias here. From my professional experience, I believe cohabitating couples are afraid of the commitment that marriage requires. Certainly a piece of this is what I stated at the beginning of this article, that the myth of the divorce rate has placed a dark cloud over the institution of marriage. The reason for my concern is the following data reported in the Globe article. There is a marked increase in births to cohabitating couples, up from 29% in the early 1980s to 53% in the late 1990s. When you compare what has happened to those relationships when the child is two years old, 30% of the cohabitating couples are no longer together while only 6% of the married couples are divorced. This is another serious societal problem as it contributes to the U.S. having the lowest rate of all Western countries, 63%, of children being raised by both biological parents.

In addition, the general data suggests that cohabitating couples break up at twice the rate of married couples. Of course, this kind of simple statistic hides many complex factors with regard to who actually constitutes the population of cohabitating couples and the likelihood that many choose to live together with no real intention of permanence. However, my main point here is the concern that many couples may be choosing cohabitation over marriage because they actually believe that the institution of marriage is unhealthy and too risky, a conclusion that my review of divorce rates strongly disputes.

Conclusion:

The historical belief that 50% of all marriages end in divorce and that over 60% of all second marriages end in divorce appears to be grossly overstated myths. Not only is the general divorce rate most likely to have never exceeded 40% but the current rate is probably closer to 30%. A closer look at even these lower rates indicate that there are really two separate groups with very different rates: a woman who is over 25, has a college degree, and an independent income have only a 20% probability of her marriage ending in divorce; a woman who marries younger than 25, without a college degree and lacking an independent income has a 40% probability of her marriage ending in divorce.

Thus, factors of age, education, and income appear to play a significant role in influencing the outcome of marriages and that for the older, more educated woman, getting married is not a crap shoot but, in fact, it is highly likely to produce a stable, lifelong relationship.

About the Author: Dr. Heller is a clinical psychologist, now retired, who specialized in providing services to children, families, and couples since 1968. He has written over 150 columns about parenting and marriage which are available on his website,

drheller.com

.

Source:

isnare.com

Permanent Link:

isnare.com/?aid=217950&ca=Marriage