Search

Previous research has consistently identified strong associations between borrowers’ debt burdens relative to incomes and the decision to default on student loans (Dynarski, 1994; Volkwein and Cabrera, 1998; Choy and Li, 2006; Gross, Cekic, Hossler and Hillman, 2009). These analyses imply that there is very likely to be a trade-off between interest rate subsidies and the ability to recover loans. For example, by raising the interest rate, the loan-administering agency is able to recover a higher proportion of the loan disbursed to borrowers who repay the loans at the new level of interest; however, the higher interest rate will also increase the repayment burdens experienced by all borrowers. As a result, some debtors may find it hard to devote more income than they already have to repay the loan, and hence will default. Thus, there is a trade-off involved in the determination of the total amount of loans that can be recovered for a loan scheme. It is of great research and policy interest that, with the exception of Lounkaew (2011), this trade-off has not been explored in a rigorous manner, either conceptually or empirically.

The empirical European market evidence shows how the project bonds, as an alternative financing solution in certain infrastructure projects, can play an important role.

Project bonds, which can act as a substitute for a conventional term loan bank financing, are surely the best alternative financing solution. We have noticed several recent project finance deals involving project bond funding in the European market, and it is adapting quickly to the changing market situation. From a general perspective, it is important to highlight and examine the advantages and disadvantages comparing a traditional amortizing bank loan versus a project bond funding solution. This is crucial in order to help us illuminate the decision-making process for the best available financing structure solution for prospective projects.

The structuring of facilities is critical to credit control. Too many banks settle for the easy facility, such as an overdraft or bullet term loan.

This chapter discusses the growth of the Chettiar moneylending caste of southern India as suppliers of credit in South-East Asia, and its changing relationships with local, western and Chinese entrepreneurs.

The visit by Gorbachev to New Delhi in 1986 had all the hallmarks of the old-style USSR/India relationship. During the visit, Gorbachev remarked that the USSR shared India’s concern for the strengthening of its defences.1 In the wake of Gorbachev’s visit, the normal manifestations of the relationship, such as soft term loans and military sales, continued. Yet even in 1986, a new trend in the Soviet relationship with India was foreshadowed, a trend that is directly attributable to the new directions in Soviet foreign policy launched by Gorbachev.