www.immihelp.com

www.murthy.com

www.uscis.gov

A bank is a place that will lend you money if you can prove you don't need it, said US actor Bob Hope. But on a serious note, there is no denying the fact that banks are to economies what souls are to human beings.

The Bankersalmanac.com ranks the world's largest banks by total assets in US dolalrs. By the way, according to Bankersalmanac.com, Citibank NA is the world's 16th largest bank. So which are the top 10? Read on to find out:

UBS AG , Zurich, Switzerland

UBS AG is the world's biggest manager of other people's money. The bank's asset stood at $1,963.227 billion as in January 2008.

Present in major financial centres worldwide, UBS has offices in 50 countries. The bank had 81,557 employees on June 30, 2007. It originated in 1747, with its maiden branch coming up in the Swiss region of Valposchiavo.

The new UBS evolved out of a merger of the Union Bank of Switzerland and the Swiss Bank Corporation in June 1998. The merged bank's new name was originally supposed to be the United Bank of Switzerland. But it had to be named UBS as the proposed name clashed with United Bank Switzerland.

Marcel Opel is the bank's chairman of the board of directors, its executive vice chairman is Marco Suter, and the group CEO is Marcel Rohner. The bank's main competitors are Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse etc.

Barclays PLC is a major bank operating in Europe, the United States, West Asia, Latin America, Australia, Asia and Africa. It operates through its subsidiary Barclays Bank PLC.

The bank has registered assets worth $1,951.041 billion. It is also the sponsor of the English Premier League. Forbes Global 2000 ranked Barclays PLC as the 18th largest company in the world in 2007.

The bank's roots can be traced back to 1690 in London. It borrowed its name from Alexander and David Barclay, who provided credit to slave traders. The bank is headed by Marcus Agius, the group chairman.

Barclays being a member of the global ATM Alliance, its customers can use ATMs of other banks free of charge.

BNP Paribas is a major European bank. It was created on May 23, 2000 through the merger of Banque Nationale de Paris and Paribas. As on January 31, the bank's assets stood at $1,899.186 billion.

It's history can be traced back to 1869, when a group of bankers and investors, including Adrien Delahante, Edmond Joubert and Henri Cernuschi, founded the Banque de Paris.

The bank employs 162,700 people and operates in 87 countries. The bank is active in the finance, investment and asset management markets.

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, Edinburgh, UK, is the largest banking group in Scotland and the fifth largest in the world by market capitalisation. As on January 31, the bank's assets stood at $1,705.680 billion.

The bank originated from the Equivalent Society set up by investors in the bankrupt Company of Scotland. The Society was formed to protect the compensation the investors received as part of the arrangements of the 1707 Acts of Union.

Controversy has dogged the bank off and on. It has been infamously dubbed 'Oil Bank of Scotland' by environmentalists as it provides finance for the fossil fuel industry, thereby causing global warming.

In 2001, the bank received threats for having financed animal testing company Huntingdon Life Sciences. As a direct fallout of this, RBS withdrew the company's overdraft facility.

Credit Agricole SA is the largest retail banking group in France and the eighth largest in the world, according to The Banker magazine. On January 31, the bank's assets stood at $1,663.101 billion

Through its subsidiaries, Credit Agricole SA is involved in the following services:

The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd came into being with the merger of The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Limited and UFJ Bank Limited. As on January 31, the bank's assets stood at $1,362.598 billion.

The bank, through its several subsidiaries, performs the following activities: commercial banking, trust banking, securities dealing, leasing, venture capital deals, factoring, research and consulting, securities custody service, etc.

The bank's CEO is Nobuo Kuroyanagi.

ABN AMRO Holding NV, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, evolved from the amalgamation of AMRO and ABN. As on January 31, the bank's assets stood at $1,301.508 billion.

The bank created history when the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, Fortis and Banco Santander announced on October 8, 2007, that an offer for 86 per cent of outstanding ABN AMRO stock had been accepted. This made way for the largest ever bank takeover in history. On November 1 2007, an extraordinary shareholder meeting changed the bank's management.

Mark Fisher from RBS took over as the bank's CEO. Since then, Fortis has been using the ABN AMRO brand name for retail banking in the Netherlands.

Societe Generale, one of the oldest banks in France, is also one of the main European financial services companies. As on January 31, 2008, its assets stood at $1,261.657 billion.

It is headquartered in France with the main head office in Tours Societe Generale in the business district of La Defense west of Paris.

Bank of America was formed after the consolidation of quite a few historical banks, the most prominent of those being the Bank of Italy. On January 31, the bank's assets stood at $1,196.124 billion.

In 1958, the bank introduced the BankAmericard, which changed its name to VISA in 1977. A consortium of other California banks came up with Master Charge (now MasterCard).

