Personal Loan: How to define loan purpose
Does that justify the purpose? That is for individual Banks to decide. No bank would pay for daily expenditure if you are saying primary salary you are spending on eduction. So your declaration is right. You are looking at funding your eduction via loan and you are earning enough for living and paying of the loan. I noticed that a lot of lenders do not lend to applicants whose purpose is to finance the tuition for post-secondary education This could be because the lenders have seen larger percentage defaults when people opt for such loans. It could be due to mix of factors like the the drag this would cause to an individual who may not benefit enough in terms of higher salary to repay the loan, or moves out of country getting a better job. If it is education loan, have you looked at getting scholarships or student loans. I would imagine that it goes beyond purpose and also addresses the demographic as a poor credit risk. Those seeking a post secondary education are a poor credit risk.  They are at the beginning of their careers so tend to have low income, a short credit history, and a very short time of managing money on their own.  Also many don't know how to work.  This later fact, to me, is a great predictor of financial success. Reading into the financial data surrounding student loans, it pretty easy to see that this demographic makes poor money decisions.  I live near a state university.  A large percentage of students drive late model luxury cars, frequent expensive bars and restaurants, and wear pretty nice clothes.  They also graduate with, on average 60K in student loans.  Keep in mind a 4 year degree could be had for about 30K and could be paid for working a part time job.  And that, to me, is the wisdom in bank's decision.  Sure they will loan you all the money you want with a government guarantee.  However, once that disappears they will not you money for unnecessary purposes.
"With (1), it's rather confusing as to where ""interest"" refers to what you're paying and where it refers to what you're being paid, and it's confusing what you expect the numbers to work out to be. If you have to pay normal interest on top of sharing the interest you receive, then you're losing money. If the lending bank is receiving less interest than the going market rate, then they're losing money. If the bank you've deposited the money with is paying more than the going market rate, they're losing money. I don't see how you imagine a scenario where someone isn't losing money. For (2) and (3), you're buying stocks on margin, which certainly is something that happens, but you'll have to get an account that is specifically for margin trading. It's a specific type of credit with specific rules, and you if you want to engage in this sort of trading, you should go through established channels rather than trying to convert a regular loan into margin trading. If you get a personal loan that isn't specifically for margin trading, and buy stocks with the money, and the stocks tank, you can be in serious trouble. (If you do it through margin trading, it's still very risky, but not nearly as risky as trying to game the system. In some cases, doing this makes you not only civilly but criminally liable.) The lending bank absolutely can lose if your stocks tank, since then there will be nothing backing up the loan." Student loan is a class of unsecured loan.  The characteristics that define a student loan are, primarily, that it is a loan that is intended to be used by someone who is currently a student.  Beyond that, though, there are many variations. The different kinds of requirements usually have to do with who is eligible for the loan, and with what the loan is allowed to be used to pay.  Some loans have other limitations, such as only being allowed to be directly paid to the institution. Some student loans are federally guaranteed (meaning the Federal Government will repay the bank if you default).  Those have a lower interest rate, typically, and often have more stringent requirements, such as only full-time students being eligible, being need-based, and limitations on what the loan's funds can be used for.  See studentaid.ed.gov for more information. Many private student loans have quite lax limitations. Some for example have nearly no limitation as to what they can fund; many are allowed to be taken out by part-time students and even non-degree-seeking students in some cases.  Private loans usually have somewhat higher rates (as they're entirely unsecured) to go along with the lower restrictions and higher borrowing limits.  You'd have to see the specific details of any particular loan to know what it's allowed to pay for, so if you choose this route, know what you plan to use it to pay for before you go looking. Well, it is a negative point of view, but nobody in the history of money has ever loaned money because they like you.  I suppose you could paint it as an honest point of view. All money lending is for profit.  If you have a high score, you are very likely to repay your loan because you are lower risk.  We always hear lower risk... but the risk is that they won't make money off of you. I think that just like we buy previously owned vehicles cars instead of used cars, and we banks call them service fees instead of junk fees, our credit score discusses our credit worthiness instead of profitability But none of that means you can't benefit from it.  It isn't a fear tactic, it is a way to judge each other.  You probably pay interest and fees to keep it high, but that is price of lending. I think the questioner has a negative view of credit (which I suppose is fine and is their right, I will defend their right to an opinion) but the way we do and judge credit is neither evil or benevolent. I could certainly agree that more transparency would be good, but only for honest folks.  If the credit bureaus made it public how they judged us, there would be a new industry for people who want to game the system. Update Since it always will cost to use credit, and using credit is the only way to prove your a low credit risk, it will therefore always cost money to raise your credit score. However the return on investment is exemplified in this question:  a person with no credit was able to get a loan, but at serious out of pocket cost.  Later, after establishing credit at a price of real money, he was able to secure a nearly identical loan for considerably less cost (in terms of interest paid) because he had proven himself worthy.  When I say proven, I mean paid interest. There is nothing wrong with questioning the system, change only occurs when people question the status quo.  And for sure our current system is not perfect, but like many employed systems while it is terrible but there is nothing better. "What you are describing is a Chart of Accounts.  It's a structure used by accountants to categorise accounts into sub-categories below the standard Asset/Liability/Income/Expense structure. The actual categories used will vary widely between different people and different companies.  Every person and company is different, whilst you may be happy to have a single expense account called ""Lunch"", I may want lots of expense accounts to distinguish between all the different restaurants I eat at regularly.  