Bank of America has divisions in US, Europe and Asia. The US headquarters are located in New York, European headquarters are based in London and Asia's headquarters are split between Singapore & Hong Kong.

http://www.hulu.com/

SAN FRANCISCO: Microsoft Corp said that it will discontinue sales of its subscription PC security service and instead offer free software to hel
p protect computers from viruses, spyware and other threats.

With the move, the software giant appears to be taking aim at McAfee Inc and Symantec Corp, its chief rivals in the PC security market.

Microsoft plans to halt sales of its Windows Live OneCare service on June 30. The service being discontinued costs $49.95 a year and covers up to three PCs.

The new security programme, which the company has code-named "Morro," will be available as a free download in the second half of next year.

Morro is designed to work with smaller, less powerful computers, the company said, which should make it appeal to a wide group of consumers.

However, McAfee said the move is a sign of capitulation on the part of Microsoft. McAfee said OneCare managed to capture less than 2 per cent of the market in the two years it has been out.

"Microsoft is giving up," a McAfee spokesman said. "They are now defaulting to a dressed-down free model that doesn't meet consumer security needs."

Microsoft has a history of butting heads with its competitors in the PC security space. In 2006 and 2007, Symantec and McAfee raised concerns that Microsoft had designed Windows Vista to deny them access to the heart of the operating system, which they needed to protect it from certain kinds of malicious software.

After negotiations, and some prodding from antitrust regulators in Brussels, Microsoft said it would provide the information needed.

Shares of Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft closed up 43 cents, or 2.2 per cent, at $19.62. Shares of Cupertino, California-based Symantec finished at $12.40, up 24 cents, or 2 per cent, while shares of Santa Clara, California-based McAfee closed up 28 cents at $28.57.

The current upheaval in the global financial markets has caused more mayhem in a fortnight than the world has seen in its entire economic history.

Although there are many reasons responsible for bringing the world to the doorstep of financial doom, the main cause of this financial disaster is said to be the �sub-prime loan.'

So what is this sub-prime loan? And why has it caused global panic? If it is related to the American housing sector, why should it affect Indian and other markets?

A sub-prime loan

Sub-prime mortgage loans (or housing loans or junk loans) are very risky. But since profits are high where the risk is high, a lot of lenders get into this business to try and make a quick buck.

Sub-prime loans are dicey as they are given to people with unstable incomes or low creditworthiness. These individuals are not financially sound enough to be given a loan when judged under the strict standards that should normally be followed by a bank or lending institution.

So he seeks a housing loan to give shape to his dream home. But there is a slight problem. He doesn't have good credit rating. This means that he is unable to clear all the stringent conditions that a bank imposes on an individual before it sanctions a loan.

Since his credit is not good enough, no bank will give him a home loan as there is a fear that the chances of a default by him are high. Banks don't like customers who default on their payments.

But lo!, before the American dream can fade away, there enters a second American -- usually a robust financial institution -- who has good credit rating and is willing to take on some amount of risk.

Given his good credit rating, the bank is willing to give the second American a loan. The bank gives the loan at a certain rate of interest.

The second American then divides this loan into a lot of small portions and gives them out as home loans to lots of other Americans -- like the first American -- who do not have a great credit rating and to whom the bank would not have given a home loan in the first place.

The second American gives out these loans at a rate of interest that is much higher rate than the rate at which he borrowed money from the bank. This higher rate is referred to as the sub-prime rate and this home loan market is referred to as the sub-prime home loan market.

Also by giving out a home loan to lots of individuals, the second American is trying to hedge his bets. He feels that even if a few of his borrowers default, his overall position would not be affected much, and he will end up making a neat profit.

Now if this home loan market is sub-prime, what is prime? The prime home loan market refers to individuals who have good credit ratings and to whom the banks lend directly.

Now let's get back to the sub-prime market. The institution giving out loans in the sub-prime market does not stop here. It does not wait for the principal and the interest on the sub-prime home loans to be repaid, so that it can repay its loan to the bank (the prime lender), which has given it the loan.

So what does the institution do?

It goes ahead and �securitises' these loans. Securitisation means converting these home loans into financial securities, which promise to pay a certain rate of interest. These financial securities are then sold to big institutional investors.

Many investment banks (or institutions like the �second American' in our story) sold complicated securities that were backed by debt which was very risky.

And how are these investors repaid? The interest and the principal that is repaid by the sub-prime borrowers through equated monthly installments (EMIs) is passed onto these institutional investors.

The institution giving out the sub-prime loans takes the money that it gets by selling the financial securities and passes it on to the bank he had taken the loan from, thereby repaying the loan. And everybody lives happily ever after. Or so it would have seemed.

The sub-prime home loans were given out as floating rate home loans. A floating rate home loan as the name suggests is not fixed. As interest rates go up, the interest rate on floating rate home loans also go up. As interest rates to be paid on floating rate home loans go up, the EMIs that need to be paid to service these loans go up as well.