Companies will often change their chart of accounts over time as they decide they want to capture more (or less) detail on where a particular type of Expense is really being spent. All of this makes any attempt to create a standard (in the strict sense) rather futile.  I have worked at a few places where discussions about how to structure the chart of accounts and what referencing scheme to use can be surprisingly heated!  You'll have to come up with your own system, but I can provide a few common recommendations: If you're looking for some simple examples to get started with, most personal finance software (e.g. GnuCash) will offer to create an example chart of accounts when you first start a session." Generally loan goes against an asset, in your case though it appear that you don't have any fixed assets related to this loan. So it seems like you got a cash loan (current asset/checking account?) which you spent (expenses). Since you're doing it retroactively, you'll probably just put totals in the expenses without detailing them. When you borrow money - you create a liability to yourself (you credit your Liabilities:Loans account and debit your Asset:Bank account). When you lend money - you create an asset to yourself (you debit your Asset:Loan account and credit your Asset:Bank account). Basically, what you describe exists in many countries - not in the USA though. In Europe, people have checking accounts with allowed overdraft, typically three month net salaries. You can just this money any day as you like, and pay it back - completely or partially - any day as you like. Interest is calculated for each day on the amount used that day; and the collateral is 'future income', predicted / expected from previous income. In the USA, credit cards have taken its place, with stricter different rules and limitations. In addition, many of the extra rules in loans were invented to take advantage of the ignorance or situation of the borrower to make even more money. For example, applying extra payments to future due payments instead of to the principal makes that principal produce more interest while the extra payments just sit around. "Just to go against the grain here. Sometimes, loaning money to friends is the right thing to do. For example, they had a loved one die, and need the money to cover funeral expenses until the life insurance pays out. Here, you may consider it your ethical duty to loan the money (or you may not). It does not make sense from a financial point of view (you are unlikely to charge interest and you are taking all the risk), but sometimes you put your financial prudence aside because ""being a good person and a great friend"" is more important. It is true that the general rule should be not to loan money to friends, and particularly never loan money you cannot afford to lose. But there are exceptions to every rule. I'll note that you may be best off with a plain-english, non-lawyery contract. Make it absolutely as simple as possible. As others have pointed out, specify a repayment date or schedule. Note what happens if they miss the deadline. Specify interest, if appropriate. Get it signed by you and the other person. And make sure you consider what happens if your friend doesn't honour the agreement. For that kind of money, it is also worth considering collateral." I have been in this situation and I essentially went for the truthful answer.  I first explained that co-signing for a loan wasn't just vouching for the person, which I certainly would do, but it was putting my name on the loan and making me the person they loan company would go after if a payment was ever missed. Then I explained that even within married couples, money can be a major source of strife and fights, it would be even worse for someone not quite as close like a family member or friend. Essentially I wouldn't want to risk my relationship with a good friend or family member over some financial matter. Banks worry that the large gift might be a loan that is ultimately expected to be repaid. If so, that affects the cash flow of the recipient, and makes it more difficult to make the mortgage payments to the bank.  In some cases, of course, it is an informal loan: Dad advances a large $X to son to use as a downpayent, but does not charge interest and the expectation is that the money will be returned in smaller chunks as and when the son can afford to repay Dad.   In some cases, Dad truly means it as a gift, but son feels an obligation to repay the money, if not explicitly, then by paying for the first few months of Dad's nursing home stay, etc.  So, banks like to have an explicit document such as a copy of a letter from Dad saying that this money is a gift, and some assurance that this is on the up and up.   If the amount is larger than the maximum gift that can be given each year without having to file a gift tax return, then some assurance that a gift tax return will be filed is helpful. Mentioning this in the letter is good: it indicates that there are no secret handshakes or secret agreements to the effect that this is in fact a loan, with or without regular repayments. "Aside of ""don't lend money to friends"" a good idea is to have a written contract that states the sum, the due date, the interest (if any). Having the loan on paper makes it more real and harder to ""forget"". The third party is not necessary - anyone can have a bank loan for more than $10K by signing a contract with a bank without any third party." If it is a business loan, the borrower would be able to claim a deduction for any interest paid on the loan and the lender would include the interest earned as part of their taxable income. You need to be careful on what you do and don't include as income. If the repayments made to you by the borrower in a year is $10,000 but only $8,000 of that is interest and the other $2,000 is part of the principal being returned to the lender, then you would only claim $8,000 as your income and the borrower would only claim $8,000 as a business deduction. Of course if it is interest only, then you and the borrower would use the full $10,000. Best Personal Loan Provider in Delhi. Our wide expertise in this array allows us to offer our clients the helping hand with immediate effect right from your request. Our personal loans are available for a range of different amounts and have different repayment terms in Delhi. This is called a fraudulent conveyance because its purpose is to prevent a creditor from getting repaid. It is subject to claw back under US law, which is a fancy way of saying that your friend will have to pay the bank back. Most jurisdictions have similar laws. It is probably a crime as well, but that varies by jurisdiction. "There are basically two approaches, based on how detailed you want to be in your own personal accounting: Obviously the more like a business or like ""real"" accounting you want to be, the more complex you can make it, but in general I find that the purpose of personal accounting is (1) to track what I own, and (2) to ensure I have documented anything I need to for tax purposes, and as long as you're meeting those goals any reasonable approach is workable."