With US interest rising, the EMIs too increased. Higher EMIs hit the sub-prime borrowers hard. A lot of them in the first place had unstable incomes and poor credit rating.

They, thus, defaulted. Once more and more sub-prime borrowers started defaulting, payments to the institutional investors who had bought the financial securities stopped, leading to huge losses.

The problem primarily began with the United States keeping its interest rates very low for a very long time, thus encouraging Americans to go in for housing loans, or mortgages. Lower interest rates led to buyers wanting to take on bigger loans, and thus bigger and better homes.

But life was fine. With the American economy doing well at that time and housing prices soaring on the back of huge demand for real estate and bigger and better homes, financial institutions saw a mouthwatering opportunity in the mortgage market.

In their zeal to make a quick buck, these institutions relaxed the strict regulatory procedures before extending housing loans to people with unstable jobs and weak credit standing.

Few controls were put in place to handle the situation in case the housing �bubble' burst. And when the US economy began to slow down, the house of cards began to fall.

The crisis began with the bursting of the United States housing bubble.

A slowing US economy, high interest rates, unrealistic real estate prices, high inflation and rising oil tags together led to a fall in stock markets, growth stagnation, job losses, lack of consumer spending, a virtual halt to new jobs, and foreclosures and defaults.

Sub-prime homeowners began to default as they could no longer afford to pay their EMIs. A deluge of such defaults inundated these institutions and banks, wiping out their net worth. Their mortgage-backed securities were almost worthless as real estate prices crashed.

The moment it was found out that these institutions had failed to manage the risk, panic spread. Investors realised that they could hardly put any value on the securities that these institutions were selling. This caused many a Wall Street pillar to crumble.

As defaults kept rising, these institutions could not service their loans that they had taken from banks. So they turned to other financial firms to help them out, but after a while these firms too stopped extending credit realizing that the collateral backing this credit would soon lose value in the falling real estate market.

Now burdened with tons of debt and no money to pay it back, the back of these financial entities broke, leading to the current meltdown.

The problem worsened because institutions giving out sub-prime home loans could easily securitise it. Once an institution securitises a loan, it does not remain on the books of the institution.

Hence that institution does not take the risk of the loan going bad. The risk is passed onto the investors who buy the financial securities issued for securitising the home loan.

Another advantage of securitisation, which has now become a disadvantage, is that money keeps coming in.

Once an institution securitises the first lot of home loans and repays the bank it has borrowed from, it can borrow again to give out loans. The bank having been repaid and made its money does not have any inhibitions in lending out money again.

Given the fact that institutions giving out the loan did not take the risk, their incentive was in just giving out the loan. Whether the individual taking the home loan had the capacity to repay the loan or not, wasn't their problem.

Thus proper due diligence to give out the home loan was not done and loans were extended to individuals who are more likely to default.

Other than this, greater the amount of loan that the institution gave out, greater was the amount it could securitise and, hence, greater the amount of money it could earn.

After borrowers started defaulting, it came to light that institutions giving out loans in the sub-prime market had been inflating the incomes of borrowers, so that they could give out greater amount of home loans.

By giving out greater amounts of home loan, they were able to securitise more, issue more financial securities and earn more money. Quite a vicious cycle, eh?

And so the story continued, till the day borrowers stop repaying. Investors who bought the financial securities could be serviced.

Well, that still does not explain, why stock markets in India, fell? Here's why. . .

Institutional investors who had invested in securitised paper from the sub-prime home loan market in the US, saw their investments turning into losses. Most big investors have a certain fixed proportion of their total investments invested in various parts of the world. So.... Once investments in the US turned bad, more money had to be invested in the US, to maintain that fixed proportion.

In order to invest more money in the US, money had to come in from somewhere. To make up their losses in the sub-prime market in the United States, they went out to sell their investments in emerging markets like India where their investments have been doing well.

So these big institutional investors, to make good of their losses in the sub-prime market, began to sell their investments in India and other markets around the world. Since the amount of selling in the market is much higher than the amount of buying, the Sensex began to tumble.

The flight of capital from the Indian markets also led to a fall in the value of the rupee against the US dollar.

Any other reason, apart from sub-prime crisis?

Of course! Sub-prime crisis alone could not have caused such mayhem, although it is to blame for the beginning of the end.

This crisis is spreading from sub-prime to prime mortgages, home equity loans, to commercial real estate, to unsecured consumer credit (credit cards, student loans, auto loans), to leveraged loans that financed reckless debt-laden leveraged buy outs, to municipal bonds, to industrial and commercial loans, to corporate bonds, to the derivative markets whose risk are indeterminate, etc.

It has been a total systemic failure that has its roots in the US real estate and the sub-prime loan